\n<\/p>\n
Last Friday the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its plan to expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 18 different National Wildlife Refuges around the country. This expansion of public access will include nearly 40,000 additional acres of huntable and fishable land within the federally managed refuge system. There is, however, one catch: starting in 2026, lead ammunition and fishing tackle will be phased out at some or all of these refuges.<\/p>\n
So, while outdoorsmen and women are happy to have more places to hunt and fish, many sportsmen\u2019s groups have come out against the federal government\u2019s Final Rule, which was initially proposed in June<\/a>. These groups say the phasing out of traditional ammo is an attempt by the federal government to placate the anti-hunting community, which has tried for years to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle on all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System and beyond.<\/p>\n The National Shooting Sports Foundation referred to the USFWS\u2019s Final Rule<\/a> as a \u201cbait-and-switch\u201d tactic and claimed that the agency\u2019s decision to phase out lead ammunition is not based on the best available science.<\/p>\n \u201cDespite promises from President Joe Biden that his administration would \u2018follow the science,\u2019 the USFWS offered no objective scientific evidence establishing that the use of traditional lead core ammunition poses a risk to human health or wildlife populations to support its decision to phase in a ban,\u201d reads a recent NSSF press release<\/a>.<\/p>\n Several other groups, including the Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance<\/a> and the American Sportfishing Association<\/a>, have joined the NSSF in denouncing the USFWS\u2019 most recent move.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is deeply concerning that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ignored science and the concerns of the sportfishing industry, said Mike Leonard, the vice president of government affairs for the ASA. \u201cWe hope that USFWS realizes the error they made in this rule and reconsiders its implementation. Anglers should be able to keep using traditional fishing tackle as they have for generations.\u201d<\/p>\n First, the good news. The USFWS\u2019 Final Rule, which went into effect over the weekend, will allow hunting and fishing at two National Wildlife Refuges that have never allowed these activities in the past. The rule will also expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 16 other refuges. Altogether, these openings and expansions add up to 38,000 huntable and fishable acres on 18 NWRs spread across the country from Washington State to Maine. The Final Rule brings the number of NWR units that allow hunting to 436 and increases the number of units that allow fishing to 378.<\/p>\n The federal agency has published a station-specific list<\/a> of all these new opportunities. Some examples include opening turkey hunting at Turnbull Wildlife Refuge<\/a> in Washington for the first time, and opening migratory bird, upland game, and big game hunting at Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are committed to ensuring Americans of all backgrounds have access to hunting and fishing and other recreational activities on the lands and waters of the National Wildlife Refuge System,\u201d USFWS Director Martha Williams said<\/a> last week. \u201cThese regulations increase public access opportunities, better align the Service with state regulations and help to promote healthy wildlife habitats while boosting local recreational economies.\u201d<\/p>\n But even with the additional access, several major sportsmen\u2019s groups oppose the Final Rule.<\/p>\n \u201cWhile the Sportsmen\u2019s Alliance applauded the expansion of hunting and fishing on a handful of refuges,\u201d the Alliance wrote in a press release, \u201cserious concerns remain that FWS is moving forward with a lead ban without fully considering the consequences to the hunting and fishing community.\u201d<\/p>\n As for what these consequences could look like, the Alliance pointed to the higher cost of non-lead ammunition versus traditional lead core ammunition\u2014a cost difference that could keep some hunters and anglers out of the field or off the water. These groups contribute huge amounts of money to state-led conservation efforts on an annual basics, and together, they contributed a record $1.5 billion in funding<\/a> to the Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Program<\/a> last year. If hunters and anglers get priced out of their respective sports because of onerous government regulations, the Alliance and others argue, that funding source could decrease substantially.<\/p>\n These groups have also argued that there isn\u2019t enough scientific evidence to warrant a lead ban on NWR lands. They say this Final Rule is part of a broader agenda supported by the anti-hunting community\u2014with the end goal being a total ban on lead ammo and tackle on all federal lands in the U.S.<\/p>\n This is a realistic concern, especially since the USFWS issued an all-out ban on lead ammo and tackle on refuges and in national parks back in 2017. Enacted by then-USFWS director Dan Ashe during the tail end of the Obama administration, the ban was reversed only weeks later by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n The lawsuit<\/a> that was filed against the USFWS by the Center for Biological Diversity last year only adds to these concerns. Many have viewed this lawsuit as an attempt by CBD to further its anti-hunting agenda and keep hunting and fishing out of America\u2019s refuges.<\/p>\nWhat this Means for Hunters and Anglers Today<\/strong><\/h2>\n