Gun Rights Advocates Say Proposed Lead Ammo Ban Part of Larger Anti-Hunting Agenda

Young anglers fish at the Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service federal land. It's on the list of National Wildlife Refuges on which lead shot and fishing tackle would be banned if a proposed rule is adopted in September 2026. Tim Parker/usfws, Public Domain

The goal of a proposed federal rule to ban lead ammunition from national wildlife refuges has nothing to do with protecting wildlife, Second Amendment advocates say.

“This is a way to price outdoorsmen and women off public lands,” Mark Oliva, managing director for public affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearms industry, told The Epoch Times.

The rule proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on June 22 would open three national wildlife refuges (NWRs), drawing praise from the gun groups.

However, the rule would also prohibit using lead shot and lead fishing tackle in eight NWRs in five states.

They’re the Blackwater NWR and Patuxent Research Refuge in Maryland, the Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, and Wallops Island NWRs in Virginia, the Erie NWR in Pennsylvania, the Great Thicket NWR in Massachusetts, and the Rachel Carson NWR in Maine.

According to the FWS, the move is to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. But a wildlife biologist and gun rights advocate says the FWS rule is based on politics, not solid research.

“It is not based on science. I believe this is designed to drive up ammunition costs to discourage hunting,” Mark Jones, national director for hunter outreach for Gun Owners of America and a wildlife biologist with 30 years of experience, told The Epoch Times.

“I believe that’s the goal of many people.”

The FWS didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ requests for comment.

According to the FWS website, the rule, entitled “National Wildlife Refuge System: 2023-2024 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations,” is intended to protect wildlife from lead poisoning.

The FWS states that it used “the best available science” to write the rule. According to its website (pdf), wildlife is exposed to lead in many ways. This includes ingesting lead fishing tackle or residual lead shot left by hunters, or eating carrion that contains lead shot. Wildlife can also ingest soluble lead in water, soil, and manmade sources such as lead-based paint chips.

Shelves are stocked with ammunition at Lawful Defense in Gainesville, Fla., on April 19, 2023. Nanette Holt/The Epoch Times

Mr. Jones said much of the data presented comes from studies of the California Condor. According to the FWS, citing a U.S. Department of the Interior report (pdf), between 1990 and 2020, approximately half of the 213 condors that died from a known cause were killed by lead poisoning. But he said that the California Condor isn’t typical of the animals found in a NWR.

“Condors are getting access to lead from sources other than ammunition,” he said.

NSSF officials agree with Mr. Jones’s assessment.

In an Aug. 20 letter to the FWS, an NSSF official wrote that the available scientific studies don’t support FWS claims that lead is a widespread danger to wildlife.

“Decades of significant research exist on lead and wildlife. It is grossly misleading to insinuate that lead ammunition poses a danger to ‘wildlife’ as a whole,” wrote Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president for government affairs, assistant secretary, and general counsel for the NSSF.

“The science does not support this claim.”

Wildlife can ingest lead in various ways, making a one-size-fits-all ban unnecessary in many cases, say opponents of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed ban on lead ammunition in some National Wildlife Refuges. Melanie Sun/The Epoch Times

According to the letter, the FWS cites studies that use “cherry-picked samples of venison X-rayed by a veterinarian” as evidence of lead contamination in wildlife. But those studies don’t clearly link the supposed lead and any alleged poisoning. Mr. Keane wrote that the objects in the X-rays could have been something other than lead.

“No clear indication was made, only blame assigned. Reliance on this editorial and study is misplaced,” he wrote.

Mr. Keane said studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of hunters in North Dakota showed no evidence of elevated levels of lead in the blood of people who regularly consumed wild game.

This isn’t the first time that lead shot has been an issue. Lead shot was banned from waterfowl hunting in 1991. For years, ducks, coots, and other waterfowl were suspected of dying from lead poisoning.

Mr. Jones said that, in time, it became clear that was the case.

He said that, unlike raptors, ducks must ingest gravel so that their gizzards can grind up their food. According to Mr. Jones, the waterfowl would scoop up residual lead shot from the soil where hunters had been shooting.

Lead shot has been prohibited for waterfowl hunting since 1991 because wild ducks, like this Mallard, scoop up hunters' residual lead shot while they are ingesting gravel. Giorgi Tsachev/Shutterstock

Other animals don’t need to swallow gravel, so they won’t likely ingest lead in this way.

“A deer isn’t going to paw the ground and dig up spent slugs and swallow them,“ Mr. Jones said. ”Those are two very, very different situations.”

Mr. Oliva said the true objective has nothing to do with saving wildlife.

“This is a way to price outdoorsmen and women off the public lands,” he said.

Mr. Oliva said the rule will force hunters to turn to lead-free alternatives that are expensive and difficult to find.

He said that as much as 95 percent of all ammunition uses lead, with only 5 percent to 10 percent of commercially produced ammunition made up of non-lead components. Compounding the problem is that only about 1 percent of the alternative ammunition is centerfire rifle ammunition used in big game hunting.

Alternatives Are Scarce, Expensive

“Forcing all hunters on NWR land to use only alternative non-lead ammunition puts a large strain on the supply of that ammunition,” Mr. Keane’s letter reads.

Mr. Jones said that the majority of hunters depend on public land. Both men said that the rule appears to be part of a plan by anti-hunting and anti-gun forces. They said that the Obama administration had banned lead ammunition on all public lands the day before President Donald Trump took office.

President Trump’s first secretary of the interior, Ryan Zinke, rescinded that order as his first act.

Mr. Oliva and Mr. Jones say this rule is part of a plan to stop hunting on public lands.

“This [step] is more insidious. They will expand it to more and more areas,” Mr. Jones said.

Mr. Oliva pointed out that the rule hasn’t yet been set. The public comment period ended on Aug. 22. Now, the FWS will consider the public comments and determine what adjustments need to be made. He said that Mr. Keane’s letter makes clear the NSSF’s position on the issue.

“[The FWS has] presented no site-specific, peer-reviewed evidence that traditional ammunition is causing any harm. They’re trying to ban traditional lead ammunition with no scientific evidence,” Mr. Oliva said.

Mr. Jones said that the public’s position on the rule should be clear by GOA’s calculations. He noted that FWS had received 18,564 comments by the deadline. According to GOA records, 17,608 were from GOA members and supporters opposed to the rule.

“We know that at least 95 percent are opposed,” Mr. Jones said.