H . R . 615 , “ PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ACT ,” PASSES U . S . HOUSE .
The FRONT LINE
FACING DOWN
THE FEDS
H . R . 615 , “ PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS AND ANGLERS ACT ,” PASSES U . S . HOUSE .
Almost a year after Vice President of Government Affairs Todd Adkins testified in front of the House Natural Resources subcommittee , House Resolution 615 , “ Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023 ,” passed the U . S . House by a vote of 214 to 201 .
This important legislation establishes safeguards to protect hunters ’ and anglers ’ access to public lands . Safeguards are becoming increasingly critical as animal-extremist groups continue to pressure federal land managers to restrict hunting and angling through whatever means possible . Although there are many attacks , the recently favored tactic is to press for lead ammunition and fishing tackle bans . H . R . 615 addresses this issue directly .
The bill protects access by ensuring that the departments of Agriculture and Interior engage in careful evaluation of the effects of lead exposure for a specific unit of public land ( under agency control ) before banning the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle . In addition , the bill requires the departments to maintain consistency with state law and regulation , and to coordinate with state agencies as they develop such policies .
In his testimony , Adkins highlighted exactly why blanket bans on lead ammunition and fishing tackle in the name of saving the environment were extremely misleading , misdirected and based more in ideology than science :
“ As a critical part of the administrative record , the Environmental Assessment ( EA ) conducted by Patoka River NWR FWS personnel ( September 2022 ) is extremely helpful in reviewing the overall approach taken by FWS when the agency analyzes where a lead ban is necessary .
“ Although the Patoka River EA uses the phrase ‘ the best available science ’ in describing the need to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle , the EA contains admissions that directly undermine this chosen course of action :
•‘ No documented wildlife or aquatic species deaths have been associated with lead poisoning on the refuge over the last 20 years , so it is unlikely that the impacts of lead entering the environment from fishing and hunting activities are causing direct mortality of wildlife and aquatic species ’
•‘... there have been no reports of wildlife that have been impacted by lead poisoning on the refuge for at least the last 20 years or longer , based on staff experience and records ’
“ And when discussing the 4-year gap between the final rule and 2026 , when the lead ban will take effect :
• ‘ Until such time that the restrictions take place , added lead to the environment from the fishing and hunting activities is not expected to cause more than negligible impact to wildlife and aquatic species ’
•‘ Given the hunting practices and amount of take estimated using lead ammunition , the amount of lead entering the environment is expected to be insignificant ’
•‘... impacts to migratory birds and eagles from the use of lead and hunting activities ... are likely negligible ’
“ These statements illustrate that the lead ban rule at Patoka River NWR was not driven by the scientific realities on the ground , at the refuge . The decision was made to implement the ban , even though the impact of lead use by hunters and anglers is ‘ negligible ’ or ‘ insignificant ,’ leading to ‘ no documented wildlife or aquatic species deaths ’ over a 20-year time period .
“ Citing ‘ the best available science ’ doesn ’ t create a magic shortcut in the scientific method . Specific facts and real experience matters , especially when engaged in policy-making that has the potential to diminish conservation dollars by forcing hunters and anglers off the landscape , impacting the health and abundance of all fish and wildlife . Evidence derived from facts on the ground , when taken together with the experience of fish and wildlife professionals at the site , is decisively strongly than fish and wildlife management theory generated from afar or from unrelated ‘ best available science .’”
Although passed by the House of Representatives , the U . S . Senate is highly unlikely to take up the measure , with Chuck Schumer at the helm and a Biden administration clearly in favor of expanded lead restrictions . In spite of this reality , the Sportsmen ’ s Alliance remains thankful for House leadership and H . R . 615 ’ s sponsors for continuing to work diligently to protect the American sportsman .
Sportsmen and -women throughout the country will remember that after this year ’ s elections , this issue won ’ t be going anywhere anytime soon . We will continue to fight for the application of “ real ” science when it comes to fish and wildlife management , whether on lead bans or any other issue before us .
Scan here to read our complete testimony !
ADOBE STOCK
6 SPORTSMENSALLIANCE . ORG