....The unfortunate problem, however, is that the eagle is our national symbol....
....But we still end up losers because of the emotional tug one dead eagle can exert. I don't know whether a large number of vultures die due to ingesting lead. And the point is: Who cares? But people DO care about dead eagles....
....It remains to be seen how that battle will play out as far as our ability to shoot lead ammunition is concerned.
I think we're in complete agreement about the ineffectiveness of scientific arguement influencing agenda driven policy. As you know from the past, I've tended to question the emotional benefit enthusiastically handed to the antis, when they can count on some hunters and shooters graying the lines.
If it's okay, I'd mix in thoughts about your comments. In this day and age, I think it's a mistake to think that some sense of nationalism is driving sympathy for the death of an eagle. In simplified terms, the eagle manages to be a useful tool for the antihunting agenda, not just the lead is a demon increment. Do any of the raptor advocacy organizations display the Stars and Stripes?
When you ask who cares about vultures, shouldn't 'we'? Isn't condor the name given some species of vulture? Doesn't California policy pressure policy for the rest of the nation. Isn't the condor the sole reason legislation was introduced to ban lead projectile use in its range, which apparently has morphed into a hunting lead ban for the entire state?
What remains to be seen, the inevitable? As to digging up studies, haven't we been on that merry-go-round before? Isn't there a tendency to either dismiss or ignore? For the purposes of antihunting and gun control legislation, can you produce any studies that show the emotion that you pointed out can be countered with science? 'We' might study how they play the game.
