Well Keith . . . I did that in my articles on lead vs nontox. Pointed out where they were wrong about "steel is OK in any modern shotgun". Pointed out the results of the ND study on lead levels in humans. Pointed out that there is little or no evidence that lead ingestion is a problem for upland birds, with the possible exception of doves on heavily-hunted fields. (One reason lead isn't a problem for upland birds in general is because shot fall, which can be quite concentrated where waterfowl are concerned, is seldom concentrated in upland habitats.) And with the possible exception of scavengers, including eagles.
If they can produce evidence, then we can review it and poke holes in those areas where they're wrong. I've seldom seen any efforts from game biologists to intentionally "cook the books" where lead is concerned. They tend to refer to "potential" harm . . . at which point we can always say: "So show us the quail, grouse, pheasants, whatever that have died from lead poisoning." The Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee to the MN DNR even admitted the difficulty involved in gathering evidence that lead is a problem where upland birds are concerned. A refreshing bit of honesty . . . as opposed to "We know they must be out there dying somewhere." Which is essentially what the WI Natural Resources Board said when they were pushing nontox shot only on all DNR managed lands.
I'm also eagerly awaiting the blind study on lead vs steel on upland birds, like pheasants for example. Given that steel is the only available alternative that's not outrageously expensive, and that we already know steel is ballistically inferior to lead, show us that steel won't result in more crippled and lost upland birds in comparison to lead.
The anti-lead people have a lot of work to do. We need to force them to do it rather than just spouting the "lead is poison so we should get rid of it" line.
