doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Simon says, Oh, never mind…

Science is definitely over your head, craig. Rational thought, in general, is too much of a reach. But continue on. I want to hear more of your expertise on this matter. It's greatly entertaining.

Rather than insult each other speak to actual facts and to logical steps of proof.

Too often disagreement becomes personal animosity.

Put another way, the current explosion of predator populations demonstrates that lead is not a threat to increasing eagles numbers. Moreover the loss of habitat and prey species is invariably a greater factor in predator populations. BTW this includes condors. If looked at rationally lead is a marginal threat compared to habitat.

Michael, I've posted facts here on this topic for years. It falls on deaf ears, that are, of course, willfully deaf.

How does the "current explosion of predator populations" demonstrate that lead is not a thread to eagle numbers? What it says even better is that not much is preying upon mesocarnivores and the price of fur is low. Looked at rationally, lead is a big and immediate threat to condors. This is extremely well documented. If you want to be rational - look at the research. It's pretty obvious that lead is not "marginal" regardless of trends in habitat.

This is off topic but points to science error.back in 1974 I had a class that woods hole and Bernard barni pipkin and another professor from scrips in San Diego NASA contributed to the scientific fact we were heading into a global cooling like the little ice age or even a new ice age the money was flowing at every level to study this pending disaster this went on for years and guess what! No ice age all the science from these great bastions of learning were incorrect on a giant scale and the fudging of the global warming data....just follow the money

I’m not sure that “following the science” is where we should place our faith and trust. Science has changed more than scientists want to admit…

Follow the money

Looked at rationally, how do your facts extrapolate to a hunting lead projectile ban across the entire state? I have no interest in your brand of entertainment, just connect the dots between science, agendas, and law.

Seriously, can you cut through the hypocrisy and do your part by example? Hasn't the california condor been found in New Mexico, not far from Raton? What's your nonlead mono metal load for your late 1800's Ballard moose rifle? Have you destroyed your lead bullet casting molds, so that they never again contribute to environment lead contamination, or have you sold them, for your monetary gain and allow someone else to damage wildlife? No, you're keeping the lead bullet casting molds? Have a good stash of pristine 20:1, 30:1 casting lead, both and more? So, you shoot for a whole month down at Raton, what's that add up to, two, three hundred pounds of lead added to the edge of kalicondor range, or does the science say you get a pass in your mind because of the way you vote?

Are you complaining about the science or the law? They are not the same thing. You want to rail about bad science, corrupt science - prove it. That's a very objective process.





My moose rifle has never hunted in Condor country. Sorry about that, but if you claim otherwise, that's just another "alternative fact" that you have made up out of thin air. Shooting targets is not a danger to condors. Are you claiming that it is? You are, as always, failing to be rational and continually moving goal posts. But carry on. What's next? I can hardly wait while your knickers become more and more knotted. If only Stan could join you...

1600 scientist signed the Kyoto treaty ....16000 other scientist wouldn't sign ,if you like the science you use it if not then you are a ignorant hillbilly. there should never be consensus with science

Perhaps I failed to express my point better.

The current explosion of predator populations means not that lead does not affect them to the degree it must be eliminated. It means eliminating lead is not a critical need as their populations are doing well. It also means lead is not a dominant factor in their decline. This means upland lead is not a necessary action outside of the unique problem of the scavenger Condor. Even the condor issue appeared more linked to lead bullets from big game as opposed to bird shot, I guess the one size fits all solution had better appeal in California.

My point about the Condor was not that lead was not a problem for them, but that habitat is a greater problem. It is a marginal issue in places like Kansas.

Lastly the politicization of science is a real problem as is the proliferation of garbage in what was once more respected “peer reviewed” publications.