S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (J.B.Patton),
410
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,900
Posts550,591
Members14,458
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 180
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 180 |
quote: Well....sounds like your anecdotal evidence is very convincing...to bad the tobacco industry lawyers didn't have you as a witness decades ago. You would have saved them billions....lol unquote
Well - never too late hehe - could use some extra cash with the cigarette prices being what they are nowadays regards Gunter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
Just because some junk science has been repeated for 50 years does not make it credible.
The use of steel shot did not save the ducks. Ducks Unlimited buying up wetlands and breeding grounds saved the ducks.
And no, changing old habits that work for the sake some feel good idealism is not a good thing, nor is it a good precedent to set for posterity.
Alan
Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,559 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,559 Likes: 249 |
...Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time. If we can discuss absolutes, why pivot to climate change? How about sticking with Eagles, the topic of the converstaion? If someone were so concerned about the purity of science, why would you belittle people by bringing up the term denier? Wouldn't good science ask the question, why do Eagle lead poisoning 'research' organizations always link to antihunting groups under the guise of advocating for lead free hunting projectiles? Why do wildlife and land management agencies throughout the nation use these organiztions in their footnote references when creating policy? What prevents us from insisting that the same type of science that, for example, brings us a life saving medicine be used? A big pharma funded study can be key to bringing a medication to the market, but that is noted as a clear disclaimer, not woven into the research report as advertising. Would you want a loved one to do elective heart surgery based on a report with a handful of examples, the way we can consider infringing on all hunting based on xrays of a handful of gut piles? I know you're absolutely correct about the clown analogy. Brent told us flat out that the Eagles as a whole are not at risk due to lead hunting projectile ingestion, yet some vigorously defend the science brought to us by antihunting and antishooting advocates. No one ever said we had to fool all of the people, only enough to control the agenda, in other words a minority.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,081 Likes: 462
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,081 Likes: 462 |
Speaking of good reading for new board members, here is one of my favorite threads on the forum and a quote from Pocono Bill describing his hacking into forum a forum members hard drive. Hi there Shortshells. I see you are making your second post with your new identity. Still too cowardly to use your other Doublegunshop screen name? Do you still think I don't know who you are? You should have covered your tracks better when you sent a cowardly anonymous intimidation letter to my house back in December. Your cyber security sucks and you let me right into your hard drive up there in N.Y. Too late to close the barn door now. That's all we'll say on that interesting subject just now.
read the full thread here: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=535239&page=4Glad to see you are back posting Billie. Hope your finally got your horse back in the barn. Have great day, Steve
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
There is empirical evidence that half the US electorate, take your pick, will believe in almost anything. On this board, absolutely. Two of my under-10-year-old great-grandchildren tune to US politics as I used to turn to the comics. It's entertaining. They have opinions.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,360 Likes: 52
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,360 Likes: 52 |
There is empirical evidence that half the US electorate, take your pick, will believe in almost anything. On this board, absolutely. Two of my under-10-year-old great-grandchildren tune to US politics as I used to turn to the comics. It's entertaining. They have opinions. If they really want a laugh have them tune into Brussels. __________________________ To paraphrase Public Enemy—The EU is a joke.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,559 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,559 Likes: 249 |
There is empirical evidence that a ten year old mind still has the chance to reason, if their roll models and educators didn't get their science from comic books.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 122
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 122 |
😭 Just because some junk science has been repeated for 50 years does not make it credible.
The use of steel shot did not save the ducks. Ducks Unlimited buying up wetlands and breeding grounds saved the ducks.
And no, changing old habits that work for the sake some feel good idealism is not a good thing, nor is it a good precedent to set for posterity.
Alan
Seems to me what makes that "junk science" credible is the fact that no one has ever shown me any scientists--as in waterfowl biologists who were working on that issue--who will say it was junk science. You can find scientists who are "climate change deniers", although they're in a minority. So, where are the "lead ban deniers", and where is their scientific evidence that questions the claim that ducks were dying from ingesting lead shot? Easy enough for me to say "Well, I don't believe it!" But I'm not a scientist. I find it really hard to believe that all those waterfowl biologists bought into lead ban junk science--hook, line, and sinker. That stretches common sense. It's like P.T. Barnum said: You can't fool all the people all the time. Uh... That was Abe Lincoln. P. T. Was "there's a sucker born every minute." Probably more fitting for the followers of junk science. Alan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,988 Likes: 491
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,988 Likes: 491 |
There is empirical evidence that half the US electorate, take your pick, will believe in almost anything. On this board, absolutely. Two of my under-10-year-old great-grandchildren tune to US politics as I used to turn to the comics. It's entertaining. They have opinions. This was pretty good for a laugh, but 200 million voted, so you are gambling that the voting public is a random sample of the entire public. I think that's a bit much. Perhaps the more perceptive Americans never even went to the polls, the choice being so awful. But you do have a valid point nonetheless.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,988 Likes: 491
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,988 Likes: 491 |
All of you conspiracy theorists are doing a rather poor job of bolstering your case. We are still waiting and will be waiting for an eternity for evidence that lead was not harmful to ducks at a population level. Meanwhile, every waterfowl biologist knows that as a simple fact, much like knowing the Earth is spherical, that the sun comes up in the east, and so forth, ingested lead kills waterfowl (and eagles). The data is overwhelming.
It also an interesting observation, at least to me, that all the waterfowl biologists I know of and have met are duck hunters - save one. And he was the supervisor and founder of the university's Ducks Unlimited Student Chapter, and thus a rather ardent if nonparticipatory supporter of the hunting of ducks.
So if this is all "junk" science, and a conspiracy to end hunting etc etc, you "junkers" and deniers (not derogatory - simply descriptive) have a lot of work cut out for yourselves.
Frankly, the science behind lead in waterfowl beats "Big Pharma" drug science a hundred times over. The reasons for that, are of course, blindingly obvious, and I am quite certain you are not so unintelligent to not see that, craig, so why the pretense? Yes, you can say anything you wish, but your credibility is pretty much shot.
Pony up. Let's see the literature. I've posted a fair number of studies on this topic in the past, so I've already got a long head start on you. Now it is your turn.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
|