Reuben Buckley
@jamaican_jerk_spice_redcurrant_grains_of_selim77039
0 Followers0 Following
Avid Hozzler
I don't agree with the decision to ban lead ammunition on certain federal land. It's been a reliable choice for hunters and fishermen for years. It's gonna make things more difficult for us outdoorsmen.
To prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition o...
3 days agoRecent Activity Alert
Bill 119 hr 556, also known as the "Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act," aims to prevent the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from banning the use of lead ammunition or tackle...
on specific Federal land or water under their jurisdiction. The bill seeks to protect the rights of hunters, fishermen, and recreational shooters to continue using lead-based ammunition and tackle without interference from the government.
The bill highlights the importance of preserving traditional hunting and fishing practices, as well as the economic benefits these activities bring to local communities. It argues that banning lead ammunition and tackle would restrict access to public lands and waters, limiting opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Supporters of the bill argue that there is insufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on lead ammunition and tackle, and that alternative materials may not be as effective or affordable. They believe that the decision to use lead-based products should be left to individual hunters and fishermen, rather than being mandated by the government. Opponents of the bill, however, argue that lead ammunition and tackle pose significant risks to wildlife and the environment, as lead poisoning can have detrimental effects on animals and ecosystems. They advocate for the use of non-toxic alternatives to protect wildlife and prevent contamination of water sources. Overall, Bill 119 hr 556 raises important questions about the balance between conservation efforts and the rights of outdoor enthusiasts. It will be interesting to see how this legislation progresses through Congress and whether it will ultimately be signed into law.
The bill highlights the importance of preserving traditional hunting and fishing practices, as well as the economic benefits these activities bring to local communities. It argues that banning lead ammunition and tackle would restrict access to public lands and waters, limiting opportunities for outdoor recreation.
Supporters of the bill argue that there is insufficient scientific evidence to justify a ban on lead ammunition and tackle, and that alternative materials may not be as effective or affordable. They believe that the decision to use lead-based products should be left to individual hunters and fishermen, rather than being mandated by the government. Opponents of the bill, however, argue that lead ammunition and tackle pose significant risks to wildlife and the environment, as lead poisoning can have detrimental effects on animals and ecosystems. They advocate for the use of non-toxic alternatives to protect wildlife and prevent contamination of water sources. Overall, Bill 119 hr 556 raises important questions about the balance between conservation efforts and the rights of outdoor enthusiasts. It will be interesting to see how this legislation progresses through Congress and whether it will ultimately be signed into law.