Since time immemorial, hunters have been the backbone of the North American conservation movement. As serious outdoorsmen, our ability to continue to enjoy hunting revolves around a healthy environment. So when, decades ago, the question arose whether or not hunters and shooters were contributing mightily to environmental degradation by using lead ammunition, we asked questions. Is there a problem, and if so, is it a big one? If it is, what’s the solution?
Of course, lead is a toxic metal, and lead poisoning is a serious condition that can be fatal. That’s why its use in products like paint and gasoline was banned decades ago. The physical properties and relative low cost of lead also make it an attractive metal for use in many products, two of which are bullets and fishing sinkers. In 1986, in response to concerns about lead poisoning in waterfowl, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) announced a ban on the use of all lead shot for waterfowl hunting on federal refuges, to begin in 1991. Interestingly, the ban was enacted not out of concern for waterfowl populations — lead poisoning was only adding an estimated 3% to the overall mortality rate — but forced by legal action because individual bald eagles, on the endangered list at the time, were dying from ingesting ducks containing lead pellets. As the years have passed, lead bans have been extended in some states to bullets and shot used in hunting, the reason given being that scavengers can get lead poisoning from eating the carcasses of game killed with lead bullets and shotgun pellets.
Today the lead vs non-lead ammunition battle continues. In summer 2023, the USFWS rejected an appeal by the anti-hunting group Center for Biological Diversity to ban lead ammunition and fishing sinkers on more than 500 million acres of federal lands. On November 17, 2023, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (www.peer.org), which describes itself as “a service organization that helps federal, state and local public employees who seek to improve environmental protection and accountability within their agencies,” filed a petition to ban the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on all property managed by the National Park Service (NPS). According to the petition, this includes more than 51 million acres open to hunting, more than 60% of the system’s land area. Then in May 2024, the U.S. House of Representative passed HR 615, dubbed the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, which specifically forbids the U.S. departments of the Interior and Agriculture from prohibiting or regulating the use of lead ammunition or fishing tackle on federal land or water that is under the jurisdiction of such departments and made available for hunting or fishing.
The primary arguments against lead bans are twofold. First, that such a ban would require alternative products that would be much more expensive and less available; and secondly, and most importantly, that such a ban has no supportable scientific data that shows that lead ammunition and fishing sinkers actually cause significant and measurable impacts on wildlife populations.
In truth, the lead ammo ban issue is not as simple as blanket-banning its use everywhere. While many species have been shown to feed on the carcasses of dead animals shot with lead ammo, birds — specifically, waterfowl and vultures, particularly the California condor — have had documented detrimental issues with lead. Unlike waterfowl and other mammal, reptile, and amphibian populations, condors are an endangered species; the loss of even one individual can have a significant effect on population recovery. There is also documentation of lead in animals ingested at or near local trap and skeet ranges, as well as old mining operations, for example. But these localized issues would best be addressed at the local level, rather than used as support for severe restrictions and/or bans on lead ammunition on a national level.
Another cry from the anti-lead ammo crowd is that eating meat shot with lead ammunition poses a serious health risk to humans. However, actual scientific research — objective reviews of peer-reviewed human medical literature — actually tells us that a person would have to ingest lead almost daily to raise your blood lead level above the acceptable threshold. In fact, one study conducted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) showed that the average lead level of the hunters tested was actually lower than the blood lead level of the average American, including non-hunters. The reality is, consuming meat harvested with lead ammunition poses no discernible health risk. Of course, all game birds and animals should be field dressed and butchered properly, with all shot-damaged meat removed and discarded before processing and cooking.
Then there is public perception. That the general non-hunting public has a high degree of empathy for individual animals is one reason why anti-hunting organizations can collect millions of dollars in donations from well-meaning but uneducated individuals through campaigns focused on “cuddly” creatures like wolves. Hunters, more in tune with the realities of Mother Nature, are more focused on population-level cause-and-effect. Going forward, it seems to make sense for hunters to become proactive in voluntarily limiting the use of lead ammunition where practical. I’d much rather take that approach than having the government banning lead ammo carte blanche just to appease the anti-hunters or to save biologically insignificant population percentages. The state of Arizona, for example, offers hunters who draw big-game tags in areas of California condor habitat a free box of non-lead rifle ammunition to use on their hunt if they choose to do so — but they can legally use whatever they wish.
What’s your take? Are your customers using non-lead ammo when they can, or is high cost the limiting factor? Drop me a note at editor@grandviewoutdoors.com, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
