Keith, you are as confused about what "proving a negative" means as you are about "selective editing", and about the relative susceptibility of waterfowl to lead poisoning (back when we shot lead at them) compared to upland birds. You need to do some basic homework to help you understand all those things. Otherwise, intelligent discussion is impossible.

I've already addressed the difference between waterfowl and upland birds when it comes to susceptibility to lead poisoning, assuming we shoot lead at both. And I've already addressed "selective editing". With examples. Prove a negative . . . nope, that would be asking you to prove that NO waterfowl died of lead poisoning as a result of ingesting lead shot. What I'm asking you to do is to come up with a study, just ONE, from the wildlife management community, that demonstrates that causes other than lead poisoning, or lead poisoning from sources other than lead shot, were responsible for most of the dead and dying geese and ducks we were shown. Since there are contrarian scientists when it comes to climate change, why not a contrarian biologist when it comes to lead shot and waterfowl--especially considering many of them would now be retired and don't have any concerns with job security.

Keith, my statement that lead is toxic, toxic = bad is an example of PUBLIC PERCEPTION. Not what I believe myself. But incidents like lead in the water in Flint do tend to reinforce that perception. The public in general tends to be pretty low-information. Especially concerning topics in which they have no real interest--other than knowing that, by God, lead is bad.

As for what you can or cannot refute in studies to which you refer . . . have you contacted the people who put out the studies and pointed out all the glaring errors they made? What are your credentials to "refute" much of anything? Since an earlier quote from you seems to establish that you don't even recognize why waterfowl would be more susceptible to lead poisoning by ingesting shot than upland birds, I think most wildlife biologists would be laughing so hard they'd have trouble responding to your emails, letters or phone calls.

Last edited by L. Brown; 01/30/16 08:25 PM.