Making duck shooting a bit easier to swallow

The issue for gamebird hunters this season is not numbers but the forced transition from lead shot to non-toxic alternatives. TOM FRASER bites the bullet.

Thousands of hunters around the country will sit in cold maimais next Saturday, watching the sky lighten and waiting with excitement as the new gamebird hunting season begins.

But times are changing for the conservative sport.

The Government has set 2005 as the deadline for lead shot to be outlawed for all waterfowl hunting. Fish and Game New Zealand, the Crown entity responsible for managing gamebird hunting, is trying to negotiate the details, saying its research shows it is not necessary to implement the ban for all shooting.

This season is the first serious step towards the ban - the voluntary transition from lead at selected sites on Department of Conservation and Fish and Game-managed land. Hunters are encouraged to use non-toxic alternatives - the most popular is steel - to the lead pellets they have traditionally fired at their prey.

But the transition has been a bitter and divisive issue among the country's estimated 50,000 gamebird hunters.

Opponents of the change say the incidence of lead-shot poisoning in waterfowl is minute and the transition is simply a political move to placate "green lobbying".

They also believe the new steel shot lacks killing power and will not work in many shotguns.

Michael Hucks, a spokesman for the Wildfowlers Association - a group representing about 700 gamebird hunters around the country - says his organisation does not want to see shooters penalised when it is unnecessary, and the percentage of birds poisoned by lead was unlikely to be significant.

He also cited the higher cost of non-toxic alternatives, and that the alternatives were unsuitable for some guns, as reasons for the group's opposition.

Opposition also came from one of the country's first scientists to look at the impact of lead on waterfowl.

Tom Caithness, a retired wildlife biologist, says the issue of lead poisoning is "the most over-rated, overplayed nonsense ever".

Other experienced hunters, many of whom took part in trials to test non-toxic alternatives, say hunters should accept the transition. All shooters need to do, they say, is change their shooting technique and the shot size.

Bob South, editor of Fish and Game New Zealand magazine, has followed the debate over recent years and has a simple message to all hunters.

"It [non-toxic shot] is here to stay. People simply have to make the conversion and get on with it. It's a step forward for the gun lobby; they're doing things right by the environment."

The change follows similar moves in Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark and Finland. Other countries are doing research on whether to ban lead shot.

Mr South, an American who has lived in New Zealand for 30 years, says the results in his native country were "staggeringly positive".

The reason for the change is the effect of lead on waterfowl and the environment.

The risk was through ducks eating pellets and getting lead in their systems when their gizzards ground down the pellets.

Exposure to lead can affect the physiology of birds, and some die - either within a few days or several weeks.

Ingesting one pellet can be enough to kill a bird, though more often than not waterfowl that have done so survive.

Fish and Game says research done here has shown that lead poisoning does occur.

In some areas, the incidence of lead shot in gizzards has exceeded internationally-acknowledged thresholds.

But it says lead shot had no impact on the wider environment.

The Wildfowlers Association supports the introduction of non-toxic shot over "significant" wetlands - but not further afield.

The reason, Dr Hucks says, is simple.

Waterfowl could scoop up lead from margins of wetlands but it was yet to be shown that the birds do the same over pasture, forests, crops and other areas where hunters operate.

In 1998, the ministers of Conservation and the Environment requested an evaluation of options to reduce avoidable contamination of the environment by lead shot.

They set up a working party - including the Department of Conservation, Fish and Game and the Ministry for the Environment - to investigate and research the issue.

Fish and Game's director, Bryce Johnson, says the organisations were not bullied into the transition but adds that the Government did force Fish and Game to address the issue.

" Fish and Game wants to be seen to be a responsible organisation, so it caused us to look sooner than we would have and, what we found was justification for us to continue with the transition, but for a different reason."

Mr Johnson says initial research showed lead had no effect on the environment - but then the focus became the effect on waterfowl.

"Our own research in respect of ingestion of lead shot by birds showed the level of ingestion was higher than we guessed.

"In a sense, we've gone from being an organisation pushed into it [the transition] to one that wants to do it for reasons that were directly related to our core species."

Mr Johnson also is convinced that enough research has been done to justify the change.

It includes the study of mallard duck blood, wing bones and gizzards from around the country to show the exposure to lead. The gizzard tests showed ingested lead was recorded from every region.

But Wildfowlers believes Fish and Game has been soft on the issue and is not as shooter-friendly as it could be.

Its research was done professionally but was not taken far enough, Dr Hucks says.

Forest and Bird has been at the forefront of the push for use of non-toxic shot.

Its conservation director, Eric Pyle, says he would like to see a quicker transition from lead "but at long last there's movement".

Mr Caithness, who was involved in some of the earliest research into lead poisoning of waterfowl, believes the issue has been "hijacked" by green interests.

"Lead poisoning does occur in waterfowl - I've certainly researched it - but at the same time I don't think it's of anything like the consequence that people allege it has."

He says lead poisoning is a phenomenon of shallow wetlands, certainly not deeper water. Because most shooters hunt from wetland margins towards deeper water, most of the shot falls in "inert places".

"It [the transition] is a ridiculous reaction to a perceived problem that is largely confined to the United States. It's much less a problem in temperate countries like New Zealand, where rainfall and water levels are much more stable.

"I think it's been poorly researched in temperate countries and I fail to see that lead shot can have any impact whatsoever in the wider environment".

But Mr South, a long time hunter, has a blunt message to those hunters finding it hard to accept the switch. "Get over it, and get on with it."

- NZPA

Safety clips

The Minister of Conservation has approved the transition timetable from lead shot to non-toxic alternatives:

* 2002 - Voluntary change promoted at selected sites on conservation and Fish and Game wetlands.

* 2003 - Mandatory requirement for non-toxic shot to be used at sites identified in 2002. Voluntary change promoted for remainder of conservation and Fish and Game wetlands.

* 2004 - Mandatory requirement for non-toxic shot to be used on all Fish and Game and conservation wetlands. Voluntary change promoted for wetlands on private land.

* 2005 - Mandatory requirement for non-toxic shot to be used for all waterfowl hunting.

nzherald.co.nz/environment