Here is the bill text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3525/text
I'm confuzzled. I've read through the bill, but admit reading bills makes my eyes glaze over, so I could be missing important stuff. Here are my concerns:
1) Humane Society is pissed about this bill and is urging to not support, but I don't agree (I don't think?)
2) NRA types love it
3) it is entirely Dem sponsored
So, the HSUS is pissed because it would allow people to import polar bear carcasses from Canada. This sucks, yeah, but they have to be proven Pre-1997 or Pre-2008 with Canadian government approval. I'm not going to cry over bears who were slaughtered years ago when this bill seems to have other good things.
It removes EPA control over possible toxicities resulting from fishing equipment and spent ammunition. I don't like this.
It allows for the creation of target ranges on federal lands. I don't get this. Parks are closing and have budget cuts, and they want to allow 10% of operating budget to set these up? Is this supposed to help make money for parks? I don't really get it. I'm not too fussed about the actual ranges. People shooting at targets aren't shooting animals.
Can carry bows across federal land, but not use them. Ok, this is a bit of a what the fizzle.
But, the good parts, on paper at least. Fish habitat commission, environmental impact studies on artificial reefs/platforms being removed. Sounds good to me.
Protection for migratory birds. Again, sounds good.
The fish habitat and fisheries impact commission I'm unsure on. The commission sounds like it could over represent industry, sport fishing, and other interests that I have no interest in supporting. Native American groups get two spots. Overall, this could be good, but I'm not sure.
Overall, I'm inclined to maybe tepidly support (as in, I'll follow it's progress, but I'm not starting a letter writing campaign or anything), but maybe it's just a wash.