Of course there are all kinds of sources for lead, especially where humans are concerned. Lead pipes, lead paint, etc. The interesting thing about the ND study is that, although those who ate game had higher blood lead levels than those who did not, the average blood lead level for everyone in that study was LOWER than the overall national average. Which would seem to indicate that, while you can certainly ingest lead when eating wild game, it's likely that there are other sources out there which are worse than what you'll get from eating wild game.
When we were working with the Iowa DNR on forest management, Audubon was squarely on our side. The bad guys on the OTHER side were Sierra. They don't like cutting down trees, period. I also recall a call-in birding show on a local radio station. Couple Audubon guys answering questions. At one point, one of them mentioned that although he wasn't a hunter, he was on the banquet committee of the local Pheasants Forever chapter. The host of the show asked why he'd support a hunting organization if he doesn't hunt. Answer: "Because PF does the best local habitat work of any conservation organization." I'm more than happy to work with allies like that.
There are quite a few politicians who are anti-gun but pro-environment, and plenty who are pro-gun but anti-environment. Very few get it right most of the time in BOTH areas. Several years back, the Iowa DNR requested an increase in license fees. There hadn't been one in several years, the increase was relatively modest, and Iowa sportsmen were generally in support. Iowa Legislature shot it down because so many of them had made a "no new taxes" pledge . . . and after what that did to GHW Bush when he ran for reelection, by God they were going to stick by it. Even if it's really a "user fee", and most of the users are OK with increasing it. That's politics for you.
Back to lead. We're stuck with the fact it's a toxin; we're stuck with the fact that eagles die of lead poisoning; and we're stuck with the antis going after lead. Asking for solid evidence in the SPECIFIC area they're pushing for restrictions (like lead shot for upland game) is the best we can do.
