[HungryJack]

The bill doesn't.

Because of the legislative process and the wants of business, the dollar won over the environment again.
The original bill was changed to appease some manufacturers and now the bill accomplished little of what it was intended to do.

Does that mean the bill is wrong, NO.
The intention of the bill was to protect the waterfowl from lead, this would mean that the tackle shops would have to sell a substitute instead, and potentially suffer some sales loss, for this sacrifice, the waterfowl would benefit.
Now thanks to the legislative process, the tackle stores a suffering that sales loss and the original beneficiary of the bill, the waterfowl, will still be eating lead.

Any of this make any sense to anybody ?

 

[Scratcher]

George; I agree, the bill could have been much better. My read of it is that it was watered down by manufacturers of lead products based in NY, but that is only my guess.

If retail shops don't sell lead split-shot, but do sell a useable substitute, the result will be fewer lead split shot in the water and less of a problem with lead poisoning in diving birds.

From a wildlife protection standpoint it could have been more effective, but it probably would not have passed if no compromise were made.