I've never held up my observations--nor my opinions, for that matter--as good science. The difference between us is that you do.
You remind me of a dog that's in serious need of a bark collar.
More lies and bullshit from the Great Larry Brown. Please show us where I ever held up either my observations, or my opinions for that matter-- as good science.
C'mon Larry, put up or shut up. This is not the first time you've tried pulling this shit, and you just dance away from the subject and go back to your childish demands when you get caught. This is precisely why I told you a few weeks ago in the Condor Thread that you were not ready to digest any science that refutes much of the junk science pertaining to lead ammunition. I keep explaining this to you and providing proof that you are incapable of processing that kind of information, and you keep acting like Ed Good on steroids.
You keep accusing me of things I never said, and you exhibit extremely poor reading comprehension. You have been caught doing selective editing of Audobon's stance on hunting (in the Condor Thread) in a manner that supported your incorrect opinions of them. You are much more interested in discrediting anyone who does not agree with you than simply opening your eyes to obvious errors. Really Larry, when one source says that only one piece of #4 lead shot in a mallard duck's crop is a lethal dose, and the next so-called study reports that a sick mallard was brought in with over 80 pieces of lead shot in the crop, do you really have to be a qualified expert to see a glaring discrepancy or know something is fishy? I never claimed to be a qualified expert and never ever said that my opinions were science. So why do you persist in lying about me?
I will be waiting for you to show us where I ever said such a thing, and I will continue to ask you until you either produce it, or apologize for telling lies about me. Count on it.
Do you really think Larry is well versed in ballistics craigd? I think he just regurgitates what he reads elsewhere. Even Jagermeister can do that. I asked Larry to explain something amazing pertaining to ballistics from the so-called study done by Dr. William Cormatzer, and instead of giving an answer, he chose to sidestep it by discrediting you and me.
If steel is shown to be less effective than lead, that would seem to be one good reason to contest any moves to mandate nontox in the uplands, given that the ingestion of lead shot and resulting mortality does not appear to be an issue with upland birds.
Franchi, the truth regarding the potential danger of spent lead shot to upland birds (or, for that matter, other species of wildlife) is pretty hard to come by, given the nature of upland hunting. Shot fall, other than on areas heavily hunted for doves, is far more dispersed than it is on heavily hunted waterfowl areas.
In the quote above Larry, it looks as if you were ignoring the same advice you keep giving to craigd and I. Why is it OK for you to go off topic and discuss nontox shot or possible lead shot bans with Franchi? What makes us subject to a different set of rules? Nothing in that post #436587 had anything to do with comparing the effectiveness of steel to lead #4's. I quoted the whole post because I wouldn't put it past you to go back and change it. Why would I trust you when you use lies in an attempt to discredit me? That entire post was as off topic as anything within this thread. Don't bother asking me to remain on topic again. Why should I when you don't?
