Keith, back away from the 90% BS . . . very slowly. Did you look at ALL my posts and determine that this one is anti-lead, that one isn't, and come up with your figure? Did you do the math? If not, then it's not very scientific, is it?
Besides which, your interpretation of what is "anti-lead" varies significantly from mine. For example, until you or Craig can prove otherwise, I will accept that lead shot is bad for waterfowl, was killing lots of them, and the ban was a reasonable step to take. Doesn't mean I'm anti-lead. Rather, it means I'm waiting to hear from someone who doesn't believe that all steps to remove lead are being taken by people who are anti-gun and want to shut down hunting and shooting, which seems to be the position from which you and Craig start. Because if you start from that position, then all regulations banning or limiting the use of lead in ammo are inherently bad--even if you can't disprove the evidence behind them.
Concerning the lead found in ground venison . . . North Dakota is a state with one of the highest percentages of hunters in the nation. I find it hard to believe that the state Department of Health would say that they found lead in those packets of ground venison if they didn't. We're obviously talking very small particles. It's not the equivalent of biting into a pheasant, finding a #6, and spitting it out. But hey, if you have evidence that the ND Dept of Health "cooked the books" on the lead fragments, please supply it.
You don't know what would "pass for science or accredited studies" for me. I'm still waiting for you to provide even ONE of the links you referred to, about lead shot being a minor contributor to lead poisoning in birds. You put your car in reverse and backed away at full speed when I pointed out that those studies don't make any difference where waterfowl are concerned unless they deal with waterfowl. I have a study from the WI DNR that reports high blood lead levels in woodcock. I read it eagerly, looking for reports of lead shot in the doodles' digestive system. Instead, although the study stated that they could not eliminate lead shot as a source of the high blood lead levels, no lead shot was found in any of the woodcock they examined. So the lead could have come from the soil, or from the worms woodcock eat. But there's little or nothing in that study that causes me to relate it to waterfowl. Waterfowl ain't woodcock. Far heavier concentrations of lead shot deposited around the wetlands where lots of waterfowl are shot; relatively little deposited in all the woodlands where most woodcock are shot.
The issue with waterfowl is that lead shot WAS present in a lot of sick and dead birds that were examined. And we're not seeing all the sick and dead ducks and geese we saw prior to the ban. So the evidence does point strongly in the direction of lead shot having been a significant cause--probably the primary cause, albeit not the only cause--of lead poisoning in waterfowl.
As far as "analysis" is concerned, I served in Military Intelligence for 20+ years after leaving CIA. I was an intelligence analyst. One of those years, my unit was selected as the top small unit in the entire Army Reserve (out of hundreds of them). And USAITAC (the Army's Intelligence and Threat Analysis Center) selected our unit as its top MI detachment, out of about a dozen. And one of our soldiers was selected as ITAC's top Reserve intelligence analyst, out of about 200 that supported ITAC: me. I was an NCO one day and a captain the next day, and they don't hand out direct commissions like that, even on the battlefield, except to people who perform well above the average. Went on to command two different MI units with the mission of intelligence analysis. Was put on a special flight from DC to Ft Bragg to brief the 82d Airborne prior to a potential deployment to a combat zone. (Turned out they did not go.) After which the 82d began requesting intelligence studies from our little unit out in Iowa, by name. That's how good they thought we were. So whatever "credentials" you think you have in research and analysis, I think I'll see yours and raise you everything I have in my pockets. And I have the official records to prove it. But I'm certainly willing to admit that science is not my strong suit, and that I know a whole lot less about waterfowl and waterfowl hunting than I do about upland birds and upland hunting. But I do know just a little about research and analysis. And the people to whom studies were submitted that I either wrote or edited confirmed that, by giving me promotions and awards and medals. All in the official records.
So feel free to keep blowing smoke . . . and keep ducking my requests to produce even ONE of these studies that you claim casts doubt upon the science behind the lead shot ban for waterfowl. Same conclusion, Keith: You're still not showing me the beef.
Last edited by L. Brown; 02/03/16 08:49 AM.
