doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead shot increasingly under fire

Whats the yearly rainfall at Miramar?

KY Jon,
Perhaps I know a lot more about what you are talking about than you suspect. I've been working in the field for over a quarter century. I am well aware of how to conduct science. Something I have seen no sign of on this forum.

I am also not only well aware of the peer review process, I am part of it at several levels including authoring, reviewing and as an editor of a pair of major ecological journals.

And that's just the point, I know how science is done, how it is funded, published, etc. But the folks here prefer armchair pontification over science and I cannot provide much experience with that. A pretty sorry statement for the future of hunting if this is a representative sample.

Brent

salopian,
I am sorry you do not care for what I post. I loose patience with ignorance that is compoounded with political agenda and preconceived notions. As usual, you claim flawed science but offer nothing better, nor even any worthy description of the flaws. As such, your criticisms are laughable.

As for Lowell, he dishes out far more rudeness and belligerence than he receives.

You haven't even begun to debate. Still awaiting your "facts".

Brent, I don't think anyone ever implied that the half dozen or so posters about the subject on this website are a "representative sample". If you include me as a "representative sample" of researchers on the subject, you are overestimating my qualifications. I would appreciate a reply from Bouvier to my earlier post.

I feel sorry for science - one who stands so firmly on his pet science without an open mind, has no science at all.
Sounds like a lopsided cause!

Not too much. About 15 inches usually. But it all runs from our 13 or so fields right into the canyon and has for 20 years. We harvest many, many tons of shot from the fields every couple of years. Jake

Brent,
Not everyone comes here to exchange knowledge, a few have a different agenda. I too agree that if a concept will not hold up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, it must be disregarded or held as theory. It's your attitude that is the last best hope for this bulletin system. Scientific reasoning and historical accuracy will always be the currency that 99% of the readers are looking for. I will pay closer attention to your posts in the future.

I steped in "it" two weeks ago and four weeks ago...now you've steped in "it"...I wonder whos turn it will be next week?.....How many other BBS members have been the victim of his sharp tongue?..... just scrape that poster off the bottom of your shoe and move on...He'll leave you alone now...it's a pecking order thing...I guess

Hey, I'm a mechanical engineer. We also studied measurement systems and their associated error. Question: If you see a "trend" inside the margin of error in your instrumentation, what do you have? Answer: Nothing. So this so called 1-3 Deg F temperature rise that is within the +/- error band (I've heard 3-5 deg F) is not a measurable phenomenon with the current technology. Also, people slap thermometers where it's convenient, like the sides of buildings and parking lots. Last time I checked, you can cool off in the woods, but not in a parking lot in summer. Land use may be the real culprit, but who wants to give up their mega-mall for a bunch of mom and pop shops? (Maybe the Anti-Globalists, but I digress....)

Flawed sicience and a bunch of junk data = liberal hysteria over nothing. (Never trust someone with an ARTS degree when you need someone with a SCIENCE degree.)

The CO2 rise is real though, I cannot deny this (looked up the data on it) I just cant say is 100 ppm makes a difference. The proactive amongst us may say it will continue to increase and we must reduce emissions now. I say, wait and see, it snowed in the Alps today.....

Mike Doerner

I'd like to know more than I've learned by twice reading the estimate of nos. of waterfowl leading healthy lives on the flyways because they have non-tox in their craws. I'd like to know more about the action of the craw or crop in producing lead poisoning. Is it a matter of mechanical abrasion, a milling operation, so to speak? What is the connection to field corn? Another relatively hard object which must be ground? Please enlighten me.

jack

Oh I get it! Just a few years into non-tox and the longevity of large waterfowl is of a duration which means that if they hadn't been poisoned, we should still be able to find live (well, actually recently deceased) birds with the older sort of ballast, right? But we don't so they were (poisoned). Isn't that clever?

jack