S-537-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Steve Daines (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would prohibit the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service from banning lead ammunition or fishing tackle, or regulating lead content in them, on federal land or water open to hunting or fishing. An exception allows site-specific restrictions only if the agency finds lead use is the primary cause of a wildlife population decline at that specific location and the restriction aligns with or is approved by the relevant state fish and wildlife agency.
Who benefits
Hunters and anglers who use lead ammunition or tackle, which is typically cheaper than non-lead alternatives; ammunition and tackle manufacturers that produce lead products; retailers selling these products; and state fish and wildlife agencies, which gain a formal role in approving any site-specific restrictions.
Who is hurt
Wildlife such as bald eagles, condors, loons, and waterfowl that can suffer lead poisoning from ingesting spent ammunition fragments or lost tackle, according to research cited by wildlife agencies and conservation groups; federal land managers, whose ability to respond quickly to documented wildlife harm would be constrained by the new fact-finding and state-approval requirements; and conservation and wildlife veterinary organizations that have pushed for broader non-lead requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that lead ammunition and tackle are significantly cheaper than non-lead alternatives, and that broad bans could discourage participation in hunting and fishing, activities that fund conservation through excise taxes and license fees. They contend that decisions on lead restrictions should be based on site-specific field data and should respect state wildlife agencies' authority, rather than allowing blanket federal prohibitions across millions of acres of public land.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that lead poisoning from spent ammunition and lost tackle is a well-documented cause of death in bald eagles, California condors, loons, and other wildlife, and that this bill would tie federal biologists' hands even where they have identified serious harm. They contend the site-by-site proof requirement and mandatory alignment with state policy could delay or block protective action, prioritizing recreational cost savings over wildlife health documented in peer-reviewed studies.
Constitutional context
Federal management of lead ammunition and tackle on public lands rests on Congress's property power under Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 (the Property Clause), which gives Congress authority to make rules governing federal land and, by extension, to direct or limit executive agency action there; no landmark Supreme Court case directly controls this specific restriction on agency rulemaking authority.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict executive branch discretion by statutorily limiting what the Interior and Agriculture Departments may regulate, leaving agencies a narrow, state-conditioned exception rather than independent rulemaking authority.
Historical precedent
In 2017, an outgoing Interior Department order banning lead ammunition on wildlife refuges was reversed within days of the change in administration, reflecting a recurring political back-and-forth over this issue rather than a single settled precedent.