doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead & Condor deaths

Sorry Keith, but saying that I'm only 90% anti-lead doesn't get you off the hook in your bogus interpretation of my "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" quote. If that's what I really believed, then I'd be 100% anti-lead.

Road-killed deer in WI . . . yes, as a matter of fact, most of the ones I saw DID have an eagle paying it a visit. Now that may not have been true in other parts of the state, but that's what I saw where I lived. Didn't realize you were sitting in the passenger seat, hiding in your cloak of invisibility, so you could refute my statement.

Relative susceptibility . . . you're having word problems again, Keith. You present a comparison between a duck and a pheasant, each with 3 lead 6's in its crop. You are RELATING one to the other, discussing which might be more susceptible. (You draw no conclusion. At least that is a good thing!) Nope, you didn't use the adjective "relative", but that's what you're talking about: relative susceptibility. The only problem being, of course, that a duck--back in the lead shot days--would have been far more likely to ingest those lead pellets than a pheasant, based on "relative" shot fall in the different environments the two species inhabit, and where they're hunted. The fact you didn't use the term "relative" is irrelevant. I never put any words at all in your mouth. Never misquoted you. Simply responded to what you said. If I quote you, then you can look for these little marks--" "--around your statement.

You have it all figured out about the inconsistencies in the studies that supported the lead shot ban for waterfowl. But you admit you're not a scientist, and you can't find any "contrarian" scientists who agree with you that it's junk science. All those scientists missed your "glaring inconsistencies"? Even the ones working for DU and DW--organizations that depend on duck hunter $ to survive? Truly amazing! You're smarter than all those scientists . . . or else all those scientists--every one of them--are engaged in this massive conspiracy to shove steel shot down waterfowlers' collective throats. Well Keith . . . if that's true, if they're all evil, anti-lead types, then why haven't they come up with studies to shove lead bans down upland hunters' throats? If they can manufacture evidence on ducks and geese, why not on quail and pheasants? Maybe they're working on it and it's just that we have yet to see their evil plans in action.

Let's see . . . you're not a scientist, nor am I. You're not a waterfowler, nor am I. Yet you're holding forth on inconsistencies--glaring, no less--in studies of lead shot in waterfowl. Looks to me like there's not much use you and I arguing about something neither of us knows that much about. Which we've both admitted. Kinda like the blind leading the blind.

So let's hear from someone who DOES know about it and who says that the lead shot ban was all a big scam. From now on, if you can't come up with evidence along those lines, this is all a big waste of time--which most folks here have likely already determined.

Show me the evidence that it was a scam, Keith. From a scientist. Not from you, a non-scientist, non-waterfowler. Otherwise, I'm outta here.

I decided to quote your entire comment, though I feel it's helpful, to me at least, to normally snip out non contributory fill. I see you using the exact tactic of the 'ban' folks, the squeaky wheel is supposed to win. I also decided not to respond to your previous reply to me because, it basically took the tone of a conspiracy theorist.

You have two particular rants, that I think will cause you to 'loose' in the uplands. First, if I was sitting in a bar and a hundred and thirty-seven biologist were discussing lead conspiracy theories, do I 'win' because you weren't there. I believe you've seen eagles feeding on road kill, I would hope you don't believe that's smoking gun evidence. Please try to recall, that the 'science' of the study wasn't about road kill or unrecovered game, it was about 25 gut piles down in Illinois, not northern Wisconsin. But, you extrapolate as it suits your preferences.

Second, do you really suppose we can demand only hunters of a particular species have the authority to study and conclude about those game birds? Haven't you been told that the wildlife service employees have a hugely decreasing percentage of hunters of any type. Are the folks who ban, regulate, tax and write law hunters? Not likely, huh.

'Relative susceptibility' is particularly interesting, I think you're well aware that pheasant MAY tote systemic lead better than ducks can. Like quail, where do they sit in the food chain, and are your contentions worth one kid in the rural Dakotas or one raptor at a rehaber face possible lead exposure.

I've tried to check the wild goose chases you sent me on, FWS, SOAR, the rehabers, I'd hope you don't see them as smoking guns. I put a question out to DW, I couldn't find an equivalent 'ask a biologist' over at DU. If I get a response, I'll present it here, regardless of what it says, including the exact wording of how I posed the question. It didn't take me much time, so I figured, why not. I'll disclose that I attempted three times to make a twenty dollar donation, but their website kept kicking it out, so I left that line blank.

I figured if I sent money I could bribe them to make it sound like it supports me, but in reality I would know that whatever the response might be, it would just be hearsay. They did mention it could be posted on their website, so I suppose that would raise credibility.

Lots of story there for not much smoking gun, eh. Kind of a silly call for someone to insist on, but this is what I'm concerned about that you get to base your position on and 'win'. You never did address why you feel it's okay to throw lead bullet using deer hunters under the bus for an upland hunter's agenda.

It's actually kind of sad how much speculation there is about upland game bird lead levels from lead shot using upland game bird hunters leading to food safety questions, by of course, non hunters. But, you're aware of that, aren't you, and accept it as good science, with the defense, it wasn't me.

I see you still cannot comprehend what I wrote Larry. Even putting it in bold colored type and underlining it didn't work. Then going even further and explaining what I had underlined, bolded, and colored didn't help you. Let's try it again:

"In fact, the parts that followed, along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread, would support the conclusion that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME."

Let me break that sentence down into small pieces that even a mentally retarded person might understand.

"In fact, the parts that followed,"... This means I was referring to the parts of your statement that came directly after your "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad." declaration.

"along with 90% of what he has said prior to that in this thread,"... This means I am referring to 90% of what you have said before you made the statement I quoted. This does not in any way suggest that I am making this observation on the sum total of your life. Only what you have posted in this one thread Larry. Got it? I have already said here, that you were much more supportive of lead ammo in the 2010 thread. Furthermore Larry, 90% of your comments in this thread IS NOT THE SAME as being 100% anti-lead ammo. You do believe that lead is toxic... at least I hope you do. I believe that as well. I just don't believe that pieces of shot, bullets, or sinkers are the real problem with birds. Your math may be worse than your reading.

"would support the conclusion"... This means that I was making the observation that those words, "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad", along with the other things you had written IN THIS ONE THREAD could make someone believe, or conclude, that you support the 1991 ban and also support lead bullet bans. I am not the only one who took note of that Larry.


"that Larry is GENERALLY anti-lead EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME."... This is referring to you Larry. Can you spell your name? Again, we're talking about what you posted earlier within this thread. Try to stay with me on this. You had been supportive of earlier lead shot bans. You said it was settled and claimed they worked and achieved the desired result. You said that rehashing old battles that we have lost is foolish. You made bogus claims about lead bullet fragments in wounded deer and gut piles and made a direct link between bullet fragments and dead birds. You weren't even talking about other more bio-available sources of lead. The only place you defended the continued use of lead was for upland game hunting. My making note of your continued support for lead shot for upland game means that you cannot be 100% against lead ammo. So we're back to being both bad at math and bad at reading. You may be the poster child for "No Child Left Behind".

Now I know this is a lot for you to digest, so I won't go into your two contrarian statements about road killed deer right now.

And later, after when your little brain can digest more information, we'll go back to your nonsense about Susceptibility, Relative Susceptibility, and now... Your wild-assed explanation for putting words in my mouth and misinterpreting my meaning... even after I clearly explained it to you.

I have a lot of studies for you to check out Larry. I told you that last night. But first we have to teach you to read and comprehend. There will even be some numbers involved, and that's another problem for you. This could take a long long time by the looks of it. And craigd did notice all of that non-contributory fill you use to explain things that we never said. It's too much for you to deal with right now Larry.

By the way Larry, a lot of the studies I have read on the anti-lead side ARE supporting a total ban on lead ammo, even for upland game. But you are too invested in proving me wrong to notice that apparently. Your inability to understand the written word, clear explanations of what was said, and your refusal to acknowledge glaring errors and mere suppositions, in what you call science, has led us far off topic.

Larry, he's the only one on the board who behaves this way. Look at this for reasoning:

". . . along with the other things you had written IN THIS ONE THREAD could make someone believe that you support the 1991 ban and also support lead bullet bans. I am not the only one who took note of that Larry."

Persons can be made to believe most anything. Someone believing doesn't make it so. Some want to believe things for all sorts of reasons, often in spite of science-based evidence to the contrary.

I prefer to look at his last post as qualifying his position. He appears to be modifying significantly from you're not anti-this-or-that although some members including himself could have drawn that conclusion.

Hope springs eternal.

Interesting website:

http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/

Norm, I usually like arguing with idiots by using their own words against them. But many, like King Brown, then deny their own words.

I'll check out your link later when I get home. But since King is back, can you recommend a link to a website on how to argue with a dishonest anti-2nd Amendment Liberal Left Troll? Thanks.

King, Larry already addressed this, said something like we shouldn't play word games with a writer back a page. I hate to bring bad news, but if you subscribe to Larry's qualification requirement, commenting here must mean you're an idiot like us regular folks. If you missed that part, maybe you should actually read his comments. I'm gonna go look up how tough grape stains are to get out of snow geese, and I'll be back.

Craig, there are numerous reports of lead fragments in sick and dead eagles. WAY more than just one study. And obviously, if I see eagles feeding on a road-killed deer, it's not likely they're going to ingest lead from a bullet . . . unless the deer was wounded by a hunter, wandered out to the road and died there, or got whacked by a car there. Simply establishing that it's not at all unusual for eagles to scavenge deer.

Re nonhunters entering the wildlife field . . . Craig, the lead ban dates from a quarter century ago. First suggestions of a lead ban on waterfowl go back more like half a century ago. Back in those days, the wildlife management field was still HEAVILY dominated by hunters.

You don't need to ask DU about their position on the lead ban. I got it to pop up first google attempt. DW, I poked around, couldn't find anything better than their "ask a biologist"--and I figured you guys could ask, and that way you'd be getting it straight from them.

Those who hunt with lead bullets have a problem to deal with. How good is the evidence so far? Well, there IS evidence. Up to them to deal with it one way or the other. I don't write for deer hunting mags, don't hunt deer . . . so doesn't make much sense for me to take on that fight. Upland, that's my bag--and I have a whole folder worth of research I did before writing my articles. But it's been 6 years, so I'd dig a bunch more before writing an article today.

Lead in any meat is going to cause "food safety questions" . . . mostly by those who don't eat it. And by those in the health industry. The ND study on lead levels in humans came about as a result of a study in which 53 out or 95 packets of ground venison donated to food pantries contained lead fragments. As a result the ND Dept of Health temporarily halted distribution of venison to food pantries. Like I said, guys who hunt with lead bullets have an issue to deal with. Not throwing them under the bus; simply allowing those who've done more research in that area than I have and who know more about it to present their views in case someone proposes a lead bullet ban.

Nice rant, Keith. But it doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong on the "lead is toxic, toxic = bad" statement. If I believed that myself, I'd be 100% anti-lead. 90% anti-lead doesn't make sense, based on that statement. But then neither do you.

I don't care about anti-lead studies unless it's something I feel a need to deal with. Like about upland game. And given the fact that I can quote two state wildlife agencies that say there isn't any good evidence in that area, I'm not too worried.

And I see you're still dodging the issue of the contrarian biologist who will debunk the lead ban on waterfowl as junk science. Carry on. Unless you can come up with same, nothing else of any interest to read from you on the subject.