....If you don't know whether upland birds have crops (and gizzards, where the actual damage is done) then what are you doing in this discussion? Really. Not to be hard on you back just for the sake of retaliation but if you don't know something about bird biology, population dynamics or some such, why are you here?....
....Everything can be a toxin. How much and in what way and to what degree are the consequences important is what matters. Of course, Lead is toxic. Do you really want to debate that?....
I'm glad you made these comments, and I generally agree. Lead is a heavy metal toxin, but it's not always toxic. I think you tried to say that, but I flat won't presume that. 'How much and in what way and to what degree' makes sense, have I said any different?
Why am I here? I've mentioned my motivations for commenting and tried to make my case. If you'd look back, much of the back and forth was about, while it's around in the uplands, lead shot was said not to be toxic to upland birds. Now, you confirm what I suspected, upland birds do have crops. Your conclusion? Upland birds are at risk of lead poisoning from only one source, firearm projectiles including shotgun pellets?
So, what's the solution? Blame deer hunters, not target shooters or upland hunters, for the lead that poisons wildlife, because they have higher numbers and may be more vocal?
Other than giving up and hope we get it back, are there any nonconfrontational solutions. If you tripled your biology credentials and brought science along with it, does it matter to lobbyists. Apparently, adding hundreds of pounds of lead to the environment each year doesn't bother you, maybe your lead isn't toxic to the wildlife. Instead of explaining to me how many problems I have, why can't the 'discussion' be about the reasonable use of toxins instead of spreading around that it's all toxic.
