Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2022
Description: This bill bars the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture from prohibiting or regulating the use of lead ammunition or tackle on federal land or water that is under the jurisdiction of such departments and made available for hunting or fishing. The bill makes exceptions for specified existing regulations and where the applicable department determines that a decline in wildlife population at the specific unit of federal land or water is primarily caused by the use of lead in ammunition or tackle, based on the field data from such unit, and the state approves the regulations.
Sponsors: Rep. Wittman, Robert J. [R-VA-1]
Target Audience
Population: People who hunt or fish on U.S. federal lands
Estimated Size: 55300000
- The bill affects individuals who hunt or fish on federal lands as it concerns the use of lead ammunition and tackle.
- According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were 39.7 million licensed anglers in the United States in 2020.
- There were approximately 15.2 million hunters in the United States in 2020 according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
- The overall number of hunters and anglers is a good approximation of those impacted by this legislation since they are the primary users of lead tackle and ammunition.
- Globally, the number of hunters and anglers is larger, but this U.S. bill directly impacts those who utilize U.S. federal lands for these activities.
Reasoning
- The target population is mainly U.S. hunters and anglers who use federal lands. Given the large number of hunters and anglers, only a subsection of these around federal lands would be directly impacted.
- People living near or who frequently use federal lands for hunting and fishing are more likely to be affected by this policy. They form a specific demographic that might vary in terms of socioeconomic status, culture, and interaction with nature.
- Many hunters and anglers are likely to support the policy as it protects the use of traditional lead-based equipment, although there might be environmental concerns from others.
- The diversity in opinions will likely range based on perceived environmental impacts, cost of transitioning to non-lead alternatives, and personal values regarding wildlife conservation.
- Budget constraints make it essential to focus the policy's initial communication and engagement efforts on regions with high usage of federal hunting and fishing lands.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am glad this policy allows the continued use of lead ammunition. Switching to alternatives can be expensive and less effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Wildlife Biologist (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy overlooks important environmental impacts of lead. We need stricter regulations, not fewer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 9 |
Retired veteran (Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lead ammunition is part of the tradition, and it's cost-effective. But I'm open to alternatives if they don't break the bank.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Idaho)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is detrimental for wildlife. We should be moving towards banning lead, not the opposite.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired fisherman (Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential to keep using lead tackle. New materials haven't proven to be as effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Elementary School Teacher (New York)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't hunt or fish, but any policy that might harm the environment concerns me greatly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Fishing Guide (Michigan)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cost of replacing lead tackle could impact my business significantly. However, I'd support it for the sake of cleaner waters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Lawyer (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy rightly supports our hunting culture by allowing the use of effective lead ammunition.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Freelance Photographer (Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Photographing wildlife in pristine conditions is important to me. Lead poses a silent risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Tour Guide (Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The regulation seems necessary for some wildlife populations that we often show tourists.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill will likely have limited direct fiscal impact, mainly concerning management and enforcement modification costs.
- Wildlife and environmental implications due to lead use continue to be a minor consideration within this legislative context, but indirect costs might arise if states adopt compensatory regulations.
- The policy affects approximately 55 million hunters and anglers, emphasizing the significant demographic reach of the legislation.