So then Ben . . . why do you cite a study involving birds that are obviously NOT wild, when you're trying to make a point--or at least I think that's the point you're trying to make--about the threat to birds in the WILD from lead shot? Like I said, tossing stuff up against the wall to see what will stick. Well, that one just slid right off the wall. And by the way, there ARE wild chukar in Canada. Just not in Ontario.

I don't think anyone here has problems with lead shot restrictions for waterfowl, or for upland birds in areas that see a lot of use by waterfowl. Iowa already does that, for example. But the MT restriction is a BLANKET restriction to ALL WMA's. How many of those WMA's consist of waterfowl habitat? And can you show studies involving WILD upland birds, shot on either public or private property (NOT on preserves, please!) in which a significant percentage of those birds have ingested lead? Any reports of finding upland birds that have died, without having been shot, in which lead can be identified as the cause of their demise?

In recent years, the Dakotas and Minnesota have recorded their highest pheasant harvests in decades. If all the lead we've been tossing around for ringnecks for the last 90 years or so were really a threat to the pheasant population, how did those states end up with so many birds? How come the population hasn't evidenced a long-term decline? Inquiring minds want to know.