Heated Hearing on SB181: Sponsors Urge Phase‑Out of Lead Ammunition; Hunters and Industry Warn of Cost and Availability Problems

The Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee heard hours of testimony on SB181, a proposal to phase out lead ammunition in hunting and replace it with non‑lead alternatives where feasible. Sponsor testimony framed the bill as a public‑health and wildlife protection measure rather than an anti‑hunting proposal.

The sponsor emphasized lead’s toxicity and cited studies showing fragments of lead in donated venison and risks to scavengers and people who consume game. "This is not an anti hunting bill. It is not an anti gun bill. This is a very, very pro health and safety bill," the sponsor said in opening remarks, and supporters from public‑health and conservation organizations described lead as a persistent neurotoxin with no safe exposure level.

Experts from the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Center for a Humane Economy and Johns Hopkins presented peer‑reviewed research and field evidence showing lead fragments in processed venison and lethal impacts on raptors and scavengers that consume gut piles. A Johns Hopkins epidemiologist told senators that lead accumulates and can be remobilized in bone and pose risks during pregnancy and over a lifetime.

Opponents — including hunter organizations, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, farm groups and retailers — argued non‑lead rounds are more expensive, may not group reliably in some firearms, and are not always readily available in all calibers in Maryland. They warned that mandates could depress hunting participation, reduce license sales and federal Pittman‑Robertson funding, and complicate on‑the‑ground enforcement because firearms and ammunition performance vary by individual weapon.

Committee members pressed proponents and opponents on ammunition availability, compatibility, cost, wildlife impacts and enforcement mechanics. Sponsors said the bill includes exemptions where effective non‑lead rounds are not commercially available and pointed to precedents (fish & wildlife restrictions on lead shot for waterfowl) and state examples (California). Opponents asked for voluntary, incentive‑based approaches instead of a mandate.

The committee took extensive testimony from scientists, wildlife rehabilitators and veterinarians who described lead poisoning in wildlife and the difficulty of successfully treating affected animals. Hunters and industry speakers described ammunition‑compatibility issues (particularly in small‑caliber rimfire rifles and some legacy firearms) and urged a phased, voluntary path. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.