Sorry Keith, but saying that I'm only 90% anti-lead doesn't get you off the hook in your bogus interpretation of my "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" quote. If that's what I really believed, then I'd be 100% anti-lead.
Road-killed deer in WI . . . yes, as a matter of fact, most of the ones I saw DID have an eagle paying it a visit. Now that may not have been true in other parts of the state, but that's what I saw where I lived. Didn't realize you were sitting in the passenger seat, hiding in your cloak of invisibility, so you could refute my statement.
Relative susceptibility . . . you're having word problems again, Keith. You present a comparison between a duck and a pheasant, each with 3 lead 6's in its crop. You are RELATING one to the other, discussing which might be more susceptible. (You draw no conclusion. At least that is a good thing!) Nope, you didn't use the adjective "relative", but that's what you're talking about: relative susceptibility. The only problem being, of course, that a duck--back in the lead shot days--would have been far more likely to ingest those lead pellets than a pheasant, based on "relative" shot fall in the different environments the two species inhabit, and where they're hunted. The fact you didn't use the term "relative" is irrelevant. I never put any words at all in your mouth. Never misquoted you. Simply responded to what you said. If I quote you, then you can look for these little marks--" "--around your statement.
You have it all figured out about the inconsistencies in the studies that supported the lead shot ban for waterfowl. But you admit you're not a scientist, and you can't find any "contrarian" scientists who agree with you that it's junk science. All those scientists missed your "glaring inconsistencies"? Even the ones working for DU and DW--organizations that depend on duck hunter $ to survive? Truly amazing! You're smarter than all those scientists . . . or else all those scientists--every one of them--are engaged in this massive conspiracy to shove steel shot down waterfowlers' collective throats. Well Keith . . . if that's true, if they're all evil, anti-lead types, then why haven't they come up with studies to shove lead bans down upland hunters' throats? If they can manufacture evidence on ducks and geese, why not on quail and pheasants? Maybe they're working on it and it's just that we have yet to see their evil plans in action.
Let's see . . . you're not a scientist, nor am I. You're not a waterfowler, nor am I. Yet you're holding forth on inconsistencies--glaring, no less--in studies of lead shot in waterfowl. Looks to me like there's not much use you and I arguing about something neither of us knows that much about. Which we've both admitted. Kinda like the blind leading the blind.
So let's hear from someone who DOES know about it and who says that the lead shot ban was all a big scam. From now on, if you can't come up with evidence along those lines, this is all a big waste of time--which most folks here have likely already determined.
Show me the evidence that it was a scam, Keith. From a scientist. Not from you, a non-scientist, non-waterfowler. Otherwise, I'm outta here.
