Brand New Sportsmans Bill

[mike rossi]

Better, but still not acceptable - GET THE LEAD OUT!

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) has renewed his push to pass S 3525, his Sportsmen’s Bill which failed to pass before the election-day recess. The package, as written, includes 17 bills that would conserve wetlands, expand funding for shooting ranges, increase recreational access to public lands, and prohibit the EPA from regulating lead in ammunition.

The bill has already passed several procedural votes in the lame duck session, but was most recently rejected by the full Senate because it fails to uphold the standards of the Budget Control Act of 2011, which requires any new spending initiative to be matched by equivalent reductions in the federal deficit. The problem is that the provision which gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to review and set the price of the duck stamp every three years will increase federal spending by about $140 million over a ten year period. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Sportsmen’s package decreases the national deficit by $5 million over that same time period. This led Senator Sessions (R-AL) to lead a procedural motion to kill the bill.

In an effort to revive the bill, Tester offered to include a sodsaver amendment to the package. The amendment, supported by sportsmen and conservationists, would save about $175 million, by reducing insurance premium supports and subsidies for farmers who convert native grasslands into production. The amendment was originally considered for the new Farm Bill, which stalled out in talks after the November election

[d-bone20917]

I'm not too optimistic that they will get to this before the end of the year, but the emails I get from TRCP.org indicate they continue to work on it. I see the Center for Biological Diversity has mounted a campaign against it.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/index.html

[mike rossi]

Lets talk about TRCP and CFBD. The TRCP is always coming up with these public land schemes and fight for hunting of things like wolves and polar bears. They sound like (probably are) a branch of the NRA or USSA or the republican party. IMO I have not seen them propose one sound policy.

The CFBD has an impressive staff of 15 environmental attorneys and 15 biologists. They stand by an ecology-based management strategy for natural resources (wildlife and fish). Now most peoples concept of a biologist is someone whose job is to have opinions and either works for a state or the federal goverment - both of those ideas are wrong. The CFBD very often sues state wildlife agencies and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. I cant be honest without agreeing with most of those lawsuits. Montana Fish and Game is under alot of fire right now. The sponsor of the sportsmans act is a montana senator. I spoke to an aide in Tester's office to find out what the lead provision had to do with the rest of the bill and naturally I did not get a straight answer but I was told the EPA is not popular in Montana and the NRA has alot of influence. Montana is one of the states recently opening up the controversial wolf hunting seasons. Montana is also the only state except Alaska which allows trapping of wolverines, which the state population is estimated to be 300 animals or so. The CFBD is not the only organization to oppose the lead provision and a bunch of other stuff Montana Fish and Game does or doesnt do. Thats it for back-round...

The only objection because of the lead provision came from democrat Barbara Boxer of California. Boxer's proposed amendment was not popular with her colleagues. Boxer based her argument on human health which is a weaker argument than the impact on birds. I will post the Boxer Amendment as they are known later.

The idea to prevent the EPA from regulating lead ammo and fishing tackle resonates with the "Halliburton Loophole". Halliburton is a natural gas company in which at the time he was vice president, Dick Cheney was also its CEO. Cheney crafted legislation which prevented the EPA from regulating or even knowing what chemicals are used in hydrofracking. President Bush did sign the bill into law. Hydrofracking is allowed on PA state game lands. The left over brine is used on roads to melt ice and the extra they can’t find a place to dump is spread on fields. New York State has plans to allow hydrofracking AND already has maps online where the brine will be spread. Some conservationists have suggested that the lead provision isn’t really for hunters but an attempt to further disempower the EPA. Sounds far-fetched on the surface but look at the 16 other bills which comprise the sportsman’s act then try to reconcile why #17 the lead provision is in there. Kind of out of place, wouldn’t you agree? The ammo companies deny lobbying for this, unless anyone else knows something please post. It may simply be NRA flag waving or similarly republican cheerleading against environmentalism or for so called state rights.

By the way, public comment about NY hydrofracking starts today, December 12. If you think fracking is a good thing, you need to do some research.

Now back to the "Fiscal Cliff". Using my wildest imagination I cannot make a connection between increasing the price of duck stamps and the resulting increase in the federal migratory conservation fund; with costing the goverement millions of dollars over a ten year period. Nobody explains this - not any members of Congress and not any conservation organizations and not any individuals. So if anyone knows what rebublicans in congress are talking about please let everyone know!

Edited December 12, 2012 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

Here are the "Boxer Amendments":

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS -- (Senate - November 14, 2012)

[Page: S6806]

---

SA 2901. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 3525, to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 121.

SA 2902. Mrs. BOXER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2875 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. TESTER) to the bill S. 3525, to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 121 and insert the following:

SEC. 121. NO REGULATION OF AMMUNITION OR FISHING TACKLE PENDING STUDY OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

(a)

No Regulation of Ammunition or Fishing Tackle.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall not issue any proposed or final rule or guidance to regulate any chemical substance or mixture in ammunition or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date of the publication of the study required by subsection (.

(

Study of Potential Human Health and Environmental Effects.--

(1)

IN GENERAL.--Not later than December 31, 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly prepare and publish a study that describes the potential threats to human health (including to pregnant women, children, and other vulnerable populations) and to the environment from the use of--

(A) lead and toxic substances in ammunition and fishing tackle; and

( commercially available and less toxic alternatives to lead and toxic substances in ammunition and fishing tackle.

(2)

USE.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall use, as appropriate, the findings of the report required by paragraph (1) when considering any potential future decision related to a chemical substance or mixture when the substance or mixture is used in ammunition or fishing tackle.

[d-bone20917]

I agree that the lead provision seems out of place and the only reason I can see it is in there is because the NRA lobbied heavily for it. I would have no problem with the lead provision being removed because all the positive aspects from my standpoint would remain.

As for the TRCP and CFBD, it is tough to compare those two because they have completely different mission statements. The TRCP is to promote hunting and fishing opportunities for everyone. But I would have to dissagree that the TRCP is some sort of branch of the NRA or Republican party. They have come out against the republican party on many issues including the proposed sell off or public lands, opening of public lands for gas and oil drilling as well as mining, and their proposed reductions in conservation funding.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I was shot for waterfowl...then for all game on Federal lands. Hang on to your hat for long gun and pistol ammo soon to come.

[mike rossi]

I will look into the TRCP more closely the causes you list are great ones. The CFBD primary mission is rare species and an ecology-based approach to management. If the only sympothizers of their causes are anti-hunters/trappers they will work with what they got.

This Act contained a bundle of bills containing provisions about lead, target shooting, and polar bears. I dont know about you, but I really am not wealthy enough to hunt polar bears and even if I was I wouldnt want to. Who is this serving? Do I take the NRAs word for it that polar bears should be hunted or that lead shot is benign? Next they tell us to watch out for the slippery slope - first polar bears than whitetails. Too much time and OUR money fighting for or against things that just do not enhance opportunity for the vast majority of hunters. To make matters worse this sort of NRA show-boating does not foster a conservation ethic among hunters and gives us the public image of being selfish, greedy and over-exploiting land & game.

[d-bone20917]

The polar bear provision has nothing to do with hunting polar bears or the protection of polar bears. The provision would allow hunters to bring home as trophies 41 polar bears killed in Canada before the government started protecting polar bears as a threatened species. The polar bear provision would allow the hunters who killed polar bears in Canada just before a 2008 ban on polar bear trophy imports took effect to bring the hides and skulls across the border. The hunters involved were not able to bring the trophies home before the Fish and Wildlife Service listed them as a threatened species. Seeing as all these were legally hunted prior to the listing of the polar bears, I fully support this provision.

Edited December 13, 2012 by d-bone20917

[mike rossi]

The polar bear provision has nothing to do with hunting polar bears or the protection of polar bears. The provision would allow hunters to bring home as trophies 41 polar bears killed in Canada before the government started protecting polar bears as a threatened species. The polar bear provision would allow the hunters who killed polar bears in Canada just before a 2008 ban on polar bear trophy imports took effect to bring the hides and skulls across the border. The hunters involved were not able to bring the trophies home before the Fish and Wildlife Service listed them as a threatened species. Seeing as all these were legally hunted prior to the listing of the polar bears, I fully support this provision.

There is another side to that, but I am uninformed so I will remain nuetral on the bear provision. Whether you or I agree with it or not - it still is a controversial provision which benefits a miniscule number of hunters. Why tie up good legistlation with a controversial provision which benefits very few? Don't you think this is showboating?