Lawmakers Should Reconsider Lead Shot Issue - Updated

Gov. Terry Branstad weighed in this morning on the great lead shot debate.

“It could have been handled better and, hopefully, in the future it will be,” Branstad says.

Well said, governor. Maybe you've been following the lead shot debate. Or maybe you missed it. Perhaps you were just grazed. But basically, our Legislature, using a pretty ugly process, passed legislation authorizing the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to create a mourning dove hunting season. Branstad signed it into law.

During legislative debate, the House voted down an amendment that would have banned dove hunters from using lead shot to bag birds.

But when the Natural Resources Commission wrote rules for the upcoming dove hunting season, its members went ahead and banned lead shot anyway. Last week, the Legislature's's Administrative Rules Review Committee put the lead ban on hold until lawmakers get another crack at the issue next year. That means lead shot can be used this fall.

Both sides are right, and wrong.

Legislators are right to put the rule on hold. It's really not a good idea for an appointed commission to do the exact opposite of what elected lawmakers clearly wanted. It may feel swell if the legislative intent being ignored fits your viewpoint, but that's not the way our system is supposed to work, and leaves too much room for shenanigans. Commissions have lots of latitude in writing rules and regulations, but this was a clear overstep.

That said, the commission is right, even if its method is wrong. And I think if lawmakers actually take a good hard look at the issue, which did not happen during the slam-bam rush to get a bill to Branstad with little debate, they'd probably reach the same conclusion. Lead is toxic, which is why it's been removed from paint, gasoline and other products. It's been banned for use by waterfowlers for years. It makes little sense to pepper the uplands with more of the stuff. It makes more sense to create new hunting season that operates under rules that reflect modern science.

What I'm now hoping is that all the attention to this debate will prompt a few dove hunters to think twice about using lead shot. It is possible to do the right thing, even when the government doesn't require it.

Or maybe you think filling the sky with hot (cheaper) lead is your American birthright. Fire away below.

UPDATE -- Upon further review, I found this graph near the end of The Gazette's account of the bill passing the House:

On the way to approving the bill, representatives offered amendments to prohibit using lead shot, require dove hunters to buy migratory fowl stamps and prohibit dove hunting within a mile of a residence. All were rejected. (Rep. Rich) Arnold said the Natural Resources Commission could establish those rules.

Huh. So maybe legislative intent was much less clear than I thought. Nonetheless, lawmakers should take a serious look at the issue and give clear guidance to the DNR.