A fair amount of that shaky science has been aired here re: the lead/upland bird issue.
Rob Harris
Actually, that is the sum total of what rob said about lead. Lead and upland birds. And I'm with him 100%: there isn't good science to make the case that lead poses a threat to upland birds. I've only said that here about umpteen times; posted a quote from the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee admitting the same thing; posted research from lead shot at Tall Timbers quail research station in FL saying the same thing. Indeed, when it comes to lead shot and its impact on upland birds (with PERHAPS the exception of doves in areas of extremely heavy shot fall), ALL the science is shaky.
Then Rob went on to talk about wolves. He never addressed the issue of the lead shot ban for waterfowl. Not once. If he had the goods on that--if he knew it was a scam and could have presented evidence--that would have been exactly what I'm looking for. But we still have guys here saying it was all one big scam . . . although they can't seem to find anyone--NOT ONE SINGLE WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, CURRENT OR RETIRED--who agrees with them. And if it had been a scam, just like Rob made some comments about the wolf introduction, surely someone out there would have commented on "the great lead ban conspiracy". Still waiting. I have a feeling there will be icicles in hell before I see anything other than conspiracy THEORY (not backed by anyone with a background in science, much less in wildlife biology) rather than conspiracy PROOF.
