Why am I here? I've mentioned my motivations for commenting and tried to make my case. If you'd look back, much of the back and forth was about, while it's around in the uplands, lead shot was said not to be toxic to upland birds.
The shot surely is toxic to them but they don't encounter it the way waterfowl or eagles or condors do. Is this hard to understand? thus, lead in the uplands is not a problem at the level of affecting populations of upland birds.
Now, you confirm what I suspected, upland birds do have crops. Your conclusion? Upland birds are at risk of lead poisoning from only one source, firearm projectiles including shotgun pellets?
I understand you now craig. You are here to fight for the sake of fighting, like Keith. Nowhere did I say anything remotely like that, but you choose to invent things I never said and then ascribe them to me. Quite low behavior. Among the lowest of the low actually.
Other than giving up and hope we get it back, are there any nonconfrontational solutions. If you tripled your biology credentials and brought science along with it, does it matter to lobbyists. Apparently, adding hundreds of pounds of lead to the environment each year doesn't bother you, maybe your lead isn't toxic to the wildlife. Instead of explaining to me how many problems I have, why can't the 'discussion' be about the reasonable use of toxins instead of spreading around that it's all toxic.
craig by inventing things I did not say, you have demonstrated there really is no conversation here, only diatribe. I will leave you with keith to carry on as you must.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/qclHjMQ.jpg)
