I haven't seen any research that says how long it takes to get all of the waterfowl lead shot out of the bottom of a lake or river. Your opinion that 20 years is enough is based on what? What if it takes 100 years?
Mike, I actually read quite a few of the studies that Ben Deeble cited in his many "document dumps" in the Montana lead shot ban thread which alas is still clinging to life. I also read several he did not cite, and that is why I became so vociferous in attacking him as the "enemy". Unfortunately, with the help of a couple folks who had also started out attacking him, and with the help of a member who has reading comprehension problems, the fray was perverted into me alledgedly making death threats, and possibly having shot YOU for voting for Carter. I decided to disengage, and hoped things would die down so Grouse Idiot would not continue to have a soapbox. In the study he cited on page 11 of that thread, the one he said we're "not gonna like", from the Peregrinefund.org/lead conference by Tranel and Kimmel, they stated on pg. 325 that lead shot in the environment does not deteriorate for 100 to 300 years. I actually think it could be centuries longer considering the number of still recognizable lead artifacts and trinkets that have been unearthed from Roman Empire and much earlier archeoligical sites. This was the same "study" that had the false junk science data about high blood lead levels in people who consumed wild game shot with lead bullets. I was intrigued by this so I continued to read other studies related, but not cited by Ben. One from the Michigan DNR stated that the number of incidents of lead poisoning in waterfowl dropped dramatically only a few years after the ban on lead shot for waterfowl hunting. So how can this be? Did environmentalists go out there at night unbeknownst to us and dredge lake, river, and ocean shoreline bottoms? Did the birds suddenly disdain lead shot and start consuming only steel for gizzard grit? Would you not think that lead shot deposited years ago would continue to be exposed by wave action, storms, and the probing bills of waterfowl? I have found many other contradictions and outright lies in this debate. Although I am not a Biologist by trade, I DO have a B.S. in Biology, and unlike Grouse Moron, I can and do read, digest, and critique these studies. I have seen and "tasted" how a lot of this "research" is done. In 1977, I enjoyed a meal of Broiled Brook and Rainbow Trout that were sacrificed by a grad student friend in order to skew the results of a study on Acid Minewater Drainage Into Pennsylvania's Streams. He explained to me that it was sometimes necessary to fudge results in order to get funding for future research. Just this week, we got more news on how a single seriously flawed study on the melting of Himalayan Glaciers was used to help drive the Global Warming Agenda. Any of us with half a brain should realize by now that Deeble is here for the sole purpose of undermining the use of lead ammo and thus reducing participation in the shooting sports to eventually weaken or destroy the Second Amendment. I was asked to respect and debate him as a member. Should we also respect and debate with NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg or George Soros or Sarah Brady if they joined here and began posting anti-gun threads? I would probably have more respect for an anti-gunner like Sen. Chuck Schumer who comes right out and admits his hate for the Second Amendment than for sneaks like Ben or John Kerry who masquerade in Camo and pretend to be our friend. Those types, to me, are about one notch above a child molester. If I had my way, and alas, I don't... we would all totally ignore Ben whenever he starts with his lead ban crap. As long as he thinks he can bullshit even one person here, he will troll for converts. Anyway, I asked you nicely not to vote for Carter, but you just wouldn't listen...
