NSSF is the trade association for America's firearms industry.
Our mission: To promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports.
NSSF is the trade association for America's firearms industry.
It's mission: To promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports.
Search NSSF


Safety
-
Shooting
-
Hunting
-
Research
-
Government
-
News
-
Blog
-

NSSF Responds to Inaccurate NY Times Commentary On The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012

In response to a highly inaccurate piece of commentary on the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 (S.3525) that appeared in the Tuesday edition of the New York Times and that is scheduled for U.S. Senate floor action on Nov. 26, NSSF Senior Vice President Larry Keane fired off this letter to the editor:

“The inaccuracies in “Dangerous Sport in Lawmaking” concerning the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 are so blatant that we have to question if The Times ever spoke with anyone in the Interior Department or the Senate and ask from where the misinformation came.

First, S.3525 does not end the ban against using lead ammunition to hunt waterfowl. The EPA has denied petitions to regulate tackle and all other ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act in 1994 and 2011. This legislation clarifies that state Fish and Game Agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have jurisdiction.

Second, there will be no “hunting spree” on polar bears. The legislation would do nothing more than allow a small number of trophies, taken legally in Canada prior to a 2008 ban, to be imported to their owners in the U.S.

Third, the bill provides for the Secretary of the Interior to determine when an increase in the fee for a duck stamp is warranted. Proceeds go toward wetland preservation. This is not a case of “tax and spend” abuse. The Sportsmen’s Act enjoys broad bipartisan support and is backed by 46 sportsmen and conservation groups. Passage will promote, protect and preserve our nation’s hunting, shooting and conservation heritage for generations to come.”

At this writing, several other organizations and individuals were also contacting the Times in an attempt to secure a correction of such blatant errors. S.3525 supporters wonder whether a New York Times writer was not purposely misled by one or more anti-hunting organizations seeking a way to scuttle the widely supported bi-partisan legislation.





Both comments and pings are currently closed.

5 Responses to “NSSF Responds to Inaccurate NY Times Commentary On The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012”

  1. John

    Well, it looks like you got through somewhat. Retractions online:

    An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that the
    Sportsmen’s Act would end the current ban on lead ammunition in the
    hunting of waterfowl. The ban will remain in effect, but the act
    exempts lead shot from coverage under the toxic substances law. The
    editorial also mischaracterized a provision on importing polar bear
    trophies from Canada. Such imports would be allowed only if the animals
    were killed before the species was listed as threatened, not after.

  2. Larry Keane

    Their incorrect correction. EPA never had power to regulate ammo under TSCA. Sportsmen’s Act simply clarifies that the exemption applies to components, i.e. shot, bullets. act is needed because CBD petitions and sues EPA repeatedly trying to force TSCA ban on traditional ammo. Nothing in the Act precludes USFWS or state fish & game agencies from regulating IF there is sound science of a population impact. sound science not political science….. There is of course no science to justify further restrictions let alone a ban on traditional ammo.

    Bad day for the Old Gray Lady — doing a disservice to her shrinking readership.

  3. somsai

    Instead of “firing off a letter” to anyone I simply commented on Taking Note – The Editorial Page Editors Blog. My comment is still there, I use the same username. The Editorial Page Editor called me up a couple hours later with questions, and said they’d print a correction.

    A correction so that less people are misinformed is not only my goal but also that of the NYT. Like any good journalists their goal is to be correct.

    I often read editorials in the NYT that seem slanted against hunting. We should just assume that they are urban Americans who don’t understand something that they have little experience with. Some of the guest op-eds from wolf advocates are downright non factual. Perhaps one of the bright folks working for the NSSF could pen an editorial promoting wolf management, grizzly delisting, sportsmans act passage or one of the many other issues that urban America doesn’t get the full story on.

  4. dad666

    The new york times has become a left wing propaganda garbage dusposal.

  5. Bob Honiker

    Any inaccuracies the New York Slimes publishes are likely to be intentional.