Agree with Buzz. Rob, excellent post.
Re lead = toxic so we should get rid of all of it: Agree 100%, that's WAY oversimplified. But then most Americans are "low information" types on issues like lead poisoning. And when they hear about something like Flint, that does not help the cause of those of us who are supporting lead ammunition by saying "Show us the good science."
Re the continuing danger to waterfowl posed by lead: A few years back, someone sent me a link to a long presentation made to Wisconsin's Natural Resources Board on the dangers of lead. Most of it had to do with either waterfowl and lead shot they were still ingesting, or even more graphically, loons ingesting lead sinkers or jigs. (And loons, in the North Woods, have a status similar to eagles. Even if their population weren't in decline, people would worry about each and every dead loon.) They didn't say much about lead in the uplands, and if they mentioned lead in eagles, I don't recall it--but it's been some time now. But it was not long after that presentation that the NRB made its proposal to go to nontoxic shot only on DNR-managed lands, for all kinds of hunting. Fortunately, Wisconsin has a unique mechanism that allows public voices to be heard. The DNR conducts annual spring meetings in every county in the state. There are discussions about proposed changes in DNR regs as well as NRB recommendations. The one about lead shot grabbed my attention, so I attended--and I spoke up about a lack of good science where lead shot in upland birds is concerned. So did 3 or 4 other people at the meeting. More of us spoke up on that issue than any of the dozens of other issues presented at the meeting. And attendees also get to vote. The statewide vote on NRB's lead shot ban on DNR lands was 1,979 in favor vs 2,726 opposed. We shot it down, which goes to show the value of strong hunter involvement.
But to return to whether lead shot in waterfowl is a problem today: While I'm sure some are still dying, my educated guess is that there are so few relative to what we were shown 25-30 years ago that it doesn't get much attention. In addition to hunters--who mostly only congregate around marshes during hunting season--birders also flock to those places. If they saw a sick or dead goose, I expect they'd make noise about it. And if they took the bird to a rehabilitator who then found lead shot in its system, I have no doubt that would be thrown in our faces--just as eagles are being thrown in our faces as evidence of the danger posed by lead. Likewise, if it were still happening at all frequently, wouldn't the biologists themselves be talking about it? As in: "See, the lead shot ban has REDUCED the danger to waterfowl significantly . . . but lead shot from 25 years ago or more is still around, and is still killing the occasional duck or goose. Which is why we need to get rid of all lead ammunition as soon as possible." Assuming that's their agenda. And that's pretty much the stated position of the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee. They stated in their report (10 years ago): "It is inevitable that lead shot will have to be restricted for all shotgun hunting at some future time."
Re the increasing numbers of "nonconsumptive users" coming into the wildlife management community: definitely true. Although DNR's still get a large proportion of their funding from us evil consumptive types: Hunters and anglers.
Re whistleblowers: Even in my former area (intelligence community, CIA and Military Intelligence) there have been whistleblowers--sometimes risking prison because it can be a question of revealing classified information. (Those who remember Vietnam will recall Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. More recently, Edward Snowden. Regarded as a hero by some because he spoke up for American privacy rights. Regarded as scum by people like me, because he didn't stop there. He also revealed FOREIGN intelligence operations, which have nothing to do with privacy rights or the Constitution.) But I'm skeptical that there's a conspiracy of silence in the wildlife community, given that many of the biologists working then are now retired, and given that there are so many people who would've had to be aware of what was going on. Rob gave examples of people who spoke up post-retirement. Why none in this particular area?
Maybe because it's not really a scam???
Final point: The danger to our continued use of lead is not what it was 25 years ago. We're no longer dealing with migratory birds, which fall under federal regulations. And Congress has taken away the EPA's authority to regulate lead in ammunition. So the threat is STATE BY STATE. If you're a state like CA with not many hunters, and unfortunately cursed by the presence of condors, you're in big trouble. Other places--with more hunters--the situation is very different. Politicians listen when we make enough noise. Demand "good science" at least equivalent to what we were shown on waterfowl. And make noise when you don't get it.
