EPA Considering Ban on Traditional Ammunition: ACT NOW!


All Gun Owners, Hunters and Shooters:

With the fall hunting season fast approaching, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Lisa Jackson, who was responsible for banning bear hunting in New Jersey, is now considering a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) - a leading anti-hunting organization - to ban all traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976, a law in which Congress expressly exempted ammunition. If the EPA approves the petition, the result will be a total ban on all ammunition containing lead-core components, including hunting and target-shooting rounds. The EPA must decide to accept or reject this petition by November 1, 2010, the day before the midterm elections.

Today, the EPA has opened to public comment the CBD petition. The comment period ends on October 31, 2010.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) -- the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industry -- urges you to submit comment to the EPA opposing any ban on traditional ammunition. Remember, your right to choose the ammunition you hunt and shoot with is at stake.

The EPA has published the petition and relevant supplemental information as Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681. If you would like to read the original petition and see the contents of this docket folder, please click here. In order to go directly to the 'submit a comment' page for this docket number, please click here.

NSSF urges you to stress the following in your opposition:

There is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations.

Wildlife management is the proper jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services and the 50 state wildlife agencies.

A 2008 study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk.

A ban on traditional ammunition would have a negative impact on wildlife conservation. The federal excise tax that manufacturers pay on the sale of the ammunition (11 percent) is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding. The bald eagle's recovery, considered to be a great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition - the very ammunition organizations like the CBD are now demonizing.


Recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. And much like the bald eagle, raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring.

Steps to take:


1.Submit comment online to the EPA.

2.Contact Lisa Jackson directly to voice your opposition to the ban:

Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4700
Fax: (202) 501-1450
Email: jackson.lisa@epa.gov

3. Contact your congressman and senators and urge them to stop the EPA from banning ammunition. To view a sample letter, click here.click here

I think the EPA said that they could not regulate bullets because they are under a excise tax.
OH,happy day.

Thanks for the heads up Tony, I sent an email to Ms Jackson. Maybe we can keep the nitwits at bay.

I just read where the EPA turned down the petition.

EPA Denies Petition Calling for Lead Ammunition Ban

Release date: 08/27/2010

Contact Information: Brendan Gilfillan gilfillan.brendan@epa.gov



WASHINGTON - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today denied a petition calling for a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA sent a letter to the petitioners explaining the rejection – that letter can be found here: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sect21.html

Steve Owens, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, issued the following statement on the agency’s decision:

“EPA today denied a petition submitted by several outside groups for the agency to implement a ban on the production and distribution of lead hunting ammunition. EPA reached this decision because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – nor is the agency seeking such authority.

“This petition, which was submitted to EPA at the beginning of this month, is one of hundreds of petitions submitted to EPA by outside groups each year. This petition was filed under TSCA, which requires the agency to review and respond within 90 days.

“EPA is taking action on many fronts to address major sources of lead in our society, such as eliminating childhood exposures to lead; however, EPA was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife.

“As there are no similar jurisdictional issues relating to the agency's authority over fishing sinkers, EPA – as required by law – will continue formally reviewing a second part the petition related to lead fishing sinkers.

“Those wishing to comment specifically on the fishing tackle issue can do so by visiting http://www.regulations.gov. EPA will consider comments that are submitted by September 15.”

Good deal. Thanks for the update, Frank.

Thanks for the post.

Tony or anyone else that may know-

I am interested in reading the "scientific" literature behind this debate. Part of my daily job is to separate the wheat from the chaff in medical journals in order to elucidate the truth hidden amongst the surprisingly large amount of bullshit that is out there being touted as good peer-reviewed scientific evidence. I can only imagine who is both funding and reviewing any "science" regarding lead intoxication secondary to hunter's bullets.

If you know of any original source articles or studies, please let me know.

P.S. This is what REAL lead poisoning from a bullet looks like:

They must have read my comment!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kenati:
Tony or anyone else that may know-

I am interested in reading the "scientific" literature behind this debate.

This page on the AZ Game & Fish Department site is a good place to start in regards to condors. Be sure to use some of the external links found on the page.

These archived Field Notes also make for interesting reading.

Thanks, Tony. I'll be sure to have a look at it. And thanks again for bringing to light another attempt to take away our inalienable right.

One membership is well worth it.

WHY ANYONE THAT IS A HUNTER/SHOOTER/GUN OWNER AND NOT AN NRA MEMBER . . . .

IS A HINDRANCE, NOT A HELP


http://politics.usnews.com/new...er-nra-protests.html

For Now, they will be back after elections