We have wildlife biologists who say much of the anti lead dogma is junk science Larry. If you'd take your head out of the sand, you could see that's what Rob said, and that was why he took the time to post. He sure wasn't here to refute me or to agree with you. I didn't have to produce an expert. We had one answer you of his own accord, and you are still in denial.
I wouldn't waste a stamped self-addressed envelope to get copies of your articles Larry. You showed us your position on lead shot and lead ammunition right here in this thread:
3. Lead is toxic. Toxic = bad. Why not get rid of as much of it as possible? And we can shoot steel shot, and there are nontoxic substitutes for lead bullets. So we are ALL going to have to deal with the challenge of why shouldn't we switch, rather than defending the status quo by saying why should we. That, unfortunately, is where we're at.
So who is guilty of pure B.S. Larry?
Actually, it's hard to know where you really stand. You are like the broken clock that is right twice a day. Here's an excerpt from your post#175254 from 1/20/10 when you were attacking that anti-lead shot goofball Ben Deeble:
Ben, you're doing a little "book cooking" in that last post. Roster's test didn't prove anything as far as comparing lead to steel on PHEASANTS--because he tested ONLY STEEL. In order to compare the lethality of steel vs lead, you have to put them against each other in a head to head test. All Roster concluded was that pheasant wounding losses with steel are lower than waterfowl wounding losses. Well . . . waterfowl shots are longer, on average, than pheasant shots. And the comparison was with preserve pheasants, which are significantly easier to bring to bag than are wild ones.
And I'm still waiting for the research that establishes losses of wild pheasants (or other wild upland species, other than doves) from the ingestion of lead.
So there you were Larry, attacking Ben for use of junk science to promote bans on lead ammo. Yet you now attack me for reminding you that most of the anti-lead ammo science is agenda driven garbage that doesn't come close to meeting the accepted standard of being double-blind peer-reviewed, and is filled with glaring inconsistencies.
And there you were Larry, denying any connection between the ingestion of lead shot, and lead poisoning in upland birds (other than doves). What would make doves more susceptible?
That old thread was quite interesting to re-read. Other than seeing you actually defending some of the very same positions you are attacking now, there were many other interesting posts. We had AmarilloMike telling us that he has about 30 pieces of # 6 shot imbedded in his leg from a hunting accident, and no ill effects. We had Doug (PA24) tell us how many thousands of gallons of leaded gas that he personally burned in large prop driven aircraft, and calculations of how many tons of tetra ethyl lead he alone deposited in the environment. Remember, this is just one pilot. And this is just from airplanes.
6000 hours times 12 gallons per hour times 2 grams of TEL equals 144,000 grams of TEL equals 323 pounds of lead equals 2,059,223 pellets of #8 shot scattered all over. I hope you didn't fly over any duck ponds.
Mike
Some duck ponds I'm sure...and lot's of lakes and cities....the DC-6 and DC-7 burned 450 gallons an hour + (X-2500 hrs in these a/c) and at METO another 50++ per engine....so, lot's of #8 shot all over the place.....
We had Joe Wood tell us this:
WHOA!!! Now you fellers can argue long as you want to about the effects of lead in this or that bird. But don't start talking about how it's killing eagles. Three years ago AmarilloMike and I shot dove in Argentina near Cordoba. Every time the shooting began large numbers of eagles would show up to feed on the shot riven dove. Every one of the eagles would gulp down half dozen or so at each shoot. Golly, they were pros--stripping the feathers and tearing away at the goodies in just a handful of seconds. Then they'd hop back onto a nearby branch and critique the shooting. In a few minutes they'd select a new dinner and have at it. Folks, these birds were eating a large amount of lead daily, 365 days a year and were as healthy as any bird I've ever seen. And most of them were adults. One adult had a favorite limb only a couple yards from me and insult me with derisive side glances every time I'd miss or if the dove fell in brush too thick for him to retrieve. Does he look like he's suffering from lead poisioning? Common....I'm sick to death with all this fake, cooked up "science". Every day I'm confronted with alarms about how such and such is killing us or destroying our environment only to find out later that new research showed the scare to be incorrect. Thanks to the internet every nut on earth has his soapbox and is shouting at the top of his lungs.
And here in 2015, we have you Larry, telling us that Rob, a retired professional wildlife biologist is blowing the whistle... and in the next breath asking us where the whistle-blowers are? With so much bad science against lead shot, why do you insist on a whistle-blower pertaining to the 1991 ban? Isn't the admission by Univ. of Minn. that their 1997 study showed no reduction in the prevalence of lead poisoning in eagles enough? Didn't you tell us eagles were getting poisoned from consuming lead contaminated ducks? You want me to waste a postage stamp on goofy writing like this? No Thanks.
Now to the really important part: Rob's post re junk science. Note that Rob, who worked in the field for 35 years, has no problem saying that there's junk science out there. He's blowing the whistle. So . . . if it was some great conspiracy within the wildlife management community that resulted in the lead ban on waterfowl, if it was all "bad science" as some here would suggest . . . then why can't anyone produce any denunciation of that bad science? Where are the whistleblowers on the lead ban?
I KNOW THE ANTI LEAD PEOPLE ARE COMING AFTER US LARRY. I'm fighting that while you are telling us to accept it, and roll over and let it happen, and to not even think about reversing past lead bans that were based upon junk-science.
If you wish to regain any credibility at all in this matter Larry, you are going to have to stop contradicting yourself and making a total fool of yourself. And you are going to have to take your head out of your posterior.
I saw a great quote yesterday on Leverguns.com ... it said, "It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince them that they have been fooled."
EDIT: Here's another big fat lie from anti-gun Troll King Brown posted below:
Leave it, Larry. His pleasure is the sound of his voice. Reasoning with his twisting is a waste of time. He quickly pushed two valued members---you and Brent---to the anti-gun side because your opinions differed from his. Misfires closure was partly because of his errant behaviour. He wants it back. Now he's at it here.
Perhaps King can show us where either Larry or Brent said that they have become anti-gunners because of me. They are not anti-gun, and they became anti-lead on their own. Misfires closure was largely because of King's trolling and posting dishonest assertions about the 2nd Amendment, the NRA, and gun rights. King absolutely does not want Misfires to come back because he doesn't want anyone to see the things he posted there, like this one where this atheist accuses us of abandoning Jesus' teachings for defending gun rights and concealed carry.
The roots I'm comfortable with are the radical---"to get to the root of"---and that's Jesus's teaching. The shame is how far the Christian community has drifted from it. We act irrationally from fear when the Christian message is to fear not, even death itself.We call ourselves Christian nations and stockpile ammunition, need concealed carry to protect ourselves and a regulated militia without regulations to protect us from our own governments, abandoning Jesus's teaching to defend it.
King doesn't like me for showing his anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric, and his pathological dishonesty. King advises Larry to ignore me, but King can't help himself from trying to discredit me every chance he gets. Monomania, if you ask me. Sick.
