While I can certainly selfishly see the entertainment and fun in going out and shooting fish swimming around for recreation, and justifying it because the animal is an invasive problem, it seems to be forgetting something:
From my understanding the primary reason for the rules against lead shot use on waterfowl is not because there is a problem with the animal being shot with lead shot.
Rather the problem is all the pellets that miss and go into the water. Those pellets then are ingested by other birds such as ducks from the bottom of the lakes and rivers. These animals swallow rocks to use in their gizzard to grind food. When they pick up lead pellets they get ground into readily absorbed tiny particles of lead and poison the animal.
Well just because it is not birds being shot at, and fish instead, it would still seem you would get the exact same result using lead shot to shoot fish.
A lot of poisoned birds.
Considering the most common cheap shot used by the majority of people is lead, I imagine the majority of people shooting carp would be shooting them with ammo like the bulk packs from Walmart.
Not steel shot.
So won't it simply result in maximizing how many lead pellets are put into rivers and lakes in the area, in even greater amounts than hunters shooting at birds did?
If people have to use expensive ammunition to kill something many won't even want to eat, will the program still be a success. How many Bubbas will be using cheap Walmart bulk packs anyways?
Do game wardens inspect people to insure ammo compliance?
It would seem the primary people that would be targeted to participate in the program if they wanted success would be recreational fishermen. But if it's complicated or requires an additional license I don't think it would have much impact on the population because few would participate. While if it is casual and any recreational fishermen can blast at the carp they see, I see a lot of Bubbas shooting lead into the water on a massive scale rather than using the proper more expensive ammunition.
