Ed, the waterfowl debate is over and done with. Dead. As dead as all the ducks that died from eating lead; as dead as all the eagles that ate unrecovered ducks shot with lead (and probably pheasants too) and then died as a result. So . . . whether there is sufficient evidence where waterfowl is concerned isn't the issue.
But I don't see asking for the same kind of proof where UPLAND BIRDS are concerned is "digging in one's heels". It's simply asking for good science--which even the MN Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee says does not exist--although they reference dozens of studies on waterfowl.
So where are all the pheasants that have died from eating lead? And why are the eagles--which were the subject of the lawsuit that, in part, brought about the lead ban on waterfowl--now one of the great success stories when it comes to endangered species recovery? Why do we need to expand the lead ban, when it appears that the restrictions currently in place have more than met their objective?
