Lead-Free rules coming to Idaho?

[packgoatguy]

Has anyone else heard about this? Kenneth Wallen (the guy who I believe writes all of IDFG's surveys) has put out a new survey this month that sounds like a precursor to changes in the IDFG regs regarding whether Idaho hunters will be able to use lead ammunition in the future or not.

"Idaho lead-free ammunition opinion survey (2025)"​

"Lead is a well‐known neurotoxin that affects humans and empirical evidence demonstrates that lead causes unintended negative impacts on fish and wildlife resources. Despite regulations to ban the use of and remove lead from the environment, e.g., lead-based paint and automobile fuel, use of lead-based hunting ammunition continues in the United States (with the exception of California, select National Wildlife Refuges, and nationwide nontoxic ammunition requirements specific to waterfowl hunting). Moreover, central to fish and wildlife management and conservation are its human dimensions. Moreover, in the context of lead-free ammunition choice, initial research and outreach efforts indicate that hunters express a willingness to take actions related to lead-free ammunition use when those actions occur or are expected among a reference network (i.e., credible sporting community peers or groups). Additionally, a general sentiment among lead-free interest and advocacy groups suggests that prevention of wildlife lead poisoning from ammunition can only be successful if lead-free ammunition actions are and are perceived as voluntary. Therefore, the objective of this study is to describe Idaho hunters (a) lead-free ammunition use, (b) opinions on lead-free ammunition, (c) and personal and social dynamics of lead-free ammunition choice."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398211341_Idaho_lead-free_ammunition_opinion_survey_2025

 

[Buglebrush]

No! I am so opposed to banning lead Ammo!

 

[RockAndSage]

That entire paragraph reads like someone on a biased, pre-determined mission to make the outcomes he wants, and for them to appear "scientific".

 

[7mm-08]

I sense that there will be a lot of opposition to banning lead projectiles in Idaho. I will oppose this move personally as well.

 

[packgoatguy]

That entire paragraph reads like someone on a biased, pre-determined mission to make the outcomes he wants, and for them to appear "scientific".

You should read some of the other "surveys" Mr. Wallen has put out for IDFG.

 

[BowBaboon]

That entire paragraph reads like someone on a biased, pre-determined mission to make the outcomes he wants, and for them to appear "scientific".

I don’t believe there’s a way to write something entirely unbiased. However, if you go look at his references, he’s using relatively recent publications (oldest is 15 years old) from sources that may or may not be biased themselves. It would’ve been nice to see some research regarding amounts of lead found in game meat post processing to signal that he’s looked into some of the counter-arguments, though.

 

[BowBaboon]

Focusing solely on what I would call his thesis statement, “Therefore, the objective of this study is to describe Idaho hunters (a) lead-free ammunition use, (b) opinions on lead-free ammunition, (c) and personal and social dynamics of lead-free ammunition choice.”

He’s simply gathering the data to understand how Idahoans feel about the use of non-lead ammunition and try to understand the motivations that might cause the sample to voluntarily transition to lead free, or if they even might do that. Based on the survey responses, it seems to me like there was a pretty cut and dry answer that most Idahoans are opposed to it.

 

[Matt5266]

Great i assume they will want us to use brass or tungsten fishing weights too? Ill be watching this closely to oppose this

 

[ODB]

"So trends are toward lead free already but let's press the gas pedal so we can get laws involved within which we'll add other things we are thinking about but not telling you right now."

 

[packgoatguy]

Focusing solely on what I would call his thesis statement, “Therefore, the objective of this study is to describe Idaho hunters (a) lead-free ammunition use, (b) opinions on lead-free ammunition, (c) and personal and social dynamics of lead-free ammunition choice.”

He’s simply gathering the data to understand how Idahoans feel about the use of non-lead ammunition and try to understand the motivations that might cause the sample to voluntarily transition to lead free, or if they even might do that. Based on the survey responses, it seems to me like there was a pretty cut and dry answer that most Idahoans are opposed to it.

If this issue goes before the IDFG Commission, will it actually matter that most Idahoans oppose it? They didn't seem to have a very high regard for the majority opinion of Idaho hunters at their meeting last month...

 

[BowBaboon]

You should read some of the other "surveys" Mr. Wallen has put out for IDFG.

Do you mind elaborating on the quotations around surveys in this comment? Based on my knowledge of surveys, this seems like an adequate set of questions from a significant sample size with some background research to substantiate his claims and questions. Full-disclosure, I'm getting a degree with a focus on human dimensions of natural resource management and hope to some day be on the other side of the keyboard writing surveys like this so I can communicate the public opinion to commissions in an (mostly) unbiased manner. Speaking of which, it's my final finals week and I should really be working on projects, but here I am...

They didn't seem to have a very high regard for the majority opinion of Idaho hunters at their meeting last month...

Sorry to hear that. I'm not familiar with the Idaho commission as I'm in Wyoming and mostly focus on things happening here.

 

[Nickman123]

Don't be scared. The government always knows best. Here in California, we banned lead and now the state is a utopia. I myself lost 10lbs and feel 20yrs younger.

 

[packgoatguy]

Do you mind elaborating on the quotations around surveys in this comment? Based on my knowledge of surveys, this seems like an adequate set of questions from a significant sample size with some background research to substantiate his claims and questions. Full-disclosure, I'm getting a degree with a focus on human dimensions of natural resource management and hope to some day be on the other side of the keyboard writing surveys like this so I can communicate the public opinion to commissions in an (mostly) unbiased manner. Speaking of which, it's my final finals week and I should really be working on projects, but here I am...


Sorry to hear that. I'm not familiar with the Idaho commission as I'm in Wyoming and mostly focus on things happening here.

It's a fair question. In my opinion, surveys are most effective if they are objective and free of bias. A survey written in such a way as to promote an agenda may bear the title of "survey" but often it is just appears to me to be a piece of propaganda, which means it has little scientific value to me.

 

[BowBaboon]

As for creating simple surveys that are scientifically effective... I am not a professional survey writer or statistician... but in my humble view, the best surveys are the ones that provide in-context 3rd party reference material (that covers all sides of an argument) for the survey taker to read prior to answering questions. In cases where source data is lacking... then the institution asking for the survey should be asked to produce and provide empirical data prior to the creation of the survey. This data can then be used to educate the target audience in advance of the survey questions (and done so im a clinical, non biased manner). Then the actual questions should be written in a non leading way... straightforward, almost boring-like. It shouldn't be a place where the survey author gets to stretch his literary muscles....

Even if you were to provide two sides to each question, do you think people would take the time to read the articles or evidence provided? I feel like this could lead to survey-fatigue, and people would bail out of your survey half-way through leaving you with half-baked responses to develop your hypothesis and therefore your recommendation. There's a balance somewhere, but I think trying to keep them short and succinct like the author has would lead to higher participation rates and a better hypothesis.

I see a lesson here... that really good survey writers are able to step into the proverbial shoes of their target audience, and if they can't do that, they involve someone who can.


Just my 2 cents.

I agree. Unfortunately, this comes down to the author's discretion. I find it interesting that he is the project team on this survey. Surely there was some level of peer-review for a public facing document.

Sorry to derail your thread with academic nerdy-ness. We can all pick up our pitch forks again if you want.