I'm always amazed at the sheer magnitude of knowledge that some folks amass without any training or experience, or even a little keyboard research at the very least. In this day and age, anyone can go to scholar.google.com and become at least superficially familiar with the actual primary literature on any topic, including Furadan and bird mortality, even when properly applied in the fields. And topics like lead shot and waterfowl have a plethora of science supporting very clear conclusions. Yet, a few folks, always the same few folks claim to know everything about any subject and are always somehow in direct opposition to those conclusions. How is this?
Hahaha, this is coming from a guy who couldn't explain how his precious and infallible junk science references contained wildly differing numbers for what constituted a lethal dose of lead in eagles. In one of his references in last year's "Lead and Condor Deaths" thread, an eagle was brought in with a massive lethal off-the-charts overdose of lead, but somehow, it was able to still fly and perch in a tree.
It shouldn't take a lot of smarts to read such crap and realize that something is not adding up. Too bad that inflated egos are no substitute for critical analysis and rational thought.
Brent and Larry Clown, the ex-CIA intelligence analyst, aren't able to use their own brains to question the veracity of such obvious garbage that passes for science without peer review. Poor Larry still demands to see a competing view that proves lead ammo wasn't the huge problem that agenda driven anti-lead activists claimed. He and Brent cling to their anti-lead ammo bias while continuing to ignore the many alternate sources of lead that are much more bio-available than shot or bullet fragments. I still love their junk science crap that suggested the majority of deer gut piles were laced with hundreds of lead bullet fragments. The first step in using your brain is the requirement that you actually have one.
