Maryland hearing spotlights push to phase out lead ammunition for hunting

Delegate Nick Allen introduced House Bill 7 41, a phased approach to eliminate use of lead ammunition for listed hunting activities in Maryland, prompting hours of testimony Tuesday before the House Environment and Transportation Committee.

Supporters — including public‑health and conservation groups and veterinarians — told the committee that lead fragments from ammunition contaminate wild game and carrion, expose consumers and scavengers to toxic levels of lead and harm raptors and other wildlife. “There is no safe level of lead,” said Delegate Nick Allen. Veterinarian Jim Keane and wildlife scientist Stephanie Boyles Griffin described studies showing lead fragments travel far from wound channels and that scavengers and people who eat wild game can be exposed to toxic particles that are difficult or impossible to remove from meat.

Speakers for Humane World for Animals, Earthjustice and other environmental groups urged the committee to approve a multi‑year phase‑out and to allow time for market adjustment. They cited the 1991 federal restriction on lead shot for waterfowl hunting as a precedent and pointed to the growing number of retailers and large food buyers that have moved toward cage‑free or non‑lead sourcing in other supply chains.

Opponents, including representatives of state shooting and hunting organizations, farm and rural trade groups and some watermen, warned the committee the bill would raise costs for hunters, create availability and safety issues for particular guns and cartridges, and could reduce hunter participation and Pittman‑Robertson conservation funding that is tied to ammo and firearm sales. The National Shooting Sports Foundation and Safari Club International urged voluntary incentive programs such as rebates, education or retailer partnerships instead of a statewide mandate. The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association asked the committee for an unfavorable report, saying alternatives are not available for every caliber and that a ban could harm rural families that rely on hunting.

Multiple witnesses from agriculture and landowner groups requested additional time and an implementation timeline sensitive to supply and to hunters who participate in crop‑damage control or accept deer donations to food banks. Represented farming groups said they would push for an off‑ramp or phased schedule tied to ammunition availability for the calibers used in crop‑damage permits.

The Department of Natural Resources testified they supported work on non‑lead alternatives with amendments and has been part of stakeholder talks; DNR staff indicated they were working with the sponsor and the department’s technical teams on details of phase‑in and exemptions. There were no committee votes recorded during the hearing.

Ending: The bill drew a broad cross‑section of support and opposition, with scientific and public‑health testimony on one side and practical concerns about supply, safety and conservation funding on the other. Committee members pressed proponents and DNR for more details on timelines and availability; sponsors said they are willing to consider amendments to align implementation with hunting seasons and to provide flexibility for particular uses such as crop‑damage permits.