One challenge answered

SOURCE: Jim Shepherd's Shooting Wire 

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition that called for an EPA ban on the production and distribution of lead in ammunition. In his explanation of the ruling, EPA assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention Steve Owens said the reasoning behind the decision was simple:

"EPA reached this decision," he wrote, "because the agency does not have the legal authority to regulate this type of product under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)." It was the clause following that explanation that has the firearms industry celebration: "...nor is the agency seeking such authority."

The back story on a ruling that denied the petition filed by the American Bird Conservancy and the Center for Biological Diversity is more interesting that the short statement from assistant administrator Owens, however, is considerably deeper than a jurisdictional decision. It may, in fact, point to the idea that it might not be too-late to restore some sanity to the increasing encroachment of the federal government into our lives.

On Wednesday, the firearms industry issued an unprecedented call to action, asking shooters across the country to let the EPA know that a ruling banning lead would be viewed as a political, not scientific decision. In fact, language many of us provided our readers, members or friends from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) stated clearly that such a decision would be based on something other than demonstrable scientific findings.

By Friday, I had received several hundred emails from our readers, telling me they had answered the call and commented on the petition. Many of you also inspired your friends to comment as well, spreading the message that each of us had the opportunity to tell one governmental agency that we were actually watching their actions.

Despite the fact the EPA characterized the petition as "one of hundred of petitions submitted to EPA by outside groups each year," it was one out of those hundreds that elicited tens of thousands of comments only hours after the opening of the public comment period. It was also unique in its generating a clarifying statement from the EPA that said while the agency was taking plenty of actions to address major sources of lead in our society, EPA "was not and is not considering taking action on whether the lead content in hunting ammunition poses an undue threat to wildlife."

For shooters, whatever their application of a firearm, the decision has laid to rest (at least for now) a fear that has existed inside the industry for some time-that the administration would find a way to move against guns that didn't employ what has been demonstrably proven to be the political suicide in most of the nation-gun bans.

This EPA decision on ammunition, however, is only one piece of what is a remarkably complex interrelation between individual rights and the outdoors. The same statement being celebrated as a win for the firearms industry should also serve as a call to action for anglers to make their voices heard as well.

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

If you're strictly a shooter, Friday's decision is certainly reason to celebrate. If, however, you're also an angler - or want to express your position that the evidence against lead's use in fishing tackle is no more solid scientifically than that cited regarding ammunition - today is another opportunity to speak out against acceptance of any portion of that petition.

The Environmental Protection Agency will continue to accept public comment on the petition- this time directed specifically to the fishing tackle issue - until September 15.

Today's edition of The Fishing Wire (www.thefishingwire.com) has more information on the reasoning behind the recreational fishing industry's opposition to the decision.

A second decision quietly announced last week might have global implications for competition shooting. The 2012 London Olympics will use laser guns instead of air pistols in the modern pentathlon. Union International de Pentathlon Moderne (UIPM) President Klaus Schormann made the announcement on the Youth Olympic Games website (www.singapore2010.sg) last Monday.

"We can hold competitions in parks and even shooting malls," Schormann wrote, "Safety issues will no longer be a big concern."

Being somewhat shocked at the idea, I contacted several people in the United States shooting world to get their opinions on the decision. Both United States of America Shooting (USAS) and International Shooting Sports Federation (ISSF) dislike the change. Their position is simple, the laser gun takes much out of the "shooting" element of external conditions (pistol and pellet accuracy) and turns shooting "into an arcade game." They view it as a possible threat to shooting, moving away from what is "shooting sport" and not acceptable on a worldwide basis.

The modern Pentathlon's decision-making was not exactly characterized by the word "stable" in any conversation. First, they changed the shooting event from 25 meter ISSF rapid fire to 10 meter air pistol ISSF target, then combined shooting with running, and now, laser guns. Sources tell me none of these decisions were not exactly backed up by "homework" but more of a reaction than thought-out development.

My favorite comment was somewhat more direct: "Unbelievable! I suppose the downhill in the Winter Olympics will be done with Wii ("No broken bones, and much easier to practice without all that inconveniently cold snow, old chap!") And the Olympic Torch and Flame will be replaced by LED's ("Much easier to transport by aeroplane, don't you see?")."

Sign me up for "air fencing".

--- Jim Shepherd