DES MOINES – Gov. Terry Branstad today issued an executive order rescinding a rule by an executive-branch commission that banned the use of lead shot by hunters during Iowa’s 70-day dove-hunting season.

Branstad said he took the action because the Natural Resources Commission exceeded its administrative authority be setting a rule that was not part of the legislative intent of a law passed by the General Assembly last year that he signed. The governor said he took the action after the Legislature failed to pass a resolution to rescind the rule during the just-completed 2012 session.

Branstad called his action historic and said it was intended to respect the governmental separation of powers by not allowing the intent of the Legislature to be circumvented by “administrative fiat” through the action of an appointed commission.

To read Rod Boshart’s article in its entirety, click here.

Opportunities to fish and hunt on public lands are at the core of the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012, which passed the House April 17 and has been received in the Senate. This can be among the most significant legislation for sportsmen in several years, but first it must get to the Senate floor.

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey is one of just a few senators who can get this act to President Barack Obama’s desk.

Among the most important things this bill can do is to classify Bureau of Land Management land and U.S. Forest Service land as open to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting. This would affect more than 700 million acres. Excepted would be lands that are restricted based on scientific evidence. Land access is perhaps the hottest issue today for sportsmen, as Erie steelhead anglers know.

Recreational shooting would be protected on BLM National Monument lands.

To read Mike Bleech’s article in its entirety at GoErie.com, click here.

The legislation, which passed 274-146, also allows those who have legally hunted polar bears in Canada to bring their trophies home.

Republican sponsors said the bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, protects sportsmen from bureaucratic restrictions. Democratic opponents said it was unneeded because 85 percent of federal land is open to hunting and called it a sop to the gun lobby.

The measure requires federal land managers to support hunting and fishing on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land. The BLM can only close public lands to recreational shooting for specific reasons such as national security and fire safety. It must also submit a report to Congress detailing the location and evidence justifying any closure.

The lead issue refers to efforts by environmentalists to ban the use of lead in ammunition and fishing tackle. They say lead poisoning kills 10 million to 20 million birds and other animals every year and that hunters who eat what they hunt have also been shown to have higher levels of lead in their bloodstreams.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in 2010 and again this year, rejected petitions from conservation and some hunting groups to ban lead bullets, shotgun pellets and fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act, saying the issue was not within the agency’s jurisdiction.

The House bill would give legal backing to that position, by clearly limiting the EPA’s authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act. It amends that act to allow for the sales of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.

To read Jim Abrams’ article in its entirety at the Huffington Post, click here.

On April 9, 2012, the EPA responded to CBD’s second Petition, rejecting it and effectively denying it because EPA does not have the authority to regulate ammunition based on the statutory exclusion found in section 3(2)(B)(v) of TSCA. The EPA’s response stated that EPA would not review CBD’s new Petition because it is “almost identical” to CBD’s prior Petition that sought to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle nationwide. EPA rejected CBD’s new Petition, finding that it is actually not a new petition cognizable under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), because CBD’s second Petition contained “no new information” and everything in the new Petition had been considered by EPA when it denied CBD’s first Petition.

CBD’s legal argument being used to try to force EPA to ban lead ammunition is based on a meritless interpretation of the TSCA, which includes a specific exemption for ammunition. TSCA, section 3(2)(B)(v) precludes the EPA from regulating ammunition. But, CBD wants EPA or a court to hold that the TSCA ammunition exemption does not apply to bullets and shot, because neither bullets nor shot are actually “ammunition” (i.e., a shell, primer, and projectile, etc., in one cartridge or unit). CBD’s argument is founded on an inapplicable interpretation of a tax ruling issued by the IRS in 1954 that distinguished the sale of “separate parts of ammunition” and complete ammunition for taxation purposes only.

An adverse ruling could have far-reaching impacts regarding lead and its role in traditional forms of American outdoor recreation.

The original data used in the Santa Cruz studies (i.e. Church Study) must be independently evaluated to determine the legitimacy of the claims being made in the study. To obtain it, NRA/CRPAF sent multiple public records requests to the University of California system, also seeking the original data used to support the conclusions reached in University of California, Davis (“U.C. Davis”) lead ammunition studies.  The requests seeking public records related to these taxpayer-funded research projects were obstructed by various governmental agencies and the universities.

Despite the fact that taxpayers paid for these studies, both U.C. Santa Cruz and U.C. Davis initially refused to produce information and original data, claiming they were exempt from production under the California Public Records Act under an alleged “researcher’s privilege.”  Both universities claim that information relating to scientific research is privileged until that study is published in a peer-reviewed journal.  The Public Records Act, however, contains no exception for a “researcher’s privilege,” and such unpublished studies are often used by researchers to lobby and to influence government agencies like the California Fish and Game Commission (“Commission”) in the public policy debate about the regulation of lead ammunition.

Apart from the claimed “researcher’s privilege,” U.C. Santa Cruz has also made excuses to delay turning over the data and information, including claiming it will take approximately two years to provide responsive documents relating to published studies to which the alleged “researcher’s privilege” exemption admittedly does not apply (i.e., published studies).  U.C. Santa Cruz’s actions forced the CRPAF to initiate litigation to obtain the requested information.

Judge Almquist nevertheless upheld the U.C. Santa Cruz “researcher’s privilege” defense, and further ruled that the public interest in disclosure of any unpublished data (i.e. “cherry picked” data), was outweighed by the “researcher’s privilege” and not disclosing the data.  In other words, the Judge ruled that it was more important to maintain the researcher’s reputation (i.e. not being subject to critique or criticism outside the perverted peer review process), than to allow public access to the data, even though the CRPAF sought to verify the findings and conclusions in scientific publications that were paid for by the taxpayers and are being used to influence regulatory policy and rulemaking.

Judge Almquist’s Order specifically states “[t]he public is not entitled to data that are excluded from [published] studies as that would interfere with the deliberate process of researchers deciding what data to include and what to exclude because [in the researcher’s opinion] it is anomalous or irrelevant.”

Judge Almquist’s ruling highlights the numerous obstacles frustrating the Hunt for Truth’s pursuit of underlying data behind the taxpayer funded “research” that is being used to advocate proposed lead ammunition bans in California and in other states, and it demonstrates the lengths to which researchers will go to prevent the release and scrutiny of the data.

For several years now, Hunt for Truth attorneys and scientists have been seeking the researchers’ original  data underlying the claims being made in various studies that purportedly justify further bans on the use of lead ammunition in California.  Significantly, analyses of the information and data obtained so far has revealed big problems with the researchers conclusions in some of the studies, including “cherry picking” data, flawed methodology, and improper sampling protocols. 

This most recent lawsuit is based on a public records act request made by CRPAF/NRA on December 1, 2010. That request was brought, in part, in an attempt to determine why the Church Study published in 2006 by several U.C. Santa Cruz researchers (among others) appears to omit consideration of certain “original data” collected for that publication.  From information that has been obtained, the CRPAF/ NRA probe has revealed that the authors of the Church Study had not incorporated all the relevant “original” data into their findings and had omitted underlying data that did not support their conclusions (i.e. “cherry picking”).

When NRA/CRPAF revealed these omissions to the Commission in August 2009, while opposing environmentalists’ proposal to expand the current condor zone lead ammunition ban to include .22 rimfire ammunition for hunting rabbits and shot for hunting migratory upland game, the Commission rejected the proposed expansion of the lead ban. 

At the time, the Church Study was the “Holy Grail” of scientific studies being proffered to support the banning of lead ammunition.  Upon learning that data had been selectively excluded from the studies’ conclusions, several Commissioners criticized the scientific validity of the Church Study findings.  One Commissioner even called it “pseudo-science.” 

The NRA and CRPAF have recently made presentations to the Commission highlighting just some of the difficulties encountered while seeking to obtain these vital public records. Obstacles to NRA/CRPAF efforts include claims that data has been destroyed and/or withheld on dubious legal grounds.

With respect to the Santa Cruz studies, documents that CRPAF has obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game indicate that Federal brand ammunition samples were taken as part of the research leading up to the publication of Ammunition is the Principal Source of Lead Accumulated by California Condors Re-introduced to the Wild.  That publication, however, does not discuss Federal brand ammunition samples.  In follow up to Judge Almquist’s Order, CRPAF/NRA learned that Dr. Donald Smith had in fact examined Federal brand ammunition and omitted in their final publication. This is a major victory and will serve as the basis for completely debunking the Church Study once and for all.

The groups are calling for Commissioner Richards to resign or be fired because he took a mountain lion in Idaho. Mountain lions are not legal to hunt in California, but are legal to take in Idaho. Nevertheless, certain so-called environmental organizations, are lining up against Richards and demanding that the California Legislature fire him.

Richard’s detractors did not believe that he was hunting the lion for meat, but contended that Richards merely wanted a trophy. None of that matters since the hunt was legal, but Commissioner Richards has provided a statement that the hunt was intended for harvesting the meat, not just for a trophy.

Richards has returned fire, pointing out that anti-hunting organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”) and the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD”) have been quietly infiltrating the California Department of Fish and Game (“Department”) in order to influence its direction. Commissioner Richards has correctly pointed out that the real “environmental terrorists” are the anti-hunting advocates who have set their sights on controlling the Department in order to influence hunting regulations to the point of eliminating hunting.

Does that sound unbelievable? Believe it! HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle has stated “we are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

The groups that seek to abolish hunting refuse to recognize that hunters pay for the vast majority of natural resource conservation efforts in this country. Hunters and hunting organizations contribute billions of dollars annually throughout the United States to conservation programs that enhance and preserve our environment. Sportsman contribute nearly eight million dollars a day and approximately three billion dollars a year for conservation. The licensing fees and other charges hunters pay support wildlife management and restoration, habitat improvement and general conservation efforts. Collectively, hunters and anglers provide more than 75% of the annual funds for all fifty state conservation agencies.

Additionally, at the urging of hunters, state wildlife agencies, and firearm and ammunition industries, Congress created the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (“Pittman-Robertson”), which places a 10% tax on ammunition and firearms used for hunting to be distributed to the states for wildlife restoration. According to the United States Fish & Wildlife Service, 62% of the Pittman-Robertson funds to states are used to buy, develop, maintain and operate wildlife management areas. These funds have purchased over four million acres and manage over forty million acres, which are also enjoyed by birdwatchers, hikers, campers, picnickers and nature lovers that represent 70% of the people using these areas.

Many hunters and recreational shooters complain about more restrictive regulations, fewer places to hunt and fewer opportunities to shoot. The National Rifle Association (“NRA”) remains active in preserving America’s traditional hunting heritage throughout the United States. In California, the Department and the California Legislature has been under a full scale attack by environmental organizations looking to eliminate hunting areas, game for take (via the Endangered Species Act) and manner of taking for numerous reasons, all adverse to our traditional hunting heritage. The NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation have been fighting these efforts for years.