External Outlet Column
By Ben Cassidy
SCI EVP of International Government and Public Affairs
Protecting hunting usually requires some education of policymakers. It is a staple of our advocacy to point out that well-intended hunting restrictions will actually harm wildlife populations, usually by cutting off the conservation funding that hunters otherwise gladly provide. This argument comes up most often in battling proposed bans on importing hunting trophies, but now it must come into play at the national level right here at home.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has just released its draft 2022-2023 Hunt Fish Rule, which proposes a modest expansion of hunting and fishing opportunities that SCI supports. But the proposal comes with a giant price tag, in the form of a sweeping ban on traditional ammunition. The rule would ban the use of lead ammunition in all new hunting opportunities, creating a precedent for a total ban on lead ammunition on federal lands. The rule would also prohibit the use of lead fishing tackle.
Wildlife management policy is based on managing population impacts, not on preventing isolated instances of harm to specific individual animals in a species. Absent sound scientific evidence demonstrating a population impact caused by the use of traditional ammunition, there is no justification for restricting or banning its use.
With very limited exceptions, such as waterfowl, there is simply no sound scientific evidence that the use by hunters of traditional ammunition is causing harm to wildlife populations. In the case of raptors, there is a total lack of any scientific evidence of a population impact. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Hunters have long used traditional ammunition, yet raptor populations have significantly increased all across North America – a trend that shows no sign of letting up. If the use of traditional ammunition was the threat to raptor populations some claim it is, these populations would not be soaring as they are.
Considering that traditional ammunition accounts for only about 5% of all domestic uses of lead, it is no surprise that traditional ammunition does not cause harm to animal populations. It is further worth noting that the lead used in ammunition is elemental, meaning its chemical structure is not altered after mining. The most damaging uses of lead that have been eliminated, such as in gasoline and paint, involved lead that was modified after mining to make it soluble, which in turn greatly increased its bio-availability for uptake by humans.
The excise tax of 11 percent that hunters pay on the sale of ammunition is the primary source of wildlife conservation funding in the United States, and the financial backbone of the North American Model of wildlife conservation. The bald eagle’s recovery, a truly great conservation success story, was made possible and funded by hunters using traditional ammunition.
A ban on traditional ammunition would have a serious negative impact on wildlife conservation. The higher cost of alternative ammunition will price everyday consumers out of the market. Needlessly restricting or banning traditional ammunition absent sound science will hurt wildlife conservation efforts as fewer hunters take to the field, thus reducing overall financial wildlife management resources.
Mandating the adoption of alternatives to traditional ammunition is simply not practical. The higher costs associated with this ammunition will price everyday consumers out of the market. This is evidenced by the low 1 percent market share of metallic non-traditional ammunition.
A study from 2008 by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on blood lead levels of North Dakota hunters confirmed that consuming game harvested with traditional ammunition does not pose a human health risk. In looking more closely at the CDC study results, perhaps most telling is the fact that the average lead level of the hunters tested was lower than that of the average American. In other words, if you were to randomly pick someone on the street, chances are they would have a higher background blood lead level than the hunters in this study.
Our CEO has issued a clarion call for hunters to band together to oppose the proposed rule. “Safari Club International will continue fighting against misguided federal restrictions and regulations on lead that have no basis in science. We call on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to remove this unwarranted poison pill from its latest Hunt-Fish rule before untold damage is done to the freedom to hunt, and to the hunting community’s access to public lands,” said SCI CEO W. Laird Hamberlin.
We urge all hunters to join us in answering this call, and we’ve made it easy for you. Just text “SCI” to 73075 to get started, or visit the Hunter Advocacy Action Center online at safariclub.org/hunter-advocacy-action-center. Make your voice heard!
