Actually, Ben, I kinda like that link. Did you take the time to read it? If you did, you'll find the same references to chukar and pheasants in Ontario (remember when I questioned you about those before--obviously birds from PRESERVES, where shot fall is far heavier than birds would encounter in the wild), a reference to pheasants on shooting estates in Great Britain (same situation--way more shot fall than in upland settings in this country), etc. In other words, a compilation of "same old, same old". Interesting also the connection to the Peregrine Fund. The veterinarian whose claims about lead fragments in deer resulted in ND dropping the policy of donating deer to homeless shelters etc . . . he's a falconer. Might that indicate any sort of bias . . . just maybe, possibly? And when that happened, the Iowa DNR reviewed the same information--and continued its "Hunters for the Hungry" program, donating deer to homeless shelters.
Ben, it's fairly obvious your mind is already made up. You might try reading the research with a bit more of an open mind. Does the amount of lead to which a bird on a preserve is exposed have much of anything to do with exposure in typical upland hunting settings? No. Lead bans for waterfowl (and maybe even for doves, on public land where they're shot) make sense, because of the heavy concentration of shot fall. Lead bans for upland birds, in areas not frequented by waterfowl . . . that's an apples to oranges deal, and you can't really compare. Likewise, other species impacted by lead shot . . . the question is, what's happening to the SPECIES overall, not individuals. If you're talking about an endangered species, like the California condor (or eagles, a couple decades ago), then you worry about individual birds. But if the population is healthy and growing (like bald eagles today, for example), then you no longer concern yourself with occasional individual mortality. Because if we start to concern ourselves with individual mortality of a species that's not endangered, well then, guess what? We've just given the antis all the ammunition they need to SHUT HUNTING DOWN, whether we shoot lead or steel or depleted uranium. "That poor pheasant was shot. And died. How awful!" Well, it's only awful if pheasants are endangered because they're being shot. They're not, which means it's not awful at all. It's just hunting.
It's also interesting to see the reference to the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee, which did its own thorough review of the research available, and concluded in their report to the DNR: "The issues are extremely complex and conclusive data on wildlife population impacts is lacking. Furthermore, it is unlikely that conclusive data can ever be obtained due to the cost of this type research."
