My inbox has been full, of late, with press releases about the Sportsman’s Heritage Act, a hodge-podge of a bill that recently passed the House of Representatives. Some environmental groups object to its passage on the grounds that it may open up wilderness areas to vehicular traffic; others object because they feel it will roll back the progress that’s been made in phasing out lead sinkers and shot for the more environmentally friendly steel. Sportsmen are divided on the merits of the bill, as expressed in this recent Field and Stream blog.
You can read the bill yourself, and perhaps, like me, you’ll decide that you object to it just because you don’t understand much of anything that’s being said. You’ll understand what each of the individual words means, you just won’t understand the implications of the sentences because the language is largely meaningless to anyone who doesn’t speak politician.
For instance; will the bill really open up roadless areas? As near as I can tell, the answer hinges on this line: [Wilderness areas should be managed] in a manner that supports and facilitates recreational fishing, hunting, and shooting opportunities. Does “facilitate” mean open to vehicles? Or does it just mean keep open to hunting, fishing, and shooting? I have no idea.
As to the lead shot/sinker rollback, if you trace the arcane language in this bill back to section 3(2)(B) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2602(2)(B)) you will learn that what’s being proposed is that lead ammo and fishing tackle get removed from Environmental Protection Agency jurisdiction. What I don’t know is how this law, if passed, would affect local ordinances. (Maine, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire all have their own get-out-the-lead laws on the books.)
Otherwise, the bill would protect recreational shooting at National Monument sites (here’s a complete list of national monuments for your perusal), though I’m not sure if this would allow someone to fulfill a lifelong dream of shooting skeet off the edge of Devil’s Tower, or if local no-skeet ordinances would trump this.
The bill would also make it legal to import a polar bear trophy that was shot legally pre-1997, and hunt deer with dogs in Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana. Personally, I’m fine with both of these things, but as a sportsman, neither really strike me as doing anything important to preserve my hunting and fishing heritage, which does leave me feeling a bit overlooked (besides feeling confused).
Anyway, what do you think? Since so many of our readers are environmentalists and sportsmen, I’m sure there are many of you with an opinion.
Will the bill pass the senate and get signed into law? I’m told by a source I trust that it has about a 4% chance of being enacted, and that it’s really more about election year politics than anything real. It’ll give incumbent politicians the ability to say “I supported sportsman’s heritage!” And special interest groups ammo to tar those who didn’t as anti-sportsman.
This, unfortunately, I understand all too well.
Discussion *