Thread: has 10 years steel use been benificial for waterfowl numbers

your opinions and rationales would be greatly appreciated.
forget the arguements for and against its use is here to stay and id like to know if you guys in the field give it a yay or a nay witjh regard to its supposed saving of waterfowl or otherwise.

My one and only response on this is that nowhere else in the world have the studies shown a net negative impact on waterfowl because of the introduction of steel. In places such as NZ there are many other factors which have contributed to the decline. No one has provided evidence to the contrary.

If there's less lead being shot over water then lead ingestion from pellets will be on the decline which must be a good thing unless you care to disprove the peer reviewed material published in scientific journals rather than rely on opinion pieces in some NZ hunting publications which side with your opinion.

I have no issues with steel and find it kills just as well as lead over land once you've made an effort to work things out. With the lowering of the price of steel ammo I'll be using steel over land also from now on because it kills well.

Originally Posted by Mike H

If there's less lead being shot over water then lead ingestion from pellets will be on the decline which must be a good thing unless you care to disprove the peer reviewed material published in scientific journals rather than rely on opinion pieces in some NZ hunting publications which side with your opinion.

Your ass you ming his opinion, he gave no opinion just asked for everyone elses.

He also asked to forget the arguments for and against but you had to drag that into it.

What he did ask for was opinions on If changing to steel had actually helped the resource or not.

How many ducks were found with a gizzard full of pellets?

As for steel helping. I dont think it has helped in bringing duck numbers up.

No. Changing to steel has not benefited the duck population in any way IMO. It has reduced in my area markedly over the last 5 or so years. It is also not the cause of that reduction IMO either. Other factors are at play.
NZ just jumped on a worldwide wagon regarding the change. We didn't need to change for a number of reasons but it happened.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I have no idea, I wasn't shooting that long ago. It must be because I'm too young.

I remember doing the maths on the findings of that peer reviewed study and the numbers that should be affected by lead nowadays was something like 0.8%, assuming we had the same number of shooters firing the same amount of shots. Lead being dense would tend to sink into the bed out of reach fairly quickly.

Originally Posted by gsp follower

your opinions and rationales would be greatly appreciated.
forget the arguements for and against its use is here to stay and id like to know if you guys in the field give it a yay or a nay witjh regard to its supposed saving of waterfowl or otherwise.

I have not seen any data which suggests that the banning of lead shot has saved waterfowl, but then again, I don't think that was the real intention anyway. I believe that the ban was a pre-emptive strike against those who were planning to use the lead shot issue as a means to ban/reduce waterfowl shooting - just my opinion. I would have thought that if F&G had conclusive proof that the ban has resulted in more ducks, then we would have all heard about it.

I don't think it has benefited the ducks at all, look how low our numbers are now. Heaps of woundie's flying further before they drop and then aren't recovered and added to the bag count. First it's lead ingested and now it's droughts as we are led to believe for the low numbers.

Originally Posted by Lentil

I have not seen any data which suggests that the banning of lead shot has saved waterfowl, but then again, I don't think that was the real intention anyway. I believe that the ban was a pre-emptive strike against those who were planning to use the lead shot issue as a means to ban/reduce waterfowl shooting - just my opinion. I would have thought that if F&G had conclusive proof that the ban has resulted in more ducks, then we would have all heard about it.

yeah what he says

Hard to quantify this. Ive seen lower numbers over the years where I shoot but know there are good numbers of ducks elsewhere in the province. Most likely due to a change in ducks habits, flight paths, changes to their feed supply etc.
Steel hasn't improved anything for ducks. In what I've seen its made things worse as hunters shoot it like lead and wound more birds as they wont change their shooting to allow for lower hitting power.

I don't believe it has helped. Same as last year less ducks in our area. Opening day 2011 last time I got my limit before lunch.
Theres a steady decline in the population in our area.

I haven't seen any reports stating that banning lead shot was done so to increase the duck population. Not that I've been looking though. I think you have to seriously look elsewhere to reasons of population decline if it is happening at all. All the areas I shoot offer as healthy a population of ducks as ever before. Of the two opening ponds I have been involved with in the last ten years (built, established, fed, pest control, shot yearly, etc), duck numbers have grown and bag limits are shot according to the weather more than anything.

Shooting with steel vs. lead is not something we've (my duck hunting mates) really worried about. Sure for a start it was a challenge, but we didn't shoot more ducks using lead than we do now. Pattern your gun, choose appropriate loads and go hunting. Getting birds closer sure helps with clean kills, i.e. within 30m, and now we are getting mostly one shot dead duck kills now that we have our guns and loads sorted AND we do our thing properly at the business end of the shotgun. A few long shots 50m plus with single shot kills were pulled off on opening. Steels here to stay so I don't think whinging about it is going to help anything, just enjoy the fact you can still go out and hunt!

Over population /more shooters/declining habitat/ semi auto shotguns = 1. Ducks = 0.

few hunters using semis are getting more because they have more shots, I don't think steel skybusters are even penetrating the skin I have killed ducks with steel from pellets hitting the head and neck and then noticed other pellets falling out of the feathers, no person in there right mind would choose steel over lead. There is not more ducks in my area and i have cut open over 100 gizards and still haven't found a single pellet, If farmers have been poisoning canadas and they have then how have they controlled poisoning other birds , They havent

Originally Posted by prattpoint

few hunters using semis are getting more because they have more shots

Sorry mate but that's bollocks. One shot kills with steel are easy. A couple of guys I shoot with use U/O all season and achieve double kills regularly. Pattern your gun, choose ammo that suits it and the choke your using.