LGF, good points--but you likely won't convince Craig. Here's the point I always make about lead and "junk science": While most scientists believe in global warming, there are also global warming "deniers" with good scientific credentials. Given how long the lead shot issue was studied, if it's "junk science", then it should be easy enough to find some wildlife biologists involved in the studies who are lead poisoning deniers. I've issued that challenge, and I've yet to see any evidence from anyone with credentials in the field of wildlife biology who's a lead poisoning denier. You hit the nail on the head when you said there's unanimity when it comes to the dangers posed by lead shot.
So the question really isn't whether lead shot can endanger wildlife. Rather, it's whether we've basically solved the lead shot problem with the steps we've already taken: Lead shot ban for waterfowl; most wetlands requiring nontoxic shot no matter what critters you're hunting. The simple answer I got from one wildlife biologist: The science supporting lead shot restrictions pretty much ends at the shoreline. It's much like the chemical question: Which chemicals can we use as herbicides and pesticides that target only those plants and bugs we want to kill? That's what's been done with lead shot restrictions, which ban lead shot in those situations where it's a serious potential threat, while leaving it alone where there isn't any "good science" to support the bans.
