Craig, first try selling your change on lead to Ducks Unlimited. It's one of those cases where "We have met the enemy, and they are us!"
Hey Larry, I admit, I was just speculating about a path that I thought would be plausible, didn't I say so? With the experience that you have mentioned you have with grassroots local advocating and nation publications, I didn't quite pick up on what we were going to do with your proposed studies? I considered your example of how science can present varying conclusions, but only the conclusion that connects politically correct dots is considered valid. Right?
You may recall, in the condor thread, that I did make an attempt to contact a couple of the major waterfowl organizations. On your suggestion, I 'asked a biologist', which is actually an offered service by one of the groups. No response, which is nothing more than an oh well. Anyway, why brush me off to DU? They have a policy position that appears apathetic on the surface of the issue, but certainly doesn't fit the conservation mantra. That's their business.
Anyway, here's the beating the ole dead horse part. If we're 'discussing' the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting, why would 'us' have to trudge through the presence of lead in quail, woodcock, hunter discarded deer gut piles, failure of hunters to recover game, coyotes and vultures? You also mentioned lead levels in soil while commenting about woodcock, in a thread about the source of lead being legally expended hunting shot shells.
There are preconceptions about the use of lead shot. Some say, there's a big stack of stuff I like on my side of the balance beam, so the rest of you just forget about it, or let the oddballs nibble, it ain't go'in anywhere. We have met the enemy, and go figure, they're persistent.
