Anglers and the entire fishing industry let out a sigh of relief on Valentine’s Day when the Environmental Protection Agency led by Administrator Lisa Jackson gave a gift better than any heart shaped box of chocolates.

The EPA announced their decision to reject a second petition to ban lead in all fishing tackle. This latest petition was submitted on November 16, 2011 by The Center for Biological Diversity and several other environmental groups. The petition asked the EPA to look into and ultimately ban the use of lead in fishing tackle on all American waters under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

This is strike number two for the Center for Biological Diversity and their fellow petitioners. The same groups submitted a similar petition which was dismissed by the EPA in November 2010.

While the EPA’s decision appears to be a big win for outdoorsmen, there’s a lot of activity in congress right now which would seek to stop groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity in their tracks.

The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S. 838, HR 1558) is in the spotlight right now. It seeks to prevent a federal ban on lead in both recreational fishing tackle and traditional ammunition and helps to ensure that any future regulations on fishing tackle are established based on scientific fact instead of unjustified petitions, said to the American Sportfishing Association (ASA).

This bipartisan legislation was introduced by the co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. It is backed by nearly every major hunting and fishing organization, including the ASA, Keep America Fishing Group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and many more.

In addition, another House of Representatives bill, (H.R. 1445), The Outdoor Sports Protection Act would amend the Toxic Substance Control Act to prevent the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture from instituting new bans on the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands that are used for conservation.

This act would provide incentives for states not to ban traditional ammunition and fishing tackle by making a state that limits the use of traditional ammunition and fishing tackle ineligible for apportionment from the Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux excise taxes, notes the NSSF.

The whole situation is ironic according to officials with the NSSF. The excise tax dollars (11 percent) manufacturers pay on the sale of ammunition, the very ammunition some groups choose to demonize, is a primary source of wildlife conservation funding in the United States and the financial backbone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

The bald eagle’s recovery, a truly great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition. In fact, recent statistics from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service show that from 1981 to 2006 the number of breeding pairs of bald eagles in the United States increased 724 percent. The bald eagle is no longer listed as an endangered species and raptor populations throughout the United States are soaring, NSSF officials said.

The higher costs associated with non-traditional ammunition would price everyday consumers out of the market. This is evidenced by the low 1 percent market share of metallic non-traditional ammunition. The higher cost is simply not justified, they continued.

NSSF officials concluded their argument by stating there is no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition has an adverse impact on wildlife populations requiring a change in current regulation.

Regulating the methods and implements for the taking of game is best managed by the wildlife biologists in the state fish and game agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not the EPA.

The ASA agrees and pointed out that depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from nine to twenty times more than lead products.

They also pointed out that a federal ban on the use of lead in fishing tackle would have a significant negative impact on recreational anglers and fisheries resources, but a negligible impact on waterfowl populations, the most cited reason for the ban.

The ASA noted that America’s 60 million anglers generate more than $45 billion in retail sales with a $125 billion impact on the nation’s economy, creating employment for more than one million people.

Jeff Leonard can be reached at npsports@newspressnow.com. Follow Jeff on Twitter: @SJNPOutdoors