Innovative Ways To Impact Firearms Owners: Go After The Ammo
BY Herschel Smith1 year, 7 months ago
Sportsmen and women across the United States are facing yet another misguided threat from the government, and it’s one we’ve all seen before: a proposal to ban lead ammunition.
In early June, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced its proposed 2022-2023 Hunt Fish Rule. The FWS’s annual rulemaking usually benefits hunters and anglers by opening new species, acres, and hours on National Wildlife Refuges. But this year’s proposal includes an entirely unwelcome aspect: the immediate restriction or phaseout of the use of lead ammunition on National Wildlife Refuges. The proposed rule comes amid a nationwide ammunition shortage and would have serious consequences on the ability to hunt on public lands, as well as the primary source of conservation funding in the U.S.
Anti-lead activists attempt to sell the narrative that alternatives to lead ammunition are “easily accessible to hunters” and “cheaper to buy.” This could not be further from the truth. In fact, manufacturing traditional lead-based ammunition has shown to be a much simpler process than using alternatives like copper and is far more cost-efficient.
In 2021, the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation conducted research into the price of lead ammunition versus nonlead ammunition in Maine amid a state legislature debate over a lead ammunition ban bill. The result, when sampling the ammunition calibers most popular among deer and bear hunters, was that “non-lead ammunition was, on average, 59% more expensive than lead options.” In addition, there are simply no viable nonlead alternatives for some calibers, most notably .22 ammunition used for hunting small game.
Traditional ammunition means that everyday hunters have one less major cost to worry about to enjoy the sport they love. Under the proposed rule, however, steep prices for nonlead forms of ammunition would be of concern and potentially a reason to stay home instead of going afield during the upcoming hunting seasons. The problem is even more acute during the current national ammunition shortage that is keeping many hunters from being able to buy even traditional ammunition.
[ … ]
Perhaps the greatest concern is the limited scientific support for this proposal. The USFWS cites no studies or data in the proposed rule, and even anti-lead activists can point to no studies that show the use of traditional ammunition causes population-level impacts on wildlife or the environment. There is simply no scientific support for an across-the-board ban on traditional ammunition — especially considering the consequences of shutting down hunter access to federal lands and forcing a significant decline in conservation funding.
There doesn’t have to be a scientific basis for the rule. This is what controllers do.
They worship the creature (and creation) rather than the creator. The next sacrifice to Baal is what they’re after, regardless of the basis. Baal isn’t alive, so he didn’t tell them to do this. But they may be listening to the voices in their head, or worse, agents of evil.
What did you expect from this administration.
I’m not sure how much hunting occurs on National Wildlife Refuges, or whether this includes National Forests, National Wilderness, or what.
This won’t stop manufacturers of lead ammunition, but look for some national law to eventually slime its way out from the halls of Congress. This is just the first salvo.
They’ve always wanted the ammunition. It’s easier than going after firearms.
On August 8, 2022 at 10:04 pm, Fred said:
“…look for some national law to eventually slime its way out from the pits of hell.” FIFY
Lead comes from the ground so if a few hundred grains return to the ground it really doesn’t matter. What will they do with all the spent electric vehicle batteries? That’s an actual environmental concern.
On August 9, 2022 at 6:52 am, Latigo Morgan said:
As goes Kalifornia, so goes the rest of the country.
The cancer spreads.
On August 9, 2022 at 9:32 am, Frank Clarke said:
Given the impact of NYSRPA v. Bruen, this “rule” won’t survive it’s first court hearing.
On August 9, 2022 at 1:21 pm, J said:
I’m surprised that someone here hasn’t said “you a$$holes are individually welcome to all of my Pb…158 or 320 grains at a time. Just really surprised!