....Here is Audubon's official statement on hunting:
"Has never been opposed to the hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource."
They're not all about promoting hunting, but I can live with that position. And if we, as hunters, can make common cause with them . . . so much the better....
....lead shot and bullets don't break down readily or dissolve, the soil where they drop does not remain static. If it did, rather than having to dig up lead on shooting ranges--especially trap and skeet ranges--you could just go out there with a hoe and scrape all those pellets together in a big pile. Depending on the composition of the soil, as a result of freezing, thawing etc, it gradually works itself underground....
....if a dead eagle shows a high level of lead in its blood as well as other signs of having been poisoned, lead poisoning is a pretty likely cause....
....we can insist on "good science" to support any claims that it's really lead--and lead from bullets or shot--that's killing species X, Y, or Z.
I have a quick comment to add to your Audubon 'official' statement. It is the exact preceding sentence before the quote I provided, and I suspect you're aware of it. If you continue rereading their position, they are aware of their contradictory message and link hunting with corporate profiteering. Did they come up with that conclusion by scientific analysis and improving grouse habitat?
Wisconsin's DHS says that lead containing pesticides, last used in the 50's are still a significant source of lead in soil. They have recommendations for home gardeners on former orchard grounds to minimize lead exposure. There's a known source of dissolved lead that rodents and insects near the beginning of the food chain don't have to wait for speculation on whether lead shot is able to dissolve.
Anyway, if we should insist on "good science", how come we have to accept that 'lead poisoning is a pretty likely cause'. I had thought to bow out of the discussion, but I'd repeat again, why bother opposing enemies with good science, when friends of hunting tell us likelihoods are good enough?
Nearly every body of water in Wisconsin has consumption warnings due to various poisons that accumulate in fish, and countless rodents root around in soil of the Wisconsin countryside. Maybe, we only look for 'proof' where we want to find it.
