I figured you would say that but you have not kept up on the literature. You might as well debate the world is flat.
And I guess that is the exact thing I thought you would say. Here is a link to the USFWS report on the increase in population of the bald eagle.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/population/index.htmlNotice how they determine that the dramatic turnaround in population was is directly related to the banning of DDT and the placing of the eagle on the endangered species list. And notice of the rate of population growth is unchanged after the all important lead shot ban was put into place in 1991. But what does the USFWS know, they are only arguing that the earth is flat. You better send them some of what you have been reading so they can change the results they have been compiling for the past 40 years.
I'll continue to endorse the lead ban on waterfowl and I do not find it the slightest bit difficult even though I shoot only old doubles, mostly damascus.
What an arrogant and selfish response. Of course you don't have a problem using non-tox shot for hunting. I, like yourself have been blessed to be able to afford nice, antique damascus barreled guns. Paying for expensive shot is not a problem for me. It is though, for a 16 year old farm boy how wants to shoot a couple boxes at doves, or go out after some pheasants, or God forbid fire a few boxes to practice. Why would he spend $30-$50 on a few boxes of shells when he can just as easily buy the latest PS3 game for the same price.
For the most part, every corner of every waterhole is filled with hunters in the Midwest. We seem to be coping.
That's because there are fewer and fewer waterholes every year to be filled up by those hunters. To use your term again, it is undeniable that the number of hunters is declining. We lost 10% between 1996 and 2006, and I'm sure that number is much higher today
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/03/national/main3228893.shtmland I guarantee those hunters in your Midwestern waterholes are getting grayer and longer in the tooth every year.
Sadly hunters only shoot their own credibility in the foot continuing to argue against lead in waterfowling. That will haunt them when they legitimately try to keep lead for upland hunting.
I don't think I ever argued against the lead ban for waterfowl. I am merely pointing out your false claims as to how impactful it was (and your many other false responses). It did have the most impact to waterfowl specifically. That is important to point out, because it's effect is mostly limited to waterfowl and waterfowl only. The negative aspects of the lead ban (i.e. wounded game, expense, loss of hunters) are limited to waterfowl hunting only. If you can't afford to shoot ducks you have other options. By calling for a useless ban of lead shot for everything from squirrels to deer to pheasants and even target shooting, you would damage the future of hunting beyond repair. But as long as you can afford the shot that is all that matters I guess. Try again Brent, you can do better than this.
