doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Idaho lead shot ban

Maybe this was discussed in the Montana thread but I just got a call from the Idaho F&G doing a survey asking if I would support a ban on lead shot in WMA's.
As a pre curser to my answer I was told that many WMA had water on them and a duck or goose swallowing even one shot would die of lead poisoning.

this is a seriously flawed survey if the editorialized prior to getting your answer. Any researcher knows that this type of stuff will seriously warp the survey results.

"Waterfowl that ingest 1 or 2 shot more often live than die, and waterfowl tend to pick up only a small number of pellets at any one time: 65 percent take one shot, 15 percent two shot, 7 percent three shot, 3 percent four shot, 2 percent five shot, 1 percent six shot, and 7 percent seven or more shot (Bellrose 1959:260). A compilation of reports on the incidence of shot ingestion by mallards during the 1970s and early 1980s provided findings similar to those of Bellrose. Of 1,211 mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) gizzards containing shot pellets, 63.0 percent contained one pellet, and 13.6 percent contained 2 pellets (Table 2)."

I copied the above from an article published on a USGS site, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.

A link to the report.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/pbpoison/ingested.htm

Based on the article, the possiblity exists that waterfowl can die from 1 pellet ingested, but the chance is greater that it will live.

Based on your last paragraph, it sounds as though the ID F&G survey taker was emphatic in his statement that a duck or goose will die if just one pellet is ingested.

I'm waiting with for the ID F&G call!

How many bobwhite quail hunters do you imagine have swallowed a few pellets of shot over their lifetime? Has there ever been a documented case of any of us dying from it?
I doubt it.

The Idaho F&G is notorious for stacking the deck when they want something done.
Or when they don't want to do anything like "manage" what was once a great bird population in Eastern Idaho but that is another story.

The government agencies that have some power in the environment are magnets for extreme environmentalists employment. They won't be satisfied until we are back to throwing stones at the birds.

EPA regulations cost our economy over one trillion a year; mostly in increased costs of products the producer passes on to you and me and is the biggest reason millions of decent paying jobs have left the country.

Most everything the ID Dept of F&G does anymore is driven by money, not sound biological science!

I don't see the money trail by banning lead on WMA's, but it must be there somewhere.

I will have to defend the ID F&G, by saying that I don't believe they have been infiltrated by the envirowhackos, as yet!

?????
I think the question is in regards to a lead shot ban on WMA's. Do you believe that lead shot ingestion has no effect on waterfowl ?

The real question is, does upland bird hunting on WMA's in Idaho have a significant impact of waterfowl in Idaho WMA's? Is there data to warrant a total ban of lead shot any where on All WMA's in Idaho?

The other question is, what type of objective survey uses the language i described before asking an opinion?

Does the "W" in WMA stand for waterfowl or wildlife ?
If it stands for waterfowl then non-toxic should be the standard rule . If it stands for wildlife then it should depend on the amount of waterfowl that use the area .
Ask yourself this - Do waterfowl only pick up shot that is used for waterfowl hunting ? I don't think they can tell the difference .