Protecting Access to Traditional Ammunition
Defending Science-Based Policy and Hunters’ Rights to Use Traditional Ammunition
Hunters and anglers are the backbone of wildlife conservation in America. They fund state wildlife agencies, steward millions of acres of habitat, and have brought iconic species back from the brink of extinction.
But government overreach and coordinated anti-hunting litigation threatens to strip hunters and anglers of access to traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle. These attacks are not based on the best available science, but reflect a backdoor strategy to make hunting more difficult, more expensive, and ultimately, less accessible.
SCI strongly opposes broad, scientifically unsupported bans on traditional lead ammunition and will continue to fight in Congress, in federal agencies, in state legislatures and commissions, and in the courts to protect every hunter’s right to choose to use traditional ammunition.
Anti-Hunting Activists Are Using Regulation, Litigation, and Misinformation to Ban Lead Ammunition
The campaign against traditional ammunition operates on three fronts:
- The Regulatory Threat
Anti-hunting organizations have repeatedly petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to phase out lead ammunition on National Wildlife Refuges and other federal lands. While the Service is prohibited from enacting a national ban under Secretarial Order 3447, future administrations may not be so inclined to protect hunters’ access and right to choose, or could leave open the possibility of refuge-by-refuge and state-by-state phase-outs — a piecemeal approach that could result in a de facto national ban over time.
- The Legal Threat
Anti-hunting litigants have pursued novel legal theories to challenge the use of traditional lead ammunition on public lands — including attempts to apply federal pollution laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act to hunting. These groups also challenge federal decisions not to impose bans on traditional lead ammunition — even decisions that are strongly supported by state wildlife agencies. Every lawsuit is another attempt to establish a legal precedent that could open the floodgates to future restrictions.
- The State Threat
On the state level, anti-hunting activists have urged legislatures and wildlife commissions to introduce bans on use of traditional lead ammunition and tackle on public and even on private lands. These efforts rely on misinformation campaigns, especially on claims that scientific data demonstrates negative impacts from lead ammunition to human health, and that data shows widespread harm to wildlife populations. Those claims are false and only conflate information regarding different types of lead. There is no research showing that use of lead ammunition raises lead levels above those considered safe by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Activist claims are simply conflating the different types of lead and risk reducing hunter access and state conservation funding.
Restricting Traditional Ammunition Harms Hunters, Public Access, and Conservation Funding
Access and Affordability
Lead alternatives are not as widely available as proponents claim, particularly in rural communities and for less common calibers. They are also consistently much more expensive. For new and novice hunters and those in rural communities, a ban on traditional ammunition is not merely an inconvenience. It is a barrier to participation. Every additional obstacle shrinks the hunting community, weakening both conservation funding and the political constituency that protects the freedom to hunt.
- New, novice, and rural hunters face the greatest harm from ammunition restrictions.
- Lead alternatives are neither as readily available nor as affordable as proponents assert.
- Bans diminish hunting as a wildlife management tool by reducing participation and access.
Conservation Funding at Risk
Hunters, anglers, and recreational shooters are the largest supporters of wildlife conservation in America. By paying excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and hunting equipment levied by the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, the hunting community has generated more than $12 billion in conservation funding. This funding is in addition to the substantial hunting license and permit fees paid directly to the states. Reducing hunter participation and ammunition purchases by banning or restricting traditional ammunition directly undermines both sides of this funding pipeline.
- The Pittman-Robertson Act has generated over $12 billion for conservation since 1937.
- A decrease in traditional ammunition purchases translates directly to lost conservation dollars.
Science, Not Emotion, Should Drive Policy
The assumption that lead ammunition broadly and uniformly harms wildlife and human health is not supported by scientific consensus. Blanket bans are not a science-based response to a defined, documented problem. They are ideologically driven policies dressed up in scientific language. SCI supports voluntary programs, education, and further research where warranted. SCI strongly opposes sweeping federal and state mandates that are driven by anti-hunting agendas rather than sound wildlife management.
SCI’s Approach: Fight Backdoor Bans with Science-Based Policy via:
Legislative Action
• SCI supports the passage of the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2025 (H.R. 556/S. 547), which would prevent federal agencies from restricting access to traditional ammunition and fishing tackle without a clear and science-based justification and the acquiescence of the relevant state wildlife agency.
Regulatory Action
• Support Secretarial Order 3447, which prohibits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from adopting restrictions on lead ammunition or tackle except in limited, scientifically supported situations. However, this Order remains vulnerable to future repeal, underscoring the critical need for Congressional action to establish a durable, long-term framework to protect access to traditional ammunition and fishing tackle.
• Oppose refuge-by-refuge or state-by-state phase-outs designed to circumvent the need for a science-based national standard. Instead, SCI supports legislation that would preempt fragmented approaches and establish a consistent, science-based policy nationwide.
In-House Legal Defense
• Continue to intervene in litigation that seeks to weaponize environmental law — including pollution statutes like RCRA — against traditional hunting practices on public lands.
• Successfully defend traditional ammunition use in multiple courts and continue to do so.
Education and State-Level Advocacy
• Support voluntary, education-based programs that inform hunters about ammunition choices without mandating them.
• Engage in state legislatures and wildlife commissions to defeat proposed bans through testimony, grassroots advocacy, and science-based education, as SCI successfully did in Maryland in 2025 and 2026.
Get Involved!
Contact Your Legislators — Tell Congress to pass H.R. 556/S. 547 and protect access to traditional ammunition. Visit https://safariclub.org/haac.
Join SCI — Become a member and add your voice to the largest hunter-funded advocacy organization in the world.
