Keith and Craig, if you want to continue to discuss the lead shot issue, please start a new topic so as not to derail this one. And as I have pointed out to you two--repeatedly--if the lead ban for waterfowl was based on junk science, then there ought to be SOME CONTRARIAN SCIENCE. That is, studies by scientists that actually dispute all the stuff you guys call "junk". Please note, once again, that when it comes to climate change, there are scientists who dispute the concept of man-made global warming. And have said so. I find it hard to believe that while there are scientists who will challenge global warming, you guys haven't come up with any who will challenge the lead ban for waterfowl as junk science. Yet you keep trying to present yourselves as the Mr. Wizards and Dr. Spocks of the lead poisoning world. If "laymen" like you guys can dispute what you see as not being logical about the lead shot ban, then is it logical to think that no scientists--apparently not a single one, based on the lack of evidence you've come up with--would have spotted the same inconsistencies upon which you reach your "junk science" conclusions? Gosh . . . you guys aren't just smarter than most of those trained and experienced in the field of wildlife biology and science. You think you're smarter than ALL of them! Don't hurt your arms patting yourselves on the back. And please do come back . . . once you've found ONE SINGLE CONTRARIAN SCIENTIST who agrees with you that the lead shot ban for waterfowl was based on junk science. You've been given that homework assignment before, and you keep coming back empty-handed. Guess your grade of "incomplete" will have to stand. I'm done with you, until you come up with the "beef".
