Originally Posted by old colonel
Rather than insult each other speak to actual facts and to logical steps of proof.

Too often disagreement becomes personal animosity.

Put another way, the current explosion of predator populations demonstrates that lead is not a threat to increasing eagles numbers. Moreover the loss of habitat and prey species is invariably a greater factor in predator populations. BTW this includes condors. If looked at rationally lead is a marginal threat compared to habitat.

Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
Michael, I've posted facts here on this topic for years. It falls on deaf ears, that are, of course, willfully deaf.

How does the "current explosion of predator populations" demonstrate that lead is not a thread to eagle numbers? What it says even better is that not much is preying upon mesocarnivores and the price of fur is low. Looked at rationally, lead is a big and immediate threat to condors. This is extremely well documented. If you want to be rational - look at the research. It's pretty obvious that lead is not "marginal" regardless of trends in habitat.

Perhaps I failed to express my point better.

The current explosion of predator populations means not that lead does not affect them to the degree it must be eliminated. It means eliminating lead is not a critical need as their populations are doing well. It also means lead is not a dominant factor in their decline. This means upland lead is not a necessary action outside of the unique problem of the scavenger Condor. Even the condor issue appeared more linked to lead bullets from big game as opposed to bird shot, I guess the one size fits all solution had better appeal in California.

My point about the Condor was not that lead was not a problem for them, but that habitat is a greater problem. It is a marginal issue in places like Kansas.

Lastly the politicization of science is a real problem as is the proliferation of garbage in what was once more respected “peer reviewed” publications.

Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS