Why It Matters: Decisions about ammunition use affect sportsmen and women and wildlife conservation. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) supports addressing documented wildlife concerns through targeted management and proven-successful, voluntary, and incentive-based programs rather than blanket restrictions, should changes in hunter behavior be supported by science.
Highlights:
- President Trump’s September 17 Executive Order directs federal agencies to propose changes, consistent with applicable law, to permit traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle.
- Ammunition and fishing tackle policy should reflect demonstrated conservation needs and account for practical considerations, including affordability and availability.
- CSF supports voluntary and incentive-based approaches that have been proven successful in several states when science clearly demonstrates population-level impacts on fish and wildlife.
President Trump’s September 17 Executive Order, Reinvigorating America’s Hunting Heritage, directs specified federal agencies to propose policy or regulatory changes within 180 days, consistent with applicable law, including changes to permit traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle. The directive does not itself repeal existing restrictions, but it provides an opportunity to examine how federal ammunition and fishing tackle policies are developed, applied, and evaluated.
CSF has long called for restrictions to be supported by scientific evidence of detrimental population-level impacts and tailored to the affected species and geographic area. Where intervention is justified, management should address the identified concern rather than impose sweeping restrictions across otherwise distinct hunting opportunities.
Maintaining hunter choice also recognizes the range of ammunition products available for different firearms and pursuits. While alternatives to lead ammo and tackle are critical to have in the market, affordability and availability of these alternatives should also help inform decisions regarding restrictions on the use of lead ammo and tackle and the associated impacts on sportsmen. As such, voluntary, incentive-based programs are a critical tool that recognizes these factors while also addressing conservation concerns where sound science warrants encouraging its use. Affordability and availability should inform these discussions, particularly when a proposed requirement would compel hunters and anglers to change products or potentially stop participating.
For some firearm chamberings, viable alternatives to lead ammunition may be unavailable, leaving hunters unable to continue using those firearms under a sweeping ban. The cost of replacing firearms or purchasing more expensive ammunition could also discourage participation. Reduced participation could diminish hunting license revenue, while fewer ammunition purchases could reduce excise tax receipts that support wildlife conservation. Lower license revenue could also limit a state fish and wildlife agency’s ability to provide the required nonfederal match for Pittman-Robertson funds, potentially leaving available federal dollars unused. These funding losses could reduce habitat management and other conservation work, consequences that should be weighed against the perceived benefits of any proposed restriction.
Existing requirements, including nontoxic shot requirements for waterfowl hunting, remain in effect. As agencies implement the Executive Order, CSF will continue advocating for conservation policies that protect hunting and fishing opportunities and allow for sportsmen and women to determine their preferred methods of take.