National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

Understanding Audiences to Eliminate Lead in NPS 

Environments

Literature Synthesis Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/BRMD/NRR—2010/279
ON THE COVER

Bald eagle perched on branch, California

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo
Understanding Audiences to Eliminate Lead in NPS 

Environments

Literature Synthesis Report

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/BRMD/NRR—2010/279

Danielle J. Ross-Winslow

Colorado State University

233 Forestry

Campus Mail 1480

Fort Collins, CO 80521-1480

Tara L. Teel

Colorado State University

233 Forestry

Campus Mail 1480

Fort Collins, CO 80521-1480

December 2010

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. 

This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the 

collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Data in this report were collected and analyzed using 

methods based on established, peer-reviewed protocols and were analyzed and interpreted within the 

guidelines of the protocols.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.

This report is available from the Biological Resource Management Division 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/biology) and the Natural Resource Publications Management 

website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM). 

Please cite this publication as:

Ross-Winslow, D. J., and T. L. Teel. 2010. Understanding audiences to eliminate lead in NPS 

environments: Literature synthesis report. Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/BRMD/NRR—

2010/279. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 999/106256, December 2010
iii

Contents

Page

Contents.........................................................................................................................................iii

Figures............................................................................................................................................. v

Tables............................................................................................................................................. vi

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... vii

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

A Brief History of Lead Use and Effects on Human Health and the Environment................. 1

National Park Service Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Lead on NPS Lands........................ 2

The Role of Human Dimensions in Addressing Lead in the Environment .................................... 7

The Need for Public Outreach ................................................................................................. 7

Additional Lessons Learned from Social Psychology............................................................. 9

Risk Communication ......................................................................................................... 12

Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Lead from Recreational Fishing .............................................. 13

Notable Regulatory and Voluntary Actions in the U.S. ........................................................ 14

Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Lead from Recreational Hunting and Shooting Sports............ 21

Notable Regulatory and Voluntary Actions in the U.S. ........................................................ 22

Arizona.............................................................................................................................. 25

California.......................................................................................................................... 27

Minnesota.......................................................................................................................... 28

North Dakota .................................................................................................................... 29

Wyoming ........................................................................................................................... 30

Emerging Efforts in Other States...................................................................................... 30

WAFWA and AFWA Activities.......................................................................................... 31

Lead Ban Petition to the EPA........................................................................................... 32
iv

Overall Findings for Outreach to Reduce the Impacts of Lead from Hunting and Fishing.......... 33

Some General Findings.......................................................................................................... 33

Outreach-Specific Findings, Including Tactics for Message Creation and Delivery ............ 34

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 36

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 37
v

Figures

Page

Figure 1. NPS units and recreational hunting status. “Units with hunting” include units 

where hunting is (1) mandated or (2) authorized and implemented on a discretionary basis, 

under federal law............................................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2. NPS units, recreational hunting status, and states with lead regulations. States 

shown in yellow have implemented lead ammunition restrictions beyond federal bans on the 

use of lead shot in hunting waterfowl........................................................................................... 24
vi

Tables

Page

Table 1. Ten key principles for effective communication (adapted from Schweizer et al. 

2009). 9

Table 2. A sample of attitude strength-related attributes. 10

Table 3. NPS Units and NWRs with regulations on the use of lead fishing tackle. 14

Table 4. U.S. states with restrictions on the use of lead fishing tackle. 15

Table 5. Suggestions about what should have been done differently for the 1990s federal 

ban on lead shot use for waterfowl hunting, from a survey of people involved in the ban 

(adapted from AFWA 2007). 22

Table 6. Human dimensions survey results showing hunter participation in voluntary nonlead programs in Arizona’s condor range, 2004-2008 (Sieg et al. 2009). 26
vii

Executive Summary

Across the U.S., the topic of lead use in recreational hunting and fishing has increasingly 

attracted the attention of a wide array of audiences. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

estimates that 6 to 10 thousand tons of lead are released into the environment by hunters and 

anglers each year, and documentation of the toxic effects on wildlife has accumulated over time. 

Over 500 peer reviewed articles, for example, have examined the impacts of lead ammunition on 

wildlife. An estimated 134 species, including reptiles, birds, and mammals, have been poisoned 

by ingesting lead from spent ammunition and fishing tackle in the environment, and similar 

pathways exist for humans. Despite concerns about these detrimental impacts, the use of lead 

ammunition and tackle has been minimally regulated by state and federal agencies.

The National Park Service (NPS) has recently stepped up efforts to reduce lead in national park 

environments, starting with its current policies to eliminate lead from internal NPS operations. 

Future efforts include exploring approaches to reduce impacts of lead from public hunting and 

fishing activities in NPS units. The recent policies banning the use of lead ammunition in internal 

NPS operations reveal that this issue has the potential to be highly visible and controversial if 

applied to public hunting and fishing in parks. In an effort to assist the NPS with future decisions 

on this issue, the primary purpose of our report was to synthesize the relevant literature regarding 

the use of lead in recreational hunting and fishing. Specific objectives were to overview: 1) 

trends in lead use in the U.S. and the emerging awareness of the hazards of lead to human health 

and the natural environment; 2) impacts of lead from hunting and fishing and specific measures, 

including regulatory action and voluntary mechanisms, that have been introduced by agencies 

and organizations in the U.S. to reduce these impacts; and 3) results of recent human dimensions 

investigations aimed at addressing this issue. Our report concludes with overall 

recommendations for future outreach initiatives and research to reduce the impacts of lead from 

hunting and fishing. Here we offer a brief summary of some of our key findings.

Many important lessons have come out of the work being done by various agencies and 

organizations that can help inform future decisions and development of effective outreach 

strategies for addressing issues related to the use of lead in hunting and fishing. While most of 

the lessons learned stem largely from context-specific efforts, such as those applied to condor 

conservation in the western U.S., many are relevant for considering how the NPS might address 

lead issues on its lands in the future. One important finding is that voluntary measures (e.g., 

outreach and incentive programs promoting the use of non-lead alternatives) are often preferred 

over regulations for mitigating lead impacts. Practitioners have found that in cases of scientific 

uncertainty, such as issues dealing with the impacts of lead, a request for voluntary compliance 

may be less controversial and gain greater long-term support than legislation. Voluntary 

measures can also be considered a viable alternative in places where regulations have failed. 

Such measures, oftentimes aimed at engaging and educating the public with the ultimate goal of 

limiting lead in the environment from hunting and fishing, may additionally be used to garner 

support for legislation in the future. 

A variety of outreach mechanisms to promote voluntary use of non-lead alternatives have been 

applied with varying success in different areas. Many state agencies and organizations produce 

informational materials, such as brochures, and utilize different media outlets for communicating 

messages. Although used in fewer areas, provision of incentives and participatory outreach 
viii

mechanisms have been successful. For example, lead tackle exchanges have provided anglers the 

opportunity to test non-lead tackle at no cost. Similarly, demonstrations at sportsman’s events 

with ballistics gel and water jugs have provided hunters with firsthand experience in using nonlead ammunition. Engaging stakeholders through these types of efforts has enhanced the success 

of outreach initiatives beyond what is accomplished by merely providing informational 

materials. 

Other lessons learned relate more specifically to development of messages for target audiences 

about lead from hunting and fishing. Hunters in Arizona’s and California’s condor range have 

stated that they would be more supportive of non-lead alternatives if they were given credible 

scientific evidence of the detrimental impacts of lead on condors. Judgments of credibility in 

these situations are often determined by the source of the information. In Arizona, for example, 

human dimensions surveys have determined that sportsman’s groups are viewed as the most 

credible source. Similarly, research in Minnesota suggests that persuasive messages from 

credible sources like Ducks Unlimited may be more effective. Other factors that impact 

credibility are the extent to which those delivering messages know their target audience, 

including for example their familiarity with hunting, fishing, ballistics, and fishing tackle. 

An equally important consideration is where hunters and anglers typically get their information. 

For example, the main source of information about ammunition for hunters is the sales staff from 

whom they purchase their equipment. With this in mind, a recent emphasis has been placed on 

training sales people, for tackle and ammunition, and on attempting to utilize other potential 

sources of information for communicating with hunters and anglers. One-on-one communication 

with hunters has been an important strategy in outreach efforts in California and Arizona, where 

efforts have capitalized on opportunities in the field for agency employees to interact with 

hunters on a less formal basis. Points of contact can include field staff, concessionaires, 

interpreters, and law enforcement personnel. Given the diversity of information sources and 

entities involved in message delivery, it is important that messages be conveyed in a consistent 

fashion; mixed messages can decrease credibility and create confusion among audiences as to 

what is fact or opinion and what the recommended course of action should be. 

Previous efforts to reduce the amount of lead introduced by hunters and anglers in the 

environment are valuable for understanding the current issues surrounding lead bans and efforts 

to increase voluntary use of non-lead alternatives. However, our review suggests that most of the 

research aimed at informing these efforts thus far has been very context-specific, and the 

attitudes and beliefs of hunters and anglers regarding lead issues are still largely unknown. We 

do know that in areas with key species of concern, hunters and anglers are often unaware of the 

lead-related impacts of their activities, even though they may be more aware than in areas where 

there has been less attention paid to such impacts. There is a definite need for more thorough 

evaluation of existing communication strategies, as well as a need to understand the beliefs and 

attitudes of the diverse array of stakeholders, in order to inform more targeted outreach 

initiatives. Exploring the full range of beliefs and attitudes is an important next step to take if 

policy and outreach to promote lead-reduction actions are to be considered viable options in the 

future.
1

Introduction

This report is intended to synthesize the relevant literature regarding issues involving the use of 

lead in recreational hunting and fishing activities. We begin the report with a brief overview of 

lead use in the U.S. and the emerging awareness of the hazards of lead to human health and the 

natural environment. This overview is followed by a discussion of the National Park Service’s 

(NPS) efforts to reduce the impacts of lead from hunting and fishing in NPS units. We then turn 

to an important emphasis of this report, which is on the role of the social sciences and human 

dimensions information in addressing the issue of lead in the environment. Included in this 

section is a discussion of the need for public outreach to help raise stakeholder awareness and 

support for future management actions. Also included is an overview of relevant theories and 

frameworks from social psychology and risk communication that can be used to inform outreach 

activities. Later sections of the report provide additional background on the use of lead in 

hunting and fishing as well as specific measures, including regulatory action and voluntary 

mechanisms, that have been introduced by agencies and organizations in the U.S. to reduce the 

lead-related impacts of these activities. We conclude with overall recommendations for future 

outreach initiatives and research to reduce the impacts of lead from hunting and fishing.

A Brief History of Lead Use and Effects on Human Health and the Environment

For over 2000 years the toxic effects of lead in humans and animals have been well documented 

(Nriagu 1983). As far back as 1848 the famous medical observations of Tanquerel Des Plances 

described human lead poisoning (Pokras and Kneeland 2009). Despite the long history of lead’s 

adverse health effects, approximately 3.6 million metric tons of lead are refined annually for 

commercial uses (Eisler 2000). The use of lead for fishing net sinkers dates back to 3300–1200 

BCE (Pulak 1988, Galili et al. 2002), and lead use for ammunition emerged in the 14th century 

(Tunis 1954). The production of lead ammunition and fishing tackle continues today; the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that roughly 10% of lead produced in, or imported to, the 

U.S. is used for sporting purposes (Guberman 2007). 

Lead ammunition and fishing tackle, when used as intended, release lead into the environment. 

The USGS estimates that 6 to 10 thousand tons of lead are released by hunters and anglers 

annually in the U.S. (Guberman 2007), but the use of lead ammunition and tackle is minimally 

regulated by state and federal agencies. This seems to contradict the efforts of state and federal 

regulatory agencies in the U.S. that try to minimize the amount of lead released into the 

environment from mining, manufacturing, and the recycling of lead products by requiring 

permits for any sort of industrial lead release (Pokras and Kneeland 2009).

The effects of spent lead shot and bullets on wildlife have been recognized in the U.S. since the 

1870s (Sanderson and Bellrose 1986), and the hazards of lead fishing sinkers to waterbirds were 

recognized in the 1970s when swans were poisoned in the UK (Sears 1988). The documentation 

of lead’s toxic effects on wildlife has accumulated; over 500 peer reviewed articles have 

examined the impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife (Petterson 2009). Recent studies have 

illustrated that lead ammunition fragments on impact much more than previously believed, 

dispersing small lead particles throughout the tissues of game animals (Cornicelli and Grund 

n.d., Pain et al. 2010). Fragmentation varies widely by ammunition type; Cornicelli and Grund 

(n.d.) found that rapid expansion bullets retain only 48% of their weight after striking a large 

game target. Fragments in the tissues of animals harvested with lead bullets or lead shotgun 
2

pellets are a serious source of lead exposure to scavenging animals that consume the meat with 

lead fragments; an estimated 134 species, including reptiles, birds, and mammals, have been 

poisoned by ingesting lead from spent ammunition and fishing tackle in the environment 

(Petterson 2009), and similar pathways exist for humans.

The ingestion of lead can lead to a range of molecular and behavioral effects as well as mortality 

and population-level consequences in some species (Rattner et al. 2008). Some of the noted 

adverse effects on human health are headaches, fatigue, myalgia, arthralgia, abdominal 

discomfort, renal system dysfunction, anemia, impaired fetal development, and brain dysfunction 

(NCM 2003, Kosnett 2009). Recent studies have also tied elevated bone or blood lead levels 

(BLL) to increased aggression, delinquent behavior, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder 

(Needleman 2004, Braun et al. 2006). Many of the effects occur at moderate to low levels of 

exposure, and a statement from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in 2005 stated that there is 

no threshold BLL value for which there is no effect. Due to the nonspecific nature of many of the 

symptoms, especially low level exposure effects, the causes are often attributed to other 

relatively common acute and chronic diseases (Kosnett 2009). This may be one of the reasons 

that lead is still being used; even though empirical evidence suggests that lead ingestion does 

occur, the health risks are not overt enough to prove causation.

A lack of overt causation is one of many factors that have contributed to the protracted use of 

lead for ammunition and fishing tackle. The potential hazardous effects of lead on humans, 

ecosystems, and fauna have led to greater societal pressure and concerted efforts to reduce the 

amount of lead introduced into the environment by human activities (Goddard et al. 2008), but 

strong opposition from sportsmen and industries has limited the success of such actions. To 

further mitigate the impacts of lead from spent ammunition and fishing tackle in the 

environment, the arguments, attitudes, and beliefs of all stakeholders need to be understood.

National Park Service Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Lead on NPS Lands

The NPS has stepped up efforts to reduce lead in national park environments, starting with the 

recent policies to eliminate lead from internal NPS activities for the protection of human health, 

wildlife health, and ecosystem health. Lead reduction efforts began in 2001 when the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), per Executive Order (EO) 13148 (EO 2000), lowered 

the threshold for lead releases into the environment from 1,000 to 100 pounds per calendar year. 

Parks with outdoor firing ranges were required to meet the new requirements for lead and Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) reporting to the EPA was required for parks releasing at or over the 100 

pound threshold. In 2003, to lessen the NPS’s reporting burden, comply with the EO, and 

mitigate further lead contamination of the environment, NPS began phasing out the use of leaded 

ammunition for firearms qualifications and shooting practice. In 2007 EO 13423 (EO 2007)

required federal agencies to reduce the quantity of toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials 

acquired, used, or disposed. NPS then mandated that a complete transition to non-lead 

ammunition for law enforcement qualification and training be achieved by October 1, 2008. The 

NPS transitioned to non-lead ammunition in culling operations and the dispatching of wounded 

and sick animals in 2009. These actions have advanced the NPS goal of being a leader in the use 

of environmentally-friendly products and services, for the protection of park employees, visitors, 

and the lands under NPS management. 
3

Future efforts to further reduce lead contamination of the environment include exploring the 

prospect of reducing the effects from lead in public hunting and fishing activities in NPS units. 

Recreational hunting is generally prohibited in NPS units except in park areas where it is 

specifically mandated by federal law, and it may be allowed in park areas where it is specifically 

authorized as a discretionary activity under federal law; units with discretionary authorization 

must determine that hunting is consistent with public safety and enjoyment and sound resource 

management principles and must adopt special regulations to implement that authority (Hunting 

and Trapping 2010). The NPS currently manages 62 units that meet these criteria. Hunting is 

mandated or authorized and implemented on a discretionary basis under federal law in 61 of 

these units (Figure 1). Except in designated areas, or as outlined in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (Fishing 2010), fishing is allowed in park areas in accordance with the laws and 

regulations of the state in which the park is located. While the NPS is interested in all 

landscapes, even those beyond its borders, it is first looking at its own imprint from lead use in 

parks and exploring ways to lessen that imprint as well as the impacts of park visitors who 

pursue hunting and fishing in units where these activities are allowed.

Recent policies banning lead ammunition in internal NPS operations reveal that this issue has the 

potential to be highly visible and controversial if applied to public hunting and fishing in parks. 

When the NPS announced the intent to investigate ways to reduce lead in NPS environments, 

several organizations were quick to offer comments and criticism. For example, the American 

Sportfishing Association (ASA), which opposes bans on lead fishing tackle, stated that if the 

NPS pursued such a ban, they would seek an appropriate rule-making process (ASA 2009). The 

National Rifle Association (NRA) also announced its intent to oppose NPS actions to eliminate 

lead ammunition, calling these actions unnecessary (NRA-ILA 2009). The response from the 

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) was similar (PLD 2009). Thirteen Republican 

Senators also spoke out against a possible NPS ban on lead ammunition, claiming that the ban 

would have negative impacts on hunters, the economy, and wildlife populations (PLD 2009). 

While there was a strong response by opponents to the potential for future NPS action on this 

issue, there were also many proponents who demonstrated their support for banning lead-based 

ammunition and fishing tackle. The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) 

organized a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, urging him to support an NPS lead ban. In 

the letter, the groups stated, “We applaud the leadership demonstrated by this effort,” and, “We 

strongly support this effort to achieve a lead-free national park system by the end of 2010” 

(PEER 2009). Signatories included the Coalition of NPS Retirees, the Humane Society of the 

United States, Wildlife Stewards, the Arizona Zoological Society, Desert Protective Council, 

Wilderness Watch, and Delaware Audubon. The groups cite the poisoning of wildlife and the 

potential for dissolved lead to contaminate groundwater as key reasons for their support.

NPS decision-making on this high profile issue will be guided by a combination of the best 

available science, accurate fidelity to the law, and commitment to diverse public interests, along 

with significant public involvement, comment, and review. Through smart, pro-active 

stewardship, the NPS will be empowered to address immediate controversies and long-term 

challenges, and ultimately improve its ability to preserve the integrity of park ecosystems. The 

NPS will review and consider all possible mechanisms for reducing the impacts of lead from 

hunting and fishing in park units. For example, conversion to the use of non-lead ammunition 

and fishing tackle would eliminate lead pathways to humans, wildlife, and the environment from 
4

hunting and fishing. Regulatory action is one way of attempting to achieve such a conversion, 

but issues of compliance and enforcement may affect the success of this type of action. Nonregulatory mechanisms, including provision of incentives and public outreach to raise awareness 

and motivate voluntary change, are also options to explore. It is important to note that these 

action categories (i.e., regulatory v. non-regulatory) are not necessarily mutually exclusive; the 

most effective and realistic approach may involve a combination of techniques. 

Most prior efforts to mitigate lead contamination from hunting and fishing focused on the switch 

to non-lead alternatives, but for hunting at least, there may be other strategies to consider. For 

example, in some areas, removal of visceral remains (or offal piles) of animals harvested with 

lead has been suggested. To illustrate, a proposed regulation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) for Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge reads, “Hunters must use nontoxic 

ammunition or remove or bury the visceral remains of harvested animals” (National Wildlife 

Refuge System 2010). While offal piles can provide wildlife with an excellent source of 

nourishment, they can also have adverse impacts when lead ammunition is used. High 

concentrations of lead can be found in these remains given that hunters typically aim for vital 

organs to ensure a humane and rapid take-down. Removal of the remains would eliminate this 

source of lead for wildlife, but there is some question as to whether simply burying the remains 

is effective (Sullivan 2009). Suggesting burying remains also may not be an option in some NPS 

units where digging is prohibited due to the presence of sensitive resources, such as soils and 

historical or archeological resources. This strategy also does not address game that is wounded 

but not recovered by hunters, which would still be a likely source of lead ingestion for wildlife. 

In selecting among these and other alternatives for reducing lead in NPS units, an important 

consideration is the extent to which measures will be supported by different stakeholder groups 

and the effectiveness of these measures in producing desired changes. In recognition of this, we 

now turn to a discussion of the role of human dimensions in informing future NPS decisions and 

public outreach on the lead contamination issue.
5

Figure 1. NPS units and recreational hunting status. “Units with hunting” include units where hunting is (1) mandated or 

(2) authorized and implemented on a discretionary basis, under federal law.
6
7

The Role of Human Dimensions in Addressing Lead in the 

Environment

Human dimensions of natural resources is an area of investigation that attempts to describe, 

predict, understand, and affect human thought and action toward natural environments 

(Manfredo et al. 1996). Humans have more impact on the environment than any other species 

and also rely heavily upon natural resources. Because conservation problems are often social in 

nature, successful conservation and management efforts must be based on understanding the 

needs and interests of people. In recent decades, the public has increasingly demanded input in 

the activities and decisions surrounding natural resource management in this country (Bright and 

Manfredo 1993). Prior to that time, natural resource management was, for the most part, based 

on professional judgment and the expertise of biological scientists (Shepard 1990). As the public 

increasingly asserts the right to be informed and involved, managers have recognized the need 

for better tools to represent and communicate with the public, especially as natural resource 

issues have become more controversial, leading to greater conflicts among diverse public 

interests. 

Management decisions regarding lead ammunition and fishing tackle have the potential to be 

highly controversial, with stakeholders with different perspectives becoming highly involved. As 

discussed in greater detail later on in this report, a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot for 

waterfowl hunting in 1991 was implemented without much regard for hunters’ attitudes toward 

the regulation (AFWA 2007); it was subsequently met with much resistance and animosity, 

thereby diminishing its effectiveness (Pokras and Kneeland 2008). From past experiences like 

this, natural resource agencies have come to understand that stakeholders want to be included in 

the decision-making process; that they need to understand human behavior and its impacts upon 

natural resources; and that successful solutions to conservation/management problems will 

depend upon effective communication with and acceptance from the public. None of the NPS’s 

current efforts to reduce impacts from lead ammunition and fishing tackle include human 

dimensions research, but the need for such research to inform NPS response to this issue has 

been recognized. Future decisions regarding these issues should begin with an understanding of 

factors at the root of human behavior and stakeholders’ preferences for management. These 

social considerations are crucial to successfully address impacts of lead in NPS environments.

The Need for Public Outreach

Human behavior is the root cause of lead in the environment from spent ammunition and fishing 

tackle; it is only by affecting human behavior that these pathways can be modified or eliminated. 

Public outreach includes a broad spectrum of activities, ranging from education and information 

provision to persuasive communication strategies, and can play an important role by serving as a 

mechanism to promote behavior change and build support for management actions. Outreach 

efforts often are among the preferred mitigation strategies to address undesirable behaviors and 

promote alternative forms of human action (Jacobson 2009). At times, outreach may be preferred 

over regulatory measures for altering behavior because it can provide an enduring solution that 

transcends many contexts; it retains one’s freedom of choice and is typically less intrusive; and it 

is thought to be less expensive than other alternatives. For example, we may hypothesize that 

some hunters and anglers use non-lead products only in areas where there are regulations, but 

through effective communication these individuals might be persuaded to use non-lead products 
8

outside of regulated areas as well. Public outreach can also be viewed as a necessary complement 

to regulatory solutions. In situations where regulations may be the preferred management option, 

they contribute to mitigation only when individuals comply with them or when they can be 

stringently enforced. In these situations, outreach may be used to help raise awareness of the 

need for regulatory action and thereby contribute to greater levels of support and compliance.

In addition to the reasons stated above, public outreach can often attenuate contentious debates 

over scientific evidence that are commonplace with issues involving environmental impacts and 

their mitigation. Health and environmental policies are always based on scientific evidence, up to 

a point (Wilson and Anderson 1997). While this is necessary and valuable for many reasons, 

Wilson and Anderson (1997) argue that defining that point can become particularly problematic 

and controversial for certain issues. They go on to articulate specific concerns in this matter. 

Scientific uncertainty and disagreement among scientists create the greatest challenges for 

applying science to policy. Policymakers, who often hear from different scientists who have 

drawn disparate conclusions, most often agree with evidence that is in line with their previouslyheld views. Also, scientific uncertainty is frequently cited as a reason to hold off on decisionmaking, but waiting for science to be definitive, if that is achievable, may not be possible for 

matters of public health. Uncertainty can be introduced easily, and there is no guiding principle 

for the amount of scientific evidence necessary to inform a particular course of action. In regards 

to the use of lead products in hunting and fishing, the lack of scientific certainty has called into 

question the justification for policy decisions (e.g., regulatory bans) in many cases. Justification 

has become very subjective, as it often does when threats and causation are not visible, direct, or 

immediately detectable. Due to such concerns and the overall nature of environmental policy 

decisions in the U.S., public outreach (and more specifically, communication aimed at promoting 

voluntary behavior change) may prove to be the most promising alternative for effectively 

reducing the impacts of lead from hunting and fishing activities on a large scale.

Practitioners often embark upon communication initiatives rather naively, assuming that simply 

by making information available, desired behavior changes will follow. In reality, effective 

communication is notoriously difficult to develop. Various factors confound our ability to 

persuade someone with informational messages (Wood 2000). The extent of attitude and 

behavior change may depend upon source factors, recipient factors, and message factors (Eagly 

and Chaiken 1993, Petty and Cacioppo 1996, Wood 2000). Some important source factors to 

consider are how credible a source is to recipients and the perceived intent of the source. 

Pertinent characteristics of recipients include their prior knowledge and the strength and function 

of existing attitudes. Message factors that are important to consider may seem apparent, but 

many entities embark upon persuasive communication campaigns without asking these key 

questions: 1) Are messages relevant to the issue and to the audience? 2) How strong are the 

arguments presented? 3) Are messages comprehensible to recipients? 4) What is an appropriate 

number of arguments to be persuasive, but not overwhelm and dilute key points? 5) Should 

messages be personal or non-personal in nature? 6) Are messages one-sided or do they provide 

both sides to an argument? 7) What is the channel of communication (e.g. radio, television, 

brochures, events) that will be most effective for conveying the message to the target audience? 

While research has been unable to identify simple and broadly generalizable conclusions about 

persuasion, important conceptual advancements in relation to these and other factors have been 

made recently that can help guide communication programs (Crano and Prislin 2006). Adding to 

this body of literature, Schweizer et al. (2009) recently identified “10 key principles” for 
9

effective communication that provides practical guidance to natural resource agencies (Table 1). 

Although the focus was on informing strategies for communicating about climate change, the 

authors acknowledged that many of these principles apply to communication in any situation.

Table 1. Ten key principles for effective communication (adapted from Schweizer et al. 2009).

1. Know your audience and select a credible messenger for that audience.

2. Know what type of claim or argument you are asserting and why it is appropriate for your audience. 

Lead with your strongest argument or your most confident point.

3. Connect your message to cultural values and beliefs; people react to traditions, experiences, and 

shared values – not abstract concepts and scientific data.

4. Make the message meaningful; appeal to values that are meaningful for your audience.

5. Make the message empowering; tell your audience what specific actions they can take to make a 

difference.

6. Encourage your audience to engage in systems thinking and help them to understand dynamic 

interrelationships and interconnections.

7. Partner with other organizations, key players, leaders, employees, entertainers, and neighbors.

8. Start from the inside – get your organization’s top leaders involved, inspire action internally first, then 

communicate about it.

9. Communicate about actions and remember that actions and events are an effective mode of 

communication.

10. Situate the issue in a specific location or place. 

Additional Lessons Learned from Social Psychology

Theories from social psychology can be useful in understanding the factors that form the basis 

for human behavior and in facilitating more targeted communication initiatives that are able to 

account for those factors (Teel 2008). Two theories that have been widely-applied in a natural 

resources context are the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Theory of Planned Behavior 

(TPB; Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Ajzen 1991; for example 

applications, see Manfredo et al. 1990, Bright et al. 1993). According to TRA, individual 

behavior stems from one’s behavioral intentions, which are in turn a function of specific attitudes 

and norms. TPB, introduced later, also accounts for the role of perceived behavioral control, 

recognizing that some behaviors require certain resources and skills to enable individual action. 

Another important theoretical framework that builds upon these attitude-behavior models is the 

cognitive hierarchy, which specifies relationships among attitudes and more general and more 

enduring cognitions such as values and value orientations (Manfredo et al. 2009).

Attitudes are a key concept in each of these models and have been a major focus of human 

dimensions investigations because they are useful in predicting behaviors and can offer a 

parsimonious way of describing a group’s thoughts on an issue (Manfredo et al. 2004, Manfredo 

2008). Attitudes are defined as the evaluation of an object (e.g., an issue, entity, or behavior) 

with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). Individuals have thousands of 

attitudes in memory that are held with varying levels of strength and certainty. The extent to 
10

which attitudes guide behavior and are resistant to change is based in part on how strongly held 

they are by an individual (Petty and Krosnick 1995). A number of strength-related attributes of 

attitudes have been identified in the literature. These include, for example, degree of involvement 

with the issue or attitude object, level of emotion experienced in relation to the issue/object, and 

prior knowledge about the issue/object (Table 2).

Table 2. A sample of attitude strength-related attributes.

Attribute Definition Example

Involvement

- Outcome-relevant involvement (the decision 

affects me personally)

- Value-relevant involvement (the issue is 

important to me because of my basic values)

- A ban on lead ammunition 

will affect my success as a 

hunter.

- A ban on lead fishing 

tackle will protect wildlife 

from lead poisoning.

Emotion - Affective response (the issue make me angry, 

sad, happy, etc.)

- The thought of a lead ban 

makes me very angry.

- The thought of lead 

poisoning in condors 

makes me very sad.

Knowledge

- Objective knowledge (factual information)

- Subjective knowledge (what I believe to be true 

about the issue)

- I know a lot about the 

issue.

- My beliefs may not all be 

factual, but they are many.

The functions and characteristics of attitudes, especially their strength, make mere provision of 

information about a natural resource issue an oftentimes ineffective strategy if the goal is attitude 

(and ultimately, behavior) change. One approach to improving communication effectiveness is 

the belief-targeted approach, which builds upon attitude-behavior models such as TRA (Fishbein 

and Manfredo 1992, Bright et al. 1993). According to this approach, the content of messages 

should be designed to target beliefs that form the basis for attitudes. Here it is important to know 

which beliefs are accessible and salient to the audience; that is, which beliefs come to mind 

readily when thinking about the issue (Stutman and Newell 1984). For example, an angler may 

have a negative attitude toward using non-lead sinkers. His/her attitude may be based on the 

belief that the monetary costs of using non-lead alternatives is too high, and/or that non-lead 

sinkers do not perform as well as lead ones. In this example, simply providing information about 

the scientific justification for transitioning to non-lead products is likely not enough to affect 

change. Instead (or in addition), it would be important to consider the angler’s pre-existing 

beliefs in terms of what gets emphasized in the persuasive messaging. In the belief-targeted 

approach, the structure of the persuasive message consists of an argument followed by evidence. 

Ideally, the message recipient accepts the supportive evidence, which in turn leads to acceptance 

of the arguments, and ultimately a change in beliefs and corresponding attitudes. This approach 

often yields better results than providing information alone; however it is not a guaranteed 

success, as many other factors can intervene and influence communication effectiveness.

Another lesson learned from social psychology is that the level of attitude change can depend on 

the extent to which individuals elaborate on, or think about, the information in a message (Petty 

and Cacioppo 1986). Dual-process models, including the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) 

and Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM), detail the factors that make recipients more or less 
11

prone to do this (Petty and Cacioppo 1986, Giner-Sorolla and Chaiken 1997, Na 1999). 

According to these models, effortful processing can result in more lasting attitude change, but it 

demands understanding and elaboration of message content by the recipient. This type of 

processing can be facilitated by ensuring that recipients have both the motivation and ability to 

engage in thoughtful evaluation of information contained in the message. Tactics along these 

lines might include limiting distractions and making messages more personally relevant and 

understandable to members of the target audience. Alternatively, a less demanding route to 

persuasion that does not depend on careful scrutiny of message content relies instead on 

heuristics, or simple decision rules. In this case, recipients may evaluate messages rapidly based 

on prior experience or intuitive judgments; source credibility can also serve as a heuristic. The 

use of celebrities in advertising and the use of simple slogans or visual images that appeal to 

recipients’ basic values are examples of approaches that rely on heuristic cues for persuasion. 

Eagly and Kulesa (1997) discussed the relevance of these approaches for communicating about 

environmental issues. Specifically, they used the northern spotted owl controversy in the western 

U.S. as an illustration and described how stakeholders on both sides of this issue were effective 

in garnering support for their positions through persuasive techniques. The timber industry 

promoted an ‘owls versus people’ slogan which portrayed the controversy as “a simple case of 

jobs for people versus habitat for one seemingly less important species” (Eagly and Kulesa 1997, 

p. 133). Environmentalist groups responded by releasing photographs to the media of devastation 

in the form of large expanses of clear-cut forests to convey the importance of environmental 

protection. Both groups were successful in framing the issue around human values and appealing 

to those values through simple heuristic-based approaches.

As Eagly and Kulesa (1997) argued, persuasive communication methods often involve cognitivebased appeals that, in order to be effective, presume recipients process information with care. 

However, the reality is that recipients may lack the motivation and/or ability to do so. As stated 

previously, various factors related to the source, message, recipient, and context can influence 

communication effectiveness and, more specifically, the extent to which people elaborate on 

message content. A phenomenon known as biased processing sheds additional light on this topic 

of factors contributing to the complexity of attitude change. Biased processing occurs when an 

individual critically evaluates incoming information subjectively and in such a way as to confirm 

and protect existing attitudes and beliefs (Wood et al. 1995). In other words, information that is 

consistent with an individual’s prior attitudes and beliefs is accepted, while information that is 

contradictory is discounted as erroneous. The end result is minimal, if any, attitude change 

following exposure to the new information. In a study of biased processing of information 

related to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Teel et al. (2006) found that 

recipients were not persuaded by arguments that contradicted their initial attitudes toward the 

issue, even though they were told the arguments were from credible sources. Further, they rated 

arguments in line with their pre-existing attitudes more favorably. Evidence of biased processing 

serves as another example of why communicators can’t assume that provision of factual 

information about an issue, especially a controversial one, is enough to produce desired attitude 

or behavior change. This is not to say that informational messages should be abandoned, but 

rather they should account for the characteristics of the target audience, including audience 

members’ attitudes, beliefs, and values as well as their ability/motivation to process information. 

Another consideration worth mentioning in the context of attitude/behavior change is the 

influence of norms on attitudes and behaviors. Norms have been conceptualized in the literature 
12

in a variety of ways, but here we refer to them as a person’s beliefs about what is proper or 

improper behavior for individuals in a given context (Donnelly et al. 2000, Manfredo 2008). 

Norms are associated with social groups and social roles and can be a powerful influence on 

behavior. Therefore, an understanding of norms can enhance our ability to predict certain 

behaviors, particularly those more likely to be socially-influenced. In thinking about issues 

related to lead ammunition and fishing tackle, two of the primary stakeholders are hunters and 

anglers. Generally, hunters and anglers identify strongly with other hunters and anglers. This 

may be informally with friends and family members who also participate in the activities, or 

more formally through affiliation with hunting and fishing organizations. In either case, hunters 

and anglers who identify themselves as part of a social group defined by these activities may 

consider whether others in the group would approve or disapprove of their behavior. They may

also be guided by descriptive norms, i.e. what other people do will influence their actions.

Risk Communication

Risk perception and risk communication are other areas of study that have particular relevance to 

lead issues. The use of lead products in hunting and fishing can pose health risks to humans, 

wildlife, and the environment. Risk has been defined as the possibility that actions or events will 

cause harm to humans or to things human beings value (Hohenemser et al. 1983, Kates and 

Kasperson 1983, Klinke and Renn 2002). Risk assessments are used to quantify risks by way of 

technological analyses that evaluate the possibility and/or severity of hazards, but risk 

perceptions often do not coincide with actual risk potential (Wilson and Arvai 2006a, 2006b). 

Risk perceptions, defined as intuitive judgments of risk (Slovic 1987), can be a function of 

personality traits (e.g. Flynn et al. 1994), group membership (e.g. Burt 1987, Lee 1998, Scherer 

and Cho 2003), and cultural influences (e.g. Slovic and Peters 1998). 

Risk communication involves a purposeful exchange of information about risk between 

interested parties, often with the goal of providing the public with the necessary information to 

make informed judgments about risk (Morgan et al. 1992). In designing effective risk 

communication messages it is important to understand the nature of individuals’ beliefs, 

including their current perceptions of risk, that relate to the behaviors of interest; these 

perceptions influence attitudes and behavior (Knuth et al. 1992). Risk perceptions can also bear 

upon levels of support for management actions and receptivity to educational messages.
13

Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Lead from Recreational 

Fishing

Lead fishing lures, sinkers, lead core fishing line, downrigger cannonballs, and weights used on 

fishing traps and nets are introduced into aquatic ecosystems by commercial and recreational 

anglers through accidental or intentional breakage (Goddard et al. 2008). There is a range of 

potential consequences from lead introduced through fishing activities, but the extent of hazards 

is not fully known. Lost lead fishing tackle is thought to be relatively stable, with the potential to 

remain intact for decades to centuries (SAAMI 1996). Very few studies have examined the 

dissolution of lead from fishing tackle, and these have been inconclusive. More research is 

needed to determine the dissolution of all types of lead fishing tackle at varying densities and 

water chemistry conditions (Goddard et al. 2008). 

A larger body of research has examined the impacts of lost lead on fauna with somewhat more 

conclusive evidence. No studies have been able to link lead exposure from ingested fishing 

tackle to fish mortality, and there is no evidence to suggest that ingestion of lead tackle by 

amphibians or reptiles is a widespread problem (Goddard et al. 2008). Turtles are one exception; 

published and unpublished literature has documented snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentine) 

suffering from lead poisoning caused by ingesting lead fishing weights (Borkowski 1997).

Lead fishing tackle has had the greatest impact on bird species that ingest fishing tackle lost or 

abandoned along banks or in water bodies (Goddard et al. 2008). Birds that normally ingest 

small pebbles to break down food in their gizzards may mistakenly ingest fishing tackle. They

typically ingest lead fishing weights that are less than 57 grams (2 ounces); for this reason, most

harm to waterbirds involves smaller lead weights used by recreational anglers (Scheuhammer 

and Norris 1995). Once ingested, lead can poison the birds and eventually kill them. 

In the 1970s lead poisoning of birds from ingesting fishing weights emerged as a significant 

issue in the UK due to the decline of mute swan (Cygnus olor) populations (Sears 1988). This 

resulted in the banning of lead fishing sinkers weighing less than 1 ounce in the UK in 1986 

(Pattee and Pain 2003). In 1991, studies confirmed that a reduced number of mute swans were 

poisoned by lead following the ban (Sears and Hunt 1991). Swans in the Thames River Valley 

also showed significant declines in BLLs after the ban, but 60% of swans sampled still had 

elevated BLLs (Perrins et al. 2003). 

The hazards of lead fishing tackle to common loons (Gavia immer) were reported in North 

America in the early 1990s (Franson and Cliplef 1992, Pokras and Chafel 1992, Stone and 

Okoniewski 2001). Since that time, many studies have attempted to quantify the impacts of lead 

fishing tackle on common loons. In areas where there are both loon populations, and recreational 

fishing, lead poisoning from swallowing lead sinkers has accounted for 10% to 50% of recorded 

loon mortality (USFWS 1999). In New England, over 50% of adult breeding loon mortalities 

were caused by ingesting lead sinkers and jigs. Similar evidence reported in Michigan, 

Minnesota, Ontario, and on Lake Erie in New York has shown that 40%, 17%, 27%, and 30%, 

respectively, of dead adult loons were likely poisoned by lead (USFWS 1999). Loons are not the 

only bird species in the U.S. to be affected by lost lead fishing tackle; more than 30 species in at 

least ten states have reportedly suffered mortality as a result of lead fishing tackle ingestion 
14

(Nadis 2001). These species include swans, pelicans, geese, ducks, cranes, herons, and eagles. 

However, while the problem affects many bird species, loons are the most heavily impacted, 

followed by brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis; Franson and Smith 1999).

Notable Regulatory and Voluntary Actions in the U.S.

For reasons cited above, loons have been at the center of regulations and outreach efforts 

regarding the use of lead fishing tackle in the U.S. Some U.S. federal agencies have banned the 

use of lead tackle on lands with loon and swan populations, such as NPS units and National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWR), (Table 3). In addition, the five states with regulations in place all cite 

the common loon as their primary purpose for a ban, while also recognizing benefits for other 

waterbirds (Table 4). The prohibition on the use of lead sinkers in Massachusetts, for example, 

applies to the Quabbin and Wachusett Reservoirs, the two bodies of water that support the bulk 

of the state’s loon populations. In the four other states, the regulations are statewide. The ban in 

Massachusetts will extend statewide in 2012. New Hampshire was the first state to ban the use of 

lead sinkers of one ounce or less, and according to New Hampshire Fish and Game personnel, 

enforcement has been done by performing random checks on anglers (Michael 2006). Violators 

are subject to a maximum fine of $250, but unless violators blatantly disregard the rules, they are 

educated about the ban and the reasons behind it rather than being fined (Michael 2006). Little 

information about angler compliance with the use of non-lead fishing weights is available in 

New Hampshire or the other areas where regulations exist. Officials in Maine, New Hampshire, 

Vermont, and New York have stated that regulations are too recent for compliance data to be 

obtained (Rattner et al. 2008). However, one study in New Hampshire has suggested that 

common loon mortalities due to lead toxicosis saw a 39% reduction after the ban (Vogel 2005).

Table 3. NPS Units and NWRs with regulations on the use of lead fishing tackle.

Unit State(s) Regulation

Yellowstone NP ID, MT, 

WY

Leaded fishing tackle such as leaded split-shot sinkers, 

weighted jigs, and shot lead-weighted ribbon for nymph 

fishing are not allowed. 

Glacier NP MT

The use of all lead associated with fishing is prohibited 

within the park. This includes weights, lures, jigs, line, etc. 

The only exception is a fisherman who is using a 

downrigger; cannon ball weights of 2 to 10 pounds may 

be used on the down-rigger cable.

Bear Lake NWR ID Use and possession of lead weights or sinkers is 

prohibited.

Union Slough NWR IA Use and possession of lead terminal tackle is prohibited.

Rachel Carson NWR ME Lead jigs and sinkers are prohibited.

Assabet River NWR MA Lead sinkers are prohibited.

Seney NWR MI Use or possession of fishing weights or lures containing 

lead is prohibited.

Red Rock Lakes NWR MT Use and possession of lead sinkers or any lead fishing 

product while fishing are prohibited.

Rappahannock River Valley NWR VA Use of lead sinkers is prohibited.
15

Table 4. U.S. states with restrictions on the use of lead fishing tackle.

State Year Sportfishing Regulation

Maine 2002

A person may not sell or offer for sale a lead sinker for fishing that contains any lead and 

weights 1/2 ounce or less.

[http://www.maine.gov/ifw/laws_rules/fishing/openwater/index.htm#lawsanddefinitions] 

Massachusetts

2001 The use of lead sinkers is banned at two reservoirs (Quabbin and Wachusett).

2012

Lead fishing sinkers and jigs less than 1 ounce will be prohibited in all inland waters of 

the Commonwealth effective January 1, 2012.

[Massachusetts Fish & Wildlife Guide to Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping. 2010] 

New Hampshire 2000

The use of lead sinkers and jigs in all fresh water in New Hampshire, including lakes, 

ponds, rivers and streams is prohibited. The ban prohibits the sale and use of lead 

sinkers weighing 1 ounce or less and lead jigs less than 1 inch long along their longest 

axis. 

[http://www.wildnh.com/Fishing/get_the_lead_out.htm] 

New York 2004 The sale of lead fishing sinkers weighing 1/2 ounce or less is prohibited. 

[http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9223.html] 

Vermont 2003

A person shall not use a lead sinker in the state of Vermont which weighs 1/2 ounce or 

less. It is unlawful to sell or offer for sale a lead sinker in the state of Vermont. 

[http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/get_the_lead_out_Main.cfm?ret=./FW_FAQ.crf?title=G

et%20the%20Lead%20Out#116&CFID=5431&CFTOKEN=2e84c04c5e63f1-487EF5F0-

5056-B15A-A8315AF4CA7383C0&jsessionid=%20e6301c85867755325953]

In all five states where regulations have been enacted, targeted outreach has occurred prior to and 

following implementation. Four states (an online search turned up nothing from Maine) 

produced an informational brochure; displayed in all of the brochures is a picture of a loon along 

with the slogan “Get the Lead Out”. This slogan has been used in many lead awareness 

campaigns, most notably to bring attention to the dangers of lead paint in residential buildings. 

Other common features of the brochures include information about the state’s regulations; other 

states that have regulations; how lead fishing tackle impacts wildlife, with a focus on loons; what 

alternatives to lead are available; how to dispose of old lead sinkers; and ways that anglers can 

help prevent lead poisoning of bird species. Brochures, and a variety of other educational 

materials such as posters, have been distributed and exhibited through various means. For 

example, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from Massachusetts handed out materials, 

brochures, and sample fishing weights at local, national, and international sportsman’s events 

(Browne 2009); in 2001, a program sponsored by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in 

New England placed educational displays at dozens of state parks, tackle shops, and fishing 

events throughout the region (Nadis 2001); and the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife 

included a full-page description of the lead issue and specifics of the state law in the Vermont 

Digest of Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Laws and in its 2005 Angler’s Pocket Guide (Michael 

2006).

Lead tackle exchange programs have also been implemented in these states. These programs 

encourage anglers to turn in lead fishing tackle to the sponsoring agency or organization to be 

safely disposed, and in return anglers receive non-lead tackle. Lead exchanges often take place in 

conjunction with fishing events, such as fishing derbies. In Massachusetts, the lead tackle 

exchange program began as an Eagle Scout project with the BSA which has collected over 65 
16

pounds of lead through the effort (Browne 2009). Between 1999 and 2000, a campaign in 

Vermont and New Hampshire gathered more than 40,000 lead sinkers at fishing stores and state 

parks (Nadis 2001). The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife (VTDFW) has also 

distributed free samples of non-lead sinkers at its district offices, select state parks, fishing 

clinics and educational events, and at all of the state fish hatcheries (VTDFW n.d.). Exchange 

programs and free samples offer a way to introduce anglers to non-lead alternatives, and draw 

attention to educational campaigns designed to alert anglers to the toxicity of lead in the aquatic 

environments they use for recreation (Goddard et al. 2008). 

In general, when these five states implemented their bans, they were not confronted with strong 

opposition or controversy. A notable exception to this was in Maine, where the Bass Anglers 

Sportsman Society (BASS) and people associated with youth fishing programs provided 

testimony against the proposed regulations during the legislative process (Michael 2006). Having 

donated thousands of dollars in fishing gear to kids, BASS was concerned that some of the gear 

would become illegal. In New Hampshire, most local sportfishing groups did not show much 

resistance, and they did not get involved in the legislative process (Michael 2006). In New York, 

there was little resistance to regulations, although the ban that was passed was less restrictive 

than the one originally proposed; rather than banning the use of lead sinkers under one-half 

ounce, the ban applied only to the sale of the sinkers to allow anglers time to transition to 

alternative products (Michael 2006). In Vermont, where a very thorough program was directed 

by the legislature, the VTDFW had the support of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs 

and the NWF, and little opposition was encountered from either anglers or retailers (Michael 

2006). Some small fishing-gear retailers in the different states were unhappy with the ban on 

sales of small lead tackle because they were left with unsellable inventory; for chain stores this 

was less of a concern because they could transfer stock to states where lead is legal. Contacting 

small retailers for purposes of implementing the bans also proved to be a bit of a challenge, 

whereas chain stores were easier to reach and communicate with (Michael 2006). 

Although widespread opposition was not encountered in these particular states, nationwide bans 

and bans on lead fishing tackle proposed in other states have not been successfully implemented. 

For example, the EPA proposed a ban on the manufacture, processing, and distribution of lead 

and zinc sinkers in response to a citizen’s proposal to require labels or warnings on lead fishing 

sinkers (Michael 2006). A bill containing this ban was introduced to the 1994 U.S. Legislature, 

but it was not passed. Had it become law, the economic impact of the ban was estimated to be 

less than $4 per year for the average angler, and an estimated 4.7 million birds could have 

potentially been saved from lead poisoning. The EPA’s proposed restrictions were unique in that 

they would have targeted all sizes and types of lead sinkers, whereas the state-level bans 

currently in place have only applied to sinkers of certain sizes that pose the greatest danger to 

waterbird species, such as loons. Another example of a failed effort at the national level was the 

1999 announcement by the USFWS of its intent to establish additional lead-free fishing areas on 

units of the NWR system. The areas consisted of places where mortality of common loons from 

lead sinker ingestion had occurred, or where habitats used by loons co-existed with significant 

recreational fishing activities (USFWS 1999). The USFWS has yet to implement these proposed 

restrictions. 

States outside of the northeast region of the U.S. have also encountered difficulties in 

implementing regulations. A bill before Minnesota’s state legislature during the 2002-2003 
17

session proposed a ban on the use and sale of some lead fishing sinkers and jigs; the bill was 

dropped due to opposition from angler groups and tackle manufacturers. Minnesota opted to 

change the bill from a ban to “a call on the state to encourage the use of non-lead tackle and 

educate the public about the potential perils of lead tackle” (Smith 2003). For nearly ten years, 

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has worked to raise public awareness of the 

need for non-lead alternatives and increase availability of these alternatives at retail stores 

(MPCA 2010). A variety of tools have been used by the MPCA, including lead exchange 

programs which collected 7,000 pounds of lead tackle from 2001 to 2008 and provision of free 

educational kits to members of lake associations to help them promote non-lead products. The 

MPCA also partnered with Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources and five Minnesotabased manufacturers to offer “Get the Lead Out” retail displays for stores; this came in response 

to feedback that anglers were frustrated by the difficulty of finding non-lead tackle in stores 

(MPCA 2010). While the regulatory actions pursued in Minnesota were opposed by many 

stakeholders, subsequent voluntary measures have achieved high levels of support as a result of

cooperation among tackle manufacturers, retailers, lake associations, conservation organizations, 

anglers, and the government (MPCA 2010). Data are largely unavailable to indicate whether 

these efforts have been successful in reducing lead toxicosis in wildlife and if anglers are 

switching to non-lead alternatives. However, dead loons collected in Minnesota and Wisconsin 

are currently being examined in a lab in Wisconsin to determine the cause of mortality, and 

surveys from a recent Minnesota sportsman’s event suggest a behavioral change among some 

anglers (MPCA, Amanda Baribeau, Electronic Waste Coordinator, phone conversation, April 12, 

2010).

Most recently the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC) approved restrictions on 

the use of lead fishing tackle at 13 lakes with nesting common loons in early December 2010. 

The restrictions prohibit the use of lead weights and jigs that measure 11⁄2 inches or less along the 

longest axis at 12 lakes in Washington and the use of flies containing lead at Long Lake in Ferry 

County, Washington. The restrictions, which take effect May 1, are designed to protect loons 

from being poisoned by ingesting small lead fishing gear lost by anglers. The proposal was 

announced in early November 2009, and opponents, including the NRA, ASA, and BASS, 

criticized the motives behind the ban. These opponents claimed that the effects on loons are not 

substantial enough to support a ban. Chris Horton, BASS Conservation Director, stated, “the 

supporting data is ridiculously insignificant and in no way justifies, scientifically, the proposed 

ban on lead fishing tackle” (Robbins 2009). However, after a public hearing on the issue in 

October where the WFWC reviewed the findings of a Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW) advisory group, the regulations to ban certain types of lead fishing tackle 

were determined to be the best way to minimize risks to loons.

Wisconsin has also been actively involved in educating anglers about dangers posed to wildlife 

from the accidental loss of lead fishing tackle. Many organizations have partnered in these

outreach efforts; they include the Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative (WBCI), Wisconsin 

Society for Ornithology, Raptor Education Group, Inc., Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, 

Wisconsin Association of Lakes, Loon Watch, Trout Unlimited, and Gordon/St. Croix Flowage 

Association (WBCI n.d.). While management actions in Wisconsin have focused primarily on 

the promotion of voluntary use of non-lead tackle, the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) currently is considering a ban that would phase out the use of lead fishing 

tackle of the sizes and weights that pose the highest risk to wildlife. Citizens voted on the 
18

proposal on April 12, 2010. Although the majority of the citizens voted "yes," 33 counties 

approved while 37 counties rejected. In addition, citizens in Bayfield County did not believe the 

result adequately reflected the wishes of Wisconsin sportsmen and proposed a Citizen 

Resolution, which would revisit the topic with more specifics in the next sportsman vote. This 

resolution passed. The Natural Resources Board is currently in the process of reviewing 

recommendations from WDNR; final rules should become effective in spring 2011.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is also currently considering a proposal to 

restrict the use of some lead fishing tackle in freshwater lakes with loon populations (Robbins 

2009). The proposal would make it unlawful to use lead weights weighing less than one-half 

ounce and lead jigs measuring less than 11⁄2 inches. Since the announcement of the proposal in 

early November 2009, opponents, including the NRA, ASA, and BASS, have criticized the 

motives behind the ban. These opponents claim that the effects on loons are not substantial 

enough to support a ban. Chris Horton, BASS Conservation Director, stated, “the supporting data 

is ridiculously insignificant and in no way justifies, scientifically, the proposed ban on lead 

fishing tackle” (Robbins 2009). A ruling by the Commission on this proposal is expected in 

spring 2011. 

In addition to the above examples of where regulatory and voluntary measures are being 

pursued, many other states have engaged in outreach campaigns to reduce the impacts of lead 

from recreational fishing. Almost all states have at least some information publicly available 

regarding the hazards of lead tackle, often promulgated by the state fish and wildlife agencies. 

Many other organizations also disseminate information. For example, the Oregon Department of 

Human Services released a brochure, the cover of which reads, “Attention Fishermen, Fishing 

Weights Contain Dangerous Levels of Lead” (ODHS 2004). The contents of the brochure focus 

mainly on the threats to human health and how to avoid lead exposure; only one item suggests 

using non-lead fishing sinkers. While many of the messages espoused in outreach campaigns 

consistently focus on threats to birds, and in particular loons, there are various messages being 

used by different entities, and various forms of distribution. A final notable example is 

California’s 2001 requirement that manufacturers of lures that contain lead print a warning on 

the packaging (Michael 2006). The warning states that lead can cause cancer, birth defects and 

other reproductive harm in humans.

These outreach initiatives, which have occurred mostly at the state level, have been less 

controversial than regulatory bans. In fact, the ASA, one of the strongest opponents to lead bans, 

supports efforts aimed at encouraging voluntary use of non-lead tackle (ASA 2009). The ASA 

also acknowledges that lead toxicosis of waterbirds such as loons can occur, and that areas that 

are “hot spots” for ingestion of sinkers should promote restrictions based on sound science (ASA

2009). Despite the increasing levels of support for voluntary action, the ASA and other groups 

have spoken out against bans on lead tackle based on the conclusion that there is insufficient 

scientific data; loon populations are stable and increasing; there are more serious threats to loons, 

such as loss of habitat due to shore development; alternatives cost six to twenty times more than 

lead; alternatives do not perform as well as lead; and bans would require significant changes 

from industries and anglers that aren’t justified (ASA 2009, Goddard et al. 2008). A similar 

argument is that lead sinkers have not been shown to cause wide-spread population-level effects 

or to cause substantial changes in species distributions (Goddard et al. 2008). Many argue that 

population-level impacts should not be a prerequisite for corrective action (Goddard et al. 2008). 
19

The arguments over the scientific basis for bans also extend to the inconclusiveness of reports on 

dissolution of lead from fishing tackle in aquatic ecosystems as well as impacts on human health; 

these debates tend to be the most controversial and difficult to resolve.

The extent to which price factors are problematic depends on the fluctuating cost of alternative 

materials and general economic conditions. However, alternatives to lead fishing tackle have

been available in Canada, the U.S., and European countries for several years, and many 

manufacturers already produce non-lead tackle (Scheuhammer and Norris 1995, NCM 2003). In 

addition, the actual cost differences may be minimal. Doug Crumrine, owner of the company 

Bullet Weights, says that a pack of steel sinkers costs only 10 to 20 cents more than a lead pack 

of comparable size (Nadis 2001). Nevertheless, some argue that the increased cost will 

discourage or restrict the ability of recreational anglers to use non-lead products, especially 

during difficult economic times. Tied to this is the argument that a decline in angler numbers

could result from further restrictions, which would lead to a decrease in conservation funding 

partially derived from the sale of fishing licenses. No evidence exists, however, to suggest that 

this trend has occurred in areas where regulations have been implemented. 

Another leading argument against bans on lead tackle relates to the performance of non-lead 

alternatives. Alternatives are not as dense as lead and therefore need to be larger to be of the 

equivalent weight. Many anglers believe that the increased size is detrimental because it can 

discourage fish from biting (Goddard et al. 2008). Although it is difficult to debate an angler’s 

performance preferences, some claim there are benefits to using non-lead fishing tackle. For 

example, brass and steel alternatives are advertised as making more noise than lead as they bump 

over the bottom of water bodies, which is claimed to attract fish (Goddard et al. 2008). Steel 

sinkers are also said to be more sensitive, thus providing anglers with a better feel for what is 

happening at the end of their line. Steel is less malleable than lead too, so it retains its shape and 

holds paint longer. Both sides of the debate have developed talking points to support their 

positions, but those in support of non-lead alternatives recognize that the burden is on them to 

prove these products can provide desired performance at a reasonable cost.

A challenge of a different nature that can interfere with efforts to reduce the use of lead fishing 

tackle entails the manufacture of lead fishing weights by people in their homes. In 1994, the EPA 

estimated that approximately 0.8 to 1.6 million people make lead fishing weights in their homes, 

either for personal use or to sell (Goddard et al. 2008). According to the EPA, this “cottage 

industry” represents 30-35% of lead sinker production in the U.S. In areas where the sale of lead 

weights is prohibited, it is likely that lead product use still occurs due to availability of 

homemade options. This is additionally concerning due to the potential for lead poisoning in 

humans through lead inhalations that may coincide with the manufacture of these products in the 

home (EPA 2004). Moreover, it makes clear the need for well-informed communication 

strategies aimed at enhancing compliance with the use of non-lead fishing tackle. 

As suggested by the above experiences and arguments which reveal the complexities associated 

with a transition to non-lead tackle, regulations alone are not likely to produce desired behavior 

change. In addition, regulations are likely to result in greater public controversy as compared to 

other alternatives such as promotion of voluntary action. Clearly, public outreach efforts will 

play a critical role in efforts to reduce the impacts of lead from recreational fishing and building 

support for management strategies aimed at addressing this issue in the future. To ensure the 
20

success of these efforts, additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of existing 

outreach mechanisms, as well as to assess the diversity of stakeholder beliefs and attitudes 

regarding the use of non-lead products. Similar conclusions can be drawn from a review of the 

literature on the use of lead in recreational hunting, which we address in the next section.
21

Efforts to Reduce the Impacts of Lead from Recreational 

Hunting and Shooting Sports

Incidents of lead poisoning of waterfowl at hunting sites appeared in the press and scientific 

literature in the late 1800s (Sanderson and Bellrose 1986, Friend et al. 2009). Continued 

investigations by leading scientists led to reports of widespread lead poisoning in the 1930s 

(Friend et al. 2009). Then, in the mid 1950s, attention to the issue of lead poisoning declined; it 

wasn’t until the publication of Lead Poisoning as a Mortality Factor in Waterfowl Populations

(Bellrose 1959) that interest in the hazards of spent lead shot was renewed. The continued 

decline of major waterfowl populations resulted in a sustained and heightened concern about 

lead poisoning (Friend et al. 2009), yet it took decades more research and contentious debate to 

reach scientific consensus that ingesting lead from ammunition was a significant mortality factor 

affecting waterfowl populations (Dolton 2008). Data during this time span estimated that the 

annual mortality of waterfowl in North America due to lead poisoning was between 1.6 and 3.9 

million birds (Bellrose 1959, Feierabend 1983). 

Most of the scientific research related to lead poisoning from ammunition has focused on avian 

species, due to the fact that the most pronounced exposures and effects have been seen in 

waterfowl (Sanderson and Bellrose 1986), certain upland game birds (Kendall et al. 1996), and 

predatory and scavenging birds (Pattee and Hennes 1983). Exposure depends on species-feeding 

and grit-ingestion habits, and birds that forage in areas where lead objects accumulate are more 

at risk (NCM 2003). Early evidence of upland bird mortality from lead ingestion was gathered in 

labs, and while it showed that ingesting lead ammunition was fatal to upland birds, more 

research is needed to determine the extent of exposure for upland species in the wild (Hunter and 

Rosen 1965, Westemeier 1966, Buerger et al. 1986, Stowe et al. 1972). In predatory and 

scavenging species, secondary poisoning from consumption of wounded or dead prey is the most 

significant source of toxicosis; this has had significant effects on bald eagles (Haliaeetus

leucocephalus; Griffin et al. 1980, Pattee and Hennes 1983) and the California condor 

(Gymnogyps californianus; Kramer and Redig 1997, Meretsky et al. 2000, Church et al. 2006). 

Shot, bullets, and bullet fragments have been observed in wounded prey and gut piles that 

hunters discard (Janssen et al. 1986, Hunt et al. 2006, Knopper et al. 2006). For California 

condors, poisoning from lead bullet fragments in scavenged carcasses and offal piles has been 

identified as the greatest mortality factor for this species (Meretsky et al. 2000, Sieg et al. 2009).

The effects of lead from spent ammunition are well documented for avian species, and, more 

recently, the literature has focused on impacts to other wildlife. Reports have shown elevated 

lead concentrations in invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and small and large mammals in areas 

that are heavily hunted and/or in close proximity to shooting ranges (Rattner et al. 2008). At a 

small firing range at West Point in New York, for instance, lead concentrations in earthworms 

(Oligochaeta spp.) were reported to be 90 times greater than levels in earthworms at a distant 

reference site (Labare et al. 2004). Some evidence also suggests that lead from spent ammunition 

could be a challenge for the conservation of large carnivores and other scavenging mammals 

(Rogers et al. 2009). These include black bears (Ursus arctos), grizzly bears (U. americanus), 

grey wolves (Canis lupus), and coyotes (C. latrans) that scavenge on ungulate and offal piles left 

by hunters (Wilmers et al. 2003). Studies are ongoing in Yellowstone National Park, and the area 

surrounding the park, to determine the effects of the fall hunting season on carnivores in the 
22

region (Rogers et al. 2009). Grizzly bears have been shown to alter their movement patterns 

around the park during hunting season to feed on wounded elk (Cervus elaphus) and gut piles 

(Ruth et al. 2003, Haroldson et al. 2004), and more research is need to determine the immediate 

and long-term effects.

Notable Regulatory and Voluntary Actions in the U.S.

By 1986, the scientific research and numerous lawsuits surrounding the use of lead in hunting 

and shooting sports resulted in the passing of federal regulations that phased out the use of lead 

shot in hunting waterfowl and American coots (Fulica americana) over a five-year span in the 

U.S. (Rattner et al. 2008). The ban, which applies specifically to hunting activities on federallyregulated lands, has been in effect since 1991. 

The ban on lead shot for waterfowl and coot hunting was met with resistance from the 

ammunition industry and sportsmen (Pokras and Kneeland 2008). Resistance took the form of 

lawsuits that were filed against state and federal wildlife agencies for instituting the bans, as well 

as noncompliance with the regulations. A lack of communication between scientists and other 

stakeholders was largely to blame for the contentiousness of the debate (Pokras and Kneeland 

2008). One of the most poignant lessons to be learned from the events leading up to and 

following the 1991 ban is that strict legislation banning the use of lead for hunting that does not 

account for the interests of sportsmen and the ammunition industry will likely result in ardent 

protest, low compliance, and ultimately failure to resolve lead-poisoning issues. Others cite the 

ban from the opposite perspective, arguing that the ban was contentious, but now people comply 

with the regulation without objection. While the controversy has waned over time, by learning 

from past situations, and acting proactively, agencies may reduce the initial level of controversy 

and increase the rate of acceptance.

Given that large amounts of spent lead ammunition are still deposited in the environment through 

a variety of other hunting and shooting sport activities (Scheuhammer and Norris 1995, Schulz et 

al. 2002), with a range of associated implications for wildlife and the environment, it is prudent 

for those advocating for further reductions of lead use to understand the factors that inhibited and 

facilitated the 1991 ban and other regulatory measures in the U.S. The Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) conducted a survey of people who were involved in the ban in the 

1990s which provides useful insight in this context (AFWA 2007). A few of the key findings are 

summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Suggestions about what should have been done differently for the 1990s federal ban on lead 

shot use for waterfowl hunting, from a survey of people involved in the ban (adapted from AFWA 2007).

1. More effort should have been made to obtain input from hunters prior to making policy decisions.

2. Greater attention and analysis of supply issues should have occurred. 

3. Actions moved too fast; there should have been more time afforded to inform, educate, and convince 

agencies, nongovernmental organizations, manufacturers, retailers, media, and sportsmen of the 

need for the policy.

4. Sales people, especially in large stores, should have been trained to provide accurate information 

because they may be the main source of information for buyers.

5. Sources should have been established for reliable and accurate information.
23

Many U.S. states have taken additional regulatory actions to restrict the use of lead in hunting; 

these actions are specifically directed at lead shot, not all lead ammunition. Nearly half of U.S. 

states have regulations requiring the use of non-lead shot that extend beyond the federal law for 

waterfowl hunting (Figure 2). However, these restrictions are not statewide; they have been 

applied in ranges where there are species of concern. Use of lead ammunition to hunt certain 

species was banned in some cases because their habitats coincide with waterfowl (e.g., crane, 

snipe rail). In Alaska, for example, the risk of lead exposure to waterbirds, including the 

threatened spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri), was an important factor leading up to additional 

regulatory measures (Case 2006).

In addition to these regulatory actions, several states have employed public outreach campaigns, 

again, aimed primarily at species of concern, to reduce the impacts of lead from hunting. In 

Arizona, California, and Utah, outreach efforts were initiated based on concerns about lead in the 

California condor’s range. A report on condor-lead issues produced in 2003 by the lead 

mitigation subcommittee of the California Condor Recovery Team (CCRT), which found that 

lead poisoning from spent ammunition was the leading cause of condor fatalities, (Redig et al.

2003) was influential in inciting action in this area. In the late fall of 2003, the USFWS and the 

Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), following the recommendation of the CCRT, conducted 

hunter surveys in the three states to understand hunters’ knowledge and attitudes of condor-lead 

issues (Sieg et al. 2009). Information obtained from these surveys was intended to inform 

communication with hunters and ranchers, and it revealed that hunter awareness of lead 

poisoning of California condors was relatively low (Case 2005). Awareness was highest in 

California; 45% of hunters there responded “yes” to the question, “are you aware that lead 

poisoning is a problem currently faced by condors?” compared to 23% of Arizona hunters, and 

12% of Utah hunters. Despite the low levels of awareness, the majority of respondents indicated 

that they would be willing to take some action to help prevent lead poisoning. Arizona and 

California have since implemented extensive outreach programs that have many similarities, but 

also unique differences. In December of 2007 the California Fish and Game Commission 

modified the methods authorized for taking big game species, nongame birds, and nongame 

mammals in areas designated California condor range by prohibiting the use of lead ammunition 

for these purposes. The regulations became effective in July of 2008. Arizona is currently limited 

to voluntary participation tactics due to the status of the California condor there (i.e., designated 

as a “non-essential and experimental” population), so regulatory actions are not being 

considered. Utah has not implemented a formal outreach campaign, but recently began working 

on plans to do so in 2009 (Sieg et al. 2009). Below are more detailed descriptions of existing 

outreach initiatives in Arizona, California, and other states where active programs have been 

pursued.
24

Figure 2. NPS units, recreational hunting status, and states with lead regulations. States shown in yellow have implemented lead 

ammunition restrictions beyond federal bans on the use of lead shot in hunting waterfowl
25

Arizona

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) began efforts to educate the public and 

engage hunters in voluntary lead reduction efforts in 2003 (Sieg et al. 2009). As mentioned 

above, results of a phone survey conducted in the fall of 2003 with 205 hunters who held tags in 

Arizona’s condor range that year, revealed that only 23% of hunters were aware of the problems 

posed to condors from lead use (RM 2003). Additionally, only 9% of respondents were aware of 

educational efforts pursued in this context despite the fact that they would have received a letter 

in the mail from the agency containing details about the issue prior to the survey, and 

information had been published in the 2003 Arizona Hunting Regulations (Sieg et al. 2009). 

In December of 2003, focus groups were conducted in Arizona to test messages for 

communicating with hunters and to further investigate the barriers to reducing lead use in the 

condor’s range. Results suggested that the best message for communication was, “Hunters and 

ranchers have a long history of caring for the land and conserving all kinds of wildlife. They can 

continue this tradition and help prevent lead poisoning in California condors by taking one or 

more of the following actions in the condor’s range: remove all carcasses from the field; hide or 

bury carcasses and gut piles; remove bullets and surrounding affected flesh; or use non-lead 

ammunition” (Case 2005). The focus groups also revealed that hunters and ranchers wanted to be 

shown credible data that linked lead from spent ammunition to condor poisoning and then, if 

they were asked by a credible source to help condors by adopting specific actions, they would be 

willing to do so (Case 2005). The AZGFD and sportsman’s groups were identified as credible 

sources. Federal agencies and non-profit entities received much lower ratings in the Arizona 

surveys. This highlights the need to build partnerships. In Arizona, for example, most of the 

research on the impacts of lead ammunition has been conducted by the Peregrine Fund, a source 

with lower credibility among hunters. However, the Peregrine Fund has partnered with AZGFD, 

a partnership that benefits both organizations and provides a credible source for message 

delivery. It is especially important to partner with trusted sportsman’s groups. The NRA, one of 

the most outspoken and active opponents of non-lead initiatives, is less credible than some 

sportsman’s groups but more credible than federal agencies. Messages coming from non-credible 

sources can set back progress rather than further it. 

Results of the phone surveys and focus groups were used by the AZGFD to develop a strategy 

for communicating with hunters (Sieg et al. 2009). In 2003-2004, information was included in 

the hunting regulations booklet, and between 2,000 and 7,000 hunters with big game tags for the 

condor range were mailed information. During that time, the AZGFD also began to deliver 

educational presentations and lead reduction messages to the general public through such 

channels as wildlife fair displays, legislative contacts, the AZGFD website, the AZGFD Wildlife 

Views magazine and television programs, as well as through other general media outlets (Sieg et 

al. 2009). The AZGFD also sought the partnership of sportsman’s organizations in Arizona, 

asking them to support the agency’s efforts (Sieg et al. 2009). The AZGFD has been successful 

in forming a coalition that includes the Arizona Antelope Foundation, the Arizona Desert 

Bighorn Sheep Society, the Arizona Deer Association, the Arizona Elk Society, and the Arizona 

Chapter of the National Wild Turkey Foundation. 

In 2005, the AZGFD partnered with Sportsman’s Warehouse and Cabela’s to begin a voluntary 

free non-lead ammo program which distributed coupons good for two free boxes of non-lead 

ammunition to 2,390 hunters in the core condor range (Seng 2006). Hunters could redeem their 
26

coupons either at a Sportsman’s Warehouse store or by mail from Cabela’s. Included with the 

coupons was a letter outlining the issues related to lead ammunition that asked for voluntary help 

with the program; 65% of hunters redeemed their coupons that year (Sieg et al. 2009). Surveys of 

hunters who did not redeem their coupons identified the primary reasons as non-lead ammunition 

not being available in their caliber or preferred bullet weight; it would take too long to sight in 

new ammunition; redeeming coupon was too complicated; they were not convinced that lead 

from spent ammunition was a problem for condors; and they believed that the nature of the 

program was “anti-hunting” (Seng 2006). In response to some of these barriers to participation, 

the AZGFD provided significantly more information to hunters in 2006, but subsequently 

received a negative response for providing too much information that most hunters did not read 

(Sieg et al. 2009). 

A number of additional efforts were made in 2007 to increase hunters’ participation in voluntary 

non-lead programs. Among these efforts were lead articles about condors in sportsman’s 

publications, increased media coverage of how hunters were helping to recover condors, 

simplified outreach messages that only emphasized using non-lead alternatives, mailing of 

follow-up information to hunters who did not redeem their non-lead ammo coupons, and an 

increased number of field staff to directly contact hunters about this issue. In addition, a DVD 

hosted by Nolan Ryan and entitled “How to be successful in your upcoming deer hunt” was 

produced; it contained five minutes of information on lead exposure and asked for hunters’ help. 

Outreach materials and the DVD were mailed to hunters along with their tags. 

Since 2007, the AZGFD has continued to focus on improving its outreach and increasing 

voluntary non-lead program participation. Specific emphasis has been on working with 

ammunition distributors to increase availability of non-lead alternatives and placing non-lead 

displays with educational materials in retail locations. Human dimensions surveys conducted 

since 2004 suggest that the agency’s efforts have been successful in encouraging behaviors that 

reduce lead in the condor range (Table 6; Sieg et al. 2009). The AZGFD appears to be the only 

organization administering outreach that has comprehensively evaluated the impacts of its 

initiatives.

Table 6. Human dimensions survey results showing hunter participation in voluntary non-lead programs 

in Arizona’s condor range, 2004-2008 (Sieg et al. 2009).

Year

Successful

Hunters1

Took Lead 

Reduction 

Actions

Used Non-Lead 

Ammunition

Used Lead Ammunition 

& Packed Out Gut Pile

Took No Lead 

Reduction Action

2008 910 90% 72% 61% 10%

2007 767 83% 61% 54% 17%

2006 548 60% 58% 3% 40%

2005 909 50% 50% N/A 50%

2004 <5%

1

Number of hunters who harvested a deer.
27

California

The hazards of spent lead ammunition to condors have long been recognized in California, and 

over the past few years major efforts have been taken to address this issue. As mentioned 

previously, only 45% of California hunters surveyed by phone in 2003 (n = 200) were aware of 

lead poisoning problems faced by condors (Case 2005). Around that time, some communication 

initiatives had been launched, but they had not been well-researched or well-implemented (Case 

2005). Only 24% of respondents were aware of these initiatives. In 2007, the Institute for 

Wildlife Studies (IWS) received a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

(NFWF) to launch an outreach program to raise awareness about alternatives to lead bullets 

among hunter and ranchers (Theyerl et al. 2010). The program was launched in collaboration 

with Pinnacles National Monument (PNM) whose own effort to reduce lead available to condors 

began in 2005 (Theyerl et al. 2010). PNM is one of five sites where California condors have 

been released, and with a flock of 46 condors, it hosts one of the main populations of freeranging condors in California. Partnerships were also forged with the USFWS, Ventana Wildlife 

Society, Pinnacles Partnership, The Peregrine Fund, and AZGFD. 

While initially looking to encourage hunters to voluntarily switch to non-lead ammunition, the 

program’s objective were slightly modified with the passing of the Ridley-Tree Condor 

Preservation Act, which was signed into law by the governor in January 2008 (Theyerl et al. 

2010). The act, effective as of July 1, 2008, mandated the California Fish and Game Commission 

enact regulations requiring the use of non-lead bullets when taking big game and coyote within 

the historic California condor range. Recognizing that new legal requirements are often defied by 

a portion of the public, and/or are resisted due to encountering misinformation or a lack of 

information, the efforts still focused on encouraging hunters to use non-lead ammunition with the 

goal of gaining full compliance with the ban. 

The California Lead Ammunition Awareness Campaign, spearheaded by the IWS in conjunction 

with PNM, initially set out to offer hunters and landowners opportunities to evaluate non-lead 

ammunition and learn about the hazards of ammunition containing lead. Outreach efforts to meet 

these objectives included: 1) shooting demonstration events, 2) booths at sport equipment trade 

shows and county fairs, 3) meeting with local NRA chapters, 4) opportunities for hunting guides, 

hunting clubs, and local ranchers to field test ammunition through visits to local ranches, and 5) 

presenting information about the threats of non-lead ammunition and the results of outreach 

efforts at professional conferences (Theyerl et al. 2010). 

All of the objectives that were initially set forth were met or exceeded during the awareness 

campaign from 2007 through 2009 (Theyerl et al. 2010). A total of 14 shooting events were held, 

providing 319 sportsmen the opportunity to try non-lead ammunition. Over 15,000 rounds of 

non-lead ammunition were given out as free samples to sportsmen at the shooting events. 

Through participation in community forums to educate community members about lead and 

condors, 1,900 individuals were reached. Booths were also placed at 15 county fairs and 

community event, resulting in contacts with 2,663 individuals. The IWS outreach coordinator 

also volunteered on the Hollister Friends of the NRA committee. According to the outreach 

coordinator, participation with the NRA helped to create better relationships with local 

sportspersons and countered the common misconception that the lead campaign is anti-hunting 

or anti-firearms (Theyerl et al. 2010). 
28

Another important focus of the program is on educating willing ranchers surrounding PNM, 

encouraging them to use non-lead ammunition when hunting or eradicating animals they 

consider “pests” (e.g., feral pigs, coyotes) and to educate hunters who may also use their lands 

(PNM 2010). The IWS outreach coordinator met with 215 ranchers, vineyard operators, and 

other large property managers on an individual basis. Tejon Ranch Company, the largest statelicensed private hunting operation in California, became the first to voluntarily discontinue and 

ban the use of lead ammunition in its hunting and ranching operations (Hill 2009). Other 

operations have considered and/or implemented similar policies since Tejon’s was implemented 

in 2008. 

IWS and PNM personnel involved in the outreach efforts believe that hunters do come to 

understand the threats leaded ammunition can pose, and are typically convinced of the high 

performance non-lead ammunition when they are provided with well prepared information and 

demonstrations (Theyerl et al. 2010) Surveys distributed following shooting demonstrations 

have shown that hunters attending these events are accepting of non-lead ammunition and that 

most are surprised by the amount of lead fragments that result from lead ammunition. The 

outreach efforts are continuing in California and will extend to areas beyond those in close 

proximity to PNM.

Minnesota

Minnesota is among the states that have been active in public outreach to address the use of lead 

shot in hunting. In May 2006, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and 

Division of Fish and Wildlife (FAW) formed the Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee (NSAC). 

The NSAC was comprised of representatives from the manufacturing and retail industry, hunting 

constituencies, environmental groups, and technical experts from other state and federal agencies 

(NSAC 2006). The goals of the committee were to develop recommendations for future 

restrictions on lead shot in Minnesota, a time frame for implementation, a public 

communication/education plan, and to identify gaps in understanding and potential research 

needs. Based on several meetings held throughout 2006, accompanied by a thorough 

investigation of lead issues, the NSAC reached a consensus that the MDNR should (1) regulate 

lead shot on managed dove fields (which was implemented in 2006) and for shotgun hunting in 

general, and (2) implement regulations that are more restrictive than current state and federal 

legislation (NSAC 2006). The committee did not, however, reach consensus as to what the extent 

of these regulations should be. 

A cooperative human dimensions investigation was conducted in 2007-2008 by the Minnesota 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and MDNR to provide information about small 

game hunter perceptions and knowledge of non-toxic shot and to help identify appropriate 

messages for communication programs (n = 927; Schroeder et al. 2008). The study was very 

context-specific and focused on attitudes and norms about a potential ban on lead shot in the 

Minnesota farmland zone. Results indicated that over half of the respondents believed that a ban 

on lead shot would help protect wildlife from lead poisoning, benefit the quality of the 

environment, prevent the spread of lead in the natural environment, and improve awareness 

about lead contamination issues. Half of the respondents also believed that such a ban was likely 

to increase crippling and wounding losses for small game hunting and would require the use of 

less effective shot. Over 75% believed the ban would require hunters to use more expensive 

ammunition, and over 40% thought the ban was unnecessary government regulation that would 
29

make it more difficult for some people to hunt. Much of the data suggests that many hunters 

perceived both positive and negative impacts. Over 70% of respondents felt that it was good to 

protect wildlife from lead poisoning, and most thought that hunters would adjust to the ban after 

a few seasons. Respondents’ intent to support or oppose the ban was fairly evenly split, 

indicating the potential for high controversy; 44% said it was unlikely that they would support 

the ban, and 42% said it was likely (Schroeder et al. 2008). The likelihood of supporting the 

potential ban was positively correlated with respondents’ trust of the MDNR.

Building on the results of this investigation, the MDNR’s website currently contains many 

examples of outreach aimed at educating hunters about the hazards of lead to wildlife and human 

health. Along with the Minnesota Department of Health, the MDNR also has been very active in 

raising awareness among hunters about the specific risks associated with lead in venison. 

Informing these efforts are recent studies conducted by the agency to determine levels of lead 

bullet fragmentation and deposition in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and domestic 

sheep (Ovis aries; Cornicelli and Grund n.d.). Results indicate that using copper bullets or bullets 

with no exposed lead can significantly reduce or eliminate lead exposure that would otherwise 

occur with lead bullets. This research was conducted in response to findings from investigations 

conducted in North Dakota which we discuss in more detail below 

North Dakota

In 2008, a study of lead in venison showed that, much like wildlife species, humans can be 

exposed to lead by consuming deer harvested with lead ammunition. Concerns arose after a 

study by a Bismarck physician found that, out of 95 packages of ground venison donated to food 

pantries, 53 contained lead fragments (NDDoH 2008a). Following this discovery, North Dakota 

Departments of Health, Agriculture, and Game and Fish advised food pantries to stop the 

distribution of ground venison (NDDoH 2008b). A few weeks later, tests in Minnesota also 

discovered lead in venison donated to food pantries. As in North Dakota, Minnesota’s 

Departments of Health, Agriculture, and Natural Resources issued similar advisories to halt the 

distribution of venison. In addition to removing venison from food banks, public advisories were 

issued to the hunting community about the dangers of lead exposure, especially for children and 

pregnant women. Other Midwestern states, like Wisconsin, also began to study venison and to 

issue letters of caution to food pantry managers (Warzecha and Thiboldeauz 2008). 

The measures taken in North Dakota and Minnesota were highly controversial, and the NSSF 

emerged as the most outspoken opponent to the agencies’ actions. The initial scientific evidence 

to support pulling venison was minimal and, in North Dakota, gathered very informally. 

Subsequent studies have been conducted to determine whether people who eat wild game 

harvested with lead bullets have higher BLLs than those who don’t. A study of 738 North 

Dakotans showed a link between eating wild game shot with lead bullets and higher BLLs 

(NDDoH 2008b). However, while the correlation was statistically significant, other sources of 

lead exposure were not controlled for, and results were considered inconclusive. In fact, the 

results revealed that individuals who consumed game harvested with lead ammunition had lower 

BLLs than average Americans exposed to other sources of lead. Additionally, only a .3 

microgram per deciliter difference was shown between participants who consumed game 

harvested with lead and those who did not.
30

These results added fuel to the controversy. The NSSF issued statements claiming that the study 

proved traditional ammunition poses no threat to humans. Those on the other side of the issue 

used the findings to claim that lead ammunition should be banned because humans are exposed 

to some amount of lead, and no amount is safe. Due to the study, and similar ones that followed, 

the agencies in North Dakota and Minnesota revised their initial advisories. New advisories 

stated that lead is a harmful substance; firearm ammunition used for taking deer contains lead;

and venison processed by hunters and commercial processors has been shown to contain lead 

particles (Bihrle 2008). But, they also note that no incidence of human lead poisoning has been 

documented in the U.S. and make recommendations for limiting the possibility of exposure. One 

of the recommendations is to use non-lead ammunition, but the rest focus on precautions to take 

when using lead bullets. As this situation suggests, more research is needed to determine if the 

exposure to lead from consuming game harvested with lead ammunition is detrimental enough to 

the health of humans to warrant regulatory action, or to be perceived as a high enough risk 

among hunters to prompt voluntary use of non-lead alternatives.

Wyoming

In 2009, officials in Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) and the National Elk Refuge (NER) 

began encouraging hunters to use non-lead ammunition during the elk and bison seasons (Skaggs 

and Iverson 2009). This came in response to a series of studies, beginning in 2004, that were 

conducted by Craighead Beringia South (CBS), a non-profit science and education organization 

(CBS 2009). The studies found that BLLs of ravens (Corvus corax), bald eagles, and golden 

eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) in the Jackson Hole valley were highest during the fall hunting 

season. GTNP and the NER also cite the recent findings of research on potential lead 

contamination in humans, stating that one of the goals of the non-lead program is to raise 

awareness about the risks to hunters so that hunters can make informed decisions when choosing 

ammunition (Skaggs and Iverson 2009). To begin to monitor program participation, GTNP and 

the NER asked hunters to report their use of non-lead ammunition for the 2009 season; hunters 

were able to record their responses on their hunting permits. This baseline information will not 

only be used to track hunter behavior in the context of lead use but also to inform possible 

incentive strategies that can be used in the future to increase use of non-lead products. GTNP and 

the NER have stressed the voluntary nature of their program and are not pursuing regulatory 

bans in those areas. 

CBS also recently began its own outreach program targeting hunters in the Jackson Hole, 

Wyoming area (CBS 2009). The focus of the program is on educating hunters about the hazards 

of lead and distributing non-lead rifle ammunition. In 2009, 194 boxes of ammunition were 

distributed. However, follow-up research to help determine the effectiveness of the program did 

not detect lower BLLs in eagles, and the drops in raven BLLs were minimal. The CBS has 

acknowledged that its program needs to be expanded, and future plans are to provide non-lead 

ammunition to more hunters while educating them about the positive impacts of voluntarily 

switching to non-lead alternatives. Future research on the impacts of these initiatives in the 

Jackson Hole valley may prove valuable in facilitating comparisons with other programs, like 

those in Arizona’s California condor range. 

Emerging Efforts in Other States

The Case of Dove Hunting: The use of lead for hunting mourning doves has attracted attention in 

states across the nation in recent years. Efforts aimed at reversing declines in hunter numbers in 
31

the U.S. have prompted many states to provide more dove hunting opportunities (Nat. Mourning 

Dove 2010). However, this has raised concerns about the potential for mourning doves (Zenaida

macroura) and other wildlife to be exposed to significant quantities of lead shot in the future, 

particularly given that large amounts of lead have been shown through prior research to 

accumulate in relatively small areas from dove hunting (Lewis and Legler 1968, Best et al. 1992, 

Schulz et al. 2002). To inform future management decisions on this issue, several states have 

conducted human dimensions investigations. In Missouri, small game hunters were surveyed to 

determine their attitudes toward regulations requiring the use of non-lead shot for hunting small 

game, specifically mourning doves (Schulz et al. 2007). The survey found that most hunters (72-

85%) opposed additional regulations. Surveys were also recently administered in Illinois and 

Texas, but due to differences in study design, the results of these investigations are not 

comparable (Nat. Mourning Dove 2010). The need for a national survey to assess dove hunters’ 

current awareness of lead issues and levels of support for the use of non-lead ammunition, which 

would be comparable across regions and states, has been identified. Results could also help in 

determining what information is needed to better inform and communicate with hunters about 

lead issues. Plans, including survey development, are currently underway to implement such an 

investigation in 2011 (Nat. Mourning Dove 2010).

WAFWA and AFWA Activities

In June of 2009 the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) established 

an ad hoc work group charged with making recommendations to WAFWA in regards to lead use 

in hunting and fishing (Elicker 2010). Recognizing the sensitivities surrounding this issue, and 

its complexity, the work group members were drawn form multiple disciplines: it includes chairs 

of the Wildlife Health, Human Dimensions, and Resource Information and Education, Wildlife 

and Fish Chiefs committees, and is chaired by the Director of the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. The work group believes that fish and wildlife agencies should help lead 

efforts to address this issue due to the potential impacts on hunters, anglers, industry, retailers, 

and fish and wildlife management (WAFWA 2010). The work group focused on developing 

practical, realistic and science-based recommendation and ultimately developed ten specific 

recommendations for WAFWA (Elicker 2010).Their recommendations included: 1) coordinate 

with other WAFWA committees, 2) develop consistent messaging, 3) utilize human dimensions 

research to develop messages, 4) monitor research on lead and wildlife, 5) collaborate with 

industry, partners, and public agencies, 6) seek consistent federal policy, 7) monitor state efforts, 

8) encourage manufacturers to make non-lead products available and affordable, 9) address 

funding issues, and 10) identify further research needs regarding impacts on wildlife. The ad hoc 

work group will continue for an additional year and work towards reaching some of the 

objectives set forth in their recommendation (WAFWA 2010).

In September 2010, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) passed a resolution

to adopt a number of principles regarding future regulation of lead ammunition and fishing 

tackle. These principles stated a belief that future regulation was best addressed by individual 

states and should focus on population level impacts to wildlife that are substantiated by the best 

available science (AFWA 2010). However, they also noted that state fish and wildlife agencies 

should proactively coordinate with state health agencies, industry, conservation organizations,

and hunting, angling and shooting sports interests. In addition, they called for the development of 

effective human dimensions strategies, as well as the use of public education and voluntary 

programs where appropriate in lieu of regulation.
32

Lead Ban Petition to the EPA

On August 3, 2010 conservation groups petitioned the EPA for a nationwide ban on the 

production and sale of lead bullets, shotgun pellets, and fishing sinkers (EPA 2010). The petition 

was filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, American Bird Conservancy, Public Employees 

for Environmental Responsibility, Association of Avian Veterinarians, and the hunters’ group 

Project Gutpile. The petitioners want the EPA to act under the auspices of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) which gives the EPA the broad authority to regulate chemical substances 

that pose a risk to the health of humans or the environment. The EPA is prohibited from 

regulating ammunition or firearms under the TSCA, but if non-toxic alternatives are 

commercially available, toxic elements of ammunition can be regulated (EPA 2010). As with 

previous moves to impose regulations, the petition generated much debate and roused both those 

who support a ban and those who do not. On November 4, 2010, the EPA denied the petition 

stating that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that such a ban was necessary to preotect 

against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment as required by TSCA.
33

Overall Findings for Outreach to Reduce the Impacts of Lead 

from Hunting and Fishing

Many important lessons have come out of the work being done by various states, agencies, and 

organizations that can inform development of effective outreach strategies and messages for 

addressing issues related to the use of lead in recreational hunting and fishing. While there are 

more examples to draw upon for hunting, many of these lessons would also be applicable to 

communicating about lead use in recreational fishing. Additionally, while recommendations stem 

largely from context-specific outreach efforts – e.g., efforts applied to condor conservation 

(Sullivan 2009) and lead shot use in Minnesota’s farmland zone (Schroeder et al. 2008) – many 

are relevant for considering how the NPS might address lead issues on its lands in the future. The 

following lists are an attempt to synthesize key lessons learned from our review of the relevant 

literature. 

Some General Findings

• Surveys of hunters in Arizona and California showed that, depending on the nature of the 

request and the source, most hunters are willing to take some action to help prevent lead 

poisoning of wildlife (Case 2005).

• Many hunters may be unaware of the impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife, suggesting the 

need for strategies that can help raise basic awareness among sportsmen about lead issues (Case 

2005).

• Voluntary measures typically require less concrete evidence – i.e., they allow for more 

uncertainty than regulatory bans would. However, this should not be seen as an invitation to 

offer scientific evidence that is not rigorous or to avoid providing scientific evidence altogether 

(Sullivan 2009).

• Negative media has been a challenge in many cases, and researchers have found that a single 

negative media article can nullify the impacts of providing factual information (AFWA 2007). 

This indicates the need to develop good ties to the media and accurately disseminate information 

through media outlets. 

• In states like Washington, where proposed bans on lead fishing tackle have been controversial,

it is recommended that agencies work to promote the use of non-lead alternatives and the proper 

disposal of lead products until regulatory legislation can be enacted (Gumm and Poleschook 

n.d.).

• Tools used by many states to eliminate lead in the environment from fishing are: lead sinker 

exchanges (promoting proper disposal), brochures educating anglers about the hazards of lead, 

warnings for children and pregnant women about their susceptibility to detrimental effects of 

lead exposure, and promotion of responsible fishing practices such as retrieval and disposal of 

fishing line and tackle.
34

Outreach-Specific Findings, Including Tactics for Message Creation and Delivery

• Many states have emphasized the importance of knowing your audience, and educating 

yourself about hunters, hunting, and ballistics expertise to be well-received and seen as credible 

by hunters (Sullivan 2009).

• Hunters in Arizona and California stated that they would be more supportive of non-lead 

alternatives if they were given credible scientific evidence of the detrimental impacts of lead on 

California condors (Case 2005). However, when the AZGFD responded by providing hunters 

with detailed information on the topic, they found that fewer hunters read the information and 

that it was therefore less effective than if the communication delivery had been less in-depth 

(Sieg et al. 2009). It is important to find the right balance of adequate information and home in 

on the key points in an appropriate communication style, given that the public may not have the 

time or level of interest to process large amounts of information.

• Providing hunters with incentives, such as free non-lead ammunition, has proven to be a 

powerful tool to enhance the success of outreach initiatives (Sieg et al. 2009). The AZGFD also 

points out the necessity of partnerships to implement this type of program, as some government 

and non-governmental organizations cannot distribute ammunition directly. 

• Photos of x-rayed ballistics gel and wildlife carcasses have made a huge impression on hunters 

in Arizona and California (Petterson 2009). Many hunters are unaware of the amount of lead lost 

through fragmentation; a visual display is one of the most effective ways to portray this 

information.

• Participatory outreach mechanisms – e.g., demonstrations with ballistics gel and water jug 

testing – have been effective ways to engage the public on issues of lead use in California 

(Petterson 2009). They provide an opportunity for hunters to experience firsthand the degree to 

which lead bullets fragment compared to non-lead bullets. They also provide hunters a chance to 

test non-lead ammunition which can help dispel negative misconceptions regarding non-lead 

products. For example, many hunters may believe that non-lead ammunition is less effective, but 

when non-lead bullets are shot into ballistics gel, participants can witness the hydraulic shock 

and compare it to that of leaded bullets.

• The Ad Hoc Mourning Dove and Lead Toxicosis Working Group has emphasized the 

importance of training sales people – i.e. the people that hunters buy their ammunition from – as 

these individuals are often the main source of information for hunters (AFWA 2007).

• Messages that highlight the importance of conservation heritage to hunters were rated highly by 

focus groups in Arizona (Case 2005). These messages focus on deeply-held core values for many 

hunters. Hunters are rightfully proud of the hunting tradition and its contributions to wildlife 

conservation in this country; using non-lead products can be seen as an extension of this tradition 

(Sullivan 2009). It is worth noting, however, that some research (Schroeder et al. 2008) has 

suggested that other message points may be more effective.

• The AZGFD has stressed in some of its communications that using non-lead ammunition 

makes hunting more beneficial to wildlife (e.g. the endangered California condor), which, again, 

invokes the conservation ethic of hunters (Sullivan 2009). Certain species depend on hunting for 
35

survival, and wildlife carcasses and offal piles (without lead fragments) can enhance survival of 

these species. This approach demonstrates that agencies are not blaming hunters, but rather 

asking for their help.

• Persuasive messages from credible sources may help generate support for bans on lead shot. 

More specifically, Schroeder et al. (2008) found that basic factual, first-person narratives that 

mention a social group hunters identify with (e.g. Ducks Unlimited) may be more persuasive 

than other alternatives, including declarative statements from the state agency; 

counterarguments; value-expressive messages about hunting heritage; and third-person 

narratives. 

• Tied to the above point, credible sources are needed to deliver messages aimed at promoting 

voluntary lead reduction measures. Surveys in Arizona identified sportsman’s groups as the most 

credible source (Case 2005). 

• Hunter education instructors have been suggested by some researchers as important sources for 

getting messages out to new hunters (AFWA 2007).

• In Arizona, research found that references to endangered or rare species should not be used at 

the outset of communication messages (Sullivan 2009). This is important supportive information, 

but it is not the first topic that should be presented or emphasized.

• Focusing on one-to-one communication whenever possible has been an important strategy in 

outreach efforts in California and Arizona (Petterson 2009). The opportunity to do so occurs 

oftentimes in the field where agency staff can interact with hunters on a less formal basis. An 

important consideration in this context is the need to ensure field staff, concessionaires, 

interpreters, law enforcement, etc. are aware of, and on board with, the agency’s agenda with 

regard to lead issues. 

• Adding to the previous point, it is important for recipients to receive one unified message from 

all sources (AFWA 2007). Mixed messages from various organizations can decrease the 

credibility of all involved and confuse hunters as to what is fact or opinion.
36

Conclusion

Management decisions about the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle are needed to 

mitigate further impacts of lead on wildlife, wildlands, and humans. Unfortunately, these 

decisions will have to be made in an environment of uncertainty and controversy. Despite the 

significant body of literature on lead poisoning caused by spent lead ammunition and fishing 

tackle, there are still gaps in scientific understanding that create an environment of scientific 

uncertainty, making lead product bans difficult and expensive to implement.

Previous efforts to reduce the amount of lead introduced by hunters and anglers in the 

environment are valuable for understanding the current issues surrounding lead bans and efforts 

to increase voluntary use of non-lead alternatives. However, most of the research aimed at 

informing these efforts thus far has been very context-specific, and the attitudes and beliefs of 

hunters and anglers regarding lead issues are still largely unknown. We do know that in areas 

with key species of concern, hunters and anglers are often unaware of the lead-related impacts of 

their activities, even though they may be more aware than in areas where there has been less 

attention paid to such impacts. There is a definite need for more thorough evaluation of existing 

communication strategies, as well as a need to understand the beliefs and attitudes of the diverse 

array of stakeholders, in order to inform more targeted outreach initiatives. While the political 

will at individual state levels, and at the national level, appears to be missing to support a broadscale ban on lead products in hunting and fishing, this has not been fully explored, and those who 

oppose such a ban have been more unified and vocal in their objections. Exploring the full range 

of beliefs and attitudes is an important next step to take if policy and outreach to reduce impacts 

from lead are to be considered viable options in the future.
37

Literature Cited

Ajzen, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision 

Processes 50:179-211.

Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 

Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA.

American Sportfishing Association (ASA). 2009. Government affairs: Lead in fishing tackle. 

Online. (http://www.asafishing.org/government/lead_in_tackle.html). Accessed 5 April 

2010.

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2007. Final report and recommendations to 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies from ad hoc mourning dove and lead toxicosis 

working group. MAFWA, Rhinelander, USA.

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2010. Resolution #1-2010: Lead 

ammunition and fishing tackle. AFWA, Washington, DC, USA.

Bellrose, F. C. 1959. Lead poisoning as a mortality factor in waterfowl populations. Illinois. 

Natural History Survey and Bulletin 27:235-288.

Best, T. L., T. E. Garrison, and C. G. Schmitt. 1992. Availability and ingestion of lead shot by 

mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) in southeastern New Mexico. Southwestern 

Naturalist 37:287-292.

Bihrle, C. 2008. Fall followup: An evolving perspective on lead in venison. ND Outdoors AugSept:30-35. 

Borkowski, R. 1997. Lead poisoning and intestinal perforations in a snapping turtle (Chelydra

serpentina) due to fishing gear ingestion. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 28:109-

113.
38

Braun, J. M., R. S. Kahn, T. Froehlich, P. Auinger, and B. P. Lanphear. 2006. Exposures to 

environmental toxicants and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in U.S. children. 

Environmental Health Perspectives 114:1904-1909.

Bright, A. D., and M. J. Manfredo. 1993. An overview of recent advancements in persuasion

theory and their relevance to natural resource management. Pages 135-146 in A. W. 

Ewert, D. J. Chavez, and A. W. Magill, editors. Culture, conflict, and communication in 

the wildland-urban interface. Westview Press, Boulder, USA.

Bright, A. D., M. J. Manfredo, M. Fishbein, and A. Bath. 1993. Application of the theory of 

reasoned action to the National Park Service's controlled burn policy. Journal of Leisure 

Research 25:263-280.

Browne, M. 2009. Get the lead out of fishing. Online. (http://www.replacelead.com/leadfacts.shtml). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Buerger, T. T., R. E. Mirarchi, and M. E. Lisano. 1986. Effects of lead shot ingestion on captive 

mourning dove survivability and reproduction. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:1-8.

Burt, R. S. 1987. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. 

American Journal of Sociology 92:1287-1335.

Case, D. J. and Associates. 2005. Communicating with hunters and ranchers to reduce lead 

available to California condors. Unpublished report to the Wildlife Management Institute 

(WMI) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). D. J. Case and Associates, 

Mishawaka, USA.

Case, D. J. and Associates. 2006. Non-toxic shot regulation inventory of the United States and 

Canada. D.J. Case and Associates, Mishawaka, USA.
39

Church, M. E., R. Gwiazda, R. W. Risebrough, K. Sorenson, C. P. Chamberlain, S. Farry, W. 

Heinrich, B. A. Rideout, and D. R. Smith. 2006. Ammunition is the principal source of 

lead accumulated by California condors re-introduced to the wild. Environmental Science 

and Technology 40:6143-6150.

Cornicelli, L., and M. Grund. n.d. Examining variability associated with bullet fragmentation and 

deposition in white-tailed deer and domestic sheep: preliminary results. Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources document available from (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/ 

fish_wildlife/lead/bulletstudy/resources/publicsummary.pdf). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Craighead Beringia South (CBS). 2009. Removing lead from our wildlife and wildlands. 2009 

Interim Report. Craighead Beringia South, Kelly, USA.

Crano, W. D., and R. Prislin. 2006. Attitudes and persuasion. Annual Review of Psychology 

57:345-374.

Dolton, D. 2008. Report on Conference: Ingestion of spent lead from ammunition: Implications 

for wildlife and humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, May 2008.

Donnelly, M. P., J. J. Vaske, D. Whittaker, and B. Shelby. 2000. Toward an understanding of 

norm prevalence: A comparative analysis of 20 years of research. Environmental 

Management 25:403-414.

Eagly, A. H., and S. Chaiken. 1993. The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich 

College Publishers, Orlando, USA.

Eagly, A. H., and P. Kulesa. 1997. Attitudes, attitude structure, and resistance to change: 

Implications for persuasion on environmental issues. Pages 122-153 in M. H. Bazerman, 

D. M. Messick, A. E. Tenbrunsel, and K. A. Wade-Benzoni, editors. Environment, ethics, 
40

and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation. The New 

Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, USA.

Eisler, R. 2000. Lead. Pages 201-290, Volume 1 in R. Eisler, editor. Handbook of chemical risk 

assessment: health hazards to humans, plants and animals. (3 Volumes). Lewis Publishers 

Inc., Boca Raton, USA.

Elicker, R. 2010. Lead and wildlife ad hoc working group presentation, findings, and 

recommendations. Meetinng of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

(WAFWA). Anchorage, USA.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Petition to the EPA to ban lead shot, bullets, and 

fishing sinkers under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Document: EPA-HQOPPT-2010-0681-0002.

Executive Order (EO). 2000. No. 13148: Greening the government through leadership in

environmental management. Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 81:24595-24605.

Executive Order (EO). 2007. No. 13423: Strengthening federal environmental, energy, and

transportation management. Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 17:3917-3923.

Feierabend, J. S. 1983. Steel shot and lead poisoning in waterfowl: An annotated bibliography of 

research 1976-1983. National Wildlife Federation, Science and Technical Series 8, 

Washington, D.C., USA.

Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to 

theory and research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, USA.

Fishbein, M., and M. J. Manfredo. 1992. A theory of behavior change. Pages 29-55 in M. J. 

Manfredo, editor. Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation, 

tourism, and natural resources management. Sagamore, Champaign-Urbana, USA.
41

“Fishing.” Code of Federal Regulations Title 36, Pt. 2.3, 2010.

Flynn, J., P. Slovic, and C. K. Mertz. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental-health 

risks. Risk Analysis 14:1101-1108.

Franson, J. C., and D. J. Cliplef. 1992. Causes of mortality in common loons. Pages 2-59 in L. 

Morse, S. Stockwell, and M. Pokras, editors. Proceedings from the 1992 conference on 

the loon and its ecosystem: Status, management, and environmental concerns. College of 

the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, USA.

Franson, J. C., and M. R. Smith. 1999. Poisoning of wild birds from exposure to 

anticholinesterase compounds and lead: Diagnostic methods and selected cases. Seminars 

in Avian and Exotic Pet Medicine 8:3-11.

Friend, M., J. C. Franson, and W. L. Anderson. 2009. Biological and societal dimensions of lead 

poisoning in birds in the USA. Pages 34-60 in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and 

W. G. Hunt, editors. Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife 

and humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, USA.

Galili, E., B. Rosen, and J. Sharvit. 2002. Fishing-gear sinkers recovered from an underwater 

wreckage site, off the Carmel coast, Israel. The International Journal of Nautical 

Archaeology 31:182-201.

Giner-Sorolla, R., and S. Chaiken. 1997. Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing 

under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23:84-97.

Goddard, C. I., N. J. Leonard, D. L. Stang, P. J. Wingate, B. A. Rattner, J. C. Franson, and S. R. 

Sheffield. 2008. Management concerns about known and potential impacts of lead use in 

shooting and in fishing activities. Fisheries 33:228-236.
42

Griffin, C. R., T. S. Baskett, and R. D. Sparrowe. 1980. Bald eagles and the management 

program at Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Transactions of the 45th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 45:252-262.

Guberman, D. E. 2007. Lead. Pages 42.0-42.18 in U.S. Geolgical Survey: 2007 Minerals 

Yearbook. Advance release available from (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ 

commodity/lead/myb1-2007-lead.pdf). Accessed 2 April 2010.

Gumm, V. R., and D. P. Poleschook, Jr. n.d. Getting the lead out of fishing: Loon Lake 

Washington. Online. (http://www.palouseaudubon.org/Misc/GetLeadOut.pdf). Accessed 

5 April 2010.

Haroldson, M. A., C. C. Schwartz, S. Cherry, and D. S. Moody. 2004. Possible effects of elk 

harvest on fall distribution of grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 68:129-137.

Hill, H. J. 2009. Abstract: Taking the lead on lead: Tejon Ranch’s experience switching to nonlead ammunition. Page 350 in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt, 

editors. Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and humans. 

The Peregrine Fund, Boise, USA.

Hohenemser, C., R. W. Kates, and P. Slovic. 1983. The nature of technological hazard. Science 

220:378-384. 

Hunt, W. G., W. Burnham, C. N. Parish, K. K. Burnham, B. Mutch, and J. L. Oaks. 2006. Bullet 

fragments in deer remains: Implications for lead exposure in avian scavengers. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 34:167-170.

“Hunting and Trapping.” Code of Federal Regulations Title 36, Pt. 2.2b, 2010. 
43

Hunter, B. F., and M. N. Rosen. 1965. Occurrence of lead poisoning in wild pheasant (Phasianus 

colchicus). California Fish and Game 51:207.

Jacobson, S. K. 2009. Communication skills for conservation professionals, 2nd edition. Island 

Press, Washington D.C., USA.

Janssen, D. L., D. G. Kelts, S. N. Wiemeyer, M. P. Anderson, J. E. Oosterhuis, and J. L. Allen. 

1986. Lead poisoning in free-ranging California condors. Journal of the American 

Veterinary Medical Association 189:1115-1117.

Kates, R. W., and J. X. Kasperson. 1983. Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a 

review). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of 

America 80:7027-7038.

Kendall, R. J., T. E. Lacker, Jr., C. Bunck, B. Daniel, C. Driver, C. E. Grue, F. Leighton, W. 

Stansley, P. G. Watanabe, and M. Whitworth. 1996. An ecological risk assessment of 

lead shot exposure in non-waterfowl avian species: Upland game birds and raptors. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 15:4-20.

Klinke, A., and O. Renn. 2002. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: Risk-based, 

precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. Risk Analysis 22:1071-1094.

Knopper, L. D., P. Mineau, A. M. Scheuhammer, D. E. Bond, and D. T. McKinnon. 2006. 

Carcasses of shot Richardson's ground squirrels may pose lead hazards to scavenging 

hawks. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:295-299.

Knuth, B. A., R. J. Stout, W. F. Siemer, D. J. Decker, and R. C. Stedman. 1992. Risk 

management concepts for improving wildlife population decisions and public 

communication strategies. Proceedings of the 57th North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference 57:63-74.
44

Kosnett, M. J. 2009. Health effects of low dose lead exposure in adults and children, and 

preventable risk posed by the consumption of game meat harvested with lead 

ammunition. Page 24-33 in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt, editors. 

Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and humans. The 

Peregrine Fund, Boise, USA.

Kramer, J. L., and P. T. Redig. 1997. Sixteen years of lead poisoning in eagles, 1980-95: An 

epizootiologic view. Journal of Raptor Research 31:327-332.

Labare, M. P., M. A. Butkus, D. Riegner, N. Schommer, and J. Atkinson. 2004. Evaluation of 

lead movement from the abiotic to biotic at a small-arms firing range. Environmental 

Geology 46:750-754.

Lee, C. 1998. Alternatives to cognition: A new look at explaining human social behavior. 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, USA.

Lewis, J. C., and E. Legler. 1968. Lead shot ingestion by mourning doves and incidence in soil. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 32:476-482.

Locke, L. N., and G. E. Bagley. 1967. Lead poisoning in a sample of Maryland mourning doves. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 31:515-518.

Manfredo, M. J. 2008. Who cares about wildlife? : Social science concepts for exploring humanwildlife relationships and conservation issues. Springer Press, New York, USA.

Manfredo, M. J., M. Fishbein, G. E. Haas, and A. E. Watson. 1990. Attitudes toward prescribed 

fire policies. Journal of Forestry 88:19-23.

Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and A. D. Bright. 2004. Application of the concepts of values and 

attitudes in human dimensions of natural resources research. Pages 271-282 in M. J. 
45

Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, and P. J. Brown, editors. Society and 

natural Resources: A summary of knowledge. Modern Litho, Jefferson, USA.

Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and K. L. Henry. 2009. Linking society and environment: A 

multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. 

Social Science Quarterly 90:407-427.

Manfredo, M. J., J. J. Vaske, and D. J. Decker, and L. Sikorowski. 1996. Human dimensions of 

wildlife management. Pages 53-72 in A. W. Ewert, editor. Natural resource management: 

The human dimension. Westview Press, Boulder, USA.

Meretsky, V. J., N. F. R. Snyder, S. R. Beissinger, D. A. Clendenen, and J. W. Wiley. 2000. 

Demography of the California condor: Implications for reestablishment. Conservation 

Biology 14:957-967.

Michael, P. 2006. Fish and wildlife issues related to the use of lead fishing gear. General 

Technical Report FPT 06-13. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish 

Program, Olympia, USA.

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA). 2006. Let’s get the lead out: Non-lead 

alternatives for fishing tackle. Online. (http://www.pca.state.mu.us/oea/reduce/ 

sinker.cfrm). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2010. Let’s get the lead out! Online. 

(http://proteus.pca.state.mn.us/oea/reduce/sinkers.cfm). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Morgan, M. G., B. Fischhoff, and A. Bostrom. 1992. Communicating risk to the public. 

Environmental Science & Technology 26:2048-2056.

Na, E.-Y. 1999. Is biased processing of strong attitudes peripheral? An extension of the dual 

process models of attitude change. Psychological Reports 85:589-605.
46

Nadis, S. 2001. Getting the LEAD out. National Wildlife 39:46.

National Mourning Dove hunter survey on awareness of the issue of lead poisoning, and 

attitudes about potential actions. 2010. Update for North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference.

National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). 2009. Lead ammo ban 

by National Park Service an anti-hunting move. Online. (http://www.nraila.org/News/ 

Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12216). Accessed 5 April 2010.

National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). 2008. PRESS RELEASE. Firearms industry 

statement on results of CDC blood lead levels in hunters study. Online. (http://www.nssf. 

org /news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=share/PR/andPR=110608.cfmandCFID=2). Accessed 7 

April 2010.

National Wildlife Refuge System. 2010. 2009-2010 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing 

Regulations-Additions, Final Rule. 75 FR 18413-18427.

Needleman, H. 2004. Lead poisoning. Annual Review of Medicine 55:209-222.

Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee (NSAC). 2006. Report of the Nontoxic Shot Advisory 

Committee submitted to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife 

Division. Online. (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/fawweb/nts/ 

nontoxic_shot_report.pdf). Accessed 8 April 2010.

Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM). 2003. Lead Review. Report No. 2003:1308. Online. 

(http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publications/20031308/at_download/ 

publicationfile). Accessed 6 December 2009.
47

North Dakota Department of Health (NDDoH). 2008a. FACT SHEET. Blood lead level study 

results. Online. (http://www.ndhan.gov/data/mrFacts/Blood Lead Level Study Results 

Fact Sheet.pdf). Accessed 29 March 2010.

North Dakota Department of Health (NDDoH). 2008b. PRESS RELEASE. Food pantries 

notified about lead fragments discovered in donated ground venison. Online. 

(http://www.ndhan.gov/data/mrNews/Lead in venison.pdf). Accessed 29 March 2010.

Nriagu, J. 1983. Lead and lead poisoning in antiquity. Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.

Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS). 2004. BROCHURE. Fishing weights contain 

dangerous levels of lead. Online. (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/lead/ docs/ 

fishingb.pdf). Accesssed 16 May 2010.

Pain, D. J., R. L. Cromie, J. J. Newth, M. J. Brown, E. E. Crutcher, P. P. Hardman...and R. E. 

Green. 2010. Potential hazard to human health from exposure to fragments of lead bullets 

and shot in the tissues of game animals. PLoS ONE, (April), e10315. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010315.

Pattee, O. H., and S. K. Hennes. 1983. Bald eagles and waterfowl: the lead shot connection. 

Transactions of the 48th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 

48:230-237.

Pattee, O. H., and D. J. Pain. 2003. Lead in the environment, 2nd edition. Pages 373–408 in D. J. 

Hoffman, B. A. Rattner, G. A. Burton Jr., and J. Cairns Jr., editors. Handbook of 

Ecotoxicology. CRC Press L.L.C., Boca Raton, USA.

Perrins, C. M., G. Cousquer, and J. Waine. 2003. A survey of blood lead levels in mute swans 

Cygnus olor. Avian Pathology 32:205-212.
48

Personal Liberty Digest (PLD). 2009. Republican lawmakers criticize NPS ammunition ban 

proposal. Online. (http://www.personalliberty.com/news/republican-lawmakers-criticizenps-ammunition-ban-proposal-19394021/). Accessed 2 November 2009.

Petterson, J. 2009. Non-lead ammunition, it’s better for wildlife, it’s better for people: 

Educational outreach approaches with hunters and ranchers in California. California 

Condor Outreach Workshop. Grand Canyon, USA.

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. 

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19:123–205.

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1996. Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary 

approaches. Westview Press, Boulder, USA. 

Petty, R. E., and J. A. Krosnick. 1995. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, NJ England.

Pinnacles National Monument (PNM). 2010. Lead bullet risks – wildlife and humans. Online. 

(http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Pokras, M. A., and R. Chafel. 1992. Lead toxicosis from ingested fishing sinkers in adult 

common loons (Gavia immer) in New England. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 

23:92-97.

Pokras, M. A., and M. R. Kneeland. 2008. Lead poisoning: Using transdisciplinary approaches to 

solve an ancient problem. EcoHealth 5:379-385.

Pokras, M. A., and M. R. Kneeland. 2009. Understanding lead uptake and effects across species 

lines: A conservation medicine approach. Pages 7-22 in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. 

Pokras, and W. G. Hunt, editors. Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications

for wildlife and humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, USA.
49

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). 2009. Letter to Ken Salazar, 

Secretary of the Interior. Online. (http://www.peer.org/docs/nps/09_01_05_lead_ammo_

ban_letter_to_salazar.pdf). Accessed 27 May 2009.

Pulak, C. 1988. The Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun, Turkey: 1985 campaign. American 

Journal of Archaeology 92:1-37.

Rattner, B. A., J. C. Franson, S. R. Sheffield, C. I. Goddard, N. J. Leonard, D. Stang, and P. J. 

Wingate. 2008. Sources and implications of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on 

natural resources. Technical Review No. 08-01. The Wildlife Society and American 

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, USA.

Redig, P., N. Artz, R. Byrne, B. Heinrich, F. Gill, J. Grantham, R. Jurek, S. Lamson, B. Palmer, 

R. Patterson, and others. 2003. A report from the California condor lead exposure 

reduction steering committee, a subcommittee of the California condor recovery team. 

Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Online. 

(http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/birds/California_condor/pdfs/ LERSCReport.pdf). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Responsive Management (RM). 2003. Hunters’ knowledge of and attitudes towards threats to 

California condors. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Condor 

Recovery Team and California Condor Lead Exposure Reduction Committee. Online. 

(http://www.responsivemanagement.com/download/reports/AZ_Condor_Report.pdf). 

Accessed 5 April 2010.

Robbins, J. R. 2009. Washington weighs lead restrictions for anglers. National Riffle 

Association. Online. (http://www.nrahuntersrights.org/Article.aspx?id=2767). Accessed 5 

April 2010.
50

Rogers, T., B. Bedrosian, D. Craighead, H. Quigley, and K. Foresman. 2009. Lead ingestion by 

scavenging mammalian carnivores in the Yellowstone ecosystem (Extended Abstract). 

Pages 206-207 in R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt, editors. Ingestion 

of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and humans. The Peregrine 

Fund, Boise, USA.

Ruth, T. K., D. W. Smith, M. A. Haroldson, P. C. Buotte, C. C. Schwartz, H. B. Quigley, S. 

Cherry, K. M. Murphy, D. Tyers, and K. Frey. 2003. Large-carnivore response to 

recreational big-game hunting along the Yellowstone National Park and AbsarokaBeartooth Wilderness boundary. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1150-1161.

Sanderson, G. C., and F. C. Bellrose. 1986. A review of the problem of lead poisoning in 

waterfowl. Special Publications of the Illinois Natural History Survey (No. 4).

Scherer, C. W., and H. C. Cho. 2003. A social network contagion theory of risk perception. Risk 

Analysis 23:261-267.

Scheuhammer, A. M. and S. L. Norris. 1995. A review of the environmental impacts of lead 

shotshell ammunition and lead fishing weights in Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service 

Occasional Paper 88. Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, Ottawa,Canada.

Schroeder, S. A., D. C. Fulton, W. Penning, and K. Don Carlos. 2008. Small game hunter lead 

shot communication study: Executive Summary. University of Minnesota, Minnesota 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and 

Conservation Biology.

Schulz, J. H., J. J. Millspaugh, B. E. Washburn, G. R. Wester, J. T. Lanigan, and J. C. Franson. 

2002. Spent-shot availability and ingestion on areas managed for mourning doves. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:112-120.
51

Schulz, J. H., R. A. Reitz, S. L. Sheriff, and J. J. Millspaugh. 2007. Attitudes of Missouri small 

game hunters toward nontoxic-shot regulations. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:628-

633.

Schweizer, S., J. L. Thompson, T. L. Teel, and B. Bruyere. 2009. Strategies for communicating 

about climate change impacts on public lands. Science Communication 31:266-274.

Sears, J. 1988. Regional and seasonal variations in lead poisoning in the mute swan Cygnus olor

in relation to the distribution of lead and lead weights in the Thames area, England. 

Biological Conservation 46:115-134.

Sears, J., and A. Hunt. 1991. Lead poisoning in mute swans, Cygnus olor, in England. Pages 

383-388 in J. Sears and P. J. Bacon, editors. Proceedings of the 3rd IWRB International 

Swan Symposium, Wildfowl Supplement I. Oxford, UK.

Seng, P. T. 2006. Non-lead ammunition program hunter survey. Final report to the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department. D.J. Case and Associates, Mishawaka, USA. Online. 

(http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/documents/AmmoSurveyFINALReport2-23-06_000.pdf).

Accessed 5 April 2010.

Shepard, W. B. 1990. Seeing the forest for the trees: 'New perspectives' in the Forest Service. 

Renewable Resources Journal 8:8-11.

Sieg, R., K. A. Sullivan, and C. N. Parish. 2009. Voluntary lead reduction efforts within the 

northern Arizona range of the California condor. Pages 341-349 in R. T. Watson, M. 

Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt, editors. Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: 

Implications for wildlife and humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, USA.

Skaggs, J., and L. Iverson. 2009. Interagency news release. Grand Teton National Park and 

National Elk Refuge encourage voluntary use of non-lead ammunition during the 2009 
52

elk and bison seasons. National Park Service (NPS) Grand Teton National Park (GTNP) 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Elk Refuge (NER), Washington 

D.C., USA.

Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.

Slovic, P., and E. Peters. 1998. The importance of worldviews in risk perception. Risk Decision 

and Policy 3:165-170.

Smith, D. 2003. Lead tackle ban dropped; non-lead alternatives promoted. Star Tribune. Online. 

(http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/reduce/sinkers-startribune030402.cfm). Accessed 6 

April 2010.

Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI). 1996. Lead mobility at 

shooting ranges. Catalog Number FD-1/708. National Shooting Sports Foundation, 

Newton, USA.

Stone, W. B., and J. C. Okoniewski. 2001. Necropsy findings and environmental contaminants in 

common loons from New York. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 37:178-184.

Stowe, H. D., R. A. Goyer, and M. Cates. 1972. Lead poisoning in a wild turkey. N.Y. Fish and 

Game Journal 25:169.

Stutman, R. K., and S. E. Newell. 1984. Beliefs versus values: Salient beliefs in designing a 

persuasive message. Western Journal of Speech Communication 48:362-372.

Sullivan, K. 2009. Lead reduction program in Arizona. California Condor Outreach Workshop. 

Grand Canyon, USA.

Teel, T. L. 2008. The science of communication: A few lessons learned from social psychology 

PowerPoint slides. Online. (http://welcome.warnercnr.colostate.edu/images/docs/climate_ 

change_conf/teel_CSU.pdf). Accessed 5 April 2010.
53

Teel, T. L., A. D. Bright, M. J. Manfredo, and J. J. Brooks. 2006. Evidence of biased processing 

of natural resource-related information: A study of attitudes toward drilling for oil in the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Society & Natural Resources 19:447-463.

Theyerl, J. J., J. Petterson, and D. K. Garcelon. 2010. California lead ammunition awareness 

campaign, 2006-2009. Final Report. Institute for Wildlife Studies, Arcata, USA.

Tunis, E. 1954. Weapons: A pictorial history, 1st edition. World Publishing company, Cleveland, 

USA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Humans and lead fishing sinkers. U.S. EPA 

Office of Water, Washington, D.C., USA. Online. (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/

swguidance/fishshellfish/humans.cfm). Accessed 5 April 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Establishing “lead free fishing areas” and the 

prohibition of the use of certain fishing sinkers and jigs made with lead on specific units 

of the National Wildlife Refuge system, 64 Fed. Reg. 17992 (1999) (to be codified at 50 

C.F.R. pt. 32).

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VTDFW). n.d.. Let’s get the lead out. Online. 

(http://www.vtfishandwildlife.com/library/Factsheets/Fishing/Get_the_lead_out/Get_the_

Lead_Out_Brochure.pdf). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Vogel, H. 2005. The effectiveness of current legislation in mitigating loon mortality from the 

ingestion of lead fishing sinkers and jigs in New Hampshire. Loon Preservation 

Committee of the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Moultonborough, USA.

Warzecha, C., and R. Thiboldeauz. 2008. Information for food pantries regarding the distribution 

of deer killed with lead ammunition. State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 

Madison, USA.
54

Westemeier, R. L. 1966. Apparent lead poisoning in a wild bobwhite. Wilson Bulletin 78:471-

472.

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA). 2010. Report from WAFWA 

Lead and Wildlife Ad Hoc Work Group. Unpublished report. Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Washington, D.C., USA.

Wilmers, C. C., D. R. Stahler, R. L. Crabtree, D. W. Smith, and W. M. Getz. 2003. Resource 

dispersion and consumer dominance: Scavenging at wolf- and hunter-killed carcasses in 

Greater Yellowstone, USA. Ecology Letters 6:996-1003.

Wilson, J., and J. W. Anderson. 1997. What the science says: How we use it and abuse it to make 

health and environmental policy. Resources 128:5-8. 

Wilson, R. S. and J. L. Arvai. 2006a. Evaluating the quality of structured environmental 

management decisions. Environmental Science & Technology 40:4831-4837.

Wilson, R. S. and J. L. Arvai. 2006b. When less is more: How affect influences preferences 

when comparing low and high-risk options. Journal of Risk Research 9:165-178.

Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative (WBCI). n.d. What’s in your tackle box? Online. 

(http://www.wisconsinbirds.org/RackCard.pdf). Accessed 5 April 2010.

Wood, W. 2000. Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of 

Psychology 51:539-570.

Wood, W., N. Rhodes, and M. Biek. 1995. Working knowledge and attitude strength: An 

information-processing analysis. Pages 283-314 in R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick, 

editors. Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 

Mahwah, USA. 
The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated 

Island Communities.

NPS 999/106256, December 2010
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM