doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead & Condor deaths

Maybe, it would help to take a look at your previous comment, [blank] could be contributing to the support and enjoyment of our shooting community and board if..... Substitute blank for Larry, or maybe Brent. Does your comment still stand? It seems to, eh?

Rob passed along personal experience, just as Larry did with his Audubon comments. Instead of Larry countering something, he didn't like, with some shooting fraternity facts and figures, what does he do? Whistle blower conspiracies, junk science demonizing, black helicopter and drone covert operations, he even drug mom and apple pie into the picture. Who again likes to read his writings?

Remember, you were the one that said it didn't matter? If a customer were paying for a publication and didn't agree with a point being made, does this give him or her a bit of an idea of how much effort was being put into unity and the value of a differing thought?

Take a look back at Rob's thought. I don't think he ever mentioned massive conspiracies and tin foil hats. I believe he explained who he worked for, what the job description was and that the job was/is executed. Do you read anything more into it?

I should know better than to step into an exchange like this, but Rob said he's not coming back into it and I can't let pass this characterization of his post.

"We have wildlife biologists who say much of the anti lead dogma is junk science Larry. If you'd take your head out of the sand, you could see that's what Rob said, and that was why he took the time to post."

Rob told us from an insider's viewpoint that "agenda-driven �science�" happens, but he conspicuously made only a general statement about studies of lead, and his reference to "shaky science" applies to criticisms of those kinds of studies made by both sides of this debate. He took no one's side here, but simply said we need to look at purported evidence with a critical eye.

This exchange has become so driven by personal attacks that it's lost anything like reasonable perspective. I think the most telling comment Rob made was this:

"With as many pages as this thread has generated, I�m imagining about half a dozen individuals are even still paying attention��"

It's turned into a churning mess. Guys, just please stop.

(I apologize for some initial sloppiness in this post that I've tried to clean up with edits.)

Jay

Actually, that is the sum total of what rob said about lead. Lead and upland birds. And I'm with him 100%: there isn't good science to make the case that lead poses a threat to upland birds. I've only said that here about umpteen times; posted a quote from the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee admitting the same thing; posted research from lead shot at Tall Timbers quail research station in FL saying the same thing. Indeed, when it comes to lead shot and its impact on upland birds (with PERHAPS the exception of doves in areas of extremely heavy shot fall), ALL the science is shaky.

Then Rob went on to talk about wolves. He never addressed the issue of the lead shot ban for waterfowl. Not once. If he had the goods on that--if he knew it was a scam and could have presented evidence--that would have been exactly what I'm looking for. But we still have guys here saying it was all one big scam . . . although they can't seem to find anyone--NOT ONE SINGLE WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, CURRENT OR RETIRED--who agrees with them. And if it had been a scam, just like Rob made some comments about the wolf introduction, surely someone out there would have commented on "the great lead ban conspiracy". Still waiting. I have a feeling there will be icicles in hell before I see anything other than conspiracy THEORY (not backed by anyone with a background in science, much less in wildlife biology) rather than conspiracy PROOF.

That's not what Rob said Jay. It appears you are attempting to mischacterise the nature of his post

Since it was Brent and Larry who were repeatedly in denial about the plethora of junk science in support of lead bans, it seems remarkable that you refuse to recognize where this statement from Rob was obviously being directed...

"And I�ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven �science� being promulgated at the state and federal levels are na�ve at best."

Then I would refer you to Rob's previous words on this subject from that 2010 thread where he was repeatedly countering the massive document dumps of anti-lead science links that were being posted by Ben (GrouseGuy) Deeble. I won't put words in his mouth, but it is pretty apparent where he seems to stand if you take the time to look at what he has said now and in the past.

Of course, Rob was hardly alone in countering Ben. Sentiment against him was almost 100% except for a very few guys who were on the fence. King Brown was one who said the jury was still out, but even he made one of his typical bloviating statements on Junk Science:



So who really exposed the real cause of Reye's Syndrome, Health Canada or the Great Bloviator and Resume Inflator? By the way, the Mayo Clinic website says,"Exposure to certain toxins � such as insecticides, herbicides and paint thinner � also may contribute to Reye's syndrome."

If King Brown was capable of being honest or objective, he would accuse you of twisting Rob's intent. PM sent Jay.

Larry still seems to think that ducks and geese that ingest lead are much more susceptible to lead poisoning than pheasants or grouse. And apparently, he still is clinging to his flip-flopping explanation of the Univ. Of Minn.'s admission that the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles did not decrease at all 6 years after the Federal ban. If any researcher or whistle-blower ever does admit that lead shot was not a major source of lead poisoning in waterfowl, Larry will never accept it. I made points where Larry was wrong in probably a dozen places within this thread. He never acknowledged even one. What a stand-up guy!

Can I pick fault with you here? Perhaps we would have a bit more fairness and balance if you quoted in its entirety?

I feel the key to Rob's comment was the part about, 'having read it all'. It's possible that you have overlooked 'proof' in your certainty that there's a conspiracy to poke fun at.

Keith, state of mind assumptions and attributing motives is what I think makes too much of this thread distasteful and counter-productive to understanding. You assert that "it appears (I'm) attempting to mischacterise the nature of his post". Here's what you quoted from Rob in support:

"And I�ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven �science� being promulgated at the state and federal levels are na�ve at best." Rob immediately followed the part you quote with this: "A fair amount of that �shaky science� has been aired here re: the lead/upland bird issue."

He said not another word about lead. None of this (or what followed) is inconsistent with how I summarized my understanding of his post:

"Rob told us from an insider's viewpoint that "agenda-driven �science�" happens, but he conspicuously made only a general statement about studies of lead, and his reference to "shaky science" applies to criticisms of those kinds of studies made by both sides of this debate. He took no one's side here, but simply said we need to look at purported evidence with a critical eye."

You may understand his opinion to be something more than what he wrote yesterday. Maybe it is, but that's no basis for saying I attempted to mis-characterize what he wrote yesterday.

I'm gonna follow his lead and say I also am "outta here. I won�t be responding to any replies that would further turn this into a pissing contest."

Jay

Jay, you are correct. I apologize for saying that it appeared that you were attempting to mischaracterise what Rob't Harris had said. That was a poor choice of words. I should have said that you were mistaken and explained to you why I felt that way, based upon the sum total of what he actually said, his considerable efforts to fight the lead shot ban in Montana (including the faulty science behind it), and what he had written here numerous times in the past in other Lead Ammunition threads. You could certainly be excused for not knowing about those important details if you were not aware of them. I do feel this statement tends to also back up my interpretation of his intent. It wasn't me that was contending that Game Management agencies would never do anything agenda driven simply because they were getting paid by us.



I wish he would weigh back in to clarify one way or the other, since that apparently isn't enough, but that would be up to him. I'm very confident that my interpretation of what he said was correct, and would publicly eat crow if I was somehow mistaken... which is more than could be said for some of the participants in this thread.

Ok, Keith, accepted. I didn't want to come back here, but this was good reason.

I responded to what Rob posted, apart from opinions he may have expressed elsewhere. I took his major point to be that agenda driven proposals are often built on weak or less than honestly presented science. On other discussion boards devoted to shotguns, I've seen Larry make the same point re lead shot ban proposals in IA, MN, and WI. I didn't and still don't see that Rob was taking sides in this thread.

Other than Rob's post as written, it's been too many pages since any helpful new information has been introduced in this thread.

Jay

For the sake of clarity here, I�m going to make a liar of myself by responding�

I should first remind folks that I earlier stated my areas of actual experience as a biologist, and that I have no professional expertise with plumbism in wildlife populations. That is ��other than that which unexpectedly came to me by way of Ben Deeble's attempt to have lead shot lethality studies conducted on our state�s upland bird populations.

In fairness to Ben, he stated that he was not seeking to have lead shot banned outright, but rather to simply ask our Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks personnel to begin studies to determine if lead shot on the landscape posed any potential for additive mortality. To me, his action was in essence seeking a solution for a non-existent problem - but that was, and is, just my opinion. What I really took exception to was the under-handed way he went about it, while a biologist for the NWF. And I�ve no intention of rehashing all of that here rather leaving it to others to provide links -if they care- to the various threads/posts that appeared on this bbs. Suffice it to say, it took the activating of some twenty sportsmens� groups around the state, engaging in letter-writing and phone-in campaigns, before Ben was directed by the Montana Wildlife Federation to table his proposal that he hoped would be acted upon by state wildlife managers. And my gut feeling is that Ben is still not done with our Montana uplands in this regard��


With that said, let me say the following as a layman�..and not as a biologist:

I�ve always been skeptical that within a matter of a decade, we�re told that the switch to non-toxic shot has dramatically turned waterfowl plumbism almost into a moot point. We no longer are being exposed to photos of crook-necked ducks and geese, and yet we know that some heavily gunned environments such as those over hardpan playas, sandy shorelines, and streambeds must still be offering up decades of lead shot deposition. We know that all of it has not sunk and become inaccessible to waterfowl, yet the problem has apparently gone away otherwise it would still be getting rubbed in our collective faces as hunters for the blame & shame it might cause.

And I�m always a bit surprised that there is little to no discussion by wildlife managers of the other potential sources of lead bio-availability; or that lead�s solubility or lack of, in aquatic environments is largely determined by the water�s pH. As I understand it, again as a layman, it is the extremes of high acidity or alkalinity that make lead particles more soluble and thus available to organisms. A good example of this is Flint, Michigan�s current predicament where for decades lake water has been delivered through a cast-iron and lead system to customers with no apparent ill effects; and then a cost-saving switch to the highly acidic (low pH) Flint river now has lead leeching out of the system and contaminating the whole lot to where it is now unfit for consumption.

And unlike grain-eating birds with their crops and gizzards, I�d like to know �why� I never hear of any discussion by someone more versed in avian anatomy than me discussing the workings of the bifurcated esophagus found in raptors and owls. An adaptation that shunts the largely indigestible items such as fur/hide/bone fragments/large bullet fragments, perhaps?? into a portion of the tract where they are then regurgitated out as �pellets� or �castings�. Biologists/researchers actually collect and analyze these to determine diet composition. But that�s not my area of expertise either, and I�d invite any edification, in layman�s terms, as to whether a bifurcated esophagus actually mitigates any lead ingestion at all. Ben is an upland bird biologist with the NWF and might be in a position to explain this to us or provide a reference that does. Or do the ingested lead pellets/fragments consistently make it to the bird�s first stomach, or proventriculus, where caustic acids begin making that lead soluble and thus toxic.

I know I could spend days on the computer researching this if I really had a mind to, but I�d rather be honing my retirement skills��which this entire post is keeping me from doing tonight��.

There�s so much to this topic that I don�t pretend to know�..but I do know this:

When graduating from Utah State Univ. in 1971, we learned via a poll that almost ninety percent of all our students in either wildlife or fisheries studies were involved in consumptive resource uses, i.e. they hunted or fished and then ate what they gathered. Contrast this to a figure I heard of a few years back (but cannot confirm) claiming that today�s graduating numbers from many of our top resource colleges hover closer to the fifty percentile mark for those that even care to hunt or fish. The demographic is clearly changing and you may not find it as empathetic to what many of you legally do afield � regardless of your license revenues paying for a big chunk of their departmental budgets.

As for the lack of �whistleblowers�, Larry, what can I tell you other than my own experiences? While I worked only for state and federal agencies over my whole career, I worked as an independent contracting biologist other than some early years with the Forest Service. But from personal experiences among a few friends, colleagues, and acquaintances that did seek a career within the agencies, I can tell you that not 'rocking the retirement boat' did play into some of their silence. And that once retired with twenty or more years of service in, a few of them did give voice to what they felt were bad upper management decisions not made in good conscience over their careers. Truth is, I would have respected them more had they done so during, so as to hopefully affect policy for the better, but you know that�s not the way it generally works, does it? And unfortunately, none of this was pertinent to lead toxicity ��so I can't help you much there.

And LASTLY, for one to say that lead=toxic=bad to the uninformed public is far too simplistic to even warrant serious consideration, and I feel it is up to resource professionals (and writers) to start changing that narrative whenever it is encountered since lead can and does remain inert in many instances within our environment.

I�ve said too much already in too long a post, and will hope we can all put this to bed for some time and come at it again on another day and with a better frame of mind��

Respectfully,

Rob Harris

Rampant throughout all government agencies. Been there, done that, saw enough of it to be disgusted.