Bill Overview
Title: LEAD Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of the Interior to promulgate final regulations prohibiting the discharge of a firearm using ammunition other than nonlead ammunition included on the list established pursuant to this bill on all lands and waters under the jurisdiction and control of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Interior shall establish and annually update a list of nonlead ammunition. The prohibition shall not apply to (1) a government official or agent who is carrying out a statutory duty unrelated to the management of wildlife; (2) a state, local, tribal, or federal law enforcement officer, or the agent of such an officer, who is carrying out a statutory duty; or (3) an active member of the U.S. military who is carrying out official duties. The regulations promulgated pursuant to this bill shall provide that any person that knowingly violates the prohibition may be assessed a civil penalty by Interior of (1) no more than $500 for the first violation, and (2) no less than $1,000 or more than $5,000 for each subsequent violation.
Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: Hunters and users of ammunition on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands
Estimated Size: 500000
- Hunters who use public lands will need to switch to nonlead ammunition.
- Ammunition manufacturers may need to adjust production to meet increased demand for nonlead options.
- Wildlife enthusiasts and conservationists may benefit indirectly from decreased lead contamination in ecosystems.
- The bill's impact will be felt mostly in countries with significant hunting and fishing industries.
Reasoning
- The LEAD Act primarily impacts hunters and those who use ammunition on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands.
- Approximately 500,000 recreational hunters will be affected in the U.S., requiring shifts to non-lead ammunition.
- Ammunition manufacturers will face increasing demand for non-lead options, potentially affecting prices.
- Conservationists may see positive ecosystem impacts due to reduced lead contamination.
- The impact varies: hunters closer to wildlife lands feel more significant changes.
- Long-term success depends on public adaptation to non-lead ammunition and the economic effects on the hunting community.
- Budget considerations include supporting educational campaigns and subsidies for ammunition transition.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (Montana)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the cost of switching to non-lead ammunition.
- Hunting is a way of life here, and any additional cost can be burdensome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Conservation Specialist (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fully support the reduction of lead in our environments.
- This could have significant positive impacts on wildlife health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Ammunition Manufacturer (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transition will initially be challenging for the industry.
- But there is an opportunity here for growth in nonlead production.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Park Ranger (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could improve our land's health.
- Hunters' compliance and acceptance are key to success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Military, Recreational Hunter (Alaska)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the exceptions for military but worry about access to affordable ammo.
- Traditional hunting methods mean a lot to our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Wildlife Photographer (Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Nonlead ammunition should reduce lead exposure risks in wildlife.
- This is beneficial not only for animals but for our health too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College Student, Environmental Studies (New York)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are steps in the right direction for environmental health.
- There is always room for improvement in ensuring broad impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Hunting Guide (Alabama)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Switching ammo is a hassle but could improve hunting quality long-term.
- Clients might resist due to cost, impacting business initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Nonprofit Worker (Ohio)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Education will be crucial in transitioning hunters smoothly.
- This policy aligns well with sustainability goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Wildlife Enthusiast (Wyoming)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative is positive for wildlife enthusiasts like myself.
- It could lead to healthier ecosystems overall.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Key Considerations
- The extent to which hunters have already transitioned to nonlead ammunition will affect enforcement costs.
- The effectiveness of public education campaigns will influence compliance rates.
- Nonlead ammunition availability and cost may impact hunter behavior and compliance.
- Exemptions for certain law enforcement and military activities will limit the scope of enforcement.