Gun rights advocates claim that the proposed ban on lead ammunition is just one piece of a broader agenda against hunting.
The Fight Over Lead Ammunition in National Wildlife Refuges
The proposed federal rule to ban lead ammunition from national wildlife refuges is causing quite a stir among Second Amendment advocates. According to them, the goal of this rule has nothing to do with protecting wildlife, but rather with pricing 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, expressed his concerns, stating, “This is a way to price outdoorsmen and women off public lands.”
The rule, proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), would open three national wildlife refuges (NWRs), which has received praise from gun groups. However, it would also prohibit the use of lead shot and lead fishing tackle in eight NWRs across five states.
Related Stories
The FWS claims that the purpose of the rule is to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. However, critics argue that the rule is based on politics rather than solid research.
Mark Jones, national director for hunter outreach for Gun Owners of America and a wildlife biologist, stated, “It is not based on science. I believe this is designed to drive up ammunition costs to discourage hunting.”
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.
However, opponents argue that the available scientific studies do not support the FWS claims that lead is a widespread danger to wildlife. Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president for government affairs, assistant secretary, and general counsel for the NSSF, wrote in a letter to the FWS, “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. The science does not support this claim.”
Furthermore, opponents point out that alternatives to lead ammunition are scarce and expensive. As much as 95 percent of all ammunition uses lead, and only about 1 percent of the alternative ammunition is centerfire rifle ammunition used in big game hunting.
The Impact on Hunters
Forcing hunters to use only alternative non-lead ammunition on NWR land puts a strain on the supply of that ammunition. This will make it more difficult and costly for hunters to pursue their passion.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...