Originally Posted by Drew Hause
This has been an interesting debate, but I've got another relaxing and luxurious mission trip to organize to the middle-of-nowhere Guatemala so I'm done.

It is my hope that in future discussions we can avoid dismissing 60 years of research with "the science sucks"; which IMHO just makes us look foolish.

I very much agree however that the political and agenda driven application of the science may certainly suck. There are a lot of things in the world, and our nation, that suck right now, and are more important to me than steel shot.

The research that we have seen so far could be valid in a narrow band it is applied to. My comment, which seemed to make you angry, was directed at the notion that because the science was from a study on waterfowl, it should apply to pheasants, dove, grouse woodcock, et Al, which, was already attempted here in Minnesota. One of the researchers who made every meeting pointed out the wounded swans that had been shot by hunters with lead shot, seemingly unable to grasp the concept that if you have swans die of lead poisoning after being shot with lead shot, your problem, per say, is not lead shot.

There is no season on swans in the state of Minnesota, just for reference.

Yea, Drew, that science sucks. And they tried to stick it up our asses at those meetings where the MN DNR attempted a spectacularly unsuccessful end run around the legislature on the use of lead shot.

I’m willing to listen. I haven’t seen a whole lot of that same willingness in the “lead should be dead” group that seem to infest discussions on the subject, however.

Have a safe trip.

Best,
Ted