HB1067 phases out the use of lead and lead-based ammunition for hunting in Maryland by directing the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to require nonlead ammunition for all game species by July 1, 2030. The bill defines “nonlead ammunition” broadly to include ammunition with less than 1% lead content and federally approved nontoxic ammunition. It also preserves a limited exception allowing lead ammunition when nonlead ammunition is not commercially available for a specific firearm, including muzzleloaders, handguns, rifles, and shotguns.
The bill also establishes a phased implementation schedule before the statewide deadline. DNR must adopt regulations requiring nonlead ammunition first for pen-raised birds on regulated shooting areas by July 1, 2027, then for upland game birds, webless migratory game birds, and wild turkey by July 1, 2028, and then for deer hunting and other remaining game species by July 1, 2029. The bill further provides that a first violation of the nonlead-ammunition regulations is subject to a civil fine of up to $750, although that penalty provision is later removed in the bill’s final amended language.
The bill’s impact is to amend Maryland’s Natural Resources Article, Section 10-408, expanding DNR’s authority to regulate ammunition type used in hunting and requiring the agency to promulgate implementing regulations. It affects hunters, ammunition manufacturers and retailers, and wildlife management practices statewide, while also potentially influencing the availability and market demand for nonlead hunting ammunition. The bill is framed as a conservation and public-health measure, citing lead poisoning risks to wildlife, hunters, and people who consume game meat.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable in the House, where the bill passed third reading, and it also passed the Senate by a wide margin. The committee report was favorable with amendments, suggesting support with some policy adjustments. However, the rejected floor amendments indicate some disagreement over the bill’s details, likely around timing, scope, or enforcement. The final status note that the Senate “refuses to recede” suggests there was later disagreement between chambers over amendments or final form, but the recorded votes show substantial support for the bill’s core objective.
The main points of contention are the phase-out timeline, the scope of the nonlead requirement, and the exception for firearms lacking commercially available nonlead ammunition. Opponents or amendment sponsors appear to have sought changes to the bill’s structure, while supporters emphasized conservation, animal welfare, and human health concerns tied to lead exposure. The bill’s phased approach and commercial-availability exception reflect an attempt to balance environmental goals with practical hunting and ammunition-access concerns.
HB1067 amends Maryland Natural Resources law to require DNR to regulate hunting ammunition types and ultimately phase out lead ammunition for all game hunting by July 1, 2030, with earlier species-specific deadlines beginning in 2027. It expands the statutory framework governing hunting weapons and ammunition, directs DNR to adopt implementing regulations, and creates a limited commercial-availability exception for certain firearms. The bill primarily affects hunters, wildlife regulators, and the ammunition market, while advancing state policy toward nonlead hunting practices.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support for its conservation and public-health goals, as reflected by favorable committee action and strong third-reading passage in both chambers. At the same time, the rejection of floor amendments and the later Senate refusal to recede indicate that members disagreed over some of the bill’s specifics. Overall, the sentiment is supportive but not unanimous, with debate focused on implementation details rather than the general concept of reducing lead ammunition use.
The most notable disagreements concern how quickly the lead-ammunition phase-out should occur, how broadly the nonlead requirement should apply, and whether exceptions should be made when nonlead ammunition is not commercially available for a particular firearm. Amendment activity suggests some legislators wanted to alter the bill’s timing or scope, while supporters favored a firm statewide transition to nonlead ammunition to protect wildlife and reduce human exposure to lead. The enforcement provision, including the proposed civil fine for first offenses, was also a likely point of concern, though that penalty language was removed in the final amended text.