Keith, I'm a writer. People pay me for articles and books that I write. So I do know just a little about writing and editing. Craig was the FIRST to quote Audubon, in response to my statement that they were not anti-hunting. He left out the part that says they don't oppose hunting, and he left out the part that says when they do oppose hunting of specific species, they insist on "sound scientific information". That is clearly selective editing on his part. And then you repeated his highly selective quote. Caught with your hand in the proverbial cookie jar, I can see why you don't want to own up to it. But the quotes I added were the ones Craig "conveniently" left out. When an organization has a position on hunting and you're trying to prove they're pro, anti, or neutral, you must include the ENTIRE quote--unless, like you and Craig, you're agenda-driven. And are into selective editing. Guilty as charged. Next case.
Where eagles are concerned, Keith, you're ignoring the problem. Ignoring a problem won't make it go away. It's likely to come back and bite you in the ass when you're not looking. So "only" 140 eagles were lost in a total of 10 states, in one year. No big deal, you say. Well no . . . I pointed out from the get-go that eagles are not endangered, nor even threatened, and that in fact their numbers are increasing. But you're in denial about the fact that eagles are not crows, ravens, or vultures. If a few of those die from lead poisoning, no big deal. But eagles--although you're doing your best to ignore it--ARE a big deal. Because they're eagles, very visible, and our national symbol. And also because, not so long ago, they were in real trouble. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to the public. That's why eagles dying from lead poisoning--even if their population is not decreasing as a result--get a whole lot of coverage in the media. Which means that we, as hunters, have to deal with the problem. Stick your head in the sand if you want (try not to bump heads with Craig!), but it's an issue that isn't going to go away all by itself.
And sorry, but the analogy to climate change isn't valid. There are scientists out there who don't believe that humans are causing climate change. They've written articles, etc. Show me the articles written by biologists in the wildlife field who are debunking lead poisoning. Show me the evidence that there's been a vast conspiracy within the wildlife management community to convince us that lead shot was killing waterfowl when it wasn't, and that lead bullet fragments are now killing eagles when they're not. Show me a link to an article by a whistleblower who's a wildlife researcher. Otherwise, I'm not buying what you're selling on waterfowl. And when it comes to eagles, you're clearly in denial of a problem hunters have to deal with. Even if you don't happen to think it's a big deal. I'm thinking that denial must be the major river wherever you live.
