....Now if you're going to tell me that you and Craig based your conclusion of "obvious junk science" based on observation vs whatever you may consider to be "logic", then you have a point. So tell me about all the sick or dead ducks that you examined, necropsied, checked for the presence or absence of lead shot, tested for lead levels in the blood or bones . . . then you're showing me some "beef". Otherwise, all you have is a "beef" with what you contend to be junk science, which does not seem to be based on observation. You don't need to be a scientist to employ the scientific method, but you do need to go a bit beyond "This is obviously junk science because . . .", unless it's "because I've done some testing and made observations, and here's what I've found."....
Thanks for the update Larry. Maybe we've made a bit of progress here, looks like you found a piece two that discussed the significance of lead levels in bone. I saw that snuck in there.
Out of context and quoted in my prefered method, a page back you mentioned, 'the truth regarding the potential danger of spent lead shot to upland birds (or, for that matter, other species of wildlife) is pretty hard to come by'. Short of shooting test patterns, I mean telling about all the sick and dead ducks that you've personally tested and examined. How come you always get the 'good' science on your side?
Thanks again for explaining how your work with waterfowl validates the methodology used in shotshell ballistic testing. I've always said you make some good points. Why bring up comments about standards that you don't hold yourself up to?
