FACT SHEET
Why New Jersey Should Reject a Statewide Lead Ammunition Mandate
Executive Summary
New Jersey has not demonstrated a population-level wildlife management problem that justifies a statewide ban on traditional hunting ammunition.
Before imposing a mandate that increases costs, limits ammunition choices, and risks reducing hunter participation, the Legislature should require evidence that:
- A significant New Jersey wildlife-management problem exists.
- A statewide ammunition ban will measurably improve wildlife conservation.
- The benefits outweigh the risks to deer management, conservation funding, and hunter participation.
To date, that case has not been made.
1. No Documented Statewide Wildlife Crisis Has Been Demonstrated in New Jersey
Supporters of the bill cite isolated cases of lead poisoning in individual birds.
However, no public evidence has been presented demonstrating:
- Population-level declines in New Jersey bald eagles attributable to hunting ammunition.
- Population-level declines in New Jersey hawks, vultures, owls, or other scavengers attributable to hunting ammunition.
- A statewide wildlife-management crisis requiring a hunting ammunition ban.
- A New Jersey cost-benefit analysis demonstrating measurable conservation gains from a statewide mandate.
The question legislators should ask is simple:
What documented New Jersey wildlife population problem will this bill solve?
2. California’s Reason for the Ban Does Not Exist in New Jersey
California’s lead ammunition restrictions originated because lead poisoning was identified as the primary mortality factor affecting the endangered California condor.
The California Fish and Game Commission first restricted lead ammunition within the California condor range before expanding the policy statewide.
New Jersey has no California condors.
New Jersey’s wildlife-management priorities are entirely different:
- Managing overabundant deer populations.
- Reducing deer-vehicle collisions.
- Protecting forest regeneration.
- Limiting agricultural damage.
- Maintaining hunter participation.
The burden should be on proponents to explain why a California condor policy should be imposed on New Jersey hunters.
3. California’s Own Experience Demonstrates Implementation Challenges
California enacted AB 711 in 2013 but provided a six-year phasein before statewide implementation in 2019.
Even with six years to prepare, California officials repeatedly warned hunters about ammunition availability concerns.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance acknowledged that certain calibers and ammunition types could be difficult to obtain and encouraged hunters to purchase ammunition well in advance.
As recently as 2025, California wildlife officials and local fish and game commissions reported severe shortages of nonlead .22 Long Rifle ammunition after manufacturers discontinued products, making compliance difficult for hunters.
The proposed New Jersey mandate would provide approximately half the transition time California allowed.
4. Hunters Will Pay Significantly More
Lead-free ammunition is often substantially more expensive than traditional ammunition.
Representative retail pricing shows:
| Hunting Applicatio n | Traditional Ammunition | Lead-Free Alternative | Cost Increase |
| Deer Slugs | ~$10/box | ~$21/box | 110% |
| Turkey Loads | ~$29/box | ~$99-$176/box | +241% to +507% |
| Small Game (.22 LR) | Widely available | Limited availability in many markets | N/A |
For many hunters, ammunition costs would double, triple, or even increase five-fold.
These costs fall hardest on:
- Youth hunters
- Fixed-income hunters
- Working families
- New hunters entering the sport
A conservation policy should not create financial barriers to participation.
5. Reduced Hunter Participation Means Reduced Deer Management
Hunters are New Jersey’s primary deer-management tool.
If participation declines because of higher costs, reduced availability, or frustration with compliance requirements, the result could be:
- Lower deer harvests.
- Increased deer populations.
- More deer-vehicle collisions.
- Greater agricultural losses.
- Increased forest browse damage.
- Reduced forest regeneration.
A policy intended to benefit wildlife could unintentionally harm habitat management if it reduces the effectiveness of New Jersey’s deer-management program.
6. Conservation Funding Is At Risk
Wildlife conservation is funded in large part by hunters, shooters, and firearm owners.
Federal Pittman-Robertson funding is generated through excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment.
These funds support:
- Wildlife management.
- Habitat restoration.
- Hunter education.
- Public access.
- Conservation law enforcement.
- Shooting range development.
The federal excise tax on sporting firearms and ammunition is 11 percent.
Any policy that reduces participation in hunting and shooting activities risks weakening one of America’s most successful conservation funding systems.
7. There Are Better Alternatives
If legislators believe additional action is warranted, less restrictive alternatives are available:
- Voluntary nonlead programs.
- Hunter education.
- Retail incentives.
- Targeted outreach in sensitive areas.
- Continued scientific monitoring.
These approaches address concerns without risking conservation funding, hunter participation, or deermanagement effectiveness.
Conclusion
California adopted its lead ammunition restrictions to address a specific conservation challenge involving the endangered California condor.
New Jersey has not demonstrated a comparable wildlifemanagement problem.
Before imposing a statewide mandate that could increase costs by 100% to 500%, create ammunition shortages, reduce hunter participation, and undermine conservation funding, the
Legislature should require clear evidence that:
- A significant New Jersey wildlife-management problem exists.
- The proposed mandate will measurably improve conservation outcomes.
- The benefits outweigh the costs.
Until that showing is made, New Jersey should reject a statewide lead ammunition mandate and pursue voluntary, science-based alternatives.
Key sources for legislators
- California statewide ban originated from concerns about condor mortality from lead poisoning and expanded from condor-range restrictions to a statewide prohibition. https:// www.usgs.gov/publications/policy-comparison-leadhunting-ammunition-bans-and-voluntary-nonleadprograms?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- California’s statewide implementation required a six-year phase-in from 2013 to 2019. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Hunting/ Nonlead-Ammunition?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- California officials warned that some nonlead calibers could be in short supply, and California fish and game officials reported .22 LR nonlead shortages after manufacturers discontinued products. https://lakeconews.com/46932nonlead-ammunition-implementation-phase-2-starts-july-1? utm_source=chatgpt.com
- Research comparing mandatory bans and voluntary programs identified increased cost and difficulty obtaining desired calibers as barriers to nonlead ammunition adoption. https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ 10.1002/wsb.1448?utm_source=chatgpt.com
- Pittman-Robertson conservation funding is generated through federal excise taxes on firearms and ammunition and supports state wildlife conservation programs. https:// www.fws.gov/program/wildlife-restoration?