....What we're facing from the antis is: "Lead is poison and therefore should be banned." That message is being sold, constantly. And the question we have to ask is: "Where is that "poison", spread by hunters, impacting the population of X species?"....
I have little problem worrying about trains that have left stations long ago. I think if someone's asking where's the poison spread by hunters, one option would be to ask a hunter.
If the topic is about lead shot and waterfowl, it might be that some hunters will say, no big deal but we find lead in quail, or no big deal but we find lead in woodcock, or huge problem we find lead in hunter discarded deer gut piles, or we like to point out that deer hunters don't always retrieve lead bullet wounded deer, or we might find lead in coyotes but who cares, or we might find lead in vultures but who cares.
If one insists on building up the image of one species example as a glorious national bird. Why bother with the science, the hunter keeps saying that the image is more important. Wouldn't the anti think, let's get the hunter to help, he'll gladly agree to quietly accept an obscene eagle body count at the base windmills, yet walk us through the pervasive nature of lead. Ask the hunter, they might say no big deal if the lone state of kali hatches most anti regs and policies that sooner or later don't fly over the mid section of the country.
I keep wondering, the issues seem to be about tactics and strategies, not truly science. How do we know? Some say there's only science that fit my tactics or strategies, that's okay by me. But, why try to placate hunters while it's clear that some pro strategies just don't work from grass roots motivation, to the courts, to the highest regulatory levels?
