Nobody accused you of having an intelligent discussion Larry. Far from it. You should be more careful with the facts if you are trying to correct me. First off, you said your 140 number was rounded off from adding up the number of eagles cited in the Univ, Of Minnesota study. That is incorrect. That number 140 came from adding up some numbers off of the map from the other source I had cited to show zero correlation between poisoned eagles and deer killed by hunters... not Univ. Of Minn. as you said. I guess I was right about you not understanding what you are reading. Then you rounded off your number of unstated origin on the low side. Why round it off at all, and then expect anyone to know what you are referring to? Aren't you interested in accuracy? Was it harder to type 143 than it was to type 140?
How am I supposed to recognize information from my own post when you change it and manipulate the numbers? Nice try Larry.
This is just illustrative of what I said earlier, and the extreme nonsense and lengths you will go to in order to discredit what you cannot intelligently deny. You show us more of that ridiculous behavior with that really dumb statement about cows eating lead shot and bullets, and chewing them up into unrecognizable pieces. In that Veterinary Medical source, lead shot was the very last source of lead poisoning in cattle they mentioned. Here's what they actually said:
"Even a small amount of lead can kill cattle. Cattle will readily drink crankcase oil, lick grease from machinery and chew on lead plumbing and batteries. Other frequent causes of poisoning include flaking high lead paint, ash from fires in which lead materials were burnt, lead shot from shooting "- See more at:
http://www.thecattlesite.com/diseaseinfo/217/lead-poisoning/#sthash.ka5vfFcK.37hoAf1e.dpufI guess you would have us believe that cows are routinely licking the ground in search of tasty lead shot instead of grazing by biting off grasses above the surface as they actually do, and that pastures are concentrated sources of lead shot. Hey, wait, didn't you also tell us that this shot sinks into the soil? Damn cows must be using metal detectors to find it.
Then, after telling us this much earlier in this thread:
Keith, the majority of road-killed deer I saw in northern Wisconsin had bald eagles doing the cleanup. Our problem in that part of the country, obviously not related to condors, didn't have anything to do with either cattle or gut piles. Rather, with wounded and unrecovered deer.
...You have now switched gears, and are saying that eagles' population density is really not so great, and that other scavengers are beating them to the punch, and eating the lead contaminated deer before the eagles have a chance... or that eagles in some states are simply missing the lead tainted portions.
Which is it Larry, good science and facts, or ever changing wild-assed assumptions? Did you see eagles feeding on a majority of road-killed deer, or was that just more of your bullshit? I think craigd's got your number on that one. Since there are a helluva lot more road killed deer than there are eagles, it's pretty easy to see that you'll just make shit up to make a point. I retract my apology for asking if you are related to King Brown. I'll bet you wish we would just give up and bow out of this. I won't, and I hope craigd won't let you have the final word by endlessly repeating baseless opinions, flip-flopping, and denigrating him.
Are you so desperate to make a point that you will grasp at any and every foolish supposition? It appears that you are.
Then you continue with the foolishness by trying to discredit what I had posted about the 1997 Univ. of Minn. study that found no difference in the prevalence of lead poisoned eagles 6 years after the 1991 Federal ban. First you try to explain this away by citing the increased population from 3400 breeding pairs in 1991 to 5300 in 1997, and postulating; "that would mean a significant REDUCTION in the PERCENTAGE of eagles dying from lead poisoning."
Here, Mr. Professional Writer, is a definition of "Prevalence" from Merriam Webster: "the degree to which something is prevalent; especially : the percentage of a population that is affected with a particular disease at a given time."
Here's another from Wikipedia: "Prevalence in epidemiology is the proportion of a population found to have a condition (typically a disease or a risk factor such as smoking or seat-belt use)".
Did you understand that Larry? Percentage. Proportion. Not total numbers in an increasing population. If you think the Univ. of Minn. was so careless as to overlook that very important factor, then you are doing more to discredit their work than I ever could. I never even considered that they would be that stupid. Agenda driven and single minded, yes... stupid enough to not factor in a burgeoning population, no.
Then you go on switching gears and grasping at straws by now agreeing with my earlier assertion that the pre-ban lead shot was still available for ducks and geese to eat. First, you ridiculed that idea by repeatedly telling us that lead shot sinks deep into the silt and soil, and that more silt is deposited to bury it and make it unavailable. Now you say that isn't the case, and that ducks and geese are still being exposed to it. Yet somehow apparently, that exposure is bypassing those ducks and geese, since we aren't hearing about vast numbers of them dying anymore, but it is still killing significant numbers of bald eagles. Whew! It's getting hard to follow all your flip-flopping.
That's what happens when the best you can do is grasp at straws and demonize an opponent who is expected to know you are rounding off numbers from unknown sources. You are reduced to saying anything and everything trying to defend your simplistic position. And the Big-Time Professional Outdoors Writer looks like a fool.
Furthermore, I never once said that computer hackers debunked climate change in the Climate-gate scandal. I also never said that the CIA had anything to do with sneaky activities in the U.S. Gov't. You only see what you want to see. Once again, you are talking instead of reading. I said that the hackers accidentally uncovered a conspiracy to manipulate climate data between East Anglia University and Pennsylvania State University. I used that as just one example of the junk science and fudging that is routinely done to achieve a desired result.
I have found plenty of science to back up my claims. You could find it too if you ever took your head out of the sand and looked instead of repeating bullshit and making silly excuses for the proponents of lead ammo bans. You admonished craigd about doing searches for data that agreed with him, so I intentionally used sources that (incorrectly) agree with you. I told you that, but you'd rather go off half-cocked and write, than read with comprehension.
The third of your numbered "final points" is all over the map Larry. Should we insist on good science and fight back, or should we roll over and accept the bad science that was used to promote the 1991 Federal ban? You say I did nothing to refute the Univ. of Minn. studies I cited. That is correct. All I did was point out glaring inconsistencies and errors that you refuse to consider. You have to be smoking powerful drugs to see any correlation between the numbers of lead poisoned eagles and hunter shot deer in the studies I cited. Pennsylvania and Virginia eagles must be much smarter or luckier than Minnesota or Wisconsin eagles! And It was Univ. of Minn. that said the 1997 study showed that the 1991 ban did nothing to reduce the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles. They essentially told us that their earlier assumptions and science was mistaken. It was they who used lead isotope analysis as a tool to assume that samples of lead were absolutely from hunters bullets... something which is virtually impossible... unless it can be proven that a certain mine or smelter sold all of their lead to Hornady or Sierra, and no other sources of lead or end users were involved. It was both sources who didn't even consider the many other sources of lead that are much more bio-available.
I keep using that word-- "bio-available"-- for a reason Larry. It is to refute your repeated and silly notion... "Lead is toxic, Toxic = bad."
Lead is toxic. No disputing that. So is table salt. But some forms of lead are way more likely to cause poisoning than others, and you are stuck on shot and bullet fragments... two of the least likely sources to be absorbed into avian or animal tissue. You drink and eat from glass dishes without harm. But if you ingest or inhale glass particles, dust, or fibers from fiberglass, it can kill you. Same thing with lead. Lead water pipes were used for decades without killing people. It can still be found in some older homes. Yes, it caused elevated blood lead levels and probably caused people to have lower I.Q. scores. But that is a far cry from killing them, even with long-term daily exposure.
Leaded gasoline and lead based paint is mostly gone. But the lead from those products that was deposited in our soils and lakes is still there. That lead, as with lead from pesticides, paints, other lead containing chemicals, mining, and smelting is much more easily absorbed by worms, insects, birds, and animals because it ranges from dust down to molecular in size. Lead dust or vapors will make you sick much easier than playing with a toy soldier or handling lead bullets while reloading. The mere presence of lead shot or bullet fragments in a crop or digestive system does not indicate that is anything more than a very minor contributing factor in lead poisoning. Lead shot that is regurgitated or passes through a digestive tract doesn't pose nearly the same risk posed by long term eating, drinking or breathing of lead particles on a molecular scale.
You keep making excuses for getting rid of all lead just because some forms of lead are very easily absorbed and actually do pose a serious risk. Just what is your definition of an "expert" on this subject Larry? It sure isn't you. It also isn't any researchers who find elevated levels of lead in a bird, and automatically assume that the source must be bullets or shot without even considering much more bio-available sources. The only double-blind peer-reviewed study I can locate on the subject of lead ammunition and lead poisoning in birds was purportedly done by SOAR, who you yourself admitted was agenda driven. They did not cite who the unbiased parties were that supposedly reviewed or replicated their work. What I read was every bit as contradictory and error filled as the Univ. of Minn. garbage.
You cited a source from 2010 that found a dead eagle with a blood lead level of 5.6 ppm. I have another source saved that tells of eagles that "apparently" died of lead poisoning with lead levels of between 26 and 38 ppm. So the so-called "experts" you rely on and believe 100% cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal dose of lead. The medical standard would typically be micrograms per deciliter instead of ppm anyway. I found one anti-lead source that claimed eagles would migrate from Canada to Wyoming to consume lead tainted deer. You told us they don't migrate. The source claimed rapid declines in blood lead levels as soon as the supply of tainted deer meat ran out and they returned to Canada. A former co-worker who got lead poisoning from dust and fumes in a battery manufacturing plant took a very long time to reduce his blood lead levels even with chelation therapy. The giant holes you think you poked in my arguments are silly little pin pricks.
EDIT: Just read the post from the Anti-2nd Amendment Troll King Brown below this. Here ya go King...
Stick your unwavering support for anti-lead and anti-gunners where the sun don't shine!
