Hunters across the nation are celebrating Safari Club International’s (SCI) latest victory in defending the use of lead ammunition in Arizona’s Kaibab National Forest. Aiming to restrict hunting access on the fabricated grounds of federal environmental law violation, the issue has bounced around the federal courts for the last nine years. Thanks to the efforts of SCI, alongside the NRA, the federal judge once again sided with sportsmen and women by ruling to dismiss a suit filed by the anti-hunting Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).
Animal rights group CBD has claimed that the U.S. Forest Service violates the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a federal solid waste law, by allowing the use of lead ammunition for hunting. Although this law was written for manufacturing and industrial site waste, CBD has repeatedly tried to expand its reach to cover lead fragments left behind in gut piles. They argue the leftover solid waste has negatively impacted populations of the California condor, which is listed under the Endangered Species Act. These claims are not backed up by scientific research, and the lawsuit is simply a masked effort to restrict the freedoms of sportsmen and women.
“This case is a stark reminder of the inventiveness and relentlessness of anti-hunting groups,” said W. Laird Hamberlin, CEO of SCI. “Using legislation designed to regulate how businesses and manufacturers handle lead waste, they’ve managed to keep the suit going for almost a decade. All it would take for them to succeed would be one minute of complacency by sportsmen. That’s what makes SCI’s role so vital. We’re at the front lines of these battles, and we will not back down until every one of these frivolous lawsuits is wiped off the books.”
The case has significance for hunters everywhere since a victory by CBD would open the door to halt hunting with lead ammunition at state, federal, and local levels.
“This ruling not only preserves the freedom to hunt in an accurate, cost- effective, and accessible way, but it also upholds state authority in the regulation of ammunition use on Forest Service lands,” Hamberlin said. “And it is yet another SCI win against anti-hunting groups seeking to destroy our hunting heritage.”
Hamberlin also said it’s important to remember that hunters are the original conservationists and defenders of the environment. The science doesn’t support CBD’s claim that hunters using lead ammunition poisons raptors. On the contrary, lead ammunition often provides a cleaner and deadlier shot, helping to ensure fewer animals are left wounded and that meat is harvested rather than left in the wild. Lead has been commonly used as the primary ammunition metal for centuries and is a safe and sustainable way to hunt. This lawsuit had nothing to do with lead and everything to do with stopping hunting.
“SCI has always maintained that hunters should be free to choose alternatives to lead ammunition, yet the choice must remain with the individual hunter,” Hamberlin said. “While it is commonly understood that excessive lead exposure can be harmful, there is insufficient research or data to show that hunting with lead ammunition hurts habitat or wildlife, or humans eating game meat harvested with lead ammunition.”
Based on similar claims from anti- hunting groups, California banned lead ammunition statewide in 2013. Groups pushing for the ban claimed California condors were dying after ingesting lead fragments from gut piles left by hunters. According to the NRA, a co-defendant in the case, even with 99% hunter compliance, there has been no reduction in lead-based condor deaths in California. This strongly indicates the lead poisoning is coming from industrial practices the RCRA was enacted to prevent and not bullet fragments.
It wasn’t the lack of scientific evidence that determined the judge’s decision, however. Instead, it came down to another important distinction for hunters – a state’s right to set its own hunting and fishing regulations.
Arizona law permits the use of lead bullets. The CBD suit is an attempt to diminish state law and move more control to federal regulation. The federal government has no authority over ammunition use on the state level, however, and the judge’s decision affirms that the RCRA cannot be convoluted to limit hunting access. This distinction was key in the most recent court ruling, as well as the ruling to dismiss in 2017.
In the dismissed case of 2017, the judge determined the court had no authority to order the Forest Service to overrule the state of Arizona’s hunting laws. The Forest Service does not exercise control over hunting in the forest or have any say in Arizona’s law that allows the use of lead ammunition. Therefore, the Forest Service is not actively contributing to the disposal of lead ammunition and cannot be sued for any alleged violations of RCRA.
The dismissal is a victory for hunters everywhere, but it also illustrates how these dangerous lawsuits can be and can have far-reaching effects on overall hunting access, which is the real goal of anti-hunters.
Had CBD been able to convince the judge to apply RCRA requirements on Arizona’s hunters, it would have overturned the current standard where each state manages wildlife and sets hunting regulations within its borders.
“On the surface, this case looks like it’s about using lead ammunition,” Hamberlin said. “The anti-hunters know what they’re doing, however, and their real goal is to put all wildlife management in the hands of the federal government. Once those decisions come from Washington, it becomes much easier for them to influence legislation and eventually stop hunting altogether. SCI will continue to fight to ensure that doesn’t happen.”
The CBD case in Arizona isn’t over. As it appealed the first two dismissals, the group has appealed this ruling for the third time. This is but one example of the many lawsuits filed by anti-hunting groups every year. With your support, SCI and its partners will continue to fight for sportsmen and women and ensure our rich hunting heritage continues to be the most successful and respected model of wildlife management in the world.
Login