Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 22, 2017, 07:14:35 AM
Post by: Bill W on January 22, 2017, 07:32:26 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 22, 2017, 07:34:57 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2017, 07:36:53 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2017, 07:37:55 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 22, 2017, 07:39:39 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 22, 2017, 07:43:44 AM
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2017, 07:43:59 AM
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170120/obama-says-goodbye-to-america-s-gun-owners-with-a-likely-short-lived-lead-ammo-ban (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170120/obama-says-goodbye-to-america-s-gun-owners-with-a-likely-short-lived-lead-ammo-ban)Now that is A LOT different then what some of the "news" organizations are reporting. The Director's Order simply states "It is the Service’s policy to: a. Require the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle to the fullest extent practicable for all activities on Service lands, waters, and facilities (refuges) by January 2022, except as needed for law enforcement or health and safety uses, as provided for in policy."
The memo goes on to say the USFWS Refuge system should work with states, and other federal land management agencies to work on simplifying and aligning lead regulations across state and federal agency lines.
And it all comes down to this. The DO did not enact any new regulation....
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2017, 07:46:11 AM
As I read the order it is less of a "ban" than an initiative to work with various state and federal agencies.
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2017, 07:48:54 AM
https://www.fws.gov/policy/do219.html (https://www.fws.gov/policy/do219.html)All it is is an initiative.
As I read the order it is less of a "ban" than an initiative to work with various state and federal agencies.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 22, 2017, 07:58:09 AM
It doesn't seem to affect that much territory at all and should be easy to overturn.
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
Then you should probably reread it. All uses. To the maximum extent practicable. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agencies. Read it again. If it is no big deal, why bother with it?
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2017, 08:00:30 AM
And show me where it actually changes regulations. Oh wait, it doesn't! Your "To the maximum extent practicable" only applies on USFWS lands, which are 95% lead free already, and it just says the agency should work towards lead free on those lands. No regs are changed by this policy!It doesn't seem to affect that much territory at all and should be easy to overturn.Then you should probably reread it. All uses. To the maximum extent practicable. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agencies. Read it again. If it is no big deal, why bother with it?
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on January 22, 2017, 08:06:04 AM
It doesn't seem to affect that much territory at all and should be easy to overturn.
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
Then you should probably reread it. All uses. To the maximum extent practicable. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agencies. Read it again. If it is no big deal, why bother with it?
Exactly, why bother?
Post by: Jonathan_S on January 22, 2017, 08:25:04 AM
Post by: Miles on January 22, 2017, 08:50:41 AM
CA has had big plans and timed their change quite well. Now the lead ammo ban takes place around the same time the background checks for buying ammo kicks in.... So you can't use your old ammo, and now they can regulate and watch what you're buying.
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
The lead ammo been will be coming to Washington soon enough. CA just passed it statewide and everyone knows WA will follow suit. I bet within the next 5 - 10 years there will be laws in place.I don't disagree. I think eventually lead will be outlawed in most states. CA phased in their lead regs thru a 3 or 4 year phase in with full implentation by 2018 or 19, can't remember. But realistically right now CA is lead free with the exception of hunting a couple species.
CA has had big plans and timed their change quite well. Now the lead ammo ban takes place around the same time the background checks for buying ammo kicks in.... So you can't use your old ammo, and now they can regulate and watch what you're buying.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 22, 2017, 09:05:19 AM
And show me where it actually changes regulations. Oh wait, it doesn't! Your "To the maximum extent practicable" only applies on USFWS lands, which are 95% lead free already, and it just says the agency should work towards lead free on those lands. No regs are changed by this policy!It doesn't seem to affect that much territory at all and should be easy to overturn.Then you should probably reread it. All uses. To the maximum extent practicable. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agencies. Read it again. If it is no big deal, why bother with it?
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
You seem to believe that unelected bureaucrats need new regulations to implement new policy. That would be an error on your part.
Quote
DIRECTOR'S ORDER NO. 219
Subject: USE OF NONTOXIC AMMUNITION AND FISHING TACKLE
Sec. 1 What is the purpose of this Order? The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.
Sec. 2 What is the legal authority for this Order?
a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a-d).
b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
c. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).
d. National Wildlife Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4).
e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
f. Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).
g. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r).
h. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901b, 100 Stat. 3583).
Post by: bigtex on January 22, 2017, 09:19:12 AM
And your legal background is??? I enforce those regulations, pretty sure I know what I am talking about. A lead ban that you think is enacted could only be enacted thru new regulations. The DO did not enact any new regulations.And show me where it actually changes regulations. Oh wait, it doesn't! Your "To the maximum extent practicable" only applies on USFWS lands, which are 95% lead free already, and it just says the agency should work towards lead free on those lands. No regs are changed by this policy!It doesn't seem to affect that much territory at all and should be easy to overturn.Then you should probably reread it. All uses. To the maximum extent practicable. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agencies. Read it again. If it is no big deal, why bother with it?
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
You seem to believe that unelected bureaucrats need new regulations to implement new policy. That would be an error on your part.QuoteDIRECTOR'S ORDER NO. 219
Subject: USE OF NONTOXIC AMMUNITION AND FISHING TACKLE
Sec. 1 What is the purpose of this Order? The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.
Sec. 2 What is the legal authority for this Order?
a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a-d).
b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
c. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).
d. National Wildlife Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4).
e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
f. Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).
g. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r).
h. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901b, 100 Stat. 3583).
Post by: Miles on January 22, 2017, 09:20:47 AM
The lead ammo been will be coming to Washington soon enough. CA just passed it statewide and everyone knows WA will follow suit. I bet within the next 5 - 10 years there will be laws in place.I don't disagree. I think eventually lead will be outlawed in most states. CA phased in their lead regs thru a 3 or 4 year phase in with full implentation by 2018 or 19, can't remember. But realistically right now CA is lead free with the exception of hunting a couple species.
CA has had big plans and timed their change quite well. Now the lead ammo ban takes place around the same time the background checks for buying ammo kicks in.... So you can't use your old ammo, and now they can regulate and watch what you're buying.
All of the new laws down here are crazy. I'm getting out of this state at just the right time.
I've seen a lot of similarities between CA and WA since living down here. It's like WA looks to CA for the newest ideas. I'm worried that WA will be just like CA in the future. I know quite a few hunters down here that thought a lot of the garbage CA just passed would never happen... Now they're upset and having to deal with all the changes. You guys need to stay active and don't give an inch or they'll take a mile.
2019 is the year for the ca statewide lead ammo ban.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on January 22, 2017, 09:30:50 AM
And your legal background is??? I enforce those regulations, pretty sure I know what I am talking about. A lead ban that you think is enacted could only be enacted thru new regulations. The DO did not enact any new regulations.
You seem to believe that unelected bureaucrats need new regulations to implement new policy. That would be an error on your part.QuoteDIRECTOR'S ORDER NO. 219
Subject: USE OF NONTOXIC AMMUNITION AND FISHING TACKLE
Sec. 1 What is the purpose of this Order? The purpose of this Order is to establish procedures and a timeline for expanding the use of nontoxic ammunition and fishing tackle on Service lands, waters, and facilities and for certain types of hunting and fishing regulated by the Service outside of Service lands, waters, and facilities.
Sec. 2 What is the legal authority for this Order?
a. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668a-d).
b. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712).
c. National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee).
d. National Wildlife Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4).
e. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
f. Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j).
g. Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r).
h. Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. § 3901b, 100 Stat. 3583).
Private and does not matter. Read it again. It is a directive to work toward expanding lead bans in and beyond service lands using existing and purported statutor authority. It would seem that regulations to this end can and may follow, if this directive is to be pursued.
You are simply arguing that there are no new regulations, and I agree.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 22, 2017, 09:34:25 AM
I think WA will fly right past CA and go into a bizarro world of its own. Probably be within a decade.The lead ammo been will be coming to Washington soon enough. CA just passed it statewide and everyone knows WA will follow suit. I bet within the next 5 - 10 years there will be laws in place.I don't disagree. I think eventually lead will be outlawed in most states. CA phased in their lead regs thru a 3 or 4 year phase in with full implentation by 2018 or 19, can't remember. But realistically right now CA is lead free with the exception of hunting a couple species.
CA has had big plans and timed their change quite well. Now the lead ammo ban takes place around the same time the background checks for buying ammo kicks in.... So you can't use your old ammo, and now they can regulate and watch what you're buying.
All of the new laws down here are crazy. I'm getting out of this state at just the right time.
I've seen a lot of similarities between CA and WA since living down here. It's like WA looks to CA for the newest ideas. I'm worried that WA will be just like CA in the future. I know quite a few hunters down here that thought a lot of the garbage CA just passed would never happen... Now they're upset and having to deal with all the changes. You guys need to stay active and don't give an inch or they'll take a mile.
2019 is the year for the ca statewide lead ammo ban.
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2017, 09:37:17 AM
Post by: csaaphill on January 23, 2017, 09:43:55 PM
I would have to agree here :yike: :chuckle:It doesn't seem to affect that much territory at all and should be easy to overturn.
I suggest breathing into a paper bag.
Then you should probably reread it. All uses. To the maximum extent practicable. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agencies. Read it again. If it is no big deal, why bother with it?
Post by: csaaphill on January 23, 2017, 09:50:17 PM
Lead ammo doesn't do the amount of damage that people have said it does. The condors in California, and eagles, etc... aren't dying off because of lead ammo, they're digesting it from natural sources.
Making hunters who use firearms to hunt with are going to be herded out at some point or other if this doesn't get dumped by Trump or someone. Because the idea is to switch to faster but hotter copper, or another kind of metal, or derivative from, which if it shoots hotter that means in the summer when it's hot and dry already technically they could stop you from target practicing or hunting all together.
Post by: dreamunelk on January 23, 2017, 10:03:28 PM
That said what's all this talk that this isn't bad etc? For the most part shotgun ammo with lead had been banned on BLM, and or other lands, but just because it's been the norm doesn't mean it's good and sure doesn't mean it's not one step towards all lands, other than private that is.
Lead ammo doesn't do the amount of damage that people have said it does. The condors in California, and eagles, etc... aren't dying off because of lead ammo, they're digesting it from natural sources.
Making hunters who use firearms to hunt with are going to be herded out at some point or other if this doesn't get dumped by Trump or someone. Because the idea is to switch to faster but hotter copper, or another kind of metal, or derivative from, which if it shoots hotter that means in the summer when it's hot and dry already technically they could stop you from target practicing or hunting all together.
What are the sources of lead? Peer reviewed literature?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 23, 2017, 10:06:13 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 23, 2017, 10:12:12 PM
sorry here: http://www.huntfortruth.org/myths/ (http://www.huntfortruth.org/myths/)That said what's all this talk that this isn't bad etc? For the most part shotgun ammo with lead had been banned on BLM, and or other lands, but just because it's been the norm doesn't mean it's good and sure doesn't mean it's not one step towards all lands, other than private that is.
Lead ammo doesn't do the amount of damage that people have said it does. The condors in California, and eagles, etc... aren't dying off because of lead ammo, they're digesting it from natural sources.
Making hunters who use firearms to hunt with are going to be herded out at some point or other if this doesn't get dumped by Trump or someone. Because the idea is to switch to faster but hotter copper, or another kind of metal, or derivative from, which if it shoots hotter that means in the summer when it's hot and dry already technically they could stop you from target practicing or hunting all together.
What are the sources of lead? Peer reviewed literature?