Post Punk Kitchen Forum

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.

Thought? Opinions?

My eyes tend to glaze over too, when trying to read legislative language, but it sounds to me as if it's really just a bill to broaden access of wild lands for hunting and fishing. And when looking for opinions online, I found this blog post, which seems to read it the same way.

That's what is confusing me--I'm not really reading that in the bill. I'll try getting through the text again later.

From my reading, it sounds like the expansion is specifically for target and artillery ranges, not hunting. And the fisheries section, while leaving open possible expansion, equally seems to leave open limitations.

But, it's clearly an alternate universe when you have the democrats and NRA lined up together all happy and lovey dovey.