Just trying to be "fair and balanced". As for Audubon, I showed the positive part of the statement because someone else already showed the negative. That would be fairness and balance. And I also showed an excellent example--from personal experience....
....maybe someone can take a shot at explaining the coincidence I mentioned previously: Waterfowl dying with lead pellets in their systems. Ceases to be a problem, or at least a problem to the same degree it was previously . . . when we stop shooting lead. If that's just a coincidence, what was killing them before that isn't killing them now? And why isn't it killing them now?
I find your Audubon comment interesting, you see it as 'good' and 'negative'? How about truthful or otherwise. Fairness and balance means to conceal their pertinent policy from a hunter's perspective? I've mentioned anecdotal evidence before, we can all come up with some, but it's only value would be to trigger emotion. I've approached this topic from the point of view that you have much larger voice in the field than most do, I've tried to point out that you may be lobbying for a position that's based on preconceived preferences. Does you anecdotal evidence motivate the base like staged stacks of dead critters for an agenda.
Your waterfowl scenario is an excellent example. First, you say the hunter and their ammo is THE problem, fair? Second, even your dots require connection by coincidence, so it's impossible for the facts to take a different path? And finally, 'killing them now'. Do 'we' get to independently test the current samples? Do 'we' get to pull the old samples from the 70's that have been properly documented and preserved, like good science would do, and test those with updated technology to do a fair comparison. Does the government provide grants to do this, for fairness, because they commission studies to achieve preconceived conclusions? Is it fair to say that because water is the most common things around ducks, that we can conclude that they drown?
If a hunter, ethically and legally, walks out of a field with a few game birds, we know exactly what killed them. And, of course, there'll never be an end to what's killing them now. I wish someone would stick up for what's killing hunting.
