U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it’s time to ban lead ammo, fishing tackle on federal lands

By on January 25, 2017 with 5 Comments By Wayne Pacelle

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last week announced a far-reaching, conservation-minded, and science-based action on the eve of the presidential inauguration – establishing a new policy to phase out the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle by January 2022 on more than 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuges and other agency lands and waterways. The policy is designed to stop the needless, incidental poisoning of millions of wild animals each year by lead that’s left behind in the routine pursuit of these field sports.

As the primary wildlife manager on tens of millions of acres of federal lands, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has a statutory duty to act to protect and conserve wildlife, and that’s what it did by establishing the new policy. The beauty of the decision is, there are field-tested and cost-competitive alternatives in the marketplace, and absolutely no compelling reason not to require hunters and fishers to switch to these alternative metals.

We’ve known for thousands of years that lead is a deadly toxin, yet it’s only in recent decades that we’ve taken it out of gasoline, paint, and other substances. The lingering effects of lead pipes still pose hazards for communities, as we have seen in the ongoing crisis in Flint, Michigan, and the larger debate over crumbling infrastructure in the United States. Why wouldn’t we also move to get lead out of the wildlife management profession, especially now that there are ready alternatives available to every single hunter and fisherman?

In 2014, The HSUS and other wildlife groups joined with some rank-and-file sportsmen to petition the Department of the Interior to require the use of nontoxic ammunition when a firearm is discharged on federal lands managed by the National Park Service and the FWS. The director’s order issued last week has the potential to take a big bite out of lead use, if it’s actually implemented and not scuttled by President Trump’s new leaders at the agency or by Congress.

Hunters deposit tens of thousands of tons of lead in our environment, and it is estimated that between 10 and 20 million birds and other animals—including more than 130 species—die each year from lead poisoning. That’s a staggering toll, and an entirely preventable one.

Scientists have called lead ammunition the “greatest, largely unregulated source of lead knowingly discharged into the environment in the United States.” Since it breaks into fragments upon impact, lead inevitably makes its way into the food chain as animals feed off carcasses left in the field by hunters. Hunting families are at risk too, since the meat from animals shot and cooked for the table can contain tiny lead shards. Children are especially vulnerable and even low levels of lead in their bodies can adversely impact their health for life.

Lead alternatives are readily available, and comparably priced copper and steel ammunition outperform lead and do not keep killing days, weeks, and months after leaving the gun. In 1991, FWS required the use of non-lead shot for the hunting of waterfowl nationwide and within just 10 years, researchers found significant improvements in the blood and bone lead levels in a variety of waterfowl species. The use of nontoxic shot reduced the mortality of mallards by 64 percent, and saved approximately 1.4 million ducks in a single fall flight.

Individual states, recognizing the negative impact of lead, have acted to remove lead sources from their forests. Last year, New Hampshire phased out the use of lead fishing sinkers and jigs weighing less than one ounce in order to help protect loon populations in that state. In 2013, California became the first state in the nation to phase out the use of lead ammunition for the taking of all wildlife, with a deadline of 2019 for completing the transition.

But here is a case where the NRA and other hunting groups have a knee-jerk reaction, sacrificing the principles of conservation, public and environmental health, and animal welfare as a matter of personal expediency. Some hunters are familiar with lead, and they may be resistant to change, and the NRA wants to give them a free pass.

We didn’t just leave it up to drivers to choose lead-based fuel or non-lead. We mandated unleaded fuel because it was safer for our society; it protected people from dying. And we didn’t let paint manufacturers decide when and how to get rid of lead. We treated it as a national priority. If you care about wildlife, and don’t want ammunition to keep killing long after it’s left the barrel, it’s time to ban the use of lead ammunition.

Sport hunters often cite the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, and he’s recently been invoked as an inspiration by the incoming Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke. But too often sport hunters treat President Roosevelt and his commitment to conservation as a talking point or a historical artifact. They cast the idea of sacrifice and the common good as part of a scheme to erode their rights, and not as part of their duty to uphold the principles for which Roosevelt stood as a conservationist. Here is their test: you’ve got alternatives to lead and you know that lead kills wild animals by the millions. Show us that you treat conservation as a continuing commitment and not an abstraction or a word that you just discharge without any real meaning or force, and register your own support for this vital new policy.

Public Policy (Legal/Legislative), Wildlife/Marine Mammals

Subscribe to the Blog

Enter your email address below to receive updates each time we publish new content.


Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Nancy nice says:

    What we do not need is to deposit more poisons and heavy metals into our environment. If there is an alternative what is the problem?

  2. Evelyn Pendall says:

    This is a criminal act against nature and it’s living beings and MUST BE OUTLAWED! it’s unnatural and a toxic poison for God’s sake!! What ever happened to our laws protection for animals, I’m sure it’s not good for human consumption either.

  3. from the Land of miniature dictators says:

    This was done arbitrarily without seeking the opinion of the people. This has become the bane in the American system. MOB rule by the ruling Executive Flavor of the cycle, needs to stop(Couldn’t stand when Bush did it and Obama was just as bad). Folks who believe they have the Moral Authority to dictate to the rest of the people simply because they yell the loudest. Right or left, this is wrong! If you cannot pass Operating procedure and/or legislation in the light of day, then you are wrong! Outdoorsman have as much rights to that land as you simple minded sheep who will follow your leaders over the proverbial cliff. Fact is, Hunting and fishing is the #1 way that these parks are financed. Also, don’t try the straw man argument that Taxes do because us Outdoorsmen pay taxes as well. So we are hit twice just to enjoy that same land. Most of folks that are for this mess, destroy the land and cost the taxpayer just as much as lead by making picnic area’s and playground area’s(Destroying habitat for your convenience), starting fires that lead to thousands of acres of destroyed habitat) although as a conservationist I believe this can actually be good for a tract of land, search and rescue of those who are lost or injured(Huge cost to the taxpayer), your trash and liter(even putting it in the trash can, it can blow out genius!). So keep in mind, no one has the upper hand here. We can all use the land without trying to make a political mess out of it. Just keep in mind, this will continue from both sides at this point. Folks like myself who don’t fall into Red or Blue are being railroaded by political ideologies that could give a hoot about the regular individual. I am not a collective, I don’t prescribe to the fundamental change Mr. Obama spoke of and I believe America is already Great(serious issues we need to deal with but nothing that is impossible if we act in good faith towards one another). Now whats the Alternative? Copper based alloys? Now if you read very closely about these alloys, they can be construed by the folks of the Green agenda, as just as hazardous as Lead(Zinc, Chemicals used to make the Copper Alloy). What then? Ban hunting with Firearms? If we allow this without a proper replacement for those using lead. It will happen again and again. This is about a political agenda, Gun Haters and those that care more for animals than their fellow man(I mean that too, there are folks who advocate for animals and in the same breath, ask for more abortions). These are not morally superior people. They are just as flawed as any of the rest of us. While I may disagree with you folks, I would never advocate for the removal of your rights. Thanks for listening and have a great day.

    • Bruce Stell says:

      Where do you think lead and copper come from the moon? they come out of the ground!!!!

      • ALS says:

        I agreed with last two posts.

        The ban was just a slam to the gunowner’s and/or hunters. Sounds to me that it’s all based on “junk science”.
        Eventually, they’ll determine that steel, copper, brass, zinc….will also kill animals. Oh wait… that’s what they use to make all bullets, including lead! These bans are to control people, and control them only….eventually to lead to all ammunition confiscation. (without ammo, the people’s guns are no longer a danger to a tyrantical government!)
        It also will lead to making the majority of hunting firearms, obsolete.
        These firearms were designed to be used with lead ammunition. Things like steel amunition will ruin these older firearms. (not to mention that the majority are not near as accurate or as effective with non-lead bullets.)

        By the way, how were they able to get permission from all the animals they did their tests to? I don’t know any wild animal that will hold still long enough for a blood test! (so they could test lead levels) Most were probably already shot by hunters who volunteered to have their game tested. (of course, those animals were already shot dead….and not dead from lead poisoning).
        I am suspect of all this data, and it sounds like “junk science” to me!
        Sorry, I just don’t agree.
        There are better ways, to manage and protect our wildlife, and the environment, than to split hairs over lead ammunition bans.

        If you want to make a difference….
        To save and protect our environment and it’s wildlife, reduce air and water polution. Save our forests (as opposed to mowing them down to build highways, parking lota, or housing developements!).
        Our country is becoming over populated. When people over populate, then wildlife will lose it’s habitat.
        We lose more wildlife due to loss of habitat and vehicle deaths, than lead ammunition!

Share a Comment

The HSUS encourages open discussion, and we invite you to share your opinion on our issues. By participating on this page, you are agreeing to our commenting policy.
Please enter your name and email address below before commenting. Your email address will not be published.