Grouse Guy:

One can reasonably be skeptical that lead shot in the act of upland hunting is significantly harming wildlife.

What chaps my ass is your implication that skeptics willfully choose to ignore data and/or resist any study of the issue. There is nothing wrong with taking a skeptical view. The skeptical view is actually the more rational view.

The burden of proof should rightfully fall on the party calling for changing the regulations. I don't need to definitively prove lead does no harm, you need to definitively prove it does serious harm if you want it banned.

Localized studies using small sample sizes are not anywhere close to definitive proof. Association between lead shot and waterfoul mortality does not prove lead shot used in upland hunting does harm. Police ranges have nothing to do with a hunting debate. If the studies proved what you think they may, the State/Feds would rightfully ban lead shot without seeking any public input. The opportunity for public input is the red herring.

What we are being asked to do is accept a lead shot ban because it could possibly maybe harm wildlife, and not being positive either way, we will take the safe route and ban lead. You want me to fork over $3 a shot on this basis?

Finally, this issue has absolutely nothing to do with WR Grace! Why are you even bringing Grace up in the debate? To pull the old retorical trick of associating those on the other side of this argument with industrial polluters, and demonstrating your own ethical superiority?

Well guess what, people in the science professions are no more or less ethical than chemical manufactures, or anyone else. State wildlife officials don't de facto get the high ground either.

If you fund a study you can generally get whatever results you pay for. Industry trade groups do this all the time.

The people looking for a correlation betwen lead shot and wildlife mortality have a vested interest in finding such correlation because they accepted the funding dollars. They would also love the recognition.

No one or group is perfectly, which is why hard science is rightfully adversarial and the burden of proof falls on the party calling for a change in the prevaling thinking. Skeptics have a role in reaching the truth.

Why are you calling skeptics spouters of ingorant hogwash? I respectfully do not think you are owed any appology.