Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) is calling on its members and supporters in Minnesota to attend a public hearing this week to express their support for the use of traditional ammunition on state wildlife management areas (WMAs).
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will hold a public hearing on a proposed lead shot ban Thursday, March 10, 6-9 p.m. at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources headquarters building in Saint Paul.
“If you are a sportsman and want to preserve your right to hunt with traditional ammunition, it’s imperative that you make your voice heard at this week’s public hearing,” said Catherine Mortensen, NRA Spokesperson. “Anti-hunting forces are waging a misinformation campaign to restrict hunting across the country. There is no sound scientific evidence that lead shot is negatively impacting wildlife populations in Minnesota. If hunters and sportsmen don’t speak up and make sure the facts are known, the public could be hood-winked into supporting a ban that negatively impacts Minnesota’s rich hunting heritage.
The proposed regulatory mandate for WMAs in the farmland zone would impose a significant burden on many of the state’s 70,000 pheasant hunters who hunt in these areas, as well as sportsmen and women who hunt wild turkey, ruffed grouse, and other small game species on what amounts to approximately 600,000 acres of public hunting land.
At the meeting, DNR will present the proposed rule, and attendees will have the opportunity to make public statements and leave written comments.
Please consider attending this forum on Thursday, March 10, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to voice your strong opposition to this proposed ban on traditional ammunition and to inform DNR that Minnesotans expect wildlife to be managed using sound scientific evidence.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4040
March 10, 2016
6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
- As we have seen with attempts to ban the use of lead ammunition in other states, arguments in favor of these bans are based on faulty science.
- To ensure proper conservation of species, wildlife must be managed with a fact-based approach.
- There has been no sound scientific evidence stating that traditional ammunition is having a population-level impact on any species in Minnesota.
- It is irresponsible to impose a government mandate for the use of alternative ammunition without basis in scientific evidence that wildlife populations are being affected.
- According to the Star Tribune, an official with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources – Jason Abraham – stated that there is no new evidence lead shot is causing problems on state wildlife areas.
- For more than a century, wildlife in the United States has been effectively managed through the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, and we have seen an incredible restoration of multiple species.
- There is an anti-hunting movement across the country to ban lead ammunition.
- Alternatives to lead ammunition come at a higher cost and can have a trickle-down effect on wildlife conservation efforts.
- Through license fees and excise taxes paid on long guns, handguns, ammunition and archery equipment, Minnesota sportsmen fund the vast majority of the Department of Natural Resources budget, and therefore wildlife conservation efforts in the state.
- This would price many hunters out of the field without sound scientific evidence that a lead shot ban is needed in order to protect wildlife populations.