Well Keith . . . not sure what "garbage" I call "science". I just got done explaining to you that regardless of whether you think the lead ban for waterfowl is "junk science", it is ACCEPTED SCIENCE and SETTLED LAW. It's been accepted by the people who banned lead as good science. Irrelevant whether you or I choose to accept it as such. You need irrefutable evidence to argue your case, unless you're only interested in making noise and accomplishing zilch.
Tell you what: It's now the 25th anniversary of the USFWS lead ban. Magazines like anniversaries. Why don't you put together everything you have and come up with a magazine article? Something like "25 Years Since the Lead Ban on Waterfowl: Did We Make a Mistake?" If I were you, before you did that, I'd find some waterfowl biologist--preferably an older guy who goes back to the lead ban days--and get their comments. See if they're "smart enough to digest" what you've come up with. Maybe get some helpful advise and/or criticism from someone who likely knows a bunch about it. Hey, maybe even more than you! Then offer your article to DU or Delta Waterfowl, or for that matter any magazine that covers waterfowl hunting. You never know. You might get paid for your efforts, and they'll receive a whole lot more attention than you trying to play tag with me here.
If there are "contrarians" out there on the lead ban, I don't know why you're having so much trouble finding them. Back 20 years ago, when the USFWS reduced the bag limit and shortened the season on woodcock, it took me all of 5 minutes to get a contrarian view--from the Chief of Wildlife with the Iowa DNR. Pretty heavy hitter in the wildlife management community. I asked for his opinion. He told me that there was no evidence hunting was the cause of the declining woodcock population, and that by reducing the bag limit and shortening the season, the feds were essentially putting the blame on hunting rather than looking elsewhere. That's how easy it can be to find contrary views . . . IF you develop contacts in the wildlife management community, and IF you don't approach them like they're the enemy.
So there you have my suggestions for you, along with an example of how it can work. I'm out of advice for you, and I'm done playing tag with you. I'm now contacting Dave and asking him to lock my thread on the Richland 909, and to take a look at this one as well and consider locking it. Your personal issues with me are a very poor reason to interrupt discussions on other topics.
