Lead in ammunition: An exchange of viewpoints

With Matt Koehler’s permission, I am reprinting below the fold an exchange from a public forum between him and Ben Lamb of the Montana Wildlife Federation regarding Sen Jon Tester’s “Sportsmen’s Act.”

In the 90’s when I was working around and for Montana Wilderness Association, MWF was one of those groups with which we held common objectives, even if we didn’t pick out curtains together. The essential bond was keeping public lands in public hands. Since there are always pressures from private wealth to privatize the commons, preservation requires a national impetus, and for that, we rely on the federal government. Private power seeks to fragment opposition by harping on “local control,” a means of fragmenting opposition into manageable portions. It is natural then that Lamb falls back on “local control” to advance his case that the EPA should not have the power to regulate lead in ammunition.

The exchange below below is preserved intact, and I have duplicated the links. I did take the liberty to italicize some PR language that Lamb used just for the sake of illustrating how that industry works – to come up with coded catchphrases that pack an emotional punch. That’s probably not deliberate – the advertising people, who are usually employed on the moneyed side of these debates, inject these words like a nurse administering morphine to an unconscious patient.

Also, I could help but notice that Lamb carries with him the same package of attitudes that Sen Jon Tester does about environmentalists – banning Koehler from commenting is akin to Tester’s fencing stakeholders out the discussions around his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Koehler is among the most respectful of commenters on the blogs, and always brings with him the actual language of bills and debates. However, industry and the moneyed interests have from the beginning attempted to marginalize the environmental community by insinuating that they are elitists; that use of the courts to bring lawbreakers in line is impolite; and that “mainstream” environmental groups (big budgets, foundation backing) are the only true representatives of the public interest. MWF appears to be a minor player in this regard, as its expenses only exceed revenue by about $100K.

Matt asked me to emphasize that he speaks for himself below, and not as a representative of any group with which he might be affiliated. He might also be politely suggesting that I not insinuate that he and I are working together – far from it. Everything above the line here reflects my own snarky attitude, and not Matt’s careful comments. (Full debate is beneath the fold.)
_________________

_________________
Matthew Koehler: As a backcountry hunter, I’m personally glad that Environmental Committee Chairwoman Senator Boxer (D-CA) helped stop the lead-poisoning provision in this bill. Sure, parts of Tester’s “Sportsmen’s” bill aren’t all bad; however, the provision forever forbidding the EPA from ever regulating toxic lead in hunting ammo and fishing tackle is wrong. It’s simply bad public policy for politicians like Tester to interfere with agencies protecting human and wildlife health. Just imagine if a few decades ago a politician would have passed a rider forbidding the EPA from regulating lead in paint. Or lead in gas. Or how about DDT? I’d encourage other hunters in Montana to contact Tester’s office and ask that the lead-poisoning provision be removed from the “Sportsmen’s” bill. Here’s more info, including a letter signed by 200 conservation, wildlife and human health organizations.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2012/lead-11-26-2012.html

200 Groups Object to Lead-poisoning Provision in Sportsmen’s Bill

Ben Lamb: Those 200 groups don’t care much for traditional wildlife management it seems. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration has said that the EPA is not the proper agency to regulate ammunition or components. The law is ambiguous, and rather than work with local stakeholders, groups like those listed above would force regulation from the top down instead of generate the support within the sporting community.

As for polar bears – they’re already dead. They were shot legally by hunters who are now denied the ability to bring those bears into the US because of another legal grey area.

The opposition to this bill came from animal rights activists and anti-hunting groups as well as the serial litigators and folks who don’t seem to comprehend that wildlife management should be left to wildlife managers, not EPA bureaucrats.
November 27 at 9:47am ·

Matthew Koehler: Ben Lamb, the “sporting community” would no more support a ban on lead ammo then the South would have supported an end to slavery in 1860. I mean, you really think anyone can convince the NRA that lead in ammo and fishing tackle is bad for the environment, bad for human health and bad for wildlife, such as the millions of birds that die each year as a result of toxic lead poisoning? Yep, apparently all those Audubon groups who were part of the 200 groups who signed the lead poisoning letter don’t care much for traditional wildlife management. Is that what you are saying? And I’ve got two elk in my freezer, but I’m “anti-hunting,” eh? If that’s how you want to portray this issue, than all the groups supporting keeping toxic lead in ammo and fishing tackle don’t care much for human or wildlife health. Come on, Ben. I am glad, however, that you can’t censor and remove my comments here, as you have on your Bully Pulpit Blog. Thanks to this facebook page for letting these important discussions take place.
November 27 at 10:55am ·

Ben Lamb: Matt, despite my better judgement, I’ll engage*. The idea that the EPA should regulate ammo is only held by those who want to forgo the effort of working with hunting groups at a local level. It’s top down, and not supported by the EPA, or either party. In fact, the EPA has repeatedly said they don’t have the authority to do this. Rightfully so. It’s no different than the lead ban that the hunting industry supported in the 80’s when it came to waterfowl. Hunters supported that, and so did the industry. Your blanket statement doesn’t hold water.

You want to claim that all lead is bad, well blanket applications of regulations are bad. Administration of hunting ammunition by an agency that doesn’t want the authority is bad. We’re seeing more and more movement to lead free projectiles both at the state and local level. I’m sorry if you think this should be regulated by the agency that doesn’t agree with your sentiments. The vast majority of Americans disagree with that sentiment.

And yes, in this instance, I disagree with my friends at Audobon [sic], and the folks I’ve fought at CBD. If it were up to CBD, only the fed would manage wildlife, based on their lack of ability to realize that wolves should have been delisted a long time ago.
November 27 at 11:31am ·

Matthew Koehler: Ben: My dad was a house painter for 40 years. Prior to 1978, when the “EPA bureaucrats” issued a “top down” ban against lead in paint, my dad would actually mix the toxic lead into paint by hand. Who knows what type of long-term health impacts dad will have because of this.

Anyway, thank goodness there wasn’t some politician back in 1978 who forbid the EPA from ever evaluating or regulating lead in paint. Yet, this is exactly what this lead-poisoning provision in the “Sportsmen’s” bill would do. It forever forbids the EPA from ever evaluating or regulating lead poisoning of wildlife and humans. I mean, how “anti-science” or “anti-knowledge” is this?

That’s part of the main issue so many conservation, environmental and wildlife/animal organizations have with this specific provision within this bill. Ben, I’m glad that “despite your better judgment” you engaged in this conversation with me…See, it’s not so bad. It sure beats you censoring and removing my substantive comments (and banning me from ever participating) as you’ve done on your Bully Pulpit Blog.

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” –Voltaire

P.S. For those interested, this is the amendment language Environmental Committee Chairwoman Senator Boxer tried to insert into the “Sportsmen’s” Act.

SEC. 121. NO REGULATION OF AMMUNITION OR FISHING TACKLE PENDING STUDY OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS.

(a) No Regulation of Ammunition or Fishing Tackle.–The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall not issue any proposed or final rule or guidance to regulate any chemical substance or mixture in ammunition or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) during the period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date of the publication of the study required by subsection (b).

(b) Study of Potential Human Health and Environmental Effects.—

(1) IN GENERAL.–Not later than December 31, 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly prepare and publish a study that describes the potential threats to human health (including to pregnant women, children, and other vulnerable populations) and to the environment from the use of—

(A) lead and toxic substances in ammunition and fishing tackle; and

(B) commercially available and less toxic alternatives to lead and toxic substances in ammunition and fishing tackle.

(2) USE.–The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall use, as appropriate, the findings of the report required by paragraph (1) when considering any potential future decision related to a chemical substance or mixture when the substance or mixture is used in ammunition or fishing tackle.
November 27 at 11:59am ·

Ben Lamb: Matthew, you either blatantly ignore what I’ve said or you don’t quite get it: It’s not the job of the EPA to regulate this. It’s the job of the USFWS and state agencies. When the science was clear what lead shot was doing to waterfowl, the laws changed. When it’s clearer that lead ammo is causing all of these concerns with other wildlife, the laws will change. For now, America is rejecting the top down approach in favor of local changes. I support that. I also think that you’ll never eliminate lead projectiles by going after big game hunters. That number of cartridges fired is miniscule compared to varmit [sic] hunters, kids with a .22 shooting Jackrabbits or prairie dogs, or just a family out for a day of fun at the range.

Your analogy of lead based paint is wrong: The EPA had that authority. No such authority exists for the EPA to regulate lead in ammo, or ammunition components. Despite that, the serial litigators at CBD, etc, continue to push for this. Don’t confuse the issue of lead in ammo over the issue of who has the appropriate regulatory authority.

Education is more effective in working on this issue than another heavy handed petition by folks who refuse to work within the existing system. Sisyphean attempts to change the world to comport with a narrow view hardly ever work, and create more backlash than support.
November 27 at 12:11pm · Like

Matthew Koehler: Ben: Perhaps it’s you who “doesn’t quite get it.”

In 2010 and again in 2012, the EPA denied petitions under the Toxic Substances Contro1 Act (“TSCA”) seeking regulation of lead ammunition. In denying the 2010 petition, the EPA stated that “TSCA does not provide the agency with authority to address lead shot and bullets as requested in your petition, due to the exclusion found in TSCA § 3(2)(B)(v).”

However, Senate and House reports on the legislative history and intent of TSCA confirm that the EPA indeed does have the regulatory authority to regulate the toxic components of ammunition. According to the House report on the history and intent of TSCA, “the Committee does not exclude from regulation under the bill chemical components of ammunition which could be hazardous because of their chemical properties.”

The legislative history of TSCA supports its plain language. Section 2605(a)(2)(A)(i) of TSCA, passed in 1968 as the federal mechanism for regulating toxic substances, allows the EPA to regulate any chemical substance for a particular use, up to and including prohibiting the manufacture, processing or distribution in commerce. Lead is plainly a “chemical substance” falling within the scope of TSCA. Although certain products are excluded from the definition of “chemical substances,” none of these exclusions are applicable to lead bullets or shot.

The Senate and House reports on the legislative history and intent of TCSA are equally clear and instructive. The House report explicitly states on page 418: “Although the language of this bill is clear on its face as to the exemption for pistols, revolvers, firearms, shells and cartridges, the Committee wishes to emphasize that it does not intend that the legislation be used as a vehicle for gun control…However, the Committee does not exclude from regulation under the bill chemical components of ammunition which could be hazardous because of their chemical properties.”

But back to the Boxer letter Ben. What in that letter, or in the proposed Boxer Amendment, is so egregious? You see that the Izaak Walton League and the Northern California Council Federation of Fly Fishers are part of the 200 groups that signed onto this Boxer letter? Are these groups “anti-hunting?” And the CBD lawsuit against the EPA was filed together with a group of deer and pig hunters in California. Are they “anti-hunting” too?

People may be interested in viewing this video. It’s part of the educational effort and hunter-outreach effort currently taking place by organizations and sportsmen who are opposed to toxic lead ammo. Ben may want to give people here the impression that these organizations and anti-lead ammo sportsmen just file lawsuits and don’t try and educate and work with people, but that’s just not true. This video is just one example, I can provide more examples: http://vimeo.com/37272263 The Non-Lead Hunter
November 27 at 1:13pm ·

Ben Lamb: I hope your horse doesn’t get too tired of tilting at these windmills, Matt.

You’re wrong on this, and respectfully, I will continue to disagree with your thought that the EPA should be in charge of wildlife management.
November 27 at 1:23pm · Like

Matthew Koehler: Good to know you think I’m wrong Ben. That must mean I’m onto something. What I posted above RE: legislative history and intent of TSCA and EPA’s role is pretty clear and directly contradicts what you claim. But please stop putting words in my mouth, OK, Ben? I never said “the EPA should be in charge of wildlife management.” Those are your words and that’s just you trying to obstruficate and drum up fear in the hunting community. Anyway, it’s a hybrid, not a horse.
November 27 at 1:41pm · Like

Ben Lamb: And here’s the rest of the story:

ead in Fishing Tackle

February 14, 2012 — On November 17, 2011, EPA received a petition (PDF) (42 p., 298 kb.) About PDF) under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Loon Lake Loon Association, and Project Gutpile, requesting that EPA “evaluate the unreasonable risk of injury to the environment from fishing tackle containing lead (including fishing weights, sinkers, lures, jigs, and/or other tackle) of various sizes and uses that are ingested by wildlife, resulting in lead exposure.” The petition also requests that EPA “initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rulemaking under Section 6 of TSCA to adequately protect against such risks.” Read EPA’s letter acknowledging receipt of the petition (PDF) (1 p., 227 kb.) About PDF). On February 14, 2012, EPA notified the petitioners that Agency denied the petition. After careful consideration, EPA found that the petition did not demonstrate federal action is necessary, based in part on the fact that in many of the places where lead exposure among birds may be a problem, states have taken action to regulate the use of fishing tackle containing lead or initiated programs to reduce its use. See the Agency’s response (PDF) (21 pp., 307 kb.) About PDF) and the Federal Register Notice.

Lead for Shot, Bullets, and Fishing Sinkers

November 4, 2010 — EPA has denied the portion of a petition (PDF) requesting a ban on lead in fishing sinkers because the petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, in light of state regulations and other on-going state and localized activities designed to address the risk concerns identified in the petition. Read the press release.

On August 3, 2010, the American Bird Conservancy, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and a number of other groups submitted a petition (PDF) (2 pp. 92 kb, About PDF) and attachment (PDF) (100 pp. 901 kb, About PDF) to EPA under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) asking EPA to “prohibit the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead for shot, bullets, and fishing sinkers.” Read EPA’s letter acknowledging receipt of the petition (PDF). (1 p. 189 kb, About PDF). On August 27, 2010, EPA denied the portion of the petition (PDF) relating to lead in ammunition because the Agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under TSCA. Read the Federal Register notice.

And a little more: Section 3(2)(B)(v) of TSCA eliminates shells and ammo from regulation.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681-2795;oldLink=false

So repeated attempts to get the EPA to regulate this ammo have fallen flat, and as I see it, no court case sets the precedent for or against. Given the history of this, and the persistent use of the petition to continue to try and ram a regulation down people’s throats rather than work with the hunting community is cause enough to support finally putting this issue to rest.

That does not mean the discussion about lead-free ammo should stop. It simply puts the regulatory mechanism back where it belongs – at the state level, and with the DOI.
http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail%3BD%3DEPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0681-2795%3Bold
November 27 at 2:03pm · Like · 1

Matthew Koehler: Ben: Right now Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is attempting to attached a rider to the Defense spending bill exempting toxic lead ammunition from any regulation under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Senator Inhofe is one of the most anti-environmental members of the U.S. Senate and is a leading climate change denier. Ironically, Senator Tester’s “Sportsmen’s” Act – which was blocked from passage earlier this week by Environmental Committee Chairwoman Senator Boxer (D-CA), among others – contains the same toxic lead ammunition exemption. Since you apparently support the toxic lead exemption within Tester’s bill I can only assume that you also support Senator Inhofe’s effort to attached the same exemption as a rider on the completely unrelated Defense spending bill, right?
November 28 at 3:10pm · Like

Ben Lamb: Hi Matt,

Nothing on the code that I posted about? Am I to understand that you agree with that interpretation, or do you just want to argue about parliamentary procedure?
November 28 at 5:37pm · Like

Matthew Koehler: Hi Ben: You have nothing on the language of Boxer Amendment? Nothing on the cites posted from the legislative history and intent of TCSA? Nothing on Sen Inhofe’s rider? Just avoiding the questions? I can play that game too Ben. I can see why you censor and remove my comments from your own blog. Thanks.
November 28 at 7:22pm · Like

Ben Lamb Matt,

I believe the citation I provided responds to your citations. IF you do not believe that is the case, would you provide your reasoning rather than go off on a tangent?
Thursday at 12:12am ·
__________________
*One of the rules of politics is never to grant a forum to an enemy – it confers legitimacy. Lamb has indeed erred here in judgment. (MT footnote)

34 thoughts on “Lead in ammunition: An exchange of viewpoints”

  1. Ah, the enemies list. Who is the enemy? In no particular order: the EPA, environmental extremists, federal judges and courts, Democrats more progressive than Sen. Tester, other hunting and fishing groups who oppose Sen.Tester’s belligerent methods and right-wing, authoritarian policies. This is another lesson in how to handle bullies and their enforcers.

    Unruly men and women who express their contrary views freely in opposition to The Omniscient Leader must be silenced and marginalized. You keep bringing me back to Arendt, and the “space” between individuals needed to be free of totalitarian control.

    Like

    Reply

  2. In April, 2012, Lamb spoke out (below) against the House version right after it passed. Note that the 200 groups were already alligned in opposition to both the House and Senate versions. If the Senate bill passes, a House-Senate conference convenes to reconcile the two. High-risk poker with a lot at stake and little to gain if you ask me — unless you’re a big fan of the Safari Club (Marlenee’s old pals), NRA, or ALEC.

    – steve k, bozeman

    Spokesman-Review Outdoors blog
    House approves Sportsmen’s Heritage Act; not all sportsmen approve

    Posted by Rich
    April 17, 2012 5:06 p.m. • 0 comments

    HUNTING/FISHING — Safari Club International and the NRA are praising the U.S. House of Representatives today for passing H.R. 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, advancing the controversial legislation to the Senate.

    The legislation has good parts on which most sportsmen can agree. But it also has divisive components that warrant sending it back to the drawing board. Sportsmen really don’t need any more divisiveness. We see how little gets done in Congress under those conditions. Why not learn from that?

    Read on for details about the act and why reasonable sportsmen should contact their senators to kill it.

    The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act (H.R. 4089) has four separate parts.

    Title I requires hunting and recreational shooting and fishing to be recognized activities on all Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands;
    Title II protects recreational shooting on National Monuments under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management;
    Title III amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act to allow hunters who legally harvested polar bears in Canada prior to its listing under the Endangered Species Act to purchase permits in order to transport their trophies into the U.S.;
    Title IV clarifies that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the jurisdiction to regulate traditional lead component ammunition and lead fishing tackle.

    Some hunters and anglers are jumping to support provisions that would liberalize where off-road vehicles could be driven. But for every guy who wants to ride wheels into a good hunting area, there’s another person who doesn’t like the idea because he’s willing to get there on muscle power.

    Ben Lamb, a Montana sportsman and member of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers had this observation:

    HR 4089, the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act seems to be a brain child of former oil and gas cartel lobbyist, turned SCI Lobbyist Melissa Simpson. There’s no heritage in an natural gas rig, just a mess to clean up. There’s no heritage in an ATV, just a lot of vacant country where there used to be elk.

    While there’s some good stuff in HR 4089, nobody seems to be willing to compromise on the main sticking point, which would undo decades of solid work so that we can ride ATV’s in designated wilderness, and perhaps more importantly to some of the proponents, drill wilderness.

    Oppose the provisions in the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act that would decrease wildlife habitat functionality.

    Congress is on a rampage of trying to overturn environmental rules that have great importance in maintaining sustainable wildlife populations in country ever-more populated by humans.

    For example, more than 200 fish and wildlife scientists and managers, including 12 former directors of state fish and game agencies, recently united in opposition to the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act (H.R. 1581/S. 1087).

    Passage of the bill would “facilitate the fragmentation and degradation of rare high-value intact fish and wildlife habitat and profoundly and permanently diminish backcountry hunting and fishing opportunities” the fish and wildlife managers said in a letter to members of Congress.

    the bill would essentially overturn the national Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a multiple-use management plan for 49 million acres of backcountry national forest lands in 37 states.

    The letter to Congress pointed out that Idaho got it right with its state roadless rule using a a multiple-use approach to conserve high value backcountry lands that are important for fish, wildlife and sportsmen.

    The proposed legislation gets it wrong.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Wilderness legend Stewart Branborg, of Hamilton, Montana, had an excellent column in a recent Christian Science Monitor RE: the House version of the “Sportsmen’s Act.”

    Steve is absolutely correct, above, that if the Senate also passes their version of the bill, a House-Senate conference convenes to reconcile the two. “High-risk poker with a lot at stake and little to gain” is right on target.

    ————-

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1130/GOP-backed-bill-is-most-serious-attack-on-America-s-Wilderness-Act-in-history/%28page%29/2

    GOP-backed bill is most serious attack on America’s Wilderness Act in history

    The Wilderness Act has protected America’s wild lands for 50 years. It is now under threat by a House bill deceptively called The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act. Citizens must demand the US Senate do nothing to advance its devastating provisions.

    By Stewart Brandborg / November 30, 2012

    Like

    Reply

  4. Just another example of Sen. Tester’s Made-in-Montana, neo-nativism. Tester’s battle cry: NO “easterners,” “environmental extremists,” or (Dream Act) “illegal aliens!” Bullies need their scapegoats.

    Like

    Reply

  5. Mark wrote: “However, industry and the moneyed interests have from the beginning attempted to marginalize the environmental community by insinuating that they are elitists; that use of the courts to bring lawbreakers in line is impolite; and that ‘mainstream’ environmental groups (big budgets, foundation backing) are the only true representatives of the public interest. MWF appears to be a minor player in this regard, as its expenses only exceed revenue by about $100K.”

    It might be worth pointing out that MWF is a state affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation. According to Guidestar the National Wildlife Federation has total annual revenue of approximately $95 million and total annual expenses of approximately $90 million.

    Toss in the $5.3 million in annual expenses for the NWF Endowment and another nearly $2 million for the NWF Action Fund and you are pretty much at $100 million per year. Or a nice round, cool ONE BILLION Dollars in revenue and expenses for the National Wildlife Federation over a ten year period.

    That’s certainly some serious cash and something to consider when NWF and their “Sportsmen” affiliates attempt to pin the “enviro elitists” tag onto grassroots activists and groups still willing to stand up for sound science, public lands policy and government accountability.

    Like

    Reply

  6. I thought Ben Lamb mopped the floor with him. Once Lamb pointed out that the EPA denied requests to regulate it and further concluded that they lack the legal authority to regulate ammo under the TSCA Koehler ran for cover. I am a neutral here and based on Koehler’s cut and run from addressing this substantive issue I award the win to Lamb. Koehler’s point on Inhofe is cheap at best. He is just attempting to shame Lamb by associating him with a dirt bag like Inhofe. Of course the positions shared by Senor Tokarski and Koehler are also shared by dirtbag wingers on such notable things as Tester forest bill so there is no point to Koehler’s apparent attempt at a dig. Lamb wins.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Jack – I did not think in terms of “winners” and “losers” in this matter until you brought it up. I merely offered a forum with the understanding that a rule in politics is that people with power never offer the floor to people without. That is why we have street demonstrations – the doors are blocked. Street demonstrations are the only way to bypass the powerful.

      I think you missed the point on the Inhofe issue, as I read it. It was not guilt by association, but rather identical language that Matthew was pointing out. If two Senators’ offices each offer an identically worded amendment, it is written by a third party, and our question should be “Who?”

      Like

      Reply

      1. That may be the point of the reference as you read it but not as I read it. Why would Matt say this if he was not attempting to downgrade Inhofe and thereby Lamb by association: “Senator Inhofe is one of the most anti-environmental members of the U.S. Senate and is a leading climate change denier.” The same could have been said about Dennis Rehberg but of course you and he supported Dennis in his opposition to the Tester forest bill so it all comes off as a bit desperate and hypocritical on Matt’s part to try and make a point that way and takes away from the force of his other arguments that may otherwise have some actual relevance.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Jack, It’s a total fact that Senator Inhofe is one of the most anti-environmental members of the U.S. Senate and is a leading climate change denier. We are not talking about Rep Rehberg here, so that’s pretty much irrelevant.

          Senator Inhofe is the one who took a portion of Tester’s Sportsmen’s Act (the part exempting lead ammo from ever being evaluated and regulated by the EPA) and attempted to place that lead ammo rider on an unrelated Defense Spending bill. Again, this has nothing to do with Rep Rehberg.

          I was simply pointing out to Mr. Lamb – who offered such a spirited defense for why the Lead Ammo amendment in Tester’s Sportsmen’s” Act is supposedly so great – that logic follows that MWF and these other well-funded “Sportsmen’s” groups should therefore support Senator Inhofe’s exactly same Lead Ammo rider in the Defense Spending bill. If not, why? If not, is their a risk to their strategy?

          In my mind this needs to be part of a larger discussion about how groups like these go about supporting questionable legislation brought about by politicians with D’s after their names, while they don’t support the same exact efforts put forth by politicians with R’s after their names.

          The other strategic issue this raises, and I believe the GOP capitalized on this with the Inhofe Lead Ammo rider on the Defense bill, is that once you have D’s supporting questionable legislation, the GOP will take it a few steps further. For example, this is one of the concerns with Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill. If you’re going to rally around a Dem politician mandating resource extraction levels and acres on public lands, you can bet this isn’t lost on the the GOP and shortly you will have GOP politicians attempting to pass their own riders mandating logging, oil and gas development, grazing, ATV use, etc on public lands in their own states.

          Basically, by attaching their wagon to these Dem politicians, these multi-million dollar “Sportsmen’s” groups, and some of the conservation groups who follow a similar path, are effectively neutering themselves from speaking out against bad legislation in the future. The same has been done to Montana Wilderness Association and the other “collaborators” on logging issues in this state. Of course, MWA’s John Gatchell admitted recently that MWA hasn’t challenged a timber sale in over 10 years (including during the entire Bush/Mark Rey Forest Service years). However, MWA and the collaborators allegiance to their “timber partners” means that these conservation groups can’t speak out against the timber industry when they lobby for exempting timber sales from judicial review, or lobby for less regulations regarding logging roads and pollution, etc.

          Another fallout of this strategy is something Mr. Lamb hit on in his comments. He claims that the lead ammo issue is something that should be debated and considered on the state level, not the federal level, as we’ve done with plenty of toxic substances. However, at the state level MWF has offered, and will offer, zero leadership on the issue of getting lead out of ammo. It’s almost like saying that you don’t support a national ban on logging old-growth forests on federal lands, because the states should get to determine the type of logging taking place on national forests within their border….but then you do absolutely nothing to help bring about an end to old-growth logging on the state level.

          Back during the later stages of the Clinton Administration, during the Roadless Rule battle, the big foundations and big green groups realized that they needed to court the “hook and bullet” crowd to peel off some traditional GOP supporters. Tens of millions of dollars has been dumped into these “Sportsmen’s” groups and efforts since that time. In fact, I’d say that most all federal environmental policy and pending legislation now has to go through these “Sportsmen’s” groups for approval. The “environmentalist” has been replaced with the “Sportsmen” and I’d say that this dynamic will have serious, negative long-term consequences as far as public lands management and federal environmental policy goes.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Oh, and what about the senior staffer from National Wildlife Federation who admitted to one of our peers that the lead exemption was problematic though it wouldn’t sway NWF’s support of the bill?

            Like

            Reply

            1. And while NWF admits problems with the lead ammo issue in private, in public NWF employees (who manage the Bully Pulpit Page) and their affiliates attempt to put pressure on Senator Boxer for her stance on the toxic lead ammo amendment with some neat “Those damn Californians” messaging.

              Like

              Reply

  7. Hello Jack Ruby: You may like to know that I have been blocked from ever posting on the Mr. Lamb/MWF “Sportsmen for Montana” facebook page and all my previous comments there, including those in this highlighted exchange, have been removed.

    This type of censorship and removal of my comments also occurred at Mr. Lamb’s Bully Pulpit blog regarding substantive comments about Sen Tester’s mandated logging bill. NWF has also censored and removed my comments on another social media site.

    As such, I’m pretty sure I’m not the one who “ran for cover” as you claim. I’m happy to have an open debate about these types of issues, and blogs and other social media sites can be an effective tool to do that. However, not if some people simply resort to censorship and remove or block comments that don’t fit their agenda or world view. Maybe we can continue the lead ammo/EPA/Sportsmen’s bill debate here over the next few days. Thanks.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Well Matt you can be kind of annoying and it really doesn’t have as much to do with your political stances as the way you come across in writing. Take that as constructive criticism. Whether you tend to get banned from commenting online probably has as much if not more to do with that than the substantive content of your comments in my opinion.

      Like

      Reply

      1. So, censorship of substantive comments, and blocking people from social media sites, is OK if the commenter is supposedly “annoying.” Good to know. I’d challenge you or anyone else to come up with examples of where my comments cross any sort of line that warrants censorship, removal and banning.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I didnt say whether its ok or not. Anyone who runs a blog or facebook page can manage it however they please. Noone is required to host a debate with you or give you space to go on your rants Koehler, you tend to fill a lot space. I give credit to mark for doing it here. Im just an anonymous internet troll, but if i ran a blog or page of some sort id at the very least put you on a word count. You are annoying to many in the same way tokarski probably finds max bucks annoying. I mean it as constructive criticism. Self-reflect on why it is you bug so many people, reflect on how you can do a better job of getting your point of view across and perhaps it will help your organization and goals.

          Like

          Reply

              1. Jack: A comment awaiting moderation due to a glitch is not the same as comments being censored, removed and one being banned from a site. Would you not agree? But nice try though….Thanks.

                Like

                Reply

              2. Nice try? What exactly did you think i was trying to do? This type of comment from you is the type of which i refer to as ‘annoying’. I will copy and paste my comment that is awaiting moderation perhaps it will speed things along. It was probably moderated automatically because it contained the name of a certain poster named Bax Mucks.

                I didnt say whether its ok or not. Anyone who runs a blog or facebook page can manage it however they please. Noone is required to host a debate with you or give you space to go on your rants Koehler, you tend to fill a lot space. I give credit to mark for doing it here. Im just an anonymous internet troll, but if i ran a blog or page of some sort id at the very least put you on a word count. You are annoying to many in the same way tokarski probably finds “Bax Mucks” annoying. I mean it as constructive criticism. Self-reflect on why it is you bug so many people, reflect on how you can do a better job of getting your point of view across and perhaps it will help your organization and goals.

                Like

                Reply

    1. I’d appreciate it if, when jumping to conclusions, that you jump to the correct one. In this case your wording should have been as follows:

      “Toxic” ammo ban + “armor piercing” ammo ban = use of frisbees in warfare.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Remember “Cop Killer Bullets” Mark?

        QUOTE: “In January of 1982, NBC Television broadcast a sensationalist prime time special titled “Cop Killer Bullets.” Law enforcement officials had asked NBC not to air the program as the use of body armor by police officers was still not common knowledge and the “KTW” ammunition was virtually unheard of outside law enforcement circles. The safety of law enforcement officers took a back seat to ratings at NBC however and they not only broadcast the show, but re-broadcast it again six months later.

        Following significant media hype and widespread misconceptions, Congress got into the act and proposed legislation that would have outlawed any bullet based on its ability to penetrate certain bullet resistant material. The FBI, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, and other forensic experts cautioned that the proposed ban was too vague to be enforceable. The NRA opposed the proposed law since it would have banned not only the controversial armor piercing handgun rounds, but nearly all conventional rifle ammunition as well. (Most rifle ammunition will easily penetrate the most commonly worn protective vests.)”

        Like

        Reply

              1. You’re having a conversation with yourself not only somewhat tangentially connected to the subject matter here, and thereby proving me wrong? You must at least clue me in on what I am wrong about. The subject matter here was not so much about ammunition but rather Tester’s legislative attempt to overrule EPA on scientific matters. Lead-based ammunition was at issue, but only a minor matter. I take it form that that you see some nefarious gun control scheme afoot? If only …

                Like

                Reply

  9. Let me try another example of how “The Sportsmen’s bill” might fit into the broader issue of how big money influences Gang Green and Democrats to keep wave after wave of neoliberal legislation moving through Congress, even when nothing else seems to have a prayer.

    This is one small EXAMPLE with some very familiar names from sourcewatch.org:

    “For the last five years WMI (Waste Management, Inc.) has been conducting a public relations program to blunt efforts by the environmental community to curb the company’s worst excesses. WMI’s latest endeavor involves direct payments to environmental organizations. Here is a partial list of the groups that applied for, and received, funding from Waste Management, Inc. during 1987 and 1988: National Audubon Society (New York), $35,000; National Wildlife Federation (Washington, DC), $35,000; Center for Environmental Education (Washington, DC), $25,000; California Environmental Trust, $15,000; Inform, Inc. (New York), $10,000; General Federation of Women’s Clubs (Washington, DC), $1,000; The Nature Conservancy (Arlington, VA), $70,000; Sierra Club of California, $1,500; The Wilderness Society (Washington, DC), $5,000; Conservation Foundation (Washington, DC), $10,000; Keystone Center (Keystone, Colorado), $20,000; Natural Resources Defense Council (New York), $10,000; Environmental Law Institute (Washington, DC), $15,000; National Wildlife Federation, $2,500; World Resources Institute (Washington, DC), $5,000; Izaak Walton League (Arlington, VA) $3,000.”

    Please note the (1987-1988) dates. This has been going on for over 25 years!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment