Effective Date: June 12, 2017, Revised April 2, 2026

Situational Overview

Hunting ammunition containing lead continues to be the subject of debate. Lead-based ammunition is popular because lead is widely available and has characteristics that make it ideal for ammunition production because it is economical and performs well in the field which allows for an ethical harvest.  

The primary wildlife species of concern are grain-eating, predatory, or scavenging birds that ingest lead ammunition fragments.  Grain-eating birds may pick up spent lead shot pellets either as grit or by mistaking them for seeds, while predatory or scavenging birds may ingest bullet fragments when they eat the remains harvested animals killed with ammunition containing lead. These birds are susceptible because of the highly acidic nature (predators and scavengers) or physical structure of their digestive tracts (the grinding action of gizzards in seedeaters), and their far-ranging mobility to cover vast landscapes. Federal regulations to restrict waterfowl hunting to lead-free shot were first introduced in the 1980s in the United States and were mirrored in Canada. 

More recently, much of the controversy over wildlife poisoning from secondary lead ingestion initially centered around the critically endangered California condor due to their low population numbers (slightly more than 400 nationally). Initially, California implemented a ban on the use of lead ammunition in areas where condors nest and feed. Later, California enacted a statewide ban, which has been correctly criticized as overly broad and unwarranted. In other states where condors exist, such as northern Arizona and southern Utah, public education and voluntary lead-free ammunition programs have proven to be as effective as regulatory bans. The issue of wildlife poisoning from secondary lead ingestion, however, has become a much broader, national conversation about raptors in general. Population-level effects that have been detected in raptors thus far have been relatively minor in magnitude without a compelling need for conservation intervention. 

With respect to human health risk as a result of eating game taken with ammunition containing lead, to date, the medical literature contains no conclusive evidence of serious illness or death of humans caused by eating game taken with lead ammunition, except in a few unusual cases. 
 

Position

The Boone and Crockett Club supports the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation, which specifically recognizes science as the basis for informed management and decision-making processes. The Club urges agencies and organizations to promote scientific research about the effects of secondary lead ingestion on avian and mammalian scavengers, and support policies and management actions based on sound, peer-reviewed science.

While the Club supports current science-based federal regulations pertaining to the use of lead shot, it maintains that broad-scale, blanket regulations are unnecessary and fail to acknowledge local authority and situational context in decision-making. State wildlife agencies, not federal/state legislators or voters, are in the best position to determine if species within their state are at risk and if this situation warrants restrictions on the use of ammunition containing lead or increased awareness to best management practices to reduce lead ingestion. For this reason, the Club believes that if an individual state wildlife agency decides, based on scientific evidence, that lead exposure represents an issue in a given area, it should implement targeted solutions that do not unnecessarily restrict hunting or shooting opportunities. Examples of targeted solutions include hunter education, voluntary programs, best management practices, or if necessary mandatory programs using suitable ammunition alternatives. 

The Boone and Crockett Club also supports a Fair Chase® hunting ethic, which includes sportsmen and women making personal choices about their own health and to ensure the ethical harvest of game to benefit wildlife conservation in general. Hunters should be aware of potential unintended consequences to non-hunted species, and if they feel this may be a concern in the areas where they hunt, the Club supports sportsmen using best management practices to reduce unintentional ingestion or choosing to use alternative ammunition. 
 

Read More B&C Position Statements

The Boone and Crockett Club publishes position statements to inform and educate people about conservation and hunting issues. Thus, there is no charge for personal and non-commercial use of its position statements, but reprinting or re-use of any portions of a position statement shall credit the Boone and Crockett Club as the source. Any such use shall remain subject to all rights of the Boone and Crockett Club.