Rob, I don't know if that price is correct, but TM has always been expensive. Bismuth is back, and it's a good bit less expensive.
No one needs to "build up" the image of the bald eagle. It got built up when it became our national symbol. It got built up even more when the population was extremely low, and most people in the country never saw any. No way to "debuild" the image of the bald eagle . . . unless maybe we can resurrect old Ben Franklin and his proposal that the wild turkey should be the national bird.
How do we go on the offense against the waterfowl ban? We'd have to run tests, shoot a whole bunch of lead on areas where there are a whole bunch of waterfowl, and hope like heck that we don't find sick or dead birds that have ingested lead. And there's no point in doing that if we're going to fail. If ingested lead shot really DOES kill waterfowl.
If it doesn't, how did we get where we are? It wasn't all because of a dead eagle or two. If the "science" behind the ban were bogus, where were the wildlife biologists who focus on waterfowl who should have told us it was all bogus?
Let's compare to climate change. Yes, most scientists agree that it's happening, and it's happening due to human activity. BUT THERE ARE SOME WHO DO NOT AGREE, AND WHO SO STATE IN PUBLIC.
If there are climate change contrarians--which there certainly are--then why were there not lead ban contrarians? There was a conspiracy in which NO ONE came out and said this is bogus, and here's why? I have trouble believing that. Small conspiracies can work. Big conspiracies . . . they have to rely on too many people not saying anything. And there's never been any shortage of outdoor writers who would be more than happy to break a story like that.
I oppose going "on the offensive" not because I think "the offensive" in general is a bad way to go, but because I don't think THIS PARTICULAR OFFENSIVE can win. Custer won by going on the offensive . . . until he went on the offensive when the odds against him were too high.
