Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Lead Shot Ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
"... Yes it kind of does make it worthless. ..."
Why? Because YOU say it is?

"... Finding someone on the internet that agrees with you isn’t hard and doesn’t make you “right” either. ..."
Nor does it make you "wrong".

"... The data matters. ..."
Sure it matters.....but only if it's correct. Flawed data can't be corrected simply by stamping it as "data".

You've been blinded that:
1) peer reviewed
2) research
3) data
4) scientific
all relate to indisputable truths.
They do not.
 
I was a kid in the 60's too.
But I was raised in east Texas. We didn't have eagles or condors. We had plenty hawks, owls and buzzards.
There were game laws, both state and federal, that protected raptors even back then.
About the only hawk death potential was raiding gramma's chicken yard, unprotected power lines and old age!
A buzzards greatest threat of premature death was by auto windshield being flushed off road kill. (1)

I agree with you. I'd like to see a comparison of eagle deaths by windmill and lead ingestion. Same for condors.

I'd also like to know why the California Condor is the ONLY vulture endangered by lead ingestion.
Well, there's this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071801/
Just a few minutes of searching.

You wish for a larger meaning and conspiracy to the attack on the use of lead, and aren't open to facts. IMO> It's like the Climate change denial argument, it's hard to support skeptical people for a reason, when facts bear out a logical conclusion.
 
Well, there's this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071801/
Just a few minutes of searching.

You wish for a larger meaning and conspiracy to the attack on the use of lead, and aren't open to facts. IMO> It's like the Climate change denial argument, it's hard to support skeptical people for a reason, when facts bear out a logical conclusion.
Also there is a reason why lead is no longer in gasoline, new pipes, paint, etc.
 
"... Yes it kind of does make it worthless. ..."
Why? Because YOU say it is?

"... Finding someone on the internet that agrees with you isn’t hard and doesn’t make you “right” either. ..."
Nor does it make you "wrong".

"... The data matters. ..."
Sure it matters.....but only if it's correct. Flawed data can't be corrected simply by stamping it as "data".

You've been blinded that:
1) peer reviewed
2) research
3) data
4) scientific
all relate to indisputable truths.
They do not.
Present data and I will look at it. Right now you are just arguing that the current data should be ignored because you don’t agree with it. I believe you called what you are doing as “deflect and redirect”.
 
Let me ask a "non peer reviewed" question.
There are vultures all across America.
I KNOW that thousands and thousands of deer are killed every year in just two states, Texas and Oklahoma, and gut piles are left lying all over both states. I would venture MANY more gut piles than what is left in the Condor Corridor.

Question:
Why is the adult* California Condor the "ONLY" vulture in the United States whose supposed "leading cause of death" is the ingestion of lead particles from gut piles left by hunters using lead and lead based projectiles?
What makes the California Condor more susceptible to lead poisoning than any other flying scavengers? Buzzards? Crows? Ravens?**

* - the "peer reviewed" article I read stated that the "leading cause of death" in California Condor nestlings was the ingestion of "microtrash" that their parents fed them.
** - I'm going to opine that because the California Condor is "endangered", it's a convenient hook to hang a "lead ban" hat on.


There is a short discussion on lead science and if I remember correctly it covers your turkey vulture question.
Start at 01:22:30
 
Last edited:
Well, there's this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071801/
Just a few minutes of searching.

You wish for a larger meaning and conspiracy to the attack on the use of lead, and aren't open to facts. IMO> It's like the Climate change denial argument, it's hard to support skeptical people for a reason, when facts bear out a logical conclusion.
Present data and I will look at it. Right now you are just arguing that the current data should be ignored because you don’t agree with it. I believe you called what you are doing as “deflect and redirect”.
You both insist that lead ingestion is the leading cause of Condor death is an "indisputable" truth.

My point is that your accepted "indisputable" truth, is indeed "disputable".
"Peer reviewed" papers can be wrong.
"Research" and "data" can be misconstrued.

A researcher placed a grasshopper on a table.
He slapped the table and said, "Hop!" and the grasshopper hopped.
He noted the results.
Then he pulled one of the grasshoppers legs off, slapped the table and said, "Hop!" and the grasshopper hopped.
He noted the results.
He then pulled the other leg off, slapped the table and said, "Hop!", but the grasshopper did not hop.
He noted the results as, "Grasshoppers without legs can't hear."

DTMHGTICTWYFMALOS
 

There is a short discussion on lead science and if I remember correctly it covers your turkey culture question.
Start at 01:22:30
That would be interesting...except it wouldn't pull up on my phone. I don't have a computer.
(turkey "culture"? I know, "vulture".)
 
A little (?) off topic, but a sample of what I'm talking about.

Pres. Trump was scoffed at, laughed at and ridiculed for telling California to "clean up it's forests" to help control forest fires.
Pundits, reporters, scientists, media all claimed "climate change" was the cause of the forest fires and Trump was wrong.
Guess what California is doing now to reduce forest fires?



Killing the messenger doesn't change the message.
 
Trump wasn’t wrong about the need for thinning California forests. He was wrong about who is responsible. The federal government controls about half of California’s forest. The State owns about 4% of California’s land base. But something tells me your mind is already made up on this one.
 
 
Trump wasn’t wrong about the need for thinning California forests. He was wrong about who is responsible. The federal government controls about half of California’s forest. The State owns about 4% of California’s land base. But something tells me your mind is already made up on this one.
It's not who is responsible, it's the fact it wasn't done.
It seems to me the "tree huggers" in CA got all bent out of shape when the USFS tried to do "controlled burns" and have dead standing timber removed. It wasn't "natural". Same reason they have bear and cougar attacks. No hunting seasons.

Now, I could be wrong. Have you ever been wrong?
 
It's not who is responsible, it's the fact it wasn't done.
It seems to me the "tree huggers" in CA got all bent out of shape when the USFS tried to do "controlled burns" and have dead standing timber removed. It wasn't "natural". Same reason they have bear and cougar attacks. No hunting seasons.

Now, I could be wrong. Have you ever been wrong?
I may have been wrong once, but I could be wrong.
We do have a bear season.
 
Coming back on point
I may have been wrong once, but I could be wrong.
We do have a bear season.
...and you will be again....and again.
Just like you have been in the past.
It's no big deal.
Being wrong from time to time is a malady we all suffer as human "beans".
 
Coming back on point

...and you will be again....and again.
Just like you have been in the past.
It's no big deal.
Being wrong from time to time is a malady we all suffer as human "beans".
If I may? Some suffer from the "Malady" more often than others. Leaning curve can be steeper to climb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top