doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Effectiveness of #4 lead

Craig, you have a comment to make on the effectiveness of lead 4's? And I didn't start this thread. Just commented--including providing some information on down-range velocity of steel vs lead 4's--on the subject at hand. But I keep hearing babble from the peanut gallery about stuff that hasn't a thing to with the effectiveness of lead 4's. I'd think that between you and Keith--since you suggest that you have the smarts to discriminate between good science and "junk" science--you could manage to start a new topic on whatever it is you really want to talk about. Rather than making "junk" posts that have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

Larry, you tend to have an extremely selective memory, that's why I choose to quote you in my prefered way. You seem to be much more versed in the ballistics of number four lead shot that I'll ever be, but it really doesn't show in the quotes I pulled off your comments on this thread. I promise to get very little satisfaction out of peeing on threads, but will quote enough of your words should I get prompted enough to comment.

Yeah craigd, you gotta quote Larry because he can't remember what he says. First he said this to me:



Then Larry said this less than an hour and a half later:




jOe had it absolutely right when he said:

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.



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?

I believe jOe got his manners from the Donald Trump school of etiquette. I have always said there are a lot of stupid people in the world and jOe proves it.

Couple others here as well. I'm beginning to think trolls have taken to wandering, leaving their bridges vacant.

A troll is no worse than those who persistently respond to them. Takes two to tango.

SRH

Lots of "last word-itis" around here.

One particular means of Trolling often used here is to make a totally baseless accusation, and then refuse to retract it or correct it when called on it, as Larry Brown has done today.

We saw the same behavior with Ed Good in the Second Amendment Informational Thread over the last couple days, and that is precisely why I compared Larry to Ed.

You made a false statement about me Larry. You know it and so does anyone who can read. You also engaged in selective editing about Audobon's total position on sport hunting in the Condor thread in order to support your erroneous opinion, and then attempted to defend that behavior by trying to equate what you did with what craigd did. When you couldn't accept simple observations made in accordance with generally accepted notions, you attempted to denigrate and discredit the observers. It takes a man to admit when he is wrong. Nobody will accuse you of being a man.

How's the weather under your bridge Larry?

OK Keith . . . let's take a look at "Audubon's total position on sport hunting". Here it is, IN ITS ENTIRETY . . . straight out of a booklet by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (pretty good, solid pro-hunting source, right?) called "What They Say About Hunting".

"The National Audubon Society has never been opposed to hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource. We have made this clear repeatedly in official statements of policy, and it remains Audubon policy."

"Audubon will advocate restrictions on hunting including the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species requires it. However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues."

Now perhaps that does not meet the Keith definition of "pro-hunting", but it's clearly not anti-hunting. "Neutral" would be a good description in my book. And some people seem to have trouble remembering that as hunters, we are badly outnumbered. Not so much by anti-hunters, but by the very large NEUTRAL majority: the non-hunters. And, as a member of the Ruffed Grouse Society (DEFINITELY pro-hunting), I've worked with that particular "neutral" group on habitat projects--on both public and private land--that benefit species we hunt (grouse and woodcock), and therefore also benefit those who hunt grouse and woodcock. No use throwing the neutrals under the bus, especially when they're willing and able to make common cause with us hunters. Having Audubon working with your hunting group as an ally causes other "neutrals" to sit up and say, "Hey, look there, even the birders are in favor of those projects. So it's not just the hunters!" That's good for us.

Keith, I learned a long time ago that it's a waste of time to fight lost battles. Lead for waterfowl is a lost battle. Lead in California, headed the same way. But here's your problem, if you want to continue to beat a couple dead horses: I'm not going to comment on whether the science behind those lead ammo restrictions was good science or not. It does, however, appear to be "settled science". If you choose to disagree with that term, try disagreeing with "settled law". Go shoot some ducks with lead and tell the game warden that it's OK because the lead shot ban is junk science and see how far you get.

In order for you to contest what is now "settled law"--regulations that are being enforced--you are in the position of the football coach who throws the flag and asks for a review of a call the officials have just made. THAT CALL WILL STAND UNLESS THE REFS SEE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY BLEW IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND. So, that puts you in the position of providing the irrefutable evidence . . . that is, if you really want to "prove" something rather than just making noise. And no, "simple observations made in accordance with generally accepted notions" do NOT meet the standard of irrefutable evidence. And when you suggest that they do, it seems to me you're putting yourself and your argument above what you consider "junk science"--but which the powers that be consider "good science", because they've used it as the basis for what is now settled law. And here's where your argument leads:

1. If your simple observations and generally accepted notions are in fact so simple and so generally accepted, then how come none of the many wildlife biologists--scientifically trained people--manage to miss them when you find them so easy to spot? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Are you telling us that you're smarter than all those wildlife biologists? And however smart you are or aren't, you will admit--I think--that you're not a wildlife biologist. And remember, the decision to get rid of lead for waterfowl wasn't made overnight. Discussions and research went on for YEARS, before USFWS issued the nationwide regulation in 1991.

2. If you don't claim to be smarter than all those wildlife biologists, then it seems to me the only other possibility is that there was a massive conspiracy among them to foist "junk science" upon us, in the form of the lead shot ban. And having worked where everyone is positive all kinds of conspiracies are hatched up (CIA), I can tell you that the flaw with your average conspiracy theory is that it's going to become public very quickly, if a whole bunch of people are expected to stay quiet about it. Successful conspiracies involve very few conspirators. And now, a quarter century later, if there had been such a conspiracy, then surely someone would have gone public with a statement revealing the scope of that massive conspiracy.

Yet you haven't been able to find anyone who falls into either category 1 or 2: a scientist who saw what you see and interprets it as evidence of junk science; or a scientist who is now prepared to "tell all" about the great lead shot ban conspiracy.

And we can add one more group that I've left out:

3. Then there's always Ducks Unlimited (which seems to have no beef with the "junk science") and Delta Waterfowl (thought you and Craig were going to research that one)--who surely would have opposed junk science that is going to have a direct influence on their membership. If not those two groups, there are also at least dozens of outdoor writers who are very knowledgeable in the field of waterfowl hunting. (I am NOT one of them!) Bad science behind the lead shot ban? A conspiracy to keep quiet about the junk science? Any outdoor writer who could have uncovered something of that nature would have immediately become the equivalent of Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate, only for waterfowl hunters. That would have been an absolutely amazing, ground-breaking piece of investigative work--one that any waterfowl hunting writer would have been proud to do.

So we're back to square one. If you think your "simple observations and generally accepted notions" meet the standard of irrefutable evidence that will overturn settled law, then I suggest that you make your case. To DU, to Delta Waterfowl, to Field & Stream or anyone else you wish. Or find yourself a wildlife biologist who specializes in waterfowl and run your ideas past him. Ever think to give that a try? Because right now, you're not proving anything to anybody. Your "simple observations and generally accepted notions" only debunk what you call "junk science" in your mind. Not in the mind of anyone who matters. And the only people who matter are the ones who have evaluated and acted on the scientific information--junk or good--behind the settled law that is the lead ban for waterfowl.

You want to start a thread on some other aspect of lead shot, lead bullets, lead poisoning? No matter how much you may think it's all "junk", the unfortunate truth is that incidents like lead in the water in Flint and eagles dying of lead poisoning will continue to cause problems for hunters, whether they should or not. That's because far too many people believe that lead is bad; therefore, let's get rid of it all. I'm prepared to contest that position--and have done so, in print--in the area with which I am familiar, and addressing the audience which my magazine (Pointing Dog Journal) targets: upland bird hunters. I think I did so quite effectively, pointing out that there is little or no evidence of a problem with wild upland birds (other than doves) ingesting lead shot; that there have been no blind tests conducted comparing steel to lead shot on upland birds, to see whether a switch to steel might result in greater losses of wounded and unrecovered birds; that there are far more shotguns (especially important to those who participate on THIS BB) than the anti-lead folks contend through which steel shot can't be used; and that there isn't much evidence that the consumption of game shot with lead poses a significant human health risk. There are other areas to be dealt with, and I leave it to my fellow outdoor writers, with greater expertise in those specific areas than I have, to make the case for their continued use of lead ammunition.

Failing the appearance of another topic concerning lead on which I feel I have something worth contributing, I'm done here. Usually, somebody pays me when I write this much!