This is a day or two behind the curve, so to speak, but hey… this story comes from Texas. I’m in CA. I can’t keep up with everything.
Actually, this story from the My San Antonio online news is just reporting on the second year of studies by the TX Parks and Wildlife on the effects of lead shot on doves. Similar studies were begun last year, as the lead ammo ban gained momentum across the country.
With some states already banning lead shot for doves, TPWD officials want an abundance of scientific data to help guide their decisions. The last time state wildlife officials faced a similar issue, in the early 1980s, they were caught with insufficient information when the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service mandated nontoxic shot for migratory waterfowl.
“We are looking at lead toxicity in doves so we can pre-empt any impact and have recommendations ready if we are forced to not use lead,” TPWD executive director Carter Smith said.
Talk about pro-active responses! Kudos to the TPWD for taking the bull by the horns before the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) step in and tell them what to do.
Because that’s the most likely scenario. The lead ban advocates recognize the difficulties of passing state-by-state lead ammo bans, particularly in states like TX where hunting is a huge tradition (and a big piece of the economy). As hunters become more and more educated about efforts to ban lead ammunition, more of them are getting educated and involved, which means that the lead ban folks are facing organized and educated opposition… a significantly different picture than they faced in CA.
So the next strategy… one we’re already seeing… is attempts to direct federal legislation. They’ve already got the National Park Service over a barrel, they’re working on the BLM and USFWS and if they can get leverage with the USFWS over migratory birds, they’ll have won another “victory”.
With that in mind, what I read in that article about the TPWD gave me a lot of hope that maybe hunters and hunting advocates are taking positive and pro-active steps to separating the propaganda and emotion from the science, and planning for appropriate actions.
“In San Antonio, for the first 30-40 minutes it was not just ‘no’ but ‘hell no,’” Bevill said. “As we went through the sequence and they saw the conservation ethic, many of them came around. They said if we get to a point where scientific facts determine it is a problem that warrants action, they will support it — but they want to participate in what the solutions will be.”
This is the kind of thing we need to see more of. Let’s establish the facts, determine appropriate solutions, and act appropriately.
Texas is handling this exactly the way that it should be. Glad to hear it.