Just because some junk science has been repeated for 50 years does not make it credible.
The use of steel shot did not save the ducks. Ducks Unlimited buying up wetlands and breeding grounds saved the ducks.
And no, changing old habits that work for the sake some feel good idealism is not a good thing, nor is it a good precedent to set for posterity.
Alan
Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time.
