# Sportsmen's act of 2012



## R E McCraith (Nov 24, 2011)

the sportsmens's act of 2012 has been put off till after thanksgiving - you still have time to call your senator and make sure this passes - if you sit on the side of the road - you will be passed by - act now or wonder later why you haVe lost places to HUNT !


----------



## OttosMama (Oct 27, 2011)

Thanks REM! I looked up the act and during my search found this link that takes you directly to an email that can be sent to your representatives. All you have to do is enter your zip code at the bottom. There is an email already drafted that encourages the congressmen to vote Yes but you can alter the email or erase it completely and write an email in your own words. 

It doesn't seem to be updated since the election because it takes me to a page that contacts senator John Kerry and former senator Scott brown (MA) so I would have to contact senator Elizabeth Warren to make sure she receives the message. If your state reelected it's incumbents, there shouldn't be any issue!

http://keepamericafishing.salsalabs.com/o/6394/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4086

Thanks for keeping us in the "know" REM!!!


----------



## R E McCraith (Nov 24, 2011)

OttosMama - PIKE & I thank you - this ACT is not about a dog park - not about a Viz Wiz trying to find a place to run off lead - this is about millions upon millions of acres of public land and what direction it will be used in the future ! as PIKE & I fade into a field of natiVe grasses in pursuit of WILD birds - VVe salute YOU ! last post till spring - I need to recharge what a sport dog is all about ! HUNTING - VVe do it all the time - just felt the forum forgot the V was bred to HUNT ! a safe and happy holidays to all & to all a good night - still LOL


----------



## harrigab (Aug 21, 2011)

are your rights to hunt under threat Ron?


----------



## einspänner (Sep 8, 2012)

Not being a Sportswoman, I'm curious about this section of the act: 
The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act (S. 838) – Blocks ongoing attempts to federally ban lead in recreational fishing equipment and ammunition by amending the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Why would I want to allow lead in equipment? Is it about affordability, functionality, state's rights? The link lists this as one of the most important parts.


----------



## OttosMama (Oct 27, 2011)

From what I've read, it looks like opponents of the ban argue that the lead effects less than one percent of wildlife population and that the alternatives do not perform as well and are more expensive. 

I'd be interested to hear if the hunters/anglers on the forum have an opinion about the equipment that contains lead.


----------



## harrigab (Aug 21, 2011)

over here in the UK all our fishing lures, weights etc are lead free. No difference in performance that I've noticed to be honest. I think the reason that this was introduced was due to wildlife digesting discarded tackle and dying from lead poisoning.


----------



## mswhipple (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the reason. The Oakland County Sportsmen's Club is near here, and they have a shooting range. Near the range is a lake. Trumpeter Swans summer on that lake. A few years back, they were turning up dead. Official autopsy results showed that they had ingested lead ammunition and died of lead poisoning. It was what they call an "unintended consequence".


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

This bill is to keep public hunting and fishing lands open to the public. Don't get hung up on one part of it and kill the whole bill. Waterfowl hunting is not being done with lead. Its been that way for some time.
Most people that don't live in Texas do not realise, Texas is mostly privately owned. We do have some National Forest and WMA land but its a small amount compared to most states. Hunters from other states would be shocked to pay $10'000.00 per person for a quail only lease. Add two to three thousand more if you want a family place to duck hunt. The price keeps going up as you add species you want to hunt. Keeping public lands open keeps the price affordable for the average person. 
Hunting/fishing is a multimillion dollars business that brings in tax money to the states. Cash strapped states should consider the lose of revenue if pubic lands aren't keep open to hunting and fishing.

I do know our shooting clubs have a way to reclaim the lead off the ranges. Its done periodically throughout the year. It sounds like someone wasn't thinking when they put a range next to where swans summer.


----------



## einspänner (Sep 8, 2012)

Thanks for your replies. For the most part the bill sounds great, but I wonder if the sponsors aren't shooting themselves in the foot with this provision for lead. Hunters are the some of the greatest conservationists, so why support using toxic ammunition and tackle? According to this article the NRA http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/8991/the-plan-to-get-the-lead-out/ opposes a ban on lead because alternatives are more expensive, may not perform as well, and because reports of affected wildlife are inaccurate. They also seem to view it as an encroachment of 2nd amendment rights. It's an interesting read.

And to let the other side speak in their own words here's an article from the CBD, the group behind the Get the Lead Out campaign. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/index.html

I'm not trying to kill the bill or distract from its main (and I think good) intentions. I just like to learn and discuss important issues with you awesome folk. I'm inclined to support the environment over the pocketbooks of hunters, but I suspect the best solution is a compromise of the views in the articles. I would also think more affordable equipment would come along. Regulation might lead to innovation. But now I sound like a socialist.


----------



## texasred (Jan 29, 2012)

I'm inclined to support the environment over the pocketbooks of hunters.

Its the hunters that pay for most of the conservation efforts. If you look up Delta waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and countless others. In Texas we have the Rolling Plains Quail research center. We raise millions of dollars each year to help with breeding grounds and research.


----------



## einspänner (Sep 8, 2012)

Yep, I thought that line might sound a bit more inflammatory than intended. So let me clarify.

I am well aware of and appreciate the conservation efforts by hunters, but using lead works against those efforts. This conflict of interest struck me as odd. I think the increased cost of alternatives is worth it, but I understand it might be cost-prohibitive for others. 

Just asked Hutchison and Cornyn for their support. 

Sorry for hijacking the thread...


----------



## WillowyndRanch (Apr 3, 2012)

einspänner said:


> I am well aware of and appreciate the conservation efforts by hunters, but using lead works against those efforts. This conflict of interest struck me as odd. I think the increased cost of alternatives is worth it, but I understand it might be cost-prohibitive for others.


The problem with any all or nothing legislation, such as banning lead entirely, is that it does throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are methodologies to safely and effectively manage lead shot. Waterfowling is a lead free hunt and has been since 1991. There is no reason to have the same restriction on a thousand acres of prairie grass chasing a few pheasant. The potential exposure is stastistically insignificant, the environmental factors different. To mandate a shooting range shoot only non-toxic shot to "save the environment" is an argument we should fight.

In the case of the Mute swans (only one was a trumpeter) on the lake in Michigan, the shooting club has been long established. The swan population has exploded in recent years on that body of water. Neither the club nor the overseeing regulatory agency realized the shot was reaching the water's edge and all were surprised that the autopsy revealed lead shot. Rather than put in a sweeping legislation that bans a viable and cost effective product, the answer was to manage the isolated situation. The shooting club re-designed the shooting lanes to ensure no shot could fall to the water edge. They stepped up and performed remediation of the very limited affected area and put in place a deterrent system to keep the increasing population of swans which is not allowed to be managed under game management (hunting) away from the shooting club. All shooting clubs work to reclaim shot - if not for environmental reason strictly for financial ones - it's a saleable product and adds to the bottom line.

Non-toxic shot has been around for 20 years. The development is likely near or past the apex for alternatives. The cost of non-toxic shot is three to fourfold that of traditional lead shot. There are places and situations that it is the correct choice - however, there are also places and situations that it is entirely un-necessary. 
There are now strong pushes for rifle ammunition to become lead free as well. That is a significant ballistic change and challenge. When hunting large game one might fire 2 or three rounds in an entire week of hunting. That is not introducing toxic amounts of lead into the environment. There are much higher environmental toxins naturally occurring that are much more of a threat, such as selenium and mercury in the water supply, naturally occuring asbestos in the ground. But no one has figured out how to ban natural occurence toxins, so ban what we can and ignore the elephant in the water...

Putting the additional fiscal burden on sportspeople in a wholesale sweeping ban of a viable and manageable material, especially in our significantly struggling economy will only reduce the number of sportspeople. Reducing the number of sportspeople exponentially reduces the efforts of conservation, land and game management, including endangered species recovery - as Pittman-Roberston funds and sportsmen donations have paid for by far the lion's share of the conservation efforts in the U.S. 

Ken


----------

