Wildlife activists urge CPW to ban lead tackle and bullets, hunters push back

By Cory Gaines | Commentary, Colorado Accountability Project

Advocates push CPW to ban lead ammo and fishing tackle.

According to the KUNC article linked first below, advocacy groups composed of current and former Federal employees are imploring CPW, as part of updates to its Wildlife Action Plan, to start phasing out the use of lead ammo and fishing tackle on state-owned land.

Quoting from the letter sent to CPW (linked in the KUNC story, but put as a separate link second below for convenience):

“We strongly urge CPW to incorporate a clear, measurable commitment to phasing out the use of toxic lead-based ammunition and fishing tackle on lands and waters under the state’s jurisdiction.”

Note: this text is bolded in the letter, but I did not keep that original formatting.

The letter goes on later to offer some recommendations on implementation. I took a screenshot of that and attached it as screenshot 1 for space reasons.

CPW, for their part, seems to not want to go with a straight ahead ban. Quoting from the KUNC article: “A CPW spokesperson said the plan includes continuing hunter outreach and incentives for non-lead options but isn’t meant to introduce new rules.”

One of those bits of outreach (mentioned later in the article) is CPW’s site on lead free ammunition. CPW’s website on lead free ammo is linked third below if you want to poke around.

I don’t know what to make of this issue, likely due to the fact that I don’t have enough information either way to feel comfortable in making definitive statements.

Let me illustrate with a couple non-contiguous quotes from the KUNC article:

“’I’ve held the condor in my arms and watched it die and shake and tremor from lead poisoning, not even being able to hold their head or their wings up,’ said Elaine T. Leslie, a former chief of biological resources for the National Park Service. ‘It’s a horrible death.’”

and

“Gun rights and hunting groups argue non-hunters push these bans as a first step to restricting hunting more widely. They also say alternatives like copper bullets are more expensive and harder to find.”

Are birds dying off from scavenging or preying on things that had led in them in great numbers? Are copper bullets more expensive and harder to find to the point that it would prevent hunting? Is this threat inflation by both sides?

If you have thoughts either way, you’re welcome to include civil comment in the comments section.

Here’s what I can hang my hat on, what I can say I don’t like and am concerned about, this can’t help but feel like yet another example of activists trying to get policy pushed in this state by using the mostly-enviro, and mostly-animal rights, friendly unelected boards like CPW.**

Advocacy groups backdooring policy that may or may not have the approval of the majority of people in this state is not how our government should work and our state’s multiple unelected boards which make policy are an open door for attempts like these.

Wherever you land on the issue of lead ammo and fishing tackle, you should have a chance to make your voice heard and nowhere does that carry more weight than when you relay your thoughts to people accountable to you.

If I hear more on this, I’ll update. If you got news to share, shoot me a message.

**Not unheard of either: for an example of activists trying to get fur bans done via CPW see the fourth link below.

https://www.kunc.org/regional-news/2025-08-20/advocates-push-for-phasing-out-lead-ammo-phase-as-states-advance-voluntary-approaches

https://protectnps.org/2025/08/11/advocates-urge-colorado-to-phase-out-toxic-lead-ammunition-and-tackle-to-protect-wildlife-and-public-health/

https://cpw.state.co.us/lead-free

https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/cbd-wants-to-sneak-through-what-voters?utm_source=publication-search

READ THE FULL COMMENTARY AT THE COLORADO ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.