The group concluded that while costs preclude gathering absolute data, they agreed, among other things, that lead is toxic to humans and wildlife and that at some point, lead shot will have to be restricted in the future.

They identified potential regulatory options ranging from merely restricting lead shot on certain areas for certain species to a complete ban of the use of lead shot statewide for all small-game hunting.

Earlier this year, legislation was introduced that would have banned lead shot on State Wildlife Management Areas located in farmland areas of the state, a policy that already is in effect statewide in Iowa and South Dakota.

That bill, supported by the DNR, would have gone into effect in 2011. However, it was withdrawn by its author before action could be taken.

In the meantime, the clock is ticking. Kimmel and Tranel’s paper, which stretches for 25 pages including cited sources, provides ample evidence that lead continues to enter the environment and our diets through the use of our lead shot.

“The DNR right now has no plans on where this is going,” Tranel said of the paper. “It is more of an outreach ... as conservationists, hunters will want the word out.”

And Kimmel pointed out that just as lead is not required for life, neither is it required to be a successful hunter, since many non-toxic alternatives rival or exceed traditional lead loads’ performance.

“My son and I both used “Heavi Shot” [a non-toxic lead substitute] to kill turkeys this spring, and they went down right now,” he said.