Special Section on Lead Ammunition

The toxic effects on wildlife of lead ingested from spent hunting ammunition have long posed a conservation challenge for wildlife biologists, managers, and hunters. Lead has many properties that have contributed to it being the material of choice for ammunition manufacturers, among them being its density and affordability. However, the toxic effects of lead ingestion on wildlife have also been documented for well over a century and The Wildlife Society (TWS) has long had a position statement on the effects of lead on wildlife recognizing this fact, which was based in part on a technical review of the subject (Rattner et al. 2008). Because of this well-documented toxicity, the issue of whether and how to regulate the use of lead ammunition for hunting has long been controversial and multidimensional, raising questions about toxicology, population dynamics, human dimensions, economics, manufacturing capability, and raw material supply, among others. Position statements are periodically reviewed by TWS Council and may be renewed, rescinded, or revised based on new information and policy developments. The position statement on the effects of lead was scheduled to be reviewed by Council in fall of 2022. Based on that schedule, the Hunting, Trapping, and Conservation Working Group of TWS (HTCWG) wanted to provide Council with current information on what was known about the effects of lead from spent hunting ammunition, the effectiveness and availability of non-lead forms of ammunition, and the factors that affected hunter use of non-lead ammunition. To begin to compile that information, the HTCWG partnered with the Wildlife Damage Management Working Group, the Wildlife Toxicology Working Group, the Wildlife Disease Working Group, and the National Wildlife Federation to organize a symposium at the 2021 TWS annual conference. The symposium, Understanding the biological, social, and economic aspects of lead ammunition on wildlife populations and wildlife management, consisted of 14 presentations on many facets of the issue. We asked presenters if they would be willing to submit papers to this special section of the Wildlife Society Bulletin, anticipating we could complete the review and publication process before Council reviewed the lead position statement in Fall 2022. We got commitments for 7 papers that address the issue of lead hunting ammunition from a number of perspectives. After the symposium, Council decided to accelerate the schedule for the review of the lead position statement, as there were some national and state policy and legislative issues arising on the topic and Council thought it timely to act sooner on reviewing and revising the statement. At that point it was apparent this collection of papers would not be published before the position statement was updated, but we thought it remained important to follow through with this special section because the information will be useful to wildlife policymakers as they engage with the issue of spent lead hunting ammunition in the environment and develop strategies to mitigate the effects of lead on wildlife. After much discussion among the members of Council's position statement committee, and ultimately the full Council, a revised position statement was adopted (TWS 2022). The focus of the symposium and this special section was on lead from spent hunting ammunition, not lead ammunition associated with all forms of shooting. We recognized that wildlife certainly can ingest lead in and around shooting ranges, for example, but there are well-developed strategies for managing lead in these locations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2005). Thus, we kept the focus of the papers on ammunition used for hunting because that is the environmental lead source (along with lead fishing tackle, which is also addressed in TWS' position statement) most directly regulated by state, provincial, and federal fish and wildlife agencies. Further, spent hunting ammunition is the predominant source of lead ingested by wildlife, either by intentionally or unintentionally ingesting lead pellets deposited in the environment by hunters shooting shotgun ammunition, or by ingesting fragments of lead retained in animal viscera left in the field by hunters after field dressing and in carcasses of animals shot but not recovered by hunters. This special section of the Wildlife Society Bulletin presents several papers that review and extend the historical perspective on the regulation of lead hunting ammunition in the United States and Canada. Byrne (2023) presents the historical context of the regulation of lead hunting ammunition, the legal basis for the regulations banning the use of lead shot in the United States (and later Canada) for hunting migratory waterfowl, and some of the controversies that persist around the use of mandatory versus voluntary approaches to non-lead ammunition adoption by hunters. Mawdsley and Johansen (2023) present the development of policies by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) on the issue of lead in hunting ammunition. Because AFWA members are state, provincial, and federal fish and wildlife agencies in the United States and Canada, their policies, and the science gathered to inform those policies, play a significant role in how and where lead hunting ammunition is regulated. Hanley et al. (2023) provide an evaluation of the long-term effects of lead ingestion on a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) population in New York, describing how lead poisoning likely dampened the rate of increase in population size. Several papers deal with the factors influencing hunter use of non-lead ammunition. Schulz et al. (2023) examine many of the complexities in the debate between mandatory and voluntary non-lead use for non-waterfowl hunting and the effectiveness of voluntary programs in reducing lead ingestion in California condors (Gymnogyps californianus). Ellis and Miller (2023) provide some comparative perspectives on approaches to mandating non-lead ammunition for hunting in the United States and Europe, addressing some of the perceptions that hunters have about the issue. Ellis et al. (2023) examine some of the attitudes and beliefs of Illinois mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) hunters on the effectiveness of lead versus steel shot for dove hunting, identifying some of the barriers to adoption of non-lead ammunition for that group of hunters. Balog-Way et al. (2023) report on the awareness of the various issues spent lead ammunition poses to wildlife from a sample of volunteer hunter education instructors in New York. They subsequently describe the attitudes of this sample group toward the need to present information on the effects of lead ammunition to prospective new hunters and then provide some recommendations on updating hunter education curricula to include such information. As guest editor of this special section, I want to express my deep appreciation to all of the authors of these papers (especially for their patience with the publication process) and each of the referees who provided valuable and constructive comments that improved the final versions. I also appreciate the efforts of the 2021 symposium contributors for their informative presentations, and for doing it all remotely. Special thanks to the HTCWG officers who made this issue a priority for our working group, and the other working groups who contributed ideas and support. I also appreciate the collaboration with the National Wildlife Federation and their willingness to support this effort with ideas and with funds to cover some of the costs of our contributors. And finally, thanks to Editor-in-Chief Bret Collier for endorsing this special section and giving us the space to present this collection of papers, and to Editorial Assistant Anna Knipps for patiently helping me and the authors through every step of the editorial process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.