The antis will always make hay out of anything they can.
But I included evidence from both sides, didn't start with the assumption that everyone who opposes lead is an anti. They're not . . . and Audubon certainly is not squarely in the anti-hunting camp. I can provide personal experience on that one, should anyone wonder.
Still grasping at straws Larry? You couldn't refute any of that information I posted last night about the extremely questionable anti-lead ammo work done by the Univ. of Minnesota Raptor Rehabilitation Center, and the total lack of correlation between the numbers of lead poisoned eagles and numbers of deer shot by hunters in various states. So instead, you feel the pathetic need to go back to accusing craigd of selective editing.
You may be a writer, but you ought to try being a reader too.
Once again, craigd was merely responding to your denials that Audobon had engaged in anti-hunting efforts. All he needed was a short section of their own statement on that to prove you wrong. Even if he had posted the complete statement, including the last part which you also left out, it wouldn't have changed a thing. You would have still been wrong. It was you who intentionally left out the part which proved you were wrong about their anti-hunting attitudes. You were still trying to deny something that was right there on their own webpage. The part craigd left out would not have made him or me wrong. But when you can't win an argument with facts or ideas, why not resort to lame attempts to discredit the opposition, right Larry?
Only 140 eagles? WTF Larry... yesterday it was 130! Did 10 more die overnight? My point is, I don't care if it is 10 or 1000 eagles that are dying from lead poisoning if hunters and their lead ammunition are being incorrectly and dishonestly blamed for it. Did you see how many eagles are killed by power lines Larry? Are you supporting eliminating the electric grid the same way you are supporting lead bullet bans by clinging to your silly notions about eagles feasting on bullet fragment laced deer and gut-piles? We all know the bald eagle is a very visible national symbol. You don't need to keep repeating that. That doesn't excuse placing the blame for their poisoning in the wrong place.
That is what you are doing, and in the process, you are helping anti-lead ammo efforts. No Larry, I am not suggesting that we should ban power lines. Don't get all excited and accuse me of that now.
I found a ton of extremely questionable and contradictory data last night when I took the time to post those two links that should show all but the most agenda driven fool that there is no link to lead bullets as being a major source of lead poisoning in eagles. Did you even read that Larry?
Did you catch the very disturbing statement from the Univ. of Minn. Raptor Center that said that their 1997 follow-up study to determine if the 1991 Federal lead shot ban had reduced the number of lead poisoned eagles, it showed the prevalence of poisoned eagles didnt change, even with good hunter compliance.? This lead them to conclude that eagles were being poisoned from another source of lead... deer gut piles left in the field by hunters.
You refuse to even acknowledge bombshell evidence that the 1991 Federal lead shot ban didn't reduce lead poisoning in eagles. The so-called science the Univ. of Minn. Raptor Center did to support that Federal ban was absolute garbage!
Did you notice that those two links I provided were from sources that are propping up the idea of lead from ammunition as the source of poisoning in eagles Larry? I did not cherry-pick my Google search to find something that agreed with me. I intentionally avoided the many sources that agree with me. I found things that agreed with you and Brent, and then easily refuted it.
You want more? I'll give you more. But you obviously wish to simply sidestep what I gave you last night, and continue on your single-minded path to prove you are not wrong.
You simply act like you never even read it and go back to your same silly arguments and demands that I should find a whistle-blower. Climate-gate had nothing to do with this? It was an illustration that deceptive science is common. It was an illustration that Government funded agencies do sneaky things in order to advance their agenda. The Lois Lerner scandal in the IRS is another one. You were in the CIA Larry. There would be no need for the CIA if Governments did not do sneaky things. Hillary Clinton is being investigated by 150 FBI agents for destroying evidence and keeping classified information on a private e-mail server. There are no links to whistle-blowers on those things. Climate-gate would have never been known about if computer hackers didn't accidentally find out about the fudged data.
But this has become all about your inability to admit that you are wrong about so many of your assumptions about lead ammunition and lead poisoning in birds. I found a lot more highly questionable and contradictory data in about an hour of searching last night Larry. It's very easy if you just open your eyes and let go of your preconceived notions. I don't think you can do that, but I will post some more for others to digest later.
