HUNTER EDUCATION

In the FWS earlier approval of Federal's application for its tungsten-iron shot load, Winchester commented on the efficiency factor of this load. In reply, the FWS stated that Federal's own separate research demonstrated the efficiency of its shot. The FWS also went on to discuss the fact that continuing education and training of waterfowlers would help keep game loss due to crippling to a minimum. The FWS mentioned that waterfowlers should first test different loads with their guns prior to hunting in order make any necessary adjustments and, thereby, keep the crippling rate to a minimum.

The FWS' comment (verbatim quote) in this regard was posted to our Internet listserv. The general consensus of the listserv seemed to be that at $2.00+ p/shell for Federal's tungsten-iron shot loads, not too many waterfowlers were going to head for the skeet range to practice with this newly approved nontoxic waterfowl load (at 25 shots p/round). In fact, the FWS statement was criticized by certain members of the listserv as being one only a bureaucrat could make and, at the same time, get away with.

Be that as it may, it strikes us that rather than put the burden of hunter education squarely on the shoulders of the waterfowler, would it not make much more sense for the FWS to approve any nontoxic waterfowl shot contingent upon the candidate manufacturer demonstrating that it had produced a hunter education video tape which it would and could make available at cost to any potential user/purchaser of its product? We believe this to be the case. Also, couldn't the candidate manufacturer easily advertise the availability of such an instructional videotape on each box of its "contingently approved" nontoxic shot? Wouldn't such labeling kill the proverbial two birds with one stone? Wouldn't the availability of a manufacturer-produced instructional videotape reasonably assist in the "continuing hunter education and training" that the FWS earlier spoke of, and at the same time, remove this burden from the waterfowler? And wouldn't this "continuing hunter education and training" benefit the FWS, the waterfowling community, and simultaneously, help to reasonably conserve the limited waterfowl resource? Of course, we consider that all of the answers to the foregoing questions are undeniably in the affirmative. In conclusion then, we are hopeful that our consideration of ITRI's recent tin shot approval application in light of the FWS' new final rule will stimulate further thought by all concerned on how the general waterfowling community can work together with the FWS and with waterfowl shot manufacturers of the world in order to make waterfowling a better, safer and greener sport, as well as one which is genuinely sustainable for many future generations to come.