[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG:
My point is not that lead should not have been banned in some areas, my point was that the lead ban went far beyond the need that was demonstrated by sound science.

DB:
Yes, and now science has shown that even in non-wetlands that birds will in fact pick up lead and die from that. Think about dove fields hunted year in and year out, lead doesn't dissolve its their forever in its same elemental form. All birds are susceptible to that

MG:
Banning lead shot in midwestern cornfields was an overreach not supported by the science. Banning the possession of lead shot was also an overreach.

DB:
I disagree, midwestern cornfields are an extremely important waterfowl resource, and if lead is there they can and will pick it up. Its more of a common sense thing, and doesn't really need an extensive study to prove that

By your reasoning, lead shot should be banned, not just for hunting, in places where it might later be ingested, but lead should be banned on any outdoor range by it may later be ingested by a passing bird.

I disagree strongly on two counts:

1. Lead projectiles are protected by RKBA (2nd amendment). When the science demonstrates a sound need, lead projectiles can reasonably be regulated for hunting purposes, but non-hunting bans of lead projectiles has RKBA ramifications.
2. I guess it is a reasonable inference that lead shot might be ingested and create a non-zero mortality in game birds. But as I described previously, the science should be able to show significant population level effects from a given practice before that practice is criminalized. Have scientific studies been published showing significant population level effects of lead shot in midwestern cornfields?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

MG:
Thinking the earth was flat was the result of pseudoscience. There should be sound science in place before criminalizing previously enjoyed liberties.

DB:
It was the best 'science' they had at the time and we now can look at that and think it was silly because we can prove its not flat. Back then they didn't have the science we have now, because our knowledge is always increasing.

In modern usage, science implies employing a specific methodology (the scientific method) whereby results are based on repeatability, reproducibility, and due care to control for confounding factors that may be muddling the observations or leading to their misinterpretation.

Some foundations of the scientific method were laid by Roger Bacon in the 13th century, but the overall method was not worked out and well applied until Galileo in the 16th century. The flat earth and the geocentric model of the solar system were two of the early Aristotelian ideas quickly dismissed with the scientific method. Most of Aristotle's assertions about the natural world were based on philosophical methods that downplayed the importance of observation, experiment, and control of confounding factors, and no one who appreciates the differences between the modern scientific method and the ancient philosophical approach would describe Aristotelian "physics" as conforming to the scientific method.

Short-cutting the modern scientific method (control of confounding factors, repeatable experiments, peer-review) is the slippery slope that leads to arguments from authority (a scientist said so) rather than from published scientific data.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

"Tighten the regs before there is sound science, just in case. If it is a wrong move, it can be fixed later, once the science shows it was an unneeded regulation."

'err on the side of caution' I actually read this response in a report from the US Fish and Wildlife Service

Of course. The Federal bureaucracy will nearly always support a position that increases the power, funding, and scope of the Federal bureaucracy. How often does a Federal agency step away and promote an approach that expands individual liberty in a way that reduces their own power, funding, and scope?

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

and I think you should run for Senate and make an amendment regarding our laws governing fish and game regs

Why make everything into a Federal issue? 17 states, including Louisiana already have Constitutional guarantees regarding hunting and fishing. These Constitutional guarantees require management to be based on needing to preserve the resources for the present and future use of the people of the state rather pandering to animal rights, anti-hunting, or anti-gun special interests.

Consider the Louisiana RKBA:

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.

Now, due process of law can certainly restrict ammunition used in hunting. But it seems to me that restricting ammunition used for non-hunting purposes is a restriction that "shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

I totall agree, and I commented on this earlier on how silly it is that we can shoot snipe with lead shot in the fields we just finished shooting ducks with steel. Its another 'elephant in the room', and no one wants to address it because it will be a sihtstorm. The day that lead is banned for dove or any upland game hunting or is even proposed for ban is going to be a firestorm (even though science can support it which is what you want right?)

If the science shows that banning lead shot when hunting upland game is necessary to preserve whole populations, yes. But if it's a matter of a trade-off where no populations are really threatened, then science should inform the political process, and then the people decide how to address the trade-off through the normal political process. If there are tens or hundreds of millions in the population of a given species, banning lead shot for upland game is not necessarily the only right outcome if none of the species are really threatened and banning lead shot is likely only save a few thousand each year. Science is not a tool to be manipulated so that one group (dove hunters in this case) is disadvantaged so that another group (duck hunters) has more of its preferred game.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

The fear part about our federal government is sad but its true. We shouldn't fear them, they should fear us (Thomas Jefferson?) and that's cool to quote stuff like that but in essence, one can look at the fear of our gov't just this year with the gun and ammo craze. FEAR drove that, FEAR that the gov't was going to take our guns, sad but true (Metallica)

In a free country, individual citizens should be at liberty to act on their fears, whether or not they are reasonable. I think I'll likely to be the first to evacuate a low lying area when a hurricane is coming even though it might be 48 hours away from landfall and might change course. When a snowstorm was coming in the midwest, I was often the first to stock up on water, food, and batteries.

But the exercise of governmental power to restrict individual liberty is a different deal. It should be based on genuine, demonstrated need to exercise that power and not on "just in case." I'd hate to see the government mandating evacuations when a hurricane is coming as soon as the most prudent citizens (including me) decide to leave.

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

That would be a good name for the organization you should start and a good platform to run for office on

All these are issues that need to be brought up with the federal government. You can start an organization that will lobby on your behalf, but wouldn't that be doing exactly what the entire CCA bashing thread is about - being in bed with the politicians?

I think citizens (like me) can be effective at the grass roots level without becoming politicians. I'm more of a scientist and an educator. I may be wrong, but I think educating the citizens is more powerful than lobbying the politicians.

And I strongly disagree with your emphasis on addressing things with "the federal government." The average Louisiana citizen needs less of the feds in his business.