The number of outdoor issues in the Minnesota news these days is mind-boggling. They won’t often show up where you might be reading, but there are game- and fish-related bills all over the place this legislative session. Some of these are going to be hitting a little closer to home than normal for the average outdoor person.
The one I think will get the biggest fight is whether the state should go to all non-toxic shot for hunting. Non-toxic shot shells have been required for decades when waterfowl hunting. It did not take science long to prove that lead shot deposited in the bottoms of lakes and wetlands was being consumed by waterfowl and other shorebirds, resulting in their death.
Non-toxic alternatives several decades ago were not up to the task of making clean kills. Most hunters actually hated the alternatives to lead shot. Many still do today.
The new battle cry is that somehow lead shot is doing damage to other wildlife that is not related to wetland-type habitats. I have not seen any science to prove that pheasants, for example, are ingesting lead shot and dying when out foraging for food.
Recent studies do claim to prove that almost all of the bald eagles and golden eagles tested have some level of lead toxicity in their blood streams. It might not be at high enough levels to kill them but can cause difficulty in flight and reproduction efficiency.
Most of the raptors that die of lead poisoning do so from eating the dead carcasses of hunter-killed deer that were taken with a lead bullet. I do believe this happens, but I researched bald eagle populations, and they have rebounded from 416 nesting pairs five decades ago to over 415,000 nesting pairs today. The eagles don’t seem to be doing too badly according to those numbers.
Non-toxic shot is a lot better today than it was when first introduced, and a load of Federal Prairie Storm steel shot is as deadly as any lead shot shells I have ever used.
The issue with a regulation change to all non-toxic shot on public land is the fact that many hunters have more than a few seasons of lead shell utilization on the shelf in the garage. What are they going to do with all of those boxes when they can no longer be used on public lands, which, by the way, is where a larger percentage of Minnesota hunters recreate? Many other states already require the non-toxic alternatives, and Minnesota is lagging in their conversion to non-toxic shot shells.
The commissioner of the Minnesota DNR used some form of executive order to require non-toxic shot when hunting on scientific and natural areas managed by the state. Depending on where you live, these can be few and far between.
Non-toxic shot can be in the form of steel pellets for bird hunting or copper bullets for deer hunting. These can be used successfully, but if you try to buy a box of them today, you will go away empty-handed nine out of 10 attempts. How do you change the rules to non-toxic shot when there is none available for purchase?
I think it is only a matter of time before all public lands in all states will require non-toxic shot and bullets. I think the proper way to handle this would be to change the rules with an effective date about three years down the road. This would allow ammo manufacturers to catch up to demand and allow hunters to use up the supplies they have on their garage shelves.
Lead is bad and everybody knows it. Those who will fight this change will fight a long-term losing battle. Do not think for a minute that it will go down in history as a little skirmish. This non-toxic battle will be hard-fought by both sides and could last more than a few years.
There is some talk about a buy-back system that allows hunters to trade in their lead for a non-toxic alternative. Who is going to pay for this? I have no desire for the Game and Fish fund to pay for it. Those dollars manage fish and wildlife habitat. Those who want lead shot gone the most will need to find a funding source not already being paid for by hunters and fishers.
If you are lucky enough to have private land to hunt on, then your lead shot could likely be used up there until it is gone. But what if the new rule restricts lead shot on any land located in the state regardless if it’s public or private? This stirs up yet another wasp’s nest.
I think the state needs a plan to transition from lead to non-toxic shot and bullets. The transition needs to happen over a period of years. If the state is going to dictate the type of shells and bullets used, the new ammunition needs to be available to those who want to buy it. This is a necessary step, but it needs the proper timing to make the transition as painless as is possible.
I am anticipating a high number of emails from the lead shot lovers over the next few weeks. You can reach me at scottarall@gmail.com
Scott Rall, Worthington, is a habitat conservationist, avid hunting and fishing enthusiast and is president of Nobles County Pheasants Forever. He can be reached at scottarall@gmail.com. or on Twitter @habitat champion.