Minnesota wildlife officials are proposing a ban on some types of lead ammunition on a wide swath of state-owned hunting lands across the southern and western portions of the state, igniting fiery debates within the traditionally united hunting community.

Related Articles Against lead ammo ban: ‘They want to take away our right’

For lead ammo ban: ‘Ammo should not kill twice’ As with other gun-related issues, the arguments carry undercurrents of second-amendment liberties and anti-hunting sentiments.

The proposed ban, which could start as early as 2018, would affect pellets from shotguns and cover some 400,000 acres of wildlife management areas (WMAs) in the traditionally prairie parts of the state, known as the “farmland zone.”

This is the second time in a decade that the DNR has proposed such a ban, arguing that the toxic ammunition needs to be restricted to reduce its toxic effects on the environment.

In 2008, a bill in the state legislature that would have created a similar ban failed amid opposition from the National Rifle Association.

Pheasant hunters make up the largest group affected, but turkey and small-game hunters also would be subject to the DNR’s proposal. Deer hunters, who can use only single projectiles like bullets and slugs, would not be affected.

The lands, some 31 percent of the state’s entire WMA system, are primarily grasslands, and many contain wetlands frequented by ducks and other waterfowl.

Lead has been banned from waterfowl hunting in Minnesota since 1987, but some birds continue to die from ingesting lead shot fired by hunters in the grasslands and potholes of the prairie region, numerous scientific studies have confirmed.

What is not widely accepted in science, however, is the impact of the lead poisoning. “We don’t have science that shows it negatively impacting on a population,” acknowledged Steve Merchant, wildlife program manager for the DNR and one of the agency’s point people on the proposal. Click here for a DNR slideshow presentation on the topic.

Within hunting and conservation circles, lead can be a touchy subject. Some bird hunters, including DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr, have switched entirely to nontoxic steel shot out of convenience. Lead is currently banned from many federal lands, including waterfowl production areas frequented by pheasant hunters, as well as state-owned hunting lands in South Dakota, a popular pheasant destination. But that personal choice shouldn’t be mandated, say opponents, backed by gun-rights rhetoric and the firearms, shooting sports and ammunition industries. The support of lead bans nationally by anti-hunting groups like the Humane Society of the United States complicate matters.

Locally, the issue has pitted bedfellows on opposing sides.

Pheasants Forever, which receives state Legacy Amendment funds to buy lands that are often restored to prairie and handed over to the DNR for WMAs, opposes the ban. The position statement of the White Bear Lake-based nonprofit reads, in part, “there is a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating that lead is having a negative impact on upland bird populations. Consequently, in the absence of scientific evidence, pheasant hunters should retain their freedom of choice in ammunition.”

Meanwhile, Lester Bensch, a former member of the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council, the group that recommends funding Legacy Amendment projects for groups like Pheasants Forever, for years has banned lead on the premises of his Viking Valley Hunt Club near Ashby. A recent forum on the issue hosted by the DNR featured Bensch debating the ban with Ryan Bronson, director of conservation for Anoka-based Federal Premium Ammunition. Bronson sat on the Outdoor Heritage Council alongside Bensch for several years.

The two squared off on the extent to which lead harms the environment and wildlife populations, with neither persuading the other.

“Squaring off may be strong,” Bronson tweeted after the exchange. “We’re old friends.”