Originally Posted By: Geo. Newbern
Brent and Rookhawk both, I know this is a situation where your viewpoint is generally unpopular (after all its a GUN forum), but also where your insight can be of some substantial value to those who really wish to understand the lead shot argument more clearly. Please continue this diologue as time permits and while I may not be willing or even capable of reading and understanding the literature, I am quite willing and would appreciate the chance to listen to the "executive summary" of what the research does say...Geo


Whoa, there Geo. I wouldn't go trusting much of what Brent says blindly. Especially when he starts talking about all the "literature" he has been reading. Don't forget that he blatantly lied earlier in this thread:
Originally Posted By: BrentD


And what it has done for waterfowl in general and a few other species (e.g., bald eagles) is flatly undeniable.



and when directly confronted with evidence that completely discredited his statement about bald eagles which was put out by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html

His only response was to do what only the slimiest politicians do, and go on a personal attack and not acknowledge any of the data by the most credible agency to ever study this issue. Instead he insisted he had read the "true" literature and everything else was a lie. In fact he insisted that I go back and look at the correct literature about this issue that he had posted numerous times before. Since this is an important topic, I actually went back to look through his posts to see if I could actually find this mythical literature about lead shot and bald eagles. I searched all the way back through 2008, and you guessed it, I found zilch. Not very easy data to find that would apparently blow the USFWS research out of the water. I urge you and others to go back and look at his previous posts in this thread to find out just what kind of person he is, and make your own decision on what his true agenda actually is.

The fact is that the lead shot ban in 1991 had no major, or even minor affect on the recovery of the bald eagle. The percentage of increase in the population of the bald eagle was actually higher before the ban went into place. I don't want anyone to believe me personally. Do your own research and find out for yourself, don't rely on anyone else to make up your opinion for you. Here it is again, and take out of it what you will:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/chtofprs.html

This is extremely important to get across because the anti-lead crowd knows that the bald eagle is a red herring for the media, and any time they point out anything that harms a single eagle it will be picked up and used at a poster child for their cause, which is why Brent lied about that fact.

“I left long before daylight, alone but not lonely.”~Gordon Macquarrie