I'm back Larry. I didn't forget about you, just had a few very busy days at work, and a lot of overtime. I'm glad to see the thread is still active, even if it is straying further off topic, but as I said, I wasn't done yet anyway.
Keith, back away from the 90% BS . . . very slowly. Did you look at ALL my posts and determine that this one is anti-lead, that one isn't, and come up with your figure? Did you do the math? If not, then it's not very scientific, is it?
Believe it or not, I actually considered that you would argue about the accuracy of my 90% figure in a further attempt to get far away from your obvious inability to read and comprehend things. No Larry, I didn't calculate that exactly 90% of what you had said in this thread prior to my statement was anti-lead ammunition rhetoric. It was my estimate, and whatever the exact figure would have been, I'd say it has increased since then... except for upland game hunting of course. It wasn't meant to be scientific, but it is interesting to see your sudden interest in dead-nuts accuracy and science pertaining to that comment, but your continued acceptance of absolute junk science that was instrumental in enacting lead shot bans.
I have proof to show you Larry. I'm not bluffing or blowing smoke. You could find plenty yourself if you were really interested. I've already provided far more than you have, but you choose to dismiss it because craigd or I don't have the credentials to satisfy you. And you continue to show you don't have the ability to comprehend what you read anyway.
By the same token, we are also still waiting for you to show us irrefutable evidence that the blanket 1991 Federal lead shot ban was based upon sound science. That is something that I cannot find. Have you ever looked at waterfowl breeding population levels in the decades prior to the ban? 1963 was about an all-time low and 1966 wasn't much better, and the numbers bounced back tremendously, without the lead shot ban, in 1973 and 1979. The increases in duck populations didn't approach those levels again until 1997-98. So tell us Larry, was that 1997-98 population increase due to the lead ban, or was it due to much improved breeding conditions in the Midwest and also due to massive declines in the numbers of waterfowl hunters? There has been a 72% decline in waterfowl hunters in Canada since 1978, and about a 40% decline in the U.S. between the 1970's and 2008. Continuing significant declines of waterfowl hunters in the U.S. are still a matter of great concern due to the greatly reduced amount of money coming in for habitat improvement. Many states are reporting annual declines in Duck stamp sales of around 30% per year. Dramatically less hunting pressure and reduced access to remote hunting areas is certainly causing large increases in waterfowl populations that can and are being attributed to the lead shot ban. Figures lie, and liars figure. It's amazing what you can see if you have the ability to read and understand instead of being blinded by an inability to ever admit being wrong
The past credentials you claim as a MI analyst are/were impressive, if factual. All I can say about that is, if you ever really possessed those analytical skills... what ever happened to them? You sure haven't shown us any beef in that department here. I do agree with your admission that science is not your strong suit. Did you even read that North Dakota study on lead fragments in ground venison Larry? It's about 30 pages. Why don't you actually read it and see if you can find any obvious flaws before you hang your hat on it.
Would you shut up if anyone provided strong evidence that North Dakota study was seriously flawed Larry? Could you admit that you were wrong? In your mind, have you ever been wrong? I'm not ducking anything Larry. And neither have you shown us any beef. I am also still waiting. But if this was a contest for bloviation, side-stepping, and demonstrating an inability to comprehend things, you're doing a great job.
