Steve Knight

BROWNWOOD -- I have never been more disgusted by, or embarrassed for, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department than I am today.

At a time when hunters should have been celebrating a good opening to another dove season, the focus is instead on a bungled TPWD research project that involved a department-sanctioned hunt conducted two days prior to opening day in Brown County in which more than 300 birds were killed. A second round was to have been again on the day before the season in Coleman County.

The study was designed to look at the lethalness of steel shot versus lead shot for dove hunting. As it has become for waterfowl hunting, steel shot could become the future for dove hunters across the United States.

The study involved regular hunters using either steel or lead shot being observed by TPWD while hunting under real conditions. The department contracted with a Dallas-area outfitter to locate fields and hunters for the project.

The only person to bid on it, he reportedly received $32,000 for his efforts from the state, but also got $300 a head from so-called volunteer shooters who were allowed to shoot unlimited numbers of birds under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit.

While surrounding landowners were notified of the project by the outfitter, the department failed to inform the general public of the pre-season hunt that had a goal of collecting 500 birds. Members of the Wildlife Division also failed to tell the department's top administrators or Parks and Wildlife commissioners about something that stood no chance of not being controversial when discovered by hunters arriving to what they thought was a pristine field nearby opening morning.

One of those disturbed by the events was outfitter David Davis. On Saturday, Davis was called by one of the neighboring landowners concerned by more shooting than he had expected. In a phone conversation, Davis asked if I knew the department was conducting the research. I hadn't, and quite honestly could not conceive a reason the same results couldn't be obtained beginning opening morning without potentially interfering with the hunts of hunters who had invested time and a lot of money in preparation for the first day of the season.

I began making calls that resulted in more calls to surprised TPWD officials who put the brakes on the study. No one ever questioned the science involved, just the perception that other licensed hunters might have when their hunts went sour.

Judging by an unofficial poll of hunters who heard about the early hunt, the department's decision to stop the hunt was a wise one.

In an e-mail defending the pre-season study, TPWD dove program leader Jay Roberson said he didn't believe it would impact opening-day hunters.

"If anything, it would have improved hunting for opening day as non-collection areasbecame defacto 'sanctuaries,'" Roberson said. "We observed many more doves in huge feeding flocks on adjacent property yesterday evening that the complainant has leased than on the collection area."

He went on to say that the department had anticipated complaints, and therefore sought fields as far away as possible from other fields.

Roberson also said the studies need to "be conducted in prime habitat with high dove densities under normal seasonal hunting to most nearly match retrieval of dead doves given the normal vegetation height, color and density."

Why two days before the season was better than opening day isn't clear.

Roberson lamented that the cancellation of the study impacted the morale of department biologists who, instead of being stuck in an office chair, spent the previous week in Brownwood learning how to watch dove being shot and hanging out with their friends.

What he didn't address was the morale of the hunters with whom he didn't talk, who left the field disgusted because their hunt wasn't as good as it might have been.

One adjacent landowner said his opening-day hunters did OK, but that the pressure of two hunts shot the bottom out of the field for the second day.

Another had six hunters who took 19 birds.

If the department takes credit for the success, will it also take credit for the failure?

Now, it seems the department will revive the test before next season. That being said, let's give this the acid test. Let's start by asking any commissioner with a ranch or a dove lease to hold this study on their property. Let's see how taking 500 doves impacts their opening day hunt with friends or those on their neighbors' properties.

The question of any hunter should be, "Would you accept this happening to you?"

Instead of blaming others for halting the study, the department should be in an internal discussion about what went wrong. That begins with a serious breach or a lack of respect in the chain of command.

As is often the case in dealing with the public, the department did a poor job in public relations. Had this been an agency such as Texas AgriLife Extension Service, there is no doubt in my mind they would have personally contacted neighboring landowners in a wide swath around the research site, held a public meeting locally to inform everyone of the project and put out press releases statewide to inform the public. TPWD did the minimum amount possible.

If the department has to have the study prior to the season, then maybe it needs to lease a buffer around the field they are using to prevent hunters from having a bad hunt and landowners from potentially losing income.

Maybe it doesn't need the work at all. Maybe the ballistics work can be done in a laboratory setting. Then again, hunters know steel shot will kill ducks and geese. It will also kill dove.

Someone said what happened was that the most important research of the last three decades in Texas was disrupted. This sad incident is important, but for all the wrong reasons. It ranks with two infamous incidents of the 1990s, one in which the department's Wildlife Division director was accused of jumping out of a helicopter onto an antelope in New Mexico. The other is a wildlife stocking scandal involving the department and state politicians.

This is worse because of the way it was handled from beginning to end, which is the point where the story gets even worse. For his part in doing only what any other hunter would have done, Davis is being vilified by some within the department. The truth is, his only contact with department officials came at their request and his only contact with those conducting the study was also at their urging.

One attack reportedly occurred this week when a department employee went to the Brownwood store where Davis works and made anything-but-veiled comments that have to be construed as an attempt to cost the outfitter his job.

It sounds as if the department is being so defensive it would rather attack a public citizen than look within at its own problems.

Steve Knight
()