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

The older I get......the more I prefer lighter loads and larger shot size.

I never said Audobon was anti-hunting Larry. I said that they have supported lead ammunition bans in California and have taken anti-lead ammo positions. You came back with a cherry picked part of their position statement in your post #433652. You went on and on to tell us how they are such great allies of hunters, and to tell us you could not find any information to support what I said (your post #433888). I confronted you with facts and links showing their anti-lead efforts... even from Audobon's own website-- http://ca.audubon.org/banning-lead-ammunition-condor-habitat -- Then craigd busted you on leaving out the part of Audobon's statement that proved you wrong. It's all still there and nobody can edit or change it because the thread has been locked. I said that you selectively edited their position statement in order to back up your erroneous assertions which you made in the Condor thread. You did in fact do that Larry. Too bad you didn't quote the entire statement back then instead of cherry-picking only the good parts.

You took craigd to task for also only quoting part of that statement, however his intent wasn't to mislead anyone, but only to prove that you were misleading us. He did that very effectively, and it wasn't necessary for him to quote their entire statement to do that. You equated his behavior with your own deplorable behavior. Printing their entire position statement here now doesn't change what you tried to do in the Condor thread. I think that showed us the lengths you will go to in order to avoid admitting you are wrong.

You sure went to a lot of trouble here, and still look foolish. And you are still twisting and twirling like a dervish to dodge away from the false statement you made about me yesterday. Keep flailing.

By the way... speaking of your inability to read and comprehend... I have found plenty of studies that refute much of the garbage you call science. I've told you that numerous times, but I also told you that you aren't smart enough to digest them, and you aren't motivated enough to even look for them on your own. Of course, you claimed you couldn't find any information that Audobon had supported lead ammo bans, and it took me less than a minute to find that link I posted above on their own website. That's not very impressive for an ex-CIA guy Larry. You are entrenched in your beliefs, and all too intent on dishonestly discrediting anyone who disagrees with you, in my opinion. I have already responded to much of what you repeated above within the Condor thread, and being insanely redundant isn't addressing the false statement you made about me. And you still haven't shown us any conclusive proof that all of those millions of ducks and geese that were alleged to be dying from lead shot prior to 1991 actually were. So enough with attempting to place demands upon me while exempting yourself from the same standards. I'm on to your game and you don't intimidate me or impress me.

I'll agree that you have been consistent in discrediting and opposing lead shot bans for UPLAND GAME... except doves, in your recent and past posts here. As craigd has noted, you seem to automatically consider doves at more risk. I don't read your magazine articles, and certainly don't plan to start now after seeing how you operate. But your comments and abject refusal to even consider great disparities in different studies, and obvious anti-lead and anti-hunting bias, (as with Peregrine Fund's Dr Cormatzer for just one example) with the lame excuse that craigd or I are not wildlife biologists is ridiculous. Using your logic, if I buy a dozen eggs and notice that the carton is filled with 12 golf balls, I need to be an ornithologist before you'd consider me qualified to make a valid complaint.

Also Larry, as I have repeated, but failed to penetrate your thick thick head, I was not the only one who noticed that much of what you wrote in the Condor thread was not helpful to anyone but anti-lead ammo folks... except for upland game... other than doves. You sure as hell didn't do deer hunters who use lead bullets any favors.

You're doing a great job of ignoring me Larry. However, nothing you wrote changes my opinion of you. But I'll still be asking you to produce evidence of that false statement you made about me yesterday. All that writing, and you couldn't do that. You sure went to a lot of trouble to avoid just being a man and admitting you were wrong. No surprise there.



The older I get..... the less tolerant I am of hypocrites and fools.

Well Keith . . . not sure what "garbage" I call "science". I just got done explaining to you that regardless of whether you think the lead ban for waterfowl is "junk science", it is ACCEPTED SCIENCE and SETTLED LAW. It's been accepted by the people who banned lead as good science. Irrelevant whether you or I choose to accept it as such. You need irrefutable evidence to argue your case, unless you're only interested in making noise and accomplishing zilch.

Tell you what: It's now the 25th anniversary of the USFWS lead ban. Magazines like anniversaries. Why don't you put together everything you have and come up with a magazine article? Something like "25 Years Since the Lead Ban on Waterfowl: Did We Make a Mistake?" If I were you, before you did that, I'd find some waterfowl biologist--preferably an older guy who goes back to the lead ban days--and get their comments. See if they're "smart enough to digest" what you've come up with. Maybe get some helpful advise and/or criticism from someone who likely knows a bunch about it. Hey, maybe even more than you! Then offer your article to DU or Delta Waterfowl, or for that matter any magazine that covers waterfowl hunting. You never know. You might get paid for your efforts, and they'll receive a whole lot more attention than you trying to play tag with me here.

If there are "contrarians" out there on the lead ban, I don't know why you're having so much trouble finding them. Back 20 years ago, when the USFWS reduced the bag limit and shortened the season on woodcock, it took me all of 5 minutes to get a contrarian view--from the Chief of Wildlife with the Iowa DNR. Pretty heavy hitter in the wildlife management community. I asked for his opinion. He told me that there was no evidence hunting was the cause of the declining woodcock population, and that by reducing the bag limit and shortening the season, the feds were essentially putting the blame on hunting rather than looking elsewhere. That's how easy it can be to find contrary views . . . IF you develop contacts in the wildlife management community, and IF you don't approach them like they're the enemy.

So there you have my suggestions for you, along with an example of how it can work. I'm out of advice for you, and I'm done playing tag with you. I'm now contacting Dave and asking him to lock my thread on the Richland 909, and to take a look at this one as well and consider locking it. Your personal issues with me are a very poor reason to interrupt discussions on other topics.

Larry people get tired of reading your crap....fact is I've never read one of your posts in entirety because you talk some crAzy dribbly chit.

Morn'in Larry. Did you mention to the fellow that woodcock was an upland bird and you like to hunt them now and then? Did he know that deer hunters who recognized unwarranted blame, must turn to politicians for help, not wildlife heavy hitters for good science? Why would you contact Dave for something that's hiding in plain sight?

Littered on gravel town and logging roads I've found more 3" .410 empties marked #4 than just about anything else. And you can find the factory loads in just about any small town mom and pop convenience.

I didn't get it. An old friend with a 37A .410 explained it. Single shot "full" .410s make effective low-recoil partridge ground-swatters and, evidently, #4s provide the greatest reach. Never tried #4s but it makes sense. 3" #6s show adequate core density a good 5-10 yds farther out than #7.5s through a full M-42.

Samuel, you're right about the .410's in the little convenience stores. The one in the UP where I get my Michigan nonresident license every year (actually a Holiday station) also always has some 16's--but I've never seen 28's. You don't want to be without your own supply of them in the more remote places.

I enjoy reading Larry Brown's posts and articles. I think he works at being informative. Hang in there, Larry. The 'BBS patrol' are all ganging up on you, and brow beating you. It's the same reason a lot of good ones (eg, Dig Hadoke) have dropped this thing. They got sick of this sort of garbage.

Hey buzz, is this the kind of stuff you are talking about? Remember when you said this about Larry's older brother King Brown?



I wonder if Larry will have any problems with your rude behavior?

See what I mean when I said yesterday that the older I get--- the less tolerant I am of hypocrites and fools?

Larry, I always felt that it was probably you who asked Dave to lock the Condor thread, because you couldn't take repeatedly getting caught in your B.S., selective editing, attempting to put words in people's mouths, and dodging legitimate questions that made you look silly. Now I have no doubt. I guess that is the crybaby's version of LastWord-itis.

In your PM that you sent to me this morning, you once again dodged and twisted to get away from what you had said about Audobon which led up to your selective editing. I never said that Audobon was anti-hunting or even neutral as you asserted in that PM. I only said that they had backed anti-lead ammo bans in California. You said they didn't and that you could find nothing to support my statement. As I have repeatedly said to you, it took me less than a minute to find multiple sources including one from Audobon's own website.

But you had felt the need to use selective editing in order to defend your position because you cannot admit to ever being wrong. In my opinion, it was more like deceptive editing, considering the disingenuous manner in which you attempt to make it go away. craigd busted you. Caught you red handed with your hand in the cookie jar. Yet you act like a child in denial with the partially eaten cookie in your hand.

I also told you probably a dozen times now that I have found contrarian science and studies that effectively refute the junk that supported the 1991 ban. But I also told you that you are not ready for it and that I really don't care to discuss it with someone as disingenuous as you anyway. The fact that you keep asking is proof that you cannot comprehend simple English. I also told you not to bother sending me any more PM's Larry, but you are too desperate to listen.

And here is how you ended your PM to me this morning... you dumped another load of pure crap and said to not bother responding to you. Then this:



Which is fine, because I had already told you a couple times that I didn't want any PM's from you and that you could say anything you had to say to me in the open BBS where everyone could see how you operate.

The only reason I am posting comments aimed at you is because you made a dishonest and false assertion about me. You will do anything to avoid admitting you were wrong and apologizing for lying about me. I told you I would continue to remind you that you made that false accusation... and I will.

So go on now and cry to Dave. This is precious. I see it as the adult equivalent of hiding behind Mommy's apron.