This release from Public Employees for Environmental Ethics (below) distresses. Salazar needs to have a long chat with NPS public relations people. Their original release was so vague and mealy-mouthed that, had I not already been in touch with NPS staff, I’d have had no idea what the agency intended to do. The passage that PEER quotes certainly makes it sound like NPS is throwing in the towel. Apparently, agency PR folks suffer under the delusion that tip-toeing and mumbling incoherently will somehow sooth the National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and other whacko, paranoid outfits that see the environmental movement as a plot to take away their guns. As we have seen, this approach only sets them routing and sniffing, whipping them up further.

However, I feel much better today after speaking with a very good person at NPS--Bert Frost, associate director for natural resource stewardship and science, who is the boss of a another very good NPS person, Elaine Leslie. See: www.sltrib.com/Opinion/ci_11960984

Here’s what Bert Frost told me: “2010 is a goal. For sure we’ll have our internal processes done before that. And we’ll begin to work on the regulations or NEPA process and whatever we need to do before that. [God, do we really need to do environmental review to study the effect of NOT festooning our land and water with neurotoxin? Don’t blame NPS for that.] As much as we can get done by 2010, that’s great. But we’re not going to force something because we know we have to have public involvement, an open and thoughtful process. And we know there are significant challenges, especially in Alaska. But we WILL work toward the ultimate goal of becoming lead free. If that happens by 2010 that’s great, but we’re not going to kill ourselves over it. We need to err on the side of caution in not putting pollutants into the environment, both for wildlife and human health. As a leader in conservation we should be setting an example…. To say we’re going to do it by 2010 is disingenuous. But to say that we’re not going to do it at all is also disingenuous.”

Here’s the PEER release:

NATIONAL PARK LEAD AMMO BAN IN DOUBT
NRA Goes Ballistic on Gun-Shy Obama Administration

Washington, DC - The National Park Service has stepped back from a plan it announced earlier this month to ban lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle by 2010, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The proposed lead ban triggered a fierce counterattack by gun groups that has put into doubt the pledge to eliminate lead ammunition from the park system by 2010.

On March 4, 2009, Acting National Park Service (NPS) Director Daniel Wenk sent out an internal directive that the agency would outlaw the use of lead in firearms, fishing and hunting by "December 31, 2010 or sooner." Wenk wrote that he had issued instructions that a "Special Regulation" be drafted "prohibiting the use of lead in hunting and fishing activities for those parks that authorize such activities". Hunting is permitted in 60 NPS units and fishing in widely allowed throughout the national park system.

Reaction from hunting groups after the lead ban was publicly announced was immediate and sharp. For example, National Rifle Association chief lobbyist Chris Cox said on March 12th:

"The NPS announcement demonstrates either complete ignorance or complete arrogance as to the effect that this policy will have on hunters…This policy, and the lack of communication in advance with the sportsmen's community, is a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of people who will want to hunt ….The NRA will continue to be a voice of opposition against this unnecessary action…"

Shortly thereafter, on March 18 NPS issued a "Clarification" that steps back from the vow of a ban:

"In the future, we will look at the potential for transitioning to non-lead ammunition and non-lead fishing tackle for recreational use by working with our policy office and appropriate stakeholders/groups. This will require public involvement, comment, and review."

"This lead ban is an early test of whether the Obama administration will be guided by science or politics in setting environmental policy," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, whose organization is preparing a rulemaking petition to accomplish the no-lead policy if the NPS plan remains in limbo. "We urge the Obama administration to keep with its original timeline of going lead-free by 2011."

The Park Service "Get-the-Lead-Out!" plan emanated from within the agency without a clear political patron. The new administration is already struggling with how to handle a controversial NRA-backed repeal of rules against carrying loaded firearms in all national parks and wildlife refuges.

The reason for a ban is the harm to wildlife from ingestion of spent lead shot, bullets or sinkers, as well as the danger of dissolved lead contaminating groundwater. In 1991, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service banned lead shot nationwide in waterfowl hunting. Several countries, including Canada, have lead ammunition bans. Last year, California adopted a partial ban while in Minnesota the NRA blocked a legislative effort to outlaw lead ammunition.

"The issue with non-lead ammo is cost. There are readily available alternatives, such as tungsten, copper, and steel, but they are a little more expensive," added Ruch, commenting that hunting has not decreased in states or countries that restrict lead ammunition. "It is obviously not a good idea to pump loads of lead into the environment, let alone across national parks."

###