Increased hunting opp on fed lands
Elk
eliminating lead shot ban and opening hunting opportunities and he rides a horse to work. Sounds good to me
Lead shot ban is not a bad thing on water ways. Single lakes hunted hard for waterfowl can get tons of lead in them in a few years. As for bullets I don't think it is needed.
The ban on lead shot for waterfowl will still be in effect.
I don't think I understand that problem with lead shot ban. Especially near waterways.
If he can ban the lead ban in CA, my hat's off to him. Anti's are very effective in choking hunting and fishing here, and the pending statewide lead ammo ban is a all-too typical example of voodoo science paired with animal-rights extremism that passes as mainstream politics in this state.
Nothing wrong with the lead shot ban. Can you point to what new opportunities will be available on federal lands??? He made statement but it has no substance. He says he's gonna create opportunities for hunting, fishing etc but doesn't outline what those will be or how he'll accomplish it. He could start by working on wyoming's anti nonresident wilderness law. That'd be s good start.
Alaska federal lands hunting regulations need a major overhaul to provide equity to all citizens not just special interest. I would also like to see a Lower 48 grizzly hunt!
A miracle would be if the could allow hunting on national parks! At least as a management tool where needed
No lead shot at all up here on fed lands. Steel shot is a great crippler on upland birds and hare. At a conference I asked a fed biologist for the data on the ecological effects of using lead shot on upland game where the concentration is so low. He said there is none and as a biologist myself, I asked him how they could enact a regulation without hard data to back it up. I told him and his boss that their opinion in a supposedly scientific decision means crap, show us the data. The feds answer, "that's just the way it is." My counter at that conference, " then you are incompetent and need to be fired from wallowing at the public trough." Got a standing ovation.
I will buy you a beer lawdy, we need more folks like you!
The last minute ban (literally - signed on Jan. 19) that the Obama Administration approved would apply to the use of lead in rifle bullets or lead weights for fishing on any Federal lands or waters. You would have to use non-lead containing bullets for any western hunting on BLM, USFS, Wildlife Refuge, etc.
The previous administration was working toward severely limiting access to BLM lands for hunting. Those lands fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior and Zinke is pushing to ensure continued public access for hunting and fishing on those lands. National Monuments and National Parks are also under his administration. With his leadership, we may see additional opportunities on National Monuments and Parks lands that have been off-limits to hunting.
As far as I can see its a step in the right direction.
There are no viable studies showing lead shot is a detriment to wildlife or the ecosystem The infamous study showing supposed effects of lead ingestion was flawed and rigged. It has since been debunked by other objective studies.
Obama's last minute directive was a gift to the enviros and anti-Second Amendment jerks and a broom handle up the ass of hunters and the ammunition industry.
Jaquomo, can you clarify? Are you referring to lead shot harming waterfowl? Or bullets, or lead shot on upland game.
Pretty sure it was not one rigged, flawed study showing lead effects on waterfowl. That link is pretty clear.
On the recent bans, I agree with you.
Bullshooter, the original study which nearly all new studies reference was done in 1959 by the "Illinois Natural History Survey". The methodology was flawed and cherry-picked data to reach conclusions, which were no more than assumptions. Since then there is very little documented evidence that loose lead kills birds and the scavengers that eat them. The conclusions are all based upon "estimates" with no supporting data, if you read them carefully. Shotgun pellets are metallic lead, and are not soluble in digestive tracts of animals. The lifespans of birds and predatory mammals are too short for the lead to dissolve, and mammals generally pass them in stools anyway.
I don't know how to post links from my phone, but on the website huntfortruth.org they break down the flaws in all the studies, including the infamous California condor for study that really got the ball rolling.
Mossyhorn,
The Wyoming wilderness restriction is a state law (which is entirely permissible) that the Secretary of the Interior has no jurisdiction over. He cannot rescind it, nor does his position even oversee and administer the majority of wilderness areas this would pertain to. The USFS is under the Secretary of Agriculture, not the Secretary of the Interior.
Trying this for the link, Lou.
BTW, Bullshooter, I'm not advocating for a return to lead shot for waterfowl, especially now that non-lead shot shells have improved. Just pointing out that things aren't always as they seem, but if something is told over and over it begins to be accepted as fact. Originally there were valid arguments about whether more birds were dying from wounding loss from early non-lead shot than from any supposed lead poisoning.
This Obama ban was another typical Obama overreach and needed to be rescinded.
A California biologist told my brother at a conference he attended and gave a lecture that after the ban, 9 condors were found dead from ingesting copper bullets that had sharp shards on them. They bled internally. Unintended consequences. The ultimate goal of these unelected bureaucrats is the end of hunting for the common man. They are not conservationists. Conservationists believe in the wise use of our resources. Take some of the animal resource, leave enough for seed and what the habitat can sustain. These people are preservationists. Do nothing and hope for the best.
As Jaq hinted at, the ban on lead shot was nothing but back door gun control. So is the Cali ban on lead bullets. Boiling the frog in increments.
Yep.
The left sure doesn't hide their intent. Yet, a bunch of hunters sure disregard these kind of actions because they promise to keep the evil, greedy conservatives from selling "public land".
This is an example of how easily the government can be our worst enemy on these "public lands". Because if you think they intend to stop at bullets, you are sadly mistaken. This was another attempt on HUNTING. One agenda could cost us dearly if we get too lazy with our votes. These government owned, multiple use lands are open to the political climate that they reside in. WAKE UP men before it's too late. God Bless
"The ultimate goal of these unelected bureaucrats is the end of hunting for the common man. They are not conservationists. Conservationists believe in the wise use of our resources. Take some of the animal resource, leave enough for seed and what the habitat can sustain. These people are preservationists. Do nothing and hope for the best."
Bingo lawdy. Spot on!
He will have to fight these Bureaucrats.
I understand and support multiple use. I support responsible conservation, but not a ban on lead bullets.
I find that even in reading scientific studies (I am a biologist) you have to consider the source, as many are biased. Unlike many people I know of either political persuasion, I try to look for the opposing view, instead of jumping on a bandwagon or looking for something to confirm my views. For example, if CBS reports something that liberals love to hear, I try to see if the Wall Street Journal also says similar things, or has a different report.
Feel free to burn me at the stake for disagreeing, but I think the articles cited "debunking" the lead shot effect on waterfowl are the ones cherry-picking. Look at the link from Ducks Unlimited, a hunter/conservationist organization. There is way too much evidence for lead poisoning in waterfowl, and the science is widely accepted. This is repeated by USGS, numerous respected waterfowl biologists, and many other sources. It is not like hearing a bleeding heart story on NPR, of the poor little duck suffering.
Even Treeline's link stopped short of refuting the lead effect on waterfowl:
"The 1991 federal lead ammunition ban for waterfowl hunting has little relevance to the proposed expansion of lead ammunition bans for hunting upland game. Waterfowl hunting in an aquatic environment is far different from hunting upland game in dry terrain fields. What is unique about waterfowl hunting is the accumulation of shot (density) in shallow sediments that allegedly are ingested by certain waterfowl species. Consequently, the nature of the waterfowls’ habitat, eating habits, and digestion make for a very unique situation not present in upland game."
