Keith, if you could READ--seems you have a problem in that area--then you'd clearly understand that I do NOT believe the simplistic "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" stuff. If I DID believe that, then how come I'm DEFENDING the use of lead shot on upland birds? Doesn't compute, does it? Even Craig gives me credit for defending the continued use of lead for upland hunting.
As for the difference between susceptibility and exposure, Keith . . . I don't claim any greater scientific credentials than you have. But I'd humbly suggest that you probably don't want to get into word games with a writer. Susceptible in my dictionary: "Open, subject, or unresistant to some stimulus, influence, or agency." Waterfowl are clearly more subject to the influence of spent lead shot--or were, when we were hunting them with lead--based on their EXPOSURE to spent lead shot. Upland birds are less subject to the influence of spent lead shot because they are much less likely to encounter it--based on a lower rate of exposure. Exposure and susceptibility go together in this case, kinda like the old horse and carriage.
Actually, Craig and Keith, I came here this evening with an idea that should help you. You both start from the premise that the lead shot ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. OK, so maybe a few waterfowl died from ingesting spent lead shot . . . but not in the numbers being cited as the reason we had to get rid of lead for waterfowl hunting. So . . . where do we go to look for BIOLOGISTS who would have screamed their heads off if they thought the ban was junk science? How about to the two largest organizations of waterfowl hunters in the country: Ducks Unlimited and Delta Waterfowl. I did my own quick search and found out very quickly (by googling Ducks Unlimited Lead Poisoning) that they do not question the numbers of ducks and geese supposedly dying off annually back then. Delta Waterfowl . . . no luck there, but they do have an "ask the biologist" option. So if you guys want to know where DW stands on the issue, why don't you check it out?
And while you're checking, think on this: Both DU and DW depend on hunter $. Hunter $ decrease, their funding decreases. So obviously, they work hard to keep duck hunters happy. Back then, there were certainly duck hunters who were wondering whether ingested lead shot was killing so many ducks and geese that they had to switch to steel. And they were wondering just how effective steel would be on ducks and geese. In fact, when the ban went into effect, some waterfowl hunters quit. Obviously not a good thing for organizations like DU and DW, which depend on hunter $ to survive. And both of those organizations employ biologists. So . . . if the lead shot ban was based on junk science, then why weren't DU and DW biologists screaming their heads off, presenting their contrary evidence about other sources of lead or something else that was killing the ducks? And maybe pointing out as well that we might be doing more damage by shooting ballistically inferior steel at ducks, and crippling and losing as many with steel as we were saving by switching from lead. Surely, if "the truth is out there", DU and DW would have been playing the roles of Mulder and Scully from "The X Files" and digging hard as hell to find the truth on the junk science behind the ban.
No discrediting involved, Keith . . . but you keep trying to excuse your inability to find ANYONE in the wildlife community who has screamed "junk science" concerning the lead ban. Now I've given you the two organizations that would logically have been the most EAGER to discredit the lead ban, and the most EAGER to retain lead shot, thus keeping their members happy and donating $. That is, unless their biologists really believed that lead shot was responsible for large numbers of waterfowl dying, and that they'd be losing money because fewer ducks and geese would have resulted in fewer hunters if we continued shooting lead.
Hey Keith, you're the one who's saying the lead ban was based on junk science. Up to YOU to look at the studies and come up with with peer-reviewed proof that it WAS junk science. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. Which can be welcome in the winter, but not for us in Iowa. We have enough politicians blowing hot air in our state to convince me that they are impacting climate change, for sure.
