Lead Ban Would Undermine True Conservation, Outdoor Access
Fishing and hunting are cherished pastimes enjoyed by millions each year. But a perennial effort to ban lead would make it harder for Americans to recreate on our public lands.
Despite touting hook and bullet activities, the Biden administration is potentially settling with Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) to undo the expansion of 2.2 million National Wildlife Refuge lands opened in 2020 to new hunting and fishing opportunities. More troubling, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may cede to the radical organization’s demands to ban lead use under the guise of protecting endangered or threatened species. A bill from Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) similarly echoes this goal.
With more Americans finding refuge in the Great Outdoors in response to the pandemic, however, this shortsighted effort would roll back these monumental gains.
Lead opponents accuse sportsmen and women, the nation’s most dedicated conservationists and stewards, of endangering wildlife while recreating on public lands. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Nevertheless, the group is intentionally misleading the public by conflating lead poisoning with metallic lead components contained in traditional ammunition.
Assessing blood lead levels (PbB) is key to determining the harmful effects of lead fragments. What does the available science currently suggest? The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends adults maintain a PbB under 10 micrograms per deciliter (µg/dl).
A 2008 study jointly released by the North Dakota Health Department and CDC assessed blood lead levels of participants who consumed and didn’t consume game meat. When accounting for variables, it found the control group participants who ate wild game “had 0.30 µg/dl higher PbB in comparison with those who did not consume wild game.” That’s statistically insignificant. Moreover, a similar Health and Human Services (HHS) study from Wisconsin found lead poisoning doesn’t result “from ingestion of lead bullet fragments in large game animals.”
In 2014, the U.S. District Court of Appeals dismissed a case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because the agency “lacked statutory authority to regulate bullets and shot” under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Since lead bullets and tackle dominate the market, prohibiting their sale will adversely affect participation in hook and bullet activities.
California banned lead a few years ago, and the effects have been devastating since its implementation. A Southwick Associates report determined a ban would adversely impact anglers in the Golden State, leading to a net loss of 2 million angler days and $173 million in lost expenditures — namely over 2,000 jobs lost. With respect to California hunters, the lead ban is expected to force upwards of 36 percent of license holders to “stop hunting or reduce their participation.”
Europe has similarly toyed with the notion too, with grim predictions for hunting forecasted. A 2021 study revealed a quarter of European hunters across 30 countries will stop hunting altogether if a ban was enacted.
One estimate suggests switching to non-lead alternatives would cost 10 to 20 times more in expenses compared to traditional options. Without a doubt, pricing families and individuals out of these activities is intentional to keep sportsmen and women off public lands.
What anti-lead preservationists fail to concede in their banning quest: If lead is banned and participants forgo fishing and hunting, conservation funding will suffer as a result.
Last year, the Department of Interior had a record-breaking $1.5 billion haul for conservation funding, largely derived from excise taxes collected on guns, ammunition, and fishing tackle.
Funding for habitat restoration, wildlife conservation, and hunter education is largely dependent on excise taxes collected on firearms, ammunition, fishing tackle, licenses, and archery.
With respect to guns and ammo, the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 levies an 11 percent tax on ammunition and rifles and a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers. Under the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950, fishing gear is taxed at 10 percent.
North Carolina State University’s College of Natural Resources determined 60- 80% of excise taxes from firearms, ammunition, and angling equipment provides funding for state wildlife agencies.
Given the economic footprint of the aforementioned outdoor activities, compounded by an ammunition shortage and supply-chain issues befalling the U.S., restricting usage of lead would kill these beloved activities and keep public lands access out of reach to regular Americans.
Grifters waging disinformation campaigns have no business lecturing anglers and hunters, those closest to nature and wildlife, about their lead purchases given unsubstantiated fears. Let consumers decide to eat wild game harvested by lead bullets and continue to leave no trace behind when hitting the water.
Gabriella Hoffman is a Young Voices Contributor and host of the District of Conservation podcast. Follow her on Twitter at @Gabby_Hoffman.
