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: Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
Target Audience
Population: Hunters and anglers
Estimated Size: 20000000
- Hunters and anglers are the primary users of lead ammunition and tackle on federal lands and waters.
- Lead ammunition and tackle are commonly used by hunters and anglers across the United States.
- Federal lands and waters are significant for hunting and fishing activities in the U.S., impacting a substantial number of people who utilize these resources.
- The bill impacts those who specifically hunt or fish on lands managed by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture.
- The number of individuals who hunt and fish on federal lands in the U.S. can serve as a baseline to estimate the impacted population.
Reasoning
- Hunters and anglers who frequently use federal lands are directly impacted by this policy, as it relates to the regulations on their equipment.
- The potential for increased lead pollution due to relaxed regulations could affect ecological health, indirectly impacting the wellbeing of those who value environmental quality.
- Some hunters and anglers may prefer non-lead alternatives due to environmental consciousness, so this policy might not equally benefit all.
- The policy does not address the production or market availability of alternative non-lead ammunition, which can influence individual decisions regardless of regulatory changes.
- People living near federal lands may have concerns about increased lead pollution affecting local wildlife and water quality.
Simulated Interviews
Wildlife Conservationist (Montana)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could harm local wildlife as lead contamination can be deadly to various species.
- As a wildlife conservationist, I prefer regulations that protect ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Professional Angler (Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows flexibility in choosing my tackle, reducing costs which is beneficial.
- However, I sometimes use non-lead due to potential environmental impacts.
- Overall, it might be good for current practice but could have longer-term environmental consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Subsistence Hunter (Alaska)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I need unrestricted access to affordable ammunition for hunting.
- I understand conservation needs, but family sustenance is my priority.
- The policy supports my immediate needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Ecologist (California)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More lead can threaten local biodiversity over time, which is concerning.
- From an ecological standpoint, I favor regulations to minimize lead use.
- However, I understand some individuals may benefit economically from this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Recreational Fisherman (Florida)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I will continue using non-lead tackle regardless of legal permissibility.
- The policy has little impact on me personally but could raise environmental concerns over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Outdoor Guide (Maine)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My clients might prefer the cost savings on lead ammunition.
- However, educating hunters on sustainable practices is also crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Fish and Game Officer (Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It may become more challenging to advocate for wildlife health with this policy in place.
- We need to balance hunter benefits with ecosystem protections.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Environmental Educator (Arizona)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The educational focus will be on the potential impacts of lead.
- Long-term health of ecosystems outweighs short-term economic benefits, in my view.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Rancher (Idaho)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hunting is a crucial part of our lifestyle, economically and culturally.
- The policy's relaxation on lead might be beneficial, but I remain cautious about environmental claims against lead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Sport Hunter (Wyoming)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy supports my hunting preferences and maintains tradition.
- I'm not particularly worried about lead's environmental impact, though I understand it's a concern for some.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill maintains current practices for lead use on federal lands unless significant negative impacts are detected.
- Monitoring programs will need to be adequately funded to identify wildlife declines caused by lead use.
- State cooperation is necessary where regulations are proposed based on findings.
- Communicating changes or exceptions effectively to hunters and anglers is crucial to ensure compliance.