Show me the beef, Keith. Links to those studies that show that lead poisoning WAS (prior to the ban) "but a very minor contributor to lead poisoning". IN WATERFOWL, not just ANY birds. Hey, I found studies (and even cited one of them here, from Tall Timbers on quail) that lead is essentially a non-issue with quail. But because it's a non-issue with quail, that doesn't mean it was a non-issue with waterfowl before the ban.
"Connecting dots" does not cut it, Keith . . . because you don't have the credentials to connect the dots. Neither do I. Neither does Craig. So show me the studies that relate specifically to lead shot and waterfowl. Otherwise you're playing with puzzles that are way beyond your grade level. Hey, no insult there. Beyond mine as well. Your problem is that you're the standard issue Internet Expert. You do your research with an agenda. You don't think lead is a problem, so you look until you find something that you THINK says lead isn't a problem. Except it turns out that it doesn't relate to the SPECIFIC issue of lead in waterfowl. How much lead is accessible at the bottom of a pond, for example, has zip to do with upland birds, because they're not going to swim out there and scoop it up. But waterfowl can, and do. Good science is specific. A scientist is very likely to see different dots to connect, or a different way to connect them, than you or I do. That's why the information has to be specific to the danger posed to waterfowl by lead shot. Unless, that is, you can find a wildlife biologist who's worked with waterfowl who will connect those dots for you and say "Hey, you're onto something there. Something we missed when we were looking at lead shot in waterfowl."
So it's still Wendy's commercial time, Keith. Show me the beef. Not the pork or the chicken, but the beef.
