doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead & Condor deaths

Just one more comment, going back over Keith's rantings:

Keith, you really ought to take your own advice about being a reader. Try reading again. The 130 number--as clearly stated in my previous post--is the number of eagles that died over 5 years in rehab sites in Iowa. The 140 number--clearly stated in my post as a one year total from 10 states--that's from YOUR post, from the MN study YOU cited. I simply added up the numbers from those 10 states and rounded off, the actual total being 143. But the 10 states reference should have told you that I was talking about information YOU had posted. Eagles deaths in 1 year in 10 states does not = eagle deaths in 5 years in 1 state.

No point trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who doesn't recognize information from his own post.

All we can do is insist on good science was a point you've brought up several times. Yet, page after page I read volumes about what may or may not be and what is likely or not likely. I was called the lowest of the low for unnecessary arguing, do you recognize what little information there is in your posts, and how much of your opinion and logic is supposed to be taken as fact? I can recall only one other back and forth I decided to get into it with you back a few years ago, and it seems your passions are not very open to input. Sorry about not just walking away.

Nobody accused you of having an intelligent discussion Larry. Far from it. You should be more careful with the facts if you are trying to correct me. First off, you said your 140 number was rounded off from adding up the number of eagles cited in the Univ, Of Minnesota study. That is incorrect. That number 140 came from adding up some numbers off of the map from the other source I had cited to show zero correlation between poisoned eagles and deer killed by hunters... not Univ. Of Minn. as you said. I guess I was right about you not understanding what you are reading. Then you rounded off your number of unstated origin on the low side. Why round it off at all, and then expect anyone to know what you are referring to? Aren't you interested in accuracy? Was it harder to type 143 than it was to type 140?

How am I supposed to recognize information from my own post when you change it and manipulate the numbers? Nice try Larry.

This is just illustrative of what I said earlier, and the extreme nonsense and lengths you will go to in order to discredit what you cannot intelligently deny. You show us more of that ridiculous behavior with that really dumb statement about cows eating lead shot and bullets, and chewing them up into unrecognizable pieces. In that Veterinary Medical source, lead shot was the very last source of lead poisoning in cattle they mentioned. Here's what they actually said:

"Even a small amount of lead can kill cattle. Cattle will readily drink crankcase oil, lick grease from machinery and chew on lead plumbing and batteries. Other frequent causes of poisoning include flaking high lead paint, ash from fires in which lead materials were burnt, lead shot from shooting "- See more at: http://www.thecattlesite.com/diseaseinfo/217/lead-poisoning/#sthash.ka5vfFcK.37hoAf1e.dpuf

I guess you would have us believe that cows are routinely licking the ground in search of tasty lead shot instead of grazing by biting off grasses above the surface as they actually do, and that pastures are concentrated sources of lead shot. Hey, wait, didn't you also tell us that this shot sinks into the soil? Damn cows must be using metal detectors to find it.

Then, after telling us this much earlier in this thread:



...You have now switched gears, and are saying that eagles' population density is really not so great, and that other scavengers are beating them to the punch, and eating the lead contaminated deer before the eagles have a chance... or that eagles in some states are simply missing the lead tainted portions.

Which is it Larry, good science and facts, or ever changing wild-assed assumptions? Did you see eagles feeding on a majority of road-killed deer, or was that just more of your bullshit? I think craigd's got your number on that one. Since there are a helluva lot more road killed deer than there are eagles, it's pretty easy to see that you'll just make shit up to make a point. I retract my apology for asking if you are related to King Brown. I'll bet you wish we would just give up and bow out of this. I won't, and I hope craigd won't let you have the final word by endlessly repeating baseless opinions, flip-flopping, and denigrating him.

Are you so desperate to make a point that you will grasp at any and every foolish supposition? It appears that you are.

Then you continue with the foolishness by trying to discredit what I had posted about the 1997 Univ. of Minn. study that found no difference in the prevalence of lead poisoned eagles 6 years after the 1991 Federal ban. First you try to explain this away by citing the increased population from 3400 breeding pairs in 1991 to 5300 in 1997, and postulating; "that would mean a significant REDUCTION in the PERCENTAGE of eagles dying from lead poisoning."

Here, Mr. Professional Writer, is a definition of "Prevalence" from Merriam Webster: "the degree to which something is prevalent; especially : the percentage of a population that is affected with a particular disease at a given time."

Here's another from Wikipedia: "Prevalence in epidemiology is the proportion of a population found to have a condition (typically a disease or a risk factor such as smoking or seat-belt use)".

Did you understand that Larry? Percentage. Proportion. Not total numbers in an increasing population. If you think the Univ. of Minn. was so careless as to overlook that very important factor, then you are doing more to discredit their work than I ever could. I never even considered that they would be that stupid. Agenda driven and single minded, yes... stupid enough to not factor in a burgeoning population, no.

Then you go on switching gears and grasping at straws by now agreeing with my earlier assertion that the pre-ban lead shot was still available for ducks and geese to eat. First, you ridiculed that idea by repeatedly telling us that lead shot sinks deep into the silt and soil, and that more silt is deposited to bury it and make it unavailable. Now you say that isn't the case, and that ducks and geese are still being exposed to it. Yet somehow apparently, that exposure is bypassing those ducks and geese, since we aren't hearing about vast numbers of them dying anymore, but it is still killing significant numbers of bald eagles. Whew! It's getting hard to follow all your flip-flopping.

That's what happens when the best you can do is grasp at straws and demonize an opponent who is expected to know you are rounding off numbers from unknown sources. You are reduced to saying anything and everything trying to defend your simplistic position. And the Big-Time Professional Outdoors Writer looks like a fool.

Furthermore, I never once said that computer hackers debunked climate change in the Climate-gate scandal. I also never said that the CIA had anything to do with sneaky activities in the U.S. Gov't. You only see what you want to see. Once again, you are talking instead of reading. I said that the hackers accidentally uncovered a conspiracy to manipulate climate data between East Anglia University and Pennsylvania State University. I used that as just one example of the junk science and fudging that is routinely done to achieve a desired result.

I have found plenty of science to back up my claims. You could find it too if you ever took your head out of the sand and looked instead of repeating bullshit and making silly excuses for the proponents of lead ammo bans. You admonished craigd about doing searches for data that agreed with him, so I intentionally used sources that (incorrectly) agree with you. I told you that, but you'd rather go off half-cocked and write, than read with comprehension.

The third of your numbered "final points" is all over the map Larry. Should we insist on good science and fight back, or should we roll over and accept the bad science that was used to promote the 1991 Federal ban? You say I did nothing to refute the Univ. of Minn. studies I cited. That is correct. All I did was point out glaring inconsistencies and errors that you refuse to consider. You have to be smoking powerful drugs to see any correlation between the numbers of lead poisoned eagles and hunter shot deer in the studies I cited. Pennsylvania and Virginia eagles must be much smarter or luckier than Minnesota or Wisconsin eagles! And It was Univ. of Minn. that said the 1997 study showed that the 1991 ban did nothing to reduce the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles. They essentially told us that their earlier assumptions and science was mistaken. It was they who used lead isotope analysis as a tool to assume that samples of lead were absolutely from hunters bullets... something which is virtually impossible... unless it can be proven that a certain mine or smelter sold all of their lead to Hornady or Sierra, and no other sources of lead or end users were involved. It was both sources who didn't even consider the many other sources of lead that are much more bio-available.

I keep using that word-- "bio-available"-- for a reason Larry. It is to refute your repeated and silly notion... "Lead is toxic, Toxic = bad."

Lead is toxic. No disputing that. So is table salt. But some forms of lead are way more likely to cause poisoning than others, and you are stuck on shot and bullet fragments... two of the least likely sources to be absorbed into avian or animal tissue. You drink and eat from glass dishes without harm. But if you ingest or inhale glass particles, dust, or fibers from fiberglass, it can kill you. Same thing with lead. Lead water pipes were used for decades without killing people. It can still be found in some older homes. Yes, it caused elevated blood lead levels and probably caused people to have lower I.Q. scores. But that is a far cry from killing them, even with long-term daily exposure.

Leaded gasoline and lead based paint is mostly gone. But the lead from those products that was deposited in our soils and lakes is still there. That lead, as with lead from pesticides, paints, other lead containing chemicals, mining, and smelting is much more easily absorbed by worms, insects, birds, and animals because it ranges from dust down to molecular in size. Lead dust or vapors will make you sick much easier than playing with a toy soldier or handling lead bullets while reloading. The mere presence of lead shot or bullet fragments in a crop or digestive system does not indicate that is anything more than a very minor contributing factor in lead poisoning. Lead shot that is regurgitated or passes through a digestive tract doesn't pose nearly the same risk posed by long term eating, drinking or breathing of lead particles on a molecular scale.

You keep making excuses for getting rid of all lead just because some forms of lead are very easily absorbed and actually do pose a serious risk. Just what is your definition of an "expert" on this subject Larry? It sure isn't you. It also isn't any researchers who find elevated levels of lead in a bird, and automatically assume that the source must be bullets or shot without even considering much more bio-available sources. The only double-blind peer-reviewed study I can locate on the subject of lead ammunition and lead poisoning in birds was purportedly done by SOAR, who you yourself admitted was agenda driven. They did not cite who the unbiased parties were that supposedly reviewed or replicated their work. What I read was every bit as contradictory and error filled as the Univ. of Minn. garbage.

You cited a source from 2010 that found a dead eagle with a blood lead level of 5.6 ppm. I have another source saved that tells of eagles that "apparently" died of lead poisoning with lead levels of between 26 and 38 ppm. So the so-called "experts" you rely on and believe 100% cannot even agree on what constitutes a lethal dose of lead. The medical standard would typically be micrograms per deciliter instead of ppm anyway. I found one anti-lead source that claimed eagles would migrate from Canada to Wyoming to consume lead tainted deer. You told us they don't migrate. The source claimed rapid declines in blood lead levels as soon as the supply of tainted deer meat ran out and they returned to Canada. A former co-worker who got lead poisoning from dust and fumes in a battery manufacturing plant took a very long time to reduce his blood lead levels even with chelation therapy. The giant holes you think you poked in my arguments are silly little pin pricks.

EDIT: Just read the post from the Anti-2nd Amendment Troll King Brown below this. Here ya go King...

Stick your unwavering support for anti-lead and anti-gunners where the sun don't shine!

keith could be contributing to the support and enjoyment of our shooting community and board if he hadn't set himself up as the sole arbiter of members' loyalty by categorizing on grounds whether they agreed with his opinions. Dividing members into "us" and others plays straight into the antis' hand.

With as many pages as this thread has generated, I�m imagining about half a dozen individuals are even still paying attention��

But having read it all, I feel the need to say a couple of things as a retired wildlife biologist of 35 years. (FWIW to the reader, I spent almost half of that time in large ungulate management, and the remainder in wetland assessment and mitigation work.)

And I�ll try to keep it brief by simply saying that those that still doubt there is agenda-driven �science� being promulgated at the state and federal levels are na�ve at best. A fair amount of that �shaky science� has been aired here re: the lead/upland bird issue. And if you need further proof, you can delve into the USFWS� wolf introduction program for the Rocky Mountain region as implemented over the past two decades. You�ll find our own Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks cheer-led that questionable effort, to where they tried to tell us that our rapidly declining elk calf numbers were now a likely result of hypothermia rather than wolf depredations.

You�d also learn that the USFWS actually collaborated with an environmental group in allowing them to review and approve wolf-related press releases prior to public dissemination, this according to a widely respected publication titled �The Real Wolf� by Lyon & Graves (no connection here, in any way). But that is just the tip of the iceberg, and we�ll leave it there so as not to hi-jack the actual topic of this thread.

Face it, folks, we frequently see half-truths to out-right lies being fed to the public most every day not only from the White House level, but from both parties of Congress, and right on down the food-chain. So �Why� do some of you doubt it�s any different from what you might receive at times from managers of your public trust? I�m not contending that all the science profferred today is �junk��..as it clearly is not. I�m just telling you from a lifetime of personal experience in this field that you need to apply a very critical eye especially now that most everything is being politicized. In my opinion, the science is increasingly being driven by the �narrative� rather than by the sound management principles first put forth by such founders as Aldo Leopold, Durward Allen, Valerius Geist, et al.

With that off my chest, I�m outta here. I won�t be responding to any replies that would further turn this into a pissing contest. It�s just something I had to say, and I appreciate Dave W. allowing this particular thread/dialog to take place, as I think it has to have been informative for at least a number of individuals.

With my 'Thanks'

Rob Harris

Well, sorry I came back and looked again . . . but now Keith has me "making excuses for getting rid of all lead". Pure BS . . . coming from those lead-eating cows of yours, Keith. I guess. The articles I wrote for Pointing Dog Journal were clearly in DEFENSE of lead shot. PM me, I'll send you my address, and if you send me yours AND a stamped, self-addressed envelope (no point wasting money on you, in addition to time) I'll send you copies of the articles. Then you can apologize for suggesting that I'm "making excuses for getting rid of all lead". The problem we're facing, Keith, is this: THE ANTI-LEAD PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME AT US THAT WE SHOULD GET RID OF ALL LEAD, SHOT AND BULLETS BOTH, SIMPLY BECAUSE LEAD IS TOXIC. That'd be the folks on the OTHER side. Not me. And by the way, you'll find that I didn't address the issue of lead bullets in the article. Pointing Dog Journal is a magazine for bird hunters, not deer hunters. I'd leave it up to someone writing for deer hunters (and in fact all those who hunt with lead bullets) to do the research and produce articles like mine for that segment of the hunting/shooting community.

Now to the really important part: Rob's post re junk science. Note that Rob, who worked in the field for 35 years, has no problem saying that there's junk science out there. He's blowing the whistle. So . . . if it was some great conspiracy within the wildlife management community that resulted in the lead ban on waterfowl, if it was all "bad science" as some here would suggest . . . then why can't anyone produce any denunciation of that bad science? Where are the whistleblowers on the lead ban? If lead poisoning wasn't killing those ducks and geese, then why haven't we heard that it was so much junk science--from someone who worked in the field back then? Like Rob, many of those people are now retirees. What do they have to lose by blowing the whistle on junk science? Some black helicopter or drone going to come along and blow them away? Are they likely to meet with an unfortunate "accident"? Where "climate change" is concerned, we can find scientists who say it's junk science. So why not wildlife biologists who are ready to tell us that the whole "ingested lead shot is killing waterfowl" stuff was junk science? I'm ready to read evidence of that nature, if anyone can find any. Rather than the usual "conspiracy theory" BS from guys who think that anyone suggesting lead shot or bullets could possibly be any problem at all are anti-lead, anti-gun . . . and probably don't like Mom and apple pie either.

They are the same bunch of idiots that can't see the forest for the trees....

We have wildlife biologists who say much of the anti lead dogma is junk science Larry. If you'd take your head out of the sand, you could see that's what Rob said, and that was why he took the time to post. He sure wasn't here to refute me or to agree with you. I didn't have to produce an expert. We had one answer you of his own accord, and you are still in denial.

I wouldn't waste a stamped self-addressed envelope to get copies of your articles Larry. You showed us your position on lead shot and lead ammunition right here in this thread:



So who is guilty of pure B.S. Larry?

Actually, it's hard to know where you really stand. You are like the broken clock that is right twice a day. Here's an excerpt from your post#175254 from 1/20/10 when you were attacking that anti-lead shot goofball Ben Deeble:



So there you were Larry, attacking Ben for use of junk science to promote bans on lead ammo. Yet you now attack me for reminding you that most of the anti-lead ammo science is agenda driven garbage that doesn't come close to meeting the accepted standard of being double-blind peer-reviewed, and is filled with glaring inconsistencies.

And there you were Larry, denying any connection between the ingestion of lead shot, and lead poisoning in upland birds (other than doves). What would make doves more susceptible?

That old thread was quite interesting to re-read. Other than seeing you actually defending some of the very same positions you are attacking now, there were many other interesting posts. We had AmarilloMike telling us that he has about 30 pieces of # 6 shot imbedded in his leg from a hunting accident, and no ill effects. We had Doug (PA24) tell us how many thousands of gallons of leaded gas that he personally burned in large prop driven aircraft, and calculations of how many tons of tetra ethyl lead he alone deposited in the environment. Remember, this is just one pilot. And this is just from airplanes.



We had Joe Wood tell us this:



And here in 2015, we have you Larry, telling us that Rob, a retired professional wildlife biologist is blowing the whistle... and in the next breath asking us where the whistle-blowers are? With so much bad science against lead shot, why do you insist on a whistle-blower pertaining to the 1991 ban? Isn't the admission by Univ. of Minn. that their 1997 study showed no reduction in the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles enough? Didn't you tell us eagles were getting poisoned from consuming lead contaminated ducks? You want me to waste a postage stamp on goofy writing like this? No Thanks.



I KNOW THE ANTI LEAD PEOPLE ARE COMING AFTER US LARRY. I'm fighting that while you are telling us to accept it, and roll over and let it happen, and to not even think about reversing past lead bans that were based upon junk-science.

If you wish to regain any credibility at all in this matter Larry, you are going to have to stop contradicting yourself and making a total fool of yourself. And you are going to have to take your head out of your posterior.

I saw a great quote yesterday on Leverguns.com ... it said, "It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled."

EDIT: Here's another big fat lie from anti-gun Troll King Brown posted below:



Perhaps King can show us where either Larry or Brent said that they have become anti-gunners because of me. They are not anti-gun, and they became anti-lead on their own. Misfires closure was largely because of King's trolling and posting dishonest assertions about the 2nd Amendment, the NRA, and gun rights. King absolutely does not want Misfires to come back because he doesn't want anyone to see the things he posted there, like this one where this atheist accuses us of abandoning Jesus' teachings for defending gun rights and concealed carry.



King doesn't like me for showing his anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric, and his pathological dishonesty. King advises Larry to ignore me, but King can't help himself from trying to discredit me every chance he gets. Monomania, if you ask me. Sick.

Truth be known Larry's been hanging with Col. Bernie Sanders while he's politickin through Iowa....

Leave it, Larry. His pleasure is the sound of his voice. Reasoning with his twisting is a waste of time. He quickly pushed two valued members---you and Brent---to his anti-gun list because your opinions differed from his. Misfires closure was partly because of his errant behaviour. He wants it back. Now he's at it here.