Here are the facts: Deer hunters (and other big game hunters, but mostly deer in my part of the world) have to deal with the fact that eagles are dying from lead poisoning. Lead shot, as opposed to lead fragments, is pretty easy to identify. So, unless those examining dead eagles are finding lead SHOT in the birds' digestive system, bird hunters are pretty much in the clear. Not so with eagles, which--as anyone who lives in places where eagles and deer coexist will verify--scavenge dead deer. And we know that hunters don't recover all the deer they shoot. So if those eagles have ingested lead fragments, those concerned with eagles dying are going to make the connection to shot but unrecovered deer....
That being said, the point I was making with the thousands of eagles USFWS wants to allow the wind energy companies to kill annually--which seems to have escaped....Craig--is this:....
....if the eagle lobby's agenda is really to protect eagles and not to attack hunters and hunting, then they're obviously expending their effort in the wrong direction.
And....You can't find any quote from me in which I am "refusing to accept that there are many more bio-available sources of lead that kill birds." Only someone as ignorant as the guy you see when you look in the mirror would believe that only lead from bullets or shot might be the only source of lead poisoning in eagles . . . or any other BIRDS....
....I rest my case.
From the previous page, 'you're a walking, talking contradiction'.
Why do you continue to paint deer hunters in an unflattering and unethical manner. You have the personal opinion that unrecovered hunter wounded deer are lead poisoning eagles, but the study that you choose to ignore was about some seventeen, or so, gut piles. How come a 'pro' hunter such as yourself keeps legitimizing the wildlife service's 'partnership', funded 'study', with soarraptors anti hunting mission.
Then, the point that has escaped me is that you're trying to lecture the anti hunting lobby, under the guise of eagle protection, that they're 'expending their efforts in the wrong direction'. I think their direction is crystal clear, they have partnerships with policy makers through the wildlife service, and they don't ever take partial pro hunting positions in the spirit of coming together.
Larry, you also went on page after page about where the ONLY source of lead poisoning came from for waterfowl. They're 'any other birds', right? Or, was that just you contradicting yourself in the spirit of being reasonable, showing decorum, and impressing with facts? I'm aware you have a 'case' and it's rested, but as previous, all I'm doing is asking the national writer about a little insight to their positions.
