Didn't intend to mention any studies, Craig . . . although I did make a reference to the Tall Timbers study, to which I referred earlier. And gave a direct quote from the MN DNR's Nontoxic Shot Advisory Committee report.
Re CA and the condors, Craig: The confluence of two factors makes that a losing battle: 1. Not enough hunters to make sufficient noise. (Their "squeaky wheel" is about like that on a coaster wagon.) And 2. They have condors. Lost cause.
The success of defeating the NRB proposal in Wisconsin was based on the vote of those who attended spring meetings in each of the state's 70-odd counties. The fact that several of us, at a meeting in one small rural county, spoke on that one specific topic, out of somewhere around 100 topics up for discussion that evening--most of which generated no comments from the audience--would seem to indicate that a lot of hunters are interested in the lead shot issue. (I didn't know any of the other speakers.) And it shows that a relatively small number of people can have an influence when they take the time to actively engage, requiring a bit more effort than posting on a BB.
Can't find hardly anything in my last 2 posts re the dangers of lead. You reading the same posts I am, Craig? If lead isn't a danger to waterfowl, same challenge to you as to Keith: Find me the contrarian scientist--even just ONE--who says it's all a scam. And retired folks have no concern with job security, and we're talking about something that happened 25 years ago. ROB JUST SPOKE UP reference issues with which he's had personal experience. Why can't you find anyone who worked with waterfowl back then who will do the same thing? Why are all the whistleblowers silent in that one particular case . . . especially since there are, potentially, so many of them. Likely a majority of whom are retired, given that it's been 25 years since the ban.
You and Keith keep making excuses for being unable to find proof that lead shot killing waterfowl is bad science. Give me even ONE study for "critical evaluation". Seems there ought to be something, written by some contrarian wildlife biologist, somewhere along the line. Establishing that it's bad science requires proof. So far, all I've heard from you and Keith are the typical snippets on which conspiracy theories are based. A bit from here, a piece from there, and when you connect all the dots . . . right. And how many different theories are out there on the JFK assassination? Largely compiled in the same manner. But in that case, at least you can make money selling yet another conspiracy theory book.
