Sound evidence must guide wildlife policies

Wildlife management policy is based on managing population impacts, not on preventing isolated instances of harm to individual animals.

Absent sound scientific evidence demonstrating a population impact caused by the use of traditional ammunition, there is no justification for restricting or banning its use. With limited exceptions, such as waterfowl and possibly the California condor - where the evidence of a causal connection to spent ammunition fragments is far from conclusive, there is no sound scientific evidence that the use by hunters of traditional ammunition is causing harm to wildlife populations. In the case of raptors, just the opposite is true. Hunters have long used traditional ammunition, yet raptor populations have significantly increased across North America. If the use of traditional ammunition was a threat to raptors, these populations would not be soaring as they are.

Needlessly restricting or banning traditional ammunition will hurt wildlife conservation efforts as fewer hunters take to the field, thereby undercutting wildlife management resources.

The higher costs of non-traditional ammunition will price everyday consumers out of the market. More facts at www.nssf.org and www.fws.gov.

Greg Cory

Waterloo