I carefully read through your last two posts. Impressively lengthy, but absolutely no new comments from all these previous pages. There are vague mentions of studies, but still nothing to evaluate critically.
Your passion is in the uplands and you claim to demand good science, yet you say, tough luck for the folks out in California because there's not enough of them? Then, you claimed the success of keeping lead shot in the Wisconsin uplands hinged on comments by you and three or four others in a vote involving some forty-seven hundred people.
You say to demand good science, but your very lengthy comments run about eighty percent on the dangers of lead, and lunacy of folks you don't agree with....re waterfowl. Is lead and waterfowl 'settled' science, or a tool to inject repetition about the dangers of lead.
You keep playing games with that lack of retired whistle blowers, but you conveniently leave out Rob's anecdotal evidence, personal experience, about the FWS and state DNR's consulting with anti hunting 'conservation' groups.
That, ad nauseam, should be looked at with a critical eye by someone demanding good science and admonishing fellow hunters, while continuing to vaguely reference that 'science'.
You keep on with the conspiracy theories and political overtones, when it's been explained about the job security and demographic changes in the work force. Thousands can attend a campaign stop, or a million man march, and they all leave nodding in agreement.
A conspiracy, or more than enough 'votes' to changes the future of sport shooting, based on the village they grew up in and the emotions that they're told to channel.
