01/15/2026
SVRGC Community,
Please voice your opposition here. It is critical that a critical mass of "oppose" comes back as response, then the ministry is obliged to at least address it beyond hand waving. Do this now, if you can. Response period ends in early February and is completely anonymous.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/sports-culture/recreation/fishing-hunting/ahte/hunting-trapping/prohibit-lead-shot
Here are some of cohesive arguments against this ban beyond the ideological that can be used to shape your response, avoid copying them word for word please:
• No non-lead buckshot exists, which would effectively prohibit lawful hunting in brush and in multi-projectile-only zones (e.g. Galiano Island) with no legal alternative.
• Older firearm compatibility: Many older but serviceable and common shotguns are not safe for steel shot, and suitable alternatives (bismuth/tungsten) are scarce and costly
• Safety concerns: Non-lead shot, particularly steel, has a higher ricochet risk due to reduced deformation. This is a serious issue for upland hunting where birds are often taken on the ground or in trees, not over open water.
• Small-gauge access and inclusion impacts: Non-lead ammunition in 20-gauge and .410 bore is already difficult to find and inconsistently stocked, particularly outside major urban centres. If a blanket ban on lead shot is implemented, these platforms would become effectively unusable for hunting in much of the province. This would disproportionately exclude youth, women, older hunters, and individuals with physical limitations, for whom smaller gauges are often the only practical and safe option.
• Cost and availability are misrepresented. Common upland loads cost ~$0.35–$0.40 per shell, while non-lead equivalents are typically ~$0.90–$1.50 and often not stocked, especially in rural areas. It is unlikely that availability will improve, as non-lead shot production for shot size suitable for upland game birds is limited and capital expenses are high.
• Handloading impacts: Many upland hunters reload ammunition, but non-lead shot in small sizes (7, 7½, etc.) is effectively unavailable, making compliance impractical.
• Enforcement issues: there will be an increased cost in training and material for in-field enforcement. Either through destructive testing of the ammunition or purchase of electromagnetic detectors. Costs that will be carried by the taxpayer.
• Mismatch between evidence and scope: The proposal relies on waterfowl and rifle-fragment studies, yet applies a blanket ban to upland and small-game hunting contexts where risk has not been clearly demonstrated.
• Disproportionate impact: The regulation would reduce participation, increase non-compliance, and impose high costs while offering limited additional conservation benefit beyond existing waterfowl rules.
We feel this is another attack on the hunting and fi****ms community. It starts with shot and goes to single projectiles. Their rationale is off base as well. The amount of lead that is expended and then ultimately making its way into scavengers/raptors is minuscule.
The real threat to wildlife stems from climate change, mismanagement practices and industry.
SVRGC
Public feedback on proposal to split moose LEH 8-10 and 8-22
