I kinda like real data, not armchair acrobatics before I pass judgement. Just a weird hang up that I have.
Was it "armchair acrobatics" to actually read a bunch of the so-called science cited by Brent and Larry Clown in last years "Lead and Condor Deaths" thread pertaining to their outspoken belief that lead shot and lead bullets are a significant cause of lead poisoning in eagles?
Was it "armchair acrobatics" to notice that the numbers cited in these so-called scientific papers contained glaring discrepancies and huge variations in what they claimed to constitute a lethal dose of lead in eagles blood systems, and waterfowl too?
Was it "armchair acrobatics" to question the insane and dishonest assertions that most hunter killed deer left the woods littered with gut piles containing hundreds of lead bullet fragments that were then consumed by eagles?
Was it "armchair acrobatics" to catch Larry red-handed doing selective editing of the Audobon Society mission statement where he intentionally excluded their position on lead ammunition bans and sport hunting?
When repeatedly pointed out to Brent and Larry, they didn't say, hey you may be right... these can't all be true and correct. Instead, they chose to shoot the messenger, and they chose to ignore the significance of many other sources of environmental lead contamination that are much more bio-available, and much more likely to cause elevated blood lead levels in birds and animals.
Brent thinks I have an agenda. Brent is correct. My agenda is to ferret out the lies and fictional data that have been used by anti-gunners and anti-hunters who use both junk science and useful idiots like Brent and Larry (and King and Grouse Guy, etc.) to advance their own agenda of making hunting and shooting prohibitively expensive and eventually illegal.
Of course, Brent and Larry are obviously much smarter than the rest of us because only guys like them are able to respond to people they claim to IGNORE.
