The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a proposed rule this week to phase out lead ammunition and fishing tackle on eight national wildlife refuges by September 2026. If accepted, it would impact the Blackwater, Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, Great Thicket, Rachel Carson, and Wallops Island refuges, as well as the Patuxent Research Refuge.
In the rule, the FWS notes that “the best available science, analyzed as part of this proposed rulemaking, indicates that lead ammunition and tackle have negative impacts on both wildlife and human health.”
Many sportsmen advocacy groups, however, question the application of the science alluded to in the rule, and have expressed concerns that it would open the door to more sweeping lead-ammo bans.
“Serious concerns remain that FWS is moving forward with a lead ban without fully considering the consequences to the hunting and fishing community,” wrote the Sportsman’s Alliance in September, when it was first announced that the FWS would follow through with the ban.
While there’s the well-known case of the California condor, which was nearly brought to extinction by lead poisoning, and an increasing body of knowledge suggesting impacts on raptors that scavenge hunter gut piles, opponents argue that lead bans should be the result of localized needs and implemented at the state level. For a federal ban to be enacted, they contend that there must be a demonstrated negative impact at the population-wide scale, rather than individual cases of lead poisoning. But as of now, there is little evidence that lead poisoning from hunters has a significant population-level impact on any wildlife in the United States.
“CSF and partners have not received clear, definitive science that warrants restrictions within the eight identified refuges,” writes the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “If substantiated scientific data determines a causational relationship between the use of traditional ammunition or fishing tackle and local fish and wildlife population health, states already have the inherent ability and resources necessary to quickly implement regulations on methods of take.”
Jim Heffelfinger provides an example of what that might look like in a MeatEater article on separating science from advocacy: “If there is a lot of prairie dog shooting in a certain valley, and it happens to be a raptor migration corridor, we may have a local problem that has to be managed. State, provincial, or tribal wildlife agencies can address that local issue first with education and voluntary efforts to switch to non-lead ammunition and then with local regulation if needed.”
On the flip side, however, hunters and anglers have always been at the forefront of conservation efforts, and many have already switched to non-leaded ammo and tackle as a personal decision. Lead rifle ammunition unquestionably leaves minuscule fragments in game (see this video by Wisconsin DNR), but most hunters can remove it all with careful processing.
In terms of the effectiveness of lead vs. copper ammo, MeatEater has broken it down multiple times (read this article by Patrick Durkin or watch this video), and conclusions are the same: both kill animals. While copper bullets might not induce as much hydrostatic shock as lead, with a well-placed shot they are equally as lethal, and copper doesn’t break apart in the animal.
As a downside, copper ammo is significantly more expensive than lead, which could be a prohibitive setback for some hunters. Perhaps the most convincing argument for copper, though, comes at a personal level. A Montana hunter, in an interview with the editor of Montana Outdoor magazine, said of his family, “We eat venison because we want healthy, organic meat. Why would we want to knowingly add lead to that?”
Backcountry Hunters & Anglers echoed that sentiment.“BHA encourages sportsmen and women to consider the voluntary use of non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle, however, we believe that decisions about their use should be made on a case-by-case basis—and that blanket regulations be imposed only when circumstances clearly demand them,” the group said in a press release. (It should also be noted that the proposed rule will open new hunting opportunities on three refuges, and BHA along with all aforementioned groups concurrently commended the FWS for said action.)
Meanwhile, some members of the U.S. Congress are pushing separate legislation that would prohibit lead ammo bans on public land. Last week, the House Natural Resource Committee passed the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act, prohibiting the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior from banning the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on federal lands and waters unless “a decline in wildlife population at the specific unit of Federal land or water is primarily caused by the use of lead in ammunition or tackle based on field data from the specific unit of Federal land or water.” The bill is being spearheaded by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and its fate remains to be seen.
For now, it’s out with the lead—on the eight proposed refuges in the rule, that is. But the proposed rule is open to public comment through August 22. Click here to leave a comment.
