LGF, good points--but you likely won't convince Craig....
....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....
Thanks for the lecture Larry. You're wrong, yes I am convincible. We as a nation are much better off with reductions in various toxins. Lead is an excellent example. Take for instance LGF's link, the very fist reference study opens by saying 'lead poisoning in humans is very well known, our understanding about it in wildlife is at a mid 1800's level'.
I've only ever questioned your foregone conclusions. What's the difference between a foregone conclusioner and a denier? Maybe, all it comes to is that the foregone conclusioner has political decision making clout and the denier gets stuck with the demeaning label? What makes you think that you can take a foregone conclusion to the point that you want to and then hit the brakes?
