No question the bald eagle population is in great shape. But they're also the national bird, and extremely visible. And the antis are going to use them as the "poster bird" to go after lead.
Anyone who knows anything about wildlife recognizes that we don't concern ourselves with the deaths of individual wild critters as long as the species remains healthy. (If we worried about individual deer, grouse, quail, rabbits, etc, then we could hardly justify hunting them.) But eagles, because they are so visible and because they are clearly harmed by ingesting lead, will be used to beat us over our collective heads. Like it or not . . . get used to it.
About all we can say, when the antis come after lead shot, is: "Let's see some good science. Show us eagles that have died as a result of ingesting lead shot. Not lead bullet fragments, but lead shot. After all, an eagle is far more likely to feed on a deer that's wounded and goes off to die than it is on a pheasant or a grouse that the hunter does not recover. Then show us--in a blind study--that steel shot is as effective on upland game as is lead shot. Unless that is demonstrated, might we not be sacrificing a lot of pheasants, grouse etc shot with steel that fly off crippled when they might have been killed cleanly with lead? And are not the lives of lost pheasants and grouse as valuable as those of the very occasional lost eagle?"
