Originally Posted by Ted Schefelbein
Originally Posted by LGF
Originally Posted by Lloyd3
"lead shot" (or even lead bullets) isn't a problem for anybody except a few eagles that were eating wounded geese back east.

So you're okay with poisoning thousands of eagles, vultures, condors because you are inconvenienced by nontoxic shot? But you're even wrong about that - the lead ban was instituted because enormous numbers of waterfowl were dying after picking up lead shot from the bottom of ponds as grit in their gizzards. USFWS spend years doing endless studies on that mortality and the decision to ban lead was taken very reluctantly in the face of overwhelming evidence. Of course, there are those among us who label any data we don't like as 'junk science' if it suggests that we need to change old habits or tolerate an inconvenience merely to prevent needless wildlife death and promote conservation. Yes, steel shot causes more crippling but even that has improved greatly since it was introduced. I would much prefer to use lead rather than expensive bismuth in my old guns but not at the cost of causing great waterfowl mortality from starvation after ingested lead prevents them from digesting food. But that's just me.

Did the lead that was deposited in those ponds over the last 125 years or so suddenly vanish when non-toxic shot was mandated? Or, do waterfowl not pick up that lead shot anymore?

Inquiring minds want to know.

The science sucks. Always has.


Best,
Ted

Absolutely the "science" suks. And not a single administration in the last 50 years has questioned it and set the record straight. No politician actually does anything more than pay lip service to the shooters to scam their vote.

Dr.WtS
Mysteries of the Cosmos Unlocked
available by subscription