Larry has done a lot more than ratcheting things up craigd. He has actually accused you of the "slimy tactic" of putting words in his mouth. I find that laughable, and especially interesting since Larry has been desperately grasping for BEEF ever since he got caught putting words in my mouth. He really thinks that he has some right to make demands for BEEF when he has been totally unresponsive to similar requests. And he would rather find disingenuous ways to discredit us than to acknowledge some of the gaping holes and glaring errors in what he considers sound and settled science that none of us should dare to question.
First it was his insane and repeated accusation about my observation that 90% of what he had said WITHIN THIS THREAD was anti-lead ammunition. This was after his "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad" pronouncement. OK, I confess, it was an estimate. It might have been 89.675% or 91.328%. But what matters is that Larry attempted to say that my observation of his rhetoric within this thread amounted to some insane claim that I was saying he is 100% anti-lead shot. One wonders how this stickler for accuracy could even make that statement after I had already acknowledged his continued support for lead shot for upland hunting, and noted his previous general support for lead ammo in the 2010 Lead Shot thread.
Then he went on to put words in my mouth again about the susceptibility of waterfowl and upland birds to lead shot. He then attempted to change my statement and its' meaning by adding the word "relative" to susceptibility, and stuck to his perverting of my words even after I explained it to him and corrected him.
Slimy tactic indeed! And even worse to try to further sidestep the issue and evade the debate by accusing you of the same thing... again for making the observation that Larry has been predominately against lead ammunition in this thread... EXCEPT FOR UPLAND GAME HUNTING. And other than a couple recent admissions about some other sources of lead in our environment, Larry has either avoided or minimized that and has been extremely supportive of the pseudo-science that led up to the 1991 Federal Lead shot ban for waterfowl.
This is the guy who wants and demands BEEF, when he isn't ready to even digest pablum. That became even more apparent when he made his erroneous suppositions about lead concentration in bones. There are many sources of information about lead uptake into skeletal systems, so one has to wonder just how hard he looked if he could only manage to find one study from WI-DNR. There is no shortage of information on lead ammo toxicity, or lead poisoning in various birds and mammals. And it doesn't take a genius to see that quite a bit of it is agenda driven crap. But you can't be very hungry for BEEF when you are standing in the butcher shop and are unwilling to even look at it.
Larry obviously still hasn't read the North Dakota study that reported finding lead fragments in 53 out of 95 packages of ground venison. It's only about 30 pages of now largely discredited info, but Larry would rather keep clinging to damaged goods to keep the onus on lead bullets and deer hunters than to learn that the North Dakota study was as seriously flawed as much of the junk science that led to the 1991 bans.
Nor has Larry had anything to say about the extremely conflicting fluctuations in waterfowl populations prior to the 1991 lead shot ban, or the effects that weather and a huge reduction in waterfowl hunters has had on populations. It must be very convenient to be so simple minded as to say things like "Lead is Toxic. Toxic = Bad", and to just sweep everything else under the rug.
Pablum for you Larry. Beef is for grown-ups.
