OK Keith . . . let's take a look at "Audubon's total position on sport hunting". Here it is, IN ITS ENTIRETY . . . straight out of a booklet by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (pretty good, solid pro-hunting source, right?) called "What They Say About Hunting".
"The National Audubon Society has never been opposed to hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource. We have made this clear repeatedly in official statements of policy, and it remains Audubon policy."
"Audubon will advocate restrictions on hunting including the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species requires it. However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues."
Now perhaps that does not meet the Keith definition of "pro-hunting", but it's clearly not anti-hunting. "Neutral" would be a good description in my book. And some people seem to have trouble remembering that as hunters, we are badly outnumbered. Not so much by anti-hunters, but by the very large NEUTRAL majority: the non-hunters. And, as a member of the Ruffed Grouse Society (DEFINITELY pro-hunting), I've worked with that particular "neutral" group on habitat projects--on both public and private land--that benefit species we hunt (grouse and woodcock), and therefore also benefit those who hunt grouse and woodcock. No use throwing the neutrals under the bus, especially when they're willing and able to make common cause with us hunters. Having Audubon working with your hunting group as an ally causes other "neutrals" to sit up and say, "Hey, look there, even the birders are in favor of those projects. So it's not just the hunters!" That's good for us.
Keith, I learned a long time ago that it's a waste of time to fight lost battles. Lead for waterfowl is a lost battle. Lead in California, headed the same way. But here's your problem, if you want to continue to beat a couple dead horses: I'm not going to comment on whether the science behind those lead ammo restrictions was good science or not. It does, however, appear to be "settled science". If you choose to disagree with that term, try disagreeing with "settled law". Go shoot some ducks with lead and tell the game warden that it's OK because the lead shot ban is junk science and see how far you get.
In order for you to contest what is now "settled law"--regulations that are being enforced--you are in the position of the football coach who throws the flag and asks for a review of a call the officials have just made. THAT CALL WILL STAND UNLESS THE REFS SEE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY BLEW IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND. So, that puts you in the position of providing the irrefutable evidence . . . that is, if you really want to "prove" something rather than just making noise. And no, "simple observations made in accordance with generally accepted notions" do NOT meet the standard of irrefutable evidence. And when you suggest that they do, it seems to me you're putting yourself and your argument above what you consider "junk science"--but which the powers that be consider "good science", because they've used it as the basis for what is now settled law. And here's where your argument leads:
1. If your simple observations and generally accepted notions are in fact so simple and so generally accepted, then how come none of the many wildlife biologists--scientifically trained people--manage to miss them when you find them so easy to spot? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Are you telling us that you're smarter than all those wildlife biologists? And however smart you are or aren't, you will admit--I think--that you're not a wildlife biologist. And remember, the decision to get rid of lead for waterfowl wasn't made overnight. Discussions and research went on for YEARS, before USFWS issued the nationwide regulation in 1991.
2. If you don't claim to be smarter than all those wildlife biologists, then it seems to me the only other possibility is that there was a massive conspiracy among them to foist "junk science" upon us, in the form of the lead shot ban. And having worked where everyone is positive all kinds of conspiracies are hatched up (CIA), I can tell you that the flaw with your average conspiracy theory is that it's going to become public very quickly, if a whole bunch of people are expected to stay quiet about it. Successful conspiracies involve very few conspirators. And now, a quarter century later, if there had been such a conspiracy, then surely someone would have gone public with a statement revealing the scope of that massive conspiracy.
Yet you haven't been able to find anyone who falls into either category 1 or 2: a scientist who saw what you see and interprets it as evidence of junk science; or a scientist who is now prepared to "tell all" about the great lead shot ban conspiracy.
And we can add one more group that I've left out:
3. Then there's always Ducks Unlimited (which seems to have no beef with the "junk science") and Delta Waterfowl (thought you and Craig were going to research that one)--who surely would have opposed junk science that is going to have a direct influence on their membership. If not those two groups, there are also at least dozens of outdoor writers who are very knowledgeable in the field of waterfowl hunting. (I am NOT one of them!) Bad science behind the lead shot ban? A conspiracy to keep quiet about the junk science? Any outdoor writer who could have uncovered something of that nature would have immediately become the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate, only for waterfowl hunters. That would have been an absolutely amazing, ground-breaking piece of investigative work--one that any waterfowl hunting writer would have been proud to do.
So we're back to square one. If you think your "simple observations and generally accepted notions" meet the standard of irrefutable evidence that will overturn settled law, then I suggest that you make your case. To DU, to Delta Waterfowl, to Field & Stream or anyone else you wish. Or find yourself a wildlife biologist who specializes in waterfowl and run your ideas past him. Ever think to give that a try? Because right now, you're not proving anything to anybody. Your "simple observations and generally accepted notions" only debunk what you call "junk science" in your mind. Not in the mind of anyone who matters. And the only people who matter are the ones who have evaluated and acted on the scientific information--junk or good--behind the settled law that is the lead ban for waterfowl.
You want to start a thread on some other aspect of lead shot, lead bullets, lead poisoning? No matter how much you may think it's all "junk", the unfortunate truth is that incidents like lead in the water in Flint and eagles dying of lead poisoning will continue to cause problems for hunters, whether they should or not. That's because far too many people believe that lead is bad; therefore, let's get rid of it all. I'm prepared to contest that position--and have done so, in print--in the area with which I am familiar, and addressing the audience which my magazine (Pointing Dog Journal) targets: upland bird hunters. I think I did so quite effectively, pointing out that there is little or no evidence of a problem with wild upland birds (other than doves) ingesting lead shot; that there have been no blind tests conducted comparing steel to lead shot on upland birds, to see whether a switch to steel might result in greater losses of wounded and unrecovered birds; that there are far more shotguns (especially important to those who participate on THIS BB) than the anti-lead folks contend through which steel shot can't be used; and that there isn't much evidence that the consumption of game shot with lead poses a significant human health risk. There are other areas to be dealt with, and I leave it to my fellow outdoor writers, with greater expertise in those specific areas than I have, to make the case for their continued use of lead ammunition.
Failing the appearance of another topic concerning lead on which I feel I have something worth contributing, I'm done here. Usually, somebody pays me when I write this much!
