Once I respected scientific articles. Having seen enough bunk between Climate and COVID, I am now suspicious of supposed scientific truth. The liars, spinners, and politicians of science have taught to read their stuff with much more caution. I see it in economics, education and history too and with a little thought could carry it into more fields with ease. Academic journals appear at times more about getting published than producing sound supported truth.
Nor do I believe that the politically motivated twisters of truth get their just desserts. I have lived long enough to see scoundrels prosper.
Should we insist scientists abide by the classic rules they once claimed to, of course we should. Do I think the genie of biased unscientific results masquerading as definitive truth will disappear, not likely.
Even medicine seems poisoned by the have changed, one example is equity over excellence in admissions. Psychology is terribly tainted with politics, every year we seem to add a new sex orientation category and then pretend it is new biologically founded truth. COVID goes without saying. I could go on but I believe the point is made.
Now back to the original question of Lead shot first for waterfowl then the the uplands. I remain convinced while extreme examples can be found that the evidence for non toxic waterfowl is suspect. It is a dead subject that is likely not to get revisited.
The science for the uplands might have some proof with condors, however given who produces those studies my suspicions are naturally raised. The same state argues for Carbon reduction, while consistently increasing their carbon footprint. Outside of their fairly unique Condor situation I have not heard any proven general upland threat posed by lead shot that is proven.
I believe that Upland lead shot bans are more about a back door to gun control. We must fight it hard. I really feel for hunters in blue states as they have an uphill battle.
| 