doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Lead & Condor deaths

Kieth, I know the science. I've done the homework. You are barking up the wrong tree. I realize you won't stop, but go ahead. (my comments about gizzards were directed towards CraigD, apparently you failed to notice).

Keith, I'll match your degree in Biology with one card. I've got a bigger hand left to play if you want, what's your next card?

I shoot many hundreds of pounds of lead per year in rifles. Your comments only serve to show you are not capable of rational discussion. I'll go home tonight and load more lead for the coming summer.

..sigh... somethings never change, and you will, of course, not change from your preaching of falsehoods.

Carry on.

Yeah Brent, you know the science. You will relentlessly repeat one side of it that has been effectively refuted. You still want us to believe that people with an anti-lead agenda would never give you incorrect or false data. Even after I took the time to give you two examples of bad science, you will maintain that lead ammunition is a serious problem that should be eliminated, and we are unwise to fight it. One of those examples, Climate-gate, was a world-wide scandal that pretty much silenced the Global Warming alarmists for several years.

If you still do not think that data get fudged every day in order to achieve a desired result, then it's obvious that you haven't spent much time in labs. Remember all of the excitement over Cold Fusion... until those wondrous experiments could not be replicated?

Now you are dragging this into the mud and accusing me of preaching falsehoods. Where did I lie Brent? You never told us where I ever once claimed that lead is not a toxin. Neither did craigd. I don't know craigd from Adam, but craigd has obviously spent quite a bit of time researching this matter and very effectively slicing and dicing many of Larry's assertions. I'll bet that he knows what crops and gizzards are, and has more right and reason to debate this issue than you... whatever your mysterious expert card is.

I don't care how many hundreds of pounds of lead bullets you shoot a year. I doubt if your lead bullets are poisoning any birds or animals unless you consider a bullet hole in a squirrel's head as poisoning. But you seem to think otherwise, so I can't imagine why you continue while you support the anti-lead ammunition agenda.

No kieth, I did not say that lead should be eliminated. You failed to read what I wrote.

I went back on this thread and looked at the other posts you made and have now seen how you treat others in discussions. I have no interest in further BS with you.

The literature speaks for itself, and I have posted a tiny portion of it on this website previously. anyone seriously interested can do their own research today but simply going to scholar.google.com and digging in to the primary literature - not the fluff and blow pieces in blog sites and other agenda driven BS.

Or, keith, you could just go back and reread my posts, but I'm done with you now.

Slam dunk? Arguing against lead bans is a losing battle? Denying it is happening is foolish? Meaningful problem that has to be addressed?

You said those thing Brent. So if that is not calling for or supporting lead ammunition bans, just what the hell is it? I read and understood exactly what you were saying. You say you see how I treat others in discussions? What's the matter Brent... you think it's unfair to confront someone with their own words and call them on their Bullshit, grasping at straws, and selective editing? You feel bad for King Brown after he repeatedly says the Framers never made their feelings on our Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms... even when I show proof that he has been provided with those views numerous times? Not just here but in many other threads and in the Misfires forum. It's a long path from simply making a mistake or even forgetting something to intentional deception. King crossed that line long ago in my opinion. His agenda is clear. But my opinion was formed slowly over thousands of his posts... not just what he said here. You may have missed the recent thread where he repeated the same lie that he was corrected about in this 2007 thread, and many other times. King's anti-2nd Amendment rhetoric goes way back, and his cries of innocence are simply more dishonesty:

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38521&page=1

You still never showed us where either craigd or I claimed that lead was not a toxin. You claimed that I was posting falsehoods but ran away from that statement when I asked you to show us those lies. It sucks to be wrong and to get called out on baseless accusations, doesn't it?

Of course you are done with me now. You think the literature speaks for itself, and that flawed or fudged science is not happening. And you have your mysterious magic card to back you up. I am so impressed.

I'm glad you made these comments, and I generally agree. Lead is a heavy metal toxin, but it's not always toxic. I think you tried to say that, but I flat won't presume that. 'How much and in what way and to what degree' makes sense, have I said any different?

Why am I here? I've mentioned my motivations for commenting and tried to make my case. If you'd look back, much of the back and forth was about, while it's around in the uplands, lead shot was said not to be toxic to upland birds. Now, you confirm what I suspected, upland birds do have crops. Your conclusion? Upland birds are at risk of lead poisoning from only one source, firearm projectiles including shotgun pellets?

So, what's the solution? Blame deer hunters, not target shooters or upland hunters, for the lead that poisons wildlife, because they have higher numbers and may be more vocal?

Other than giving up and hope we get it back, are there any nonconfrontational solutions. If you tripled your biology credentials and brought science along with it, does it matter to lobbyists. Apparently, adding hundreds of pounds of lead to the environment each year doesn't bother you, maybe your lead isn't toxic to the wildlife. Instead of explaining to me how many problems I have, why can't the 'discussion' be about the reasonable use of toxins instead of spreading around that it's all toxic.

Craig, kinda hard to rehabilitate a bird that dies after striking a wind turbine. We have plenty of them in Iowa. Matter of fact, Iowa is next to TX in the amount of electricity generated by wind turbines. The raptor rehabilitators do good work, but they're not like Miracle Max in "The Princess Bride". If the bird is dead, or even mostly dead as Max would say, chances are they aren't going to revive it.

If you can't google and find anything about the raptor rehabilitators and the various DNR's ending up with eagles that are suffering from lead poisoning, you're like the "see no evil" monkey. It's there. But hey, everyone that's claiming eagles die from lead poisoning is lying. . . just like they lied to us about waterfowl. Right. The truth is out there . . . it's those darned aliens from Roswell that are killing the eagles. And killed the ducks and geese previously.

And referring to an earlier post you made about eagles eating waterfowl and lead poisoning before lead was banned on waterfowl . . . You're neglecting the fact that there were far fewer eagles back a quarter century ago, when the lead ban on waterfowl took place, than there are now. About 3,000 breeding pairs in the entire country. 20 years later, the midwinter bird count came up with a tally of 3,000 eagles, just in Iowa. The reason we see more sick, dead, and dying eagles today? Because there are a lot more of them to get sick and die than there were 25 years ago. That's excellent evidence that the eagle population is doing well . . . but also significantly increases the chance that someone is going to come into contact with a sick or dead eagle. But I never heard anyone say that eagles dying from lead shot ingested when they scavenged waterfowl was not an issue of concern when lead shot was banned.

Good Lord Larry, you and Brent see only what you want to see. You just put up a quote from craigd where he specifically tells you he did do a search on raptor rehabilitators, and then you go off half cocked again advising him to do a Google search for raptor rehabilitators.

He did it Larry. He told us what he found. He never said that Bald Eagles that were killed by getting struck with windmill blades were being brought in to raptor rehabilitators to save them or resurrect them from the dead. We both broke it down with the realization that Bald Eagles are only a fraction of the raptors they treat, and that certainly only a fraction of sick raptors are treated for poisoning of all kinds.

craigd is not like the "see no evil monkey". But you and Brent are like the agenda driven anti-hunters who will never accept anything except their preconceived notions.

None of us who disagree with you ever said that there are no eagles, waterfowl, condors, or other birds that die from lead poisoning. You think you can discredit us by comparing us to UFO conspiracy nuts. We have merely stated repeatedly that there is a great deal of evidence that the lead responsible for killing birds is more often than not from another source, and if lead ammunition is involved, it is a lesser contributing factor. You cannot accept that and would rather dig your heels in and put up ridiculous arguments to support your position.

When you do that, you are also supporting the anti-lead ammunition position. Like it or not.

You have been the one who put up incorrect data and selectively edited mission statements from the Audobons. You lost a lot of credibility when you did that. I can see this thread going on for 100 pages before you'll change your mind or quit grasping at straws. I'm OK with letting you go on making a fool of yourself, but I'm not going to sit here and let you demonize and ridicule me or anyone else when you are steadfastly clinging to much of the anti-lead ammunition mantra. And even desperately searching for lame excuses to support it.

It was very revealing to see Brent accuse me of spreading falsehoods and never even mention your little faux pas with that selective editing of the Audobon mission statement. And equally revealing to tell me you couldn't find anything that supported my contention that they (Audobon)were anti-lead ammunition... and then later admonishing craigd for not doing a simple Google search??? What are we to think Larry? Who do you think you two are fooling?

Keith, Craig refers to "a quick few minute search". You can find whatever you want on the Internet, pro and con. You stop on the one you like . . . "Hey, this guy agrees with me, so I must be right."

A fraction of the birds they treat . . . OK. I find an article on an eagle that died of lead poisoning in my old home county back in 2010. 5.6 ppm blood lead level. Toxicity occurs at 0.2 ppm. Approximately 30 reported to have died in 2009 from exposure to lead. Another rehabilitator in Iowa reports that of the 130 that died at rehabilitation sites in the past 5 years, nearly 60 percent tested positive for lead poisoning. Yes indeed, that's only a fraction . . . but it's hardly a small fraction.

As for being "agenda-driven" . . . are you suggesting that the various state DNR's are anti-hunting? How about the USFWS? Them too? So it's some vast conspiracy on the part of those agencies that regulate hunting . . . and they're actually anti-hunting? Man, are we ever in BIG trouble!

Think on this for a moment, Keith: Many state DNR's are funded mainly, if not entirely by hunter dollars. License fees. The antis don't pay squat because they don't hunt. If hunting stops, the DNR's are out of business. So does it make sense for them to be anti-hunting? Not to me it doesn't. And even assuming there were this vast anti-hunting conspiracy within the agencies that regulate hunting, both state and federal, don't you think there would be the occasional whistleblower? Somewhere? Someone? I spent several years working for the CIA, and a bunch more in Military Intelligence. And what always got me about the conspiracy theorists--and that's what you and Craig are, because you believe that all these wildlife biologists were complicit in lying about what was killing waterfowl, and they're now complicit in lying about what's killing eagles and condors--is that when you get too many people involved in a conspiracy, it ain't gonna stay a conspiracy for very long. Somebody, somewhere is going to blow the whistle. Go to the media. Write a book exposing the evil conspiracy, all the lies about lead etc. Where are those whistleblowers among wildlife biologists? Their jobs depend on hunting, because antis don't pay, and nonhunters don't pay. So you'll have to explain to me how it makes sense that all those people would keep their mouths shut tight when they know that the information they're putting out to HUNTERS is bogus. Lead shot really didn't kill waterfowl, and lead poisoning--at least some of which comes from bullet fragments from scavenged animals--isn't killing deer. (SOAR--Saving Our Avian Resources--says "We know it's the lead fragments that are making them sick." They have an obvious bias, so I'm not buying the fragments as the cause in all cases. But in some cases? Maybe most cases? We know there are lead fragments in venison, and we know that eagles scavenge deer, and we know that lead fragments show up in their systems. I don't think we can give lead bullets a "pass" . . . at least not to the same extent we can defend lead shot in the case of upland game. To the extent that's a problem for hunters . . . well, we have to face up to it.)

As for "editing" Audubon's statement on hunting . . . do I need to quote you and Craig, Keith? YOU TWO edited it to start with, several pages back. All I did was include the VERY FIRST PART of their statement on hunting, which YOU left out. If you'd been "fair and balanced" from the get-go, I wouldn't have had to add the statement you guys conveniently omitted.

Since you accuse me of cooking the books on Audubon's position on hunting, Keith . . . here's Craig's quote:



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.

Larry, craigd posted the part of Audobon's mission statement on hunting that contradicted what you were trying to convince us of pertaining to their support for hunting. He was right and you were proven wrong. There was no need for him to post the entire statement to prove you wrong. That is why I did not admonish him for the same kind of selective editing you did. The part you left out would have disproved your attempted rebuttal. Stop trying to excuse your behavior by demonizing craigd. Or me, for that matter, for not giving you your fairness and balance. craigd wasn't attempting to mislead anyone. You were, because you couldn't just admit to being wrong.

Instead of accepting and acknowledging that fact, you came back with one small part of their statement that said they would not oppose sport hunting if done ethically, etc. You were still in denial about what the complete statemnent said, and you bolstered your position with just the parts you liked.

You still think their support for the anti-lead ammunition ban in California is justified because of the rest of their statement... "However, we insist on sound scientific information before deciding these issues." Not only did craigd not bother with this sentence which was not germane to your contention that Audobon does not oppose hunting, but neither did you. So lay off trying to put this on craigd. But the later statewide ban banned lead ammunition outside of the Condors normal range, and totally ignored the lack of impact from the prior ammunition ban that was limited to their range. Is that your idea of sound science? I guess it is.

Then you continued to state that I was wrong about their anti-lead ammunition stance. You piously claimed you couldn't find anything that supported my statements. It took under a minute to Google search "Audobon anti-lead". Plenty of results came up and I posted two links for you since you were having so much difficulty. One was from Audobon's own website, so it was from some agenda driven liar like me, and it wasn't from any Roswell UFO aliens.

There has been plenty of junk science that various anti-lead and anti hunting and DNR officials and biologists have been using to enact and impose lead ammunition bans. Furthering the ban in California when there was no impact from the previous ban is but one example. I gave you the example of the Climate-gate scandal as another example of how this works. There was a conspiracy to put out agenda driven fraudulent data until computer hackers stumbled on e-mails proving it. The fraudsters did not turn each other in. Do you think we'd even know about it if their dirty little secret didn't get out? The Liberal Left news media barely reported it. They would like us all to forget it.

I'm kind of hoping that Stan and SnipeHunter and all of these guys who spend countless hours in wetland habitat will tell us about all of those DNR Biologists that are living in the swamps 24/7/365. They must be camouflaged pretty good, because I haven't seen them. And I wonder why we aren't getting reports from those DNR Biologists on the increased number of cripples due to ballisticaly inferior steel shot

You are getting more and more desperate here Larry. It isn't working.