Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
...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.

If we can discuss absolutes, why pivot to climate change? How about sticking with Eagles, the topic of the converstaion?

If someone were so concerned about the purity of science, why would you belittle people by bringing up the term denier? Wouldn't good science ask the question, why do Eagle lead poisoning 'research' organizations always link to antihunting groups under the guise of advocating for lead free hunting projectiles? Why do wildlife and land management agencies throughout the nation use these organiztions in their footnote references when creating policy?

What prevents us from insisting that the same type of science that, for example, brings us a life saving medicine be used? A big pharma funded study can be key to bringing a medication to the market, but that is noted as a clear disclaimer, not woven into the research report as advertising. Would you want a loved one to do elective heart surgery based on a report with a handful of examples, the way we can consider infringing on all hunting based on xrays of a handful of gut piles?

I know you're absolutely correct about the clown analogy. Brent told us flat out that the Eagles as a whole are not at risk due to lead hunting projectile ingestion, yet some vigorously defend the science brought to us by antihunting and antishooting advocates. No one ever said we had to fool all of the people, only enough to control the agenda, in other words a minority.


I am sticking with eagles. Simply using climate change as a comparison. Scientists with credentials are in the climate change minority (since you don't like the word "denier", Craig). Where are the scientists who were in the minority when the lead ban on waterfowl was passed? It was controversial mainly because the alternatives to lead shot (early steel loads) weren't nearly as effective. Not because anyone was hauling out evidence to make their case that ingesting lead didn't kill ducks. And as far as eagles go, Brent is indeed correct in pointing out that on a population-wide scale, lead does not pose a danger. The unfortunate problem, however, is that the eagle is our national symbol. Thus, even one dead eagle is going to make news. And those who oppose lead ammunition will use the eagle as their poster bird. On our side, we can respond that we do not manage wildlife populations (unless they're endangered) based on the fate of individual members of that species. We manage them based on the health of the population as a whole. And that example makes "our side" a winner where eagles are concerned, when it comes to "good science". But we still end up losers because of the emotional tug one dead eagle can exert. I don't know whether a large number of vultures die due to ingesting lead. And the point is: Who cares? But people DO care about dead eagles, even if the population continues to increase in spite of all the eagles that die from all the various things that kill them. We win on science but lose on emotion. It remains to be seen how that battle will play out as far as our ability to shoot lead ammunition is concerned.