Since you accuse me of cooking the books on Audubon's position on hunting, Keith . . . here's Craig's quote:
Another quote from the Audubon folks, "....we will advocate restrictions on hunting, including the complete closure of a hunting season, whenever we are convinced that the welfare of the species involved requires it...we do not advocate hunting. This is no contradiction, though some people seem to think it is. Our objective is wildlife and environmental conservation, not the promotion of hunting. We think lots of justifications for hunting are weak ones, and too often exaggerated for commercial reasons....".
All I did was reply with what HE left out, and what YOU repeated later. Again, lack of fairness and balance on the part of both you guys. (Sure glad you are not "agenda-driven".) Here's what comes before that quote: "The National Audubon Society has never been opposed to hunting of game species if that hunting is done ethically and in accordance with laws and regulations designed to prevent depletion of the wildlife resource. We have made this clear in official statements of policy, and it remains Audubon policy." Too bad you and Craig did NOT make it clear, from Craig's very first quote, and from your repetition of his quote. And Craig also failed to include what comes after the quote he lifted:
"However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues."
Sounds a whole lot different when you include what comes before and after the quote you and Craig posted, doesn't it? Looks to me like you and Craig are the guilty parties when it comes to "selective editing".
Please come back with more good evidence of just who's guilty of what here, and how this vast anti-lead, anti-hunting conspiracy on the part of the people who regulate hunting can have lasted for so long without someone, somewhere, from INSIDE the wildlife agencies, blowing the whistle on all the evidence their own biologists are faking. First about waterfowl deaths; now about eagle deaths. Because the only way anything you're suggesting makes sense is if the wildlife agencies themselves intentionally put out false evidence about lead poisoning in waterfowl, and are continuing to do the same with eagles.
As for your comment in an earlier post about Stan being one of (apparently) many guys who goes where DNR guys never go . . . I'm not talking about game wardens. I'm talking about wildlife biologists and technicians who LIVE ON THE PUBLIC MARSHES the DNR's manage for waterfowl hunting. Are you suggesting Stan or anyone else (probably including Superman with X-ray vision) is going to be more familiar with those places than the people who live there and manage them? They are there year round--lots of them, on lots of different wildlife management areas. If there are ducks and geese dead and/or dying, they may very well be the ones to find them. If not, they are very likely the people to whom dead or dying waterfowl will be reported by other people visiting that particular wildlife area--whether to hunt or to bird watch. That's certainly where I'd go if I were at one of those places and saw a bunch of sick or dead birds. But then maybe you wouldn't go to those people, because after all they must be part of the vast conspiracy to feed us false information that you're clearly implying is going on.
Last edited by L. Brown; 01/25/16 09:19 PM.
