Hunter Performance Using Steel and Lead Loads for Hunting Ducks in Coastal Louisiana

Abstract

Performance of hunters shooting 11/4 oz of No. 6 lead shot was compared to those shooting 11/8 oz of No. 4 steel shot in 23/4-in. 12-gauge size for hunting ducks at Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge, Louisiana, during the 1980 and 1981 waterfowl seasons. More than 1,000 participating hunters fired 16,648 shots, bagged 2,228 ducks, and crippled 802. Hunters using No. 4 steel hit 19% fewer ducks per shot and 13% fewer ducks per blind-day (P 32 m. Species bag composition was not significantly different between the loads. The 13% fewer ducks hit per blind-day with steel indicate less overall impact on waterfowl with this load under hunting conditions that were mostly opportunity limited. With 0.50 cripples per bird bagged with steel and 0.31 with lead, there would be 15% more total birds hit when bag limits could be consistently reached by all hunters. Thus, under bag-limited hunting conditions, use of this particular steel load could result in greater waterfowl loss due to hunting than use of the lead load tested. J. WILDL. MANAGE. 48(2):388-398 Controversy surrounds the use of nontoxic steel shot for hunting waterfowl even though much research has been conducted comparing lead and steel shot loads (Andrews and Longcore 1969, Kozicky and Madson 1973, Nicklaus 1976, Mikula et al. 1977, Anderson and Roetker 1978, Anderson and Sanderson 1979, Humburg et al. 1982). Results of most steel shot studies have shown little or no differences in effectiveness between the steel and lead loads tested. However, some waterfowl hunters have not accepted these results, maintaining that there is a real difference based on their experiences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate relative performance, in actual duck hunting situations, of the most popular lead load used by Louisiana duck hunters and the available steel load with the most similar down range pellet energy. Data were collected during the 1980 and 1981 hunting seasons. We are grateful to the 33 observers and more than 1,000 hunters who participated in the study. T. A. Roster deserves thanks for training observers and assisting in other ways. We also express appreciation to D. W. Hayne, P. H. Geissler, S. L. Sheriff, and L. D. Soileau who provided assistance with study design, reviews of statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. Study design was facilitated by shooting test data provided by the Mo. Dep. Conserv. We thank the staffs of Lacassine Natl. Wildl. Refuge, La. Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, and the La. Dep. of Wildl. and Fish. for invaluable assistance throughout the study. The investigation was funded through the La. Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit in cooperation with the 388 J. Wildl. Manage. 48(2):1984 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.32 on Mon, 10 Oct 2016 04:17:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms HUNTER PERFORMANCE: STEEL VS. LEAD LOADS * Hebert et al. 389 U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., La. Dep. of Wildl. and Fish., La. State Univ. Agric. Cent., and Wildl. Manage. Inst.