The agency announced on Friday that its phase-out of this sporting gear will continue, despite receiving about 18,500 public comments on the issue.
The ban will be enacted on Sept. 1, 2026.
The new Final Rule prohibits the ammunition on eight National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) and the lead tackle on seven NWRs. The agency presented the change along with the opening of hunting and fishing on certain public lands.
NSSF critics charge that the USFWS bent the knee to anti-hunting groups and enacted the sweeping changes despite lacking scientific evidence to back them up.
Particularly, the federal agency is accused of quickly settling a suit from the Center for Biological Diversity without proper scientific backing.
The group also believes the prohibition will negatively impact long-term conservation gains funded by Pittman-Robertson excise taxes collected from the firearm and ammunition industry.
In June, the federal agency announced 48 new hunting locations scattered across roughly 3,000 acres of NWRs as part of its Proposed Rule. The new sites are the Cahaba River NWR in Alabama, Everglades Headwaters NWR in Florida and Minnesota Valley NWR in Minnesota.
NSSF was not baited to support the concession, asserting that Washington was simply bowing to those opposed to the time-honored American traditions of hunting and fishing.
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane blasted government officials for aligning with opponents of shooting sports. “This administration claimed it would follow the science, yet at every turn they have outright ignored it to appease anti-hunting activists.”
Keane noted, “These policies are detrimental to hunters and anglers as they unnecessarily create price barriers to participation. We have pleaded with the USFWS to follow the science as they promised, yet they are not acting in the best interest of the public or evidence-based wildlife conservation.”
Many are concerned with the extra expense involved with switching to alternative ammunition and tackle. The new ammo is an average of 25% more expensive than the traditional variety and is more difficult to find. This, NSSF officials declared, will put the expense of hunting and fishing out of the reach of many.
In turn, it will also decrease the excise taxes collected from manufacturers to support wildlife initiatives.
The prominent trade organization believes it should be up to hunters and anglers to determine what kind of ammunition and tackle they use.
A possible counter to the USFWS Final Rule is U.S. Rep. Robert Wittman’s (R-VA) Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. NSSF asserted this law, if passed, would protect the nation’s sporting heritage and ensure that the number one source of conservation funding remains intact.
Adjusted for inflation, excise taxes paid for by firearms and ammunition manufacturers add up to a staggering $25 billion since 1937.
Wittman’s bill along with a companion proposal from Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) would mandate the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture produce science-based and peer-reviewed studies proving traditional ammo and tackle are detrimental to wildlife and the environment.
This legislation would go far to counteracting the federal hostility aimed at the sporting public. There are far too many politicians and radical groups supporting them that want nothing more than to eradicate the fine American traditions of hunting and fishing.
Opponents know they cannot outright ban such practices because the public protest would be deafening. But these critics continue to chip away at the edges, narrowing the rights of men and women who enjoy these sporting endeavors until there is precious little left.
NSSF is right to condemn such practices and protect hunting and fishing for all.
