Is Now the Time to Get the Lead Out?
By Tom Franklin
“The position of The Wildlife Society is that the use
of lead shot for waterfowl hunting be eliminated
as soon as possible but not later than 1989.”
– The Wildlifer 1984
Courtesy of Tom Franklin
Tom Franklin is
President of The
Wildlife Society
and Senior Vice
President of the
Theodore Roosevelt
Conservation
Partnership.
Although considered radical by some, that
statement was supported by a consensus of
The Wildlife Society (TWS) members in the
mid-1980s. We agreed that eliminating lead from
waterfowl hunting was wise because of the known
impacts of lead poisoning on waterfowl and bald
eagles in certain areas. After careful study, TWS
made a public statement on behalf of professional
wildlife biologists and managers, and in doing so
helped lead a change in public policy to curtail the
use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting. In a position
statement titled “Control of Environmental Contamination Due to Lead Shot,” Council said that TWS:
The committee studied sources of lead that originate
from hunting, shooting, and fishing, and reviewed
the associated risks to natural resources as well as
the potential management implications. Council
understood that this review might lead to new policy
statements on the use of lead-based ammunition
and tackle. Indeed, the published technical review
on lead (Rattner et al. 2008) did suggest that TWS
and AFS leadership might want to draft position
statements about the continued use of lead in hunt-ing, shooting sports, and fishing. In accordance
with TWS policy, Council appointed a committee to
draft a position statement on lead use. In the fall of
2008 that draft statement was published in the TWS
newsletter, The Wildlifer, soliciting member com-
ments with a deadline of February 15, 2009.
• “Recognizes the widespread problem of acute and chron-ic lead poisoning of waterfowl and other wildlife caused
by using lead shot for waterfowl hunting.
• Urges governments to take leadership roles to protect
wildlife resources by immediately prohibiting lead shot
for waterfowl hunting on all government-owned lands.
• During the phase-out period, supports establishment
of nontoxic shot zones in local areas based on previous
history of lead poisoning, ingestion rates of lead shot,
and/or lead residues in body tissues of waterfowl and
other wildlife.
• Recognizes steel shot as the only currently available and
suitable substitute for lead shot.
• Encourages coordinated research to improve our under-standing of the effects of toxic materials on ecosystems
and wildlife populations.
• Promotes public and professional education programs
concerning the biological effects of toxic and nontoxic
shot used for hunting.”
The response to the draft position statement was
extraordinary, generating 60 sets of comments— 35
from members, 14 from nonmembers, and 11 from
agencies or organizations. Many supported the draft
with little or no revision, while many others did not
support the draft, suggested major revisions, or did
not state a position. A Council subcommittee is now
considering all comments before preparing a final
position statement, which likely will be finalized
during summer 2009.
In 1986 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved
federal regulations to phase out the use of lead shot
for waterfowl hunting in the United States between
1987 and 1992. Later, as part of its routine review of
position statements, TWS Council rescinded its lead
statement in 2002 because the policy on a phase-out
of lead shot for waterfowl was no longer necessary.
This issue of The Wildlife Professional contains
articles by TWS members sharing different views
about the lead issue. The ideas expressed in
these articles are not necessarily those of
The Wildlife Society. We hope that by publishing
a sampling of perspectives on this complex issue and
providing plentiful additional information online,
readers will learn more and form their opinions
based on facts and sound arguments.
L
B
O
G
I
T
To share views
about lead, go to
the TWS blog.
Within a few years, Council called for a new study
in response to concerns about the possible effects
of lead on other species. In collaboration with the
American Fisheries Society (AFS), a joint commit-tee was appointed to review the technical literature.
As we debate the use of lead ammunition or any
controversial issue, all TWS members should strive
to abide by the Society’s Code of Ethics as guidelines
for professional conduct. We need to discuss the
science and policy at the core of the debate about
lead ammunition in a civil, ethical, and democratic
manner. When we do so, I believe we will arrive at
a responsible decision for wildlife and society, as
we did 25 years ago over the issue of lead shot for
waterfowl hunting.
