Brent, thanks for an unemotional view from the other side. But hey, you must have an anti-lead agenda. I'll bet you don't even hunt. But you've got to be one of the bad guys!
Keith, lead shot isn't on the radar screen for upland birds for a whole bunch of reasons which I listed earlier. But upland birds are not waterfowl and they're not scavengers. We've lost the fight on waterfowl, and claiming that the lead ban on waterfowl was "junk science" HURTS our cause rather than helps it. You have to make specific arguments that pertain to specific situations and species. The deer hunters need to make their own case . . . but I'm not worried about them for the simple reason that they have significant strength in numbers. That's why the WI Natural Resources Board made the rather strange decision to go after lead shot on DNR land rather than lead bullets, even though it was bullet fragments rather than shot that was showing up in venison, and in eagles: We upland hunters, in that case, are the low hanging fruit. We are far fewer in numbers than the deer hunters. So we have to make the case in regards to OUR situation. Are upland birds picking up lead shot and dying from it in numbers large enough to impact the overall population? Are scavengers (and especially eagles) dying from secondary ingestion of lead shot they get from scavenging unrecovered pheasants, grouse, quail, etc? That's the evidence "good science" has to show us in order to make the case where lead SHOT is concerned.
They've already made their case with waterfowl. That battle is over and done with. Let's fight the battles that remain, and that we can win. And I think we can win where upland birds are concerned.
Keith, you're wandering off the track with diversions into "Animal Farm", charges of being anti-gun, acting like someone else, etc. Let's stick to specific cases. As for your Audubon examples . . . California? Really? You know why we didn't have a prayer in California? Look at demographics. According to figures I've got, the Dakotas--N and S combined--have about 400,000 paid hunting license holders. CA has about 300,000. The big difference there: The Dakotas, combined, have a population of about 1.5 million; California, 38 million. Which means not even 1% of Californians hunt. Which explains why they're not going to win many battles where restrictions on guns and hunting are concerned--other than relying on the 2nd amendment to preserve their most basic rights. In all of these fights, numbers matter. CA doesn't have enough hunters to make enough noise to stop anything. As for Audubon, they flat out tell you that they will work to eliminate hunting if the species in question is impacted. In this case, it's condors rather than a hunted species . . . but they accept the evidence that condors are in trouble because of lead. And condors are an endangered species. End of discussion. But note that you don't see Audubon lobbying for no pheasant hunting in the Dakotas, or no quail hunting in TX. And then there's my personal experience of working WITH Audubon to expand grouse and woodcock hunting opportunities in Iowa, on both private and public land. What happened in CA would have happened with or without Audubon. Meanwhile, here in Iowa, when we finally got a dove season, our own Natural Resources Commission said it should be nontox shot only. Iowa hunters fought it, and the legislature (split control, Dems and Republicans) overruled that. You'd never see that in CA because there aren't enough hunters to make enough noise.
As for the deer hunters . . . as mentioned above, they're in pretty good shape because of their numbers. But if bullet fragments like those found in venison are also found in eagles, and if those eagles are suffering from lead poisoning, then they have a fight on their hands. They may need to go beyond proving that there are other potential sources of lead, and instead prove that those other potential sources are the real problem and that the danger from bullet fragments is not the problem, or perhaps only a very minor problem. But given their numbers, I'm sure that any attempt to require nontoxic ammo--which would also impact varmint hunters, squirrel hunters, etc--would require rock solid proof that bullet fragments are the real problem. And even then, they can probably put enough pressure on politicians to fight off a lead ban, even if it looks like science is on the side of those who support it.
Ted, re your contention about coyotes and wolves . . . makes sense that lead poisoning from scavenging dead animals should impact them. However, a coyote is a whole lot bigger than a duck or a goose, or even an eagle. And a wolf is a whole lot bigger than a coyote. So I'd expect they'd need to ingest more lead for them to get sick. And especially in the case of wolves, numbers are so low--and given the fact I never saw one, living in wolf country for 4 1/2 years--that while it might be happening to the occasional animal, it might also escape notice.
