The National Parks Service is advancing the latest attack on hunters & fishermen.
From NRA --
The National Park Service (NPS) has announced its intention to ban traditional ammunition containing lead in all its parks. The move would needlessly push hunters to use more costly bullets made of tungsten, copper, and steel. The restrictions, set to take affect by the end of 2010, were announced without regard to science and without soliciting feedback from sportsmens' groups.
"The NPS announcement demonstrates either complete ignorance or complete arrogance as to the effect that this policy will have on hunters," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "There is no science to support NPS's contention that the use of lead ammunition in hunting is causing environmental contamination, having a negative effect on wildlife, or posing a threat to the health of visitors or park staff. This policy, and the lack of communication in advance with the sportsmen's community, is a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of people who will want to hunt in the 60 parks that are open to hunting. This plays directly into the hands of radical anti-hunting organizations like the Humane Society of the U.S. which is advocating that hunters be banned from using lead ammunition.
"NRA-ILA will continue to be a voice of opposition against this unnecessary action and is committed to protecting the rights of hunters to use the ammo that is best suited for their hunting needs and budget.
To read NRA-ILA's comments regarding the Elk Management Plan and the use of lead ammunition in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, please click here.
This non-scientific proposal will do more harm than good.
Most often, sinkers, lures and ammunition that do not contain lead are called "non-toxic." Which if I were a liberal, I would be screaming this term is offensive to lead sinkers, lures and ammo. The no lead proposal for fishing, will only be a minimal increase in costs to fisherman. For example "non-toxic" sinkers are only a few pennies more. But in this economy, it can be the difference between a person feeding themselves and not eating.
Where the damage to wildlife comes in is with the "non-toxic" requirement for ammunition. The ban on lead (toxic) shot has long been a costly requirement for duck hunting. As an avid duck hunter, barring the last 4 yrs, I can speak from experience on this subject. The concern over the lead shot is that one, it contaminates the water and two, the ducks eat it. The problem with steel shot is it is not as dense as lead and therefore does not carry the energy for an effective kill - which leads to injured animals.
I have seen many ducks & geese shot at with steel shot, get 'winged' and fly off. Many of these injured waterfowl fly off and die a slow death later. The non-toxic shot, combined with hunting license, state & federal waterfowl stamp fees, can be cost prohibitive for many duck hunters, so they must use steel. For those having a hard time understanding the difference between lead shot and steel shot... I can shoot you with steel shot at 60 yards away and it probably wouldn't wven break your skin. On the other hand, if this were done with lead shot - you would probably have the same problem Cheney's hunting partner did.
So taking this 'non-toxic' requirement and placing over Big Game hunting is completely ludicrous. and nothing short of the start of banning hunting. Yes, after a rise of injured, White Tail Deer, Mule Deer, Elk, etc... the next step will be to scream it is inhumane and this will grease up the slippery slope towards a ban on hunting in National Parks. The next step would be a ban in hunting in all public wildlife areas and then private land. And this would be a back door attack on on 2nd Amendment rights. If hunting is banned, then there is no need for 'hunting guns.'
You think the Obama administration would never ban hunting? Don't kid yourself, there are many people out there that feel hunting should be banned completely. Currently, anti-hunting organizations have been contacting members of the NJ Assembly over a pro-hunting bill claiming that hunters comprise a small minority of the population and do not deserve to enjoy the outdoors 7 days a week.
Now how's that for some liberal hypocrisy - because hunters are a minority - they have no rights!