Rookhawk, re #5 . . . have you read that entire paper? It gives NO EVIDENCE whatsoever for transitioning to nontoxic shot other than for waterfowl. Rather, it simply reviews the history of the lead ban for waterfowl, and suggests how "we" can do a better job of expanding nontoxic shot requirements to other species.
In other words, zero "good science" for birds other than waterfowl . . . and an assumption that the lead shot ban should be expanded, MINUS "good science" to support it. The authors have concluded that the ban should be expanded, without telling the readers why.
And I would note that if you go to the website,
www.peregrinefund.org, it is not at all an "organization of hunters and ranchers". Rather, it is an organization which has as a goal the preservation of birds of prey, worldwide. Some members may indeed be hunters and ranchers; others may very well be anti-hunters. Or anti-gun hunting, assuming they're falconers.
Last edited by L. Brown; 02/14/11 07:29 PM.
