Some conservationists promote voluntary use of lead-free ammunition as a solution that respects Americans’ freedom of choice while reducing the potential for unintended consumption of lead ammunition residues by wildlife.
Lead can be unintentionally harmful to wildlife and people. In both wildlife and people, exposure to high amounts can cause lead poisoning and death, and chronic exposure to lower concentrations can affect long-term health. During hunting season, scavengers feeding on animals killed with lead ammunition may also ingest the heavy metal. Eating game meat from animals shot with lead-based ammunition can also result in the ingestion of lead, which can expose humans to the metal and affect pregnant people and children, but the level of risk is highly debated. Although there are alternatives, hunters still widely use lead ammunition.
So, why might someone choose one type of ammunition versus another? Andreas Eleftheriou, a visiting veterinary public health resident at the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, who is currently a faculty member at Washington State University, sought to improve the effectiveness of hunter engagement programs by answering this question in a study published in Human Dimensions of Wildlife. The research focused on what motivates licensed rifle deer hunters in New York state to choose lead-free bullets over lead ones.
Family and availability
Eleftheriou and their team used the data from a hunter survey implemented by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation in 2021 as part of the state’s interdisciplinary Lead Ammunition Working Group to examine associations between ammunition choice and ammunition traits, importance of health, demographics and hunting culture. The team also analyzed how hunters’ awareness and concern about lead’s effects on people and wildlife influenced their decisions to use lead-free ammunition.
Analysis revealed the two most significant factors were the perceived importance of human health, including family members, and the relative availability of ammunition. Attitudes surrounding lead ammunition impacts on human health were most strongly associated with the use of lead-free bullets. Survey respondents who used lead-free bullets were more aware of lead’s effects and more concerned about the potential impacts to human and wildlife health.
In the study, some hunters reported high awareness of the implications but low concern about the impacts. These hunters had the lowest likelihood of using lead-free ammunition. “Awareness about a topic does not necessarily translate into action for all groups of people, so audience-specific or alternative approaches may be needed,” Eleftheriou said.
Additionally, lead-free ammunition availability, whether actual or perceived, was more strongly associated with its use by hunters. “Even if nonlead bullets are on the market, if they are not available in local stores or priced similarly, hunters are less likely to use them,” Eleftheriou said. The study also found that hunters who self-reported that they found the freedom of choice more important were linked to using lead bullets more than lead-free bullets.
“I think these two factors [human health and availability] can be addressed in voluntary promotion programs,” Eleftheriou said. Age, gender and degree of urbanization were also associated with whether or not someone chose to use lead or lead-free ammunition.
The study provides a baseline for future assessment of hunter ammunition use in New York and emphasizes the importance of targeted and focused communications about the benefits of lead-free ammunition as well as efforts to increase its availability. The results also suggest that information about lead and lead-free ammunition may be more powerful and better received when interdisciplinary teams work together on these complex wildlife issues.
Article by Kaylyn Zipp
