Back to apples and oranges, can you blame someone for questioning your contention that all available lead necessarily comes from shot.
There you go, Craig. The big lie. That is you, is it not? Or do you have an evil twin brother craigd? That is clearly stated incorrectly--by one helluva long ways. You cannot come up with a quote where I stated what you claim above. As a result, that's one slime too many from you. I'm out of here as far as you're concerned. Enough lies and BS. You come up with a study that directly challenges the lead shot ban in waterfowl, PM me with a link. Otherwise . . . go eat a sandwich filled with lead 8's, have your blood and bone levels tested, and come back and report.
Larry, look a bit further up this page, and you wrote that it was incumbent on me to 'construct a cogent theory'. In eighteen pages, I can't read where you have given any consideration to lead sources other than shot. The only exception may be vaguely with the woodcock, and an occasional gratuitous mention in general.
How simple could it be, yes I stand by my comment. Instead of quoting that comment, why don't you back out of bs mode and quote me where you have shown quail, pheasant or particularly ducks have been shown to pick up lead from non shot sources. Of course, I'm referring to the last eighteen pages, and not some new bs.
I firmly believe you've brought up some valid and true points. You said way back, all we can do is present good science, and you emotionally call me the liar and bs'er. All along this thread, I've honored you with looking at studies and examples that you thought were important, when all it comes down to is tolerating page after page of reading your conspiracy and worse stories, just to see if an occasional pertinent point is made. Your rules huh Larry, you can ratchet things up, but I can't respond in kind?
I truly have been sorry I've stuck around on this one, but you kept calling me back when you responded to keith, and best I could, I tried to stay on lead and the birds in question.
