No Lead shot ban in South Dakota

[Outdoors Junkie]

Commission says ‘no' to ban on lead shot for roads

By Kevin Woster
Rapid City Journal

There won't be a ban on lead shot for road hunting in South Dakota, at least for now.

But there will be a more research into whether lead shot scattered by road hunters is poisoning pheasants and other wildlife.

So a lead-shot ban on roads and rights of way is not a dead issue just yet.

Meeting in Brandon on Thursday, the state Game, Fish & Parks Commission voted unanimously not to adopt the rule it proposed last month in Pierre, requiring hunters on roads and rights of way to shoot non-toxic shot instead of lead shot.

Lead already is banned for waterfowl hunting in South Dakota as well as for hunting small game on most public lands in the state. It is legal to shoot lead shot for small game on private land and some public ground, as well as from most roads and rights of way open to hunting.

The commission last month proposed extending the lead-shot ban to roads and rights of way after being petitioned for the change by Martin area landowner Marty Vanderploeg. He argued that spent lead pellets are poisonous to wildlife and objected to the shot being scattered on his property by shotgun blasts from road hunters.

The state Game, Fish & Parks Department's technical staff did not make a recommendation on the proposal last month. But Thursday, they recommended the commission not approve the lead-shot ban for roads and rights of way.

Tony Leif of Pierre, director of the GF&P Wildlife Division, said after the commission vote Thursday that even though lead is a toxin, there isn't any known scientific or anecdotal evidence that lead shot fired by road hunters in South Dakota is poisoning wildlife.

But Leif also said GF&P would conduct research to see if such evidence exists.

"Our recommendation was to not adopt as proposed," he said. "But we also said we are going to implement research to better understand what's out there with lead-deposition rates, the rate it is being picked up by wildlife and the effect it is having, especially on pheasants."

Leif said that research would focus first on farms that are heavily hunted for pheasants, such as shooting preserves and other commercial hunting operations.

"I think that would be the most logical next step, to look there," he said. "If we're going to find an impact, it's going to be there."

By focusing on intensively hunted areas where shotgun blasts are common, GF&P can collect pheasants to look for pellets in the gizzards, likely meaning the shot had been swallowed as the birds fed. Researchers also could look for signs of lead poisoning or accumulation in the bones and organs of birds, Leif said.

"Then, if we find it there, we would look in other areas," Leif said. "If we can't detect any impact in high-density areas like commercial operations, I think it would be safe to say there probably aren't substantial impacts out there."

Leif said between five and 10 people testified Thursday against the proposed lead-shot ban. GF&P also received more than 100 comments on the proposal, most of them in opposition, he said.

Opponents argued that there isn't any proof of a problem and that steel and other non-toxic shots are more expensive and not as effective as lead and can't be used with all shotguns.

Similar arguments were made more than 30 years ago, when the GF&P Commission first began restricting lead-shot use. The restrictions were imposed after biologists found ducks and geese that were poisoned after ingesting spent lead pellets in heavily hunted fields along the Missouri River near Pierre.

Leif said there haven't been any documented instances of lead poisoning in pheasants and other upland birds. But lead is a known toxin with proven potential to harm wildlife, so GF&P has an obligation to investigate the issue further, he said.

"The important take-home message here is that we pride ourselves on being a science-based agency," he said. "I think the public expects that, and I think the commission expects that. I think the responsible way to proceed is to look at this with scientific methods and come back to the commission."