Invite to participate in hunting study??

[Koda]

This guy has an agenda and is not being transparent.
Search who he is and up comes:
"Leland Brown is the non-lead hunting education coordinator at the Oregon Zoo, and co-founder of the North American Non-lead Partnership.Aug 26, 2020
View attachment 1738547
https://myodfw.com › unleaded

Unleaded - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife

"

Why is he not forthright about being anti-lead?

He actually posted in this thread he isnt supporting regulatory non lead use, but entirely voluntary .
Hes been forthright on the issue.

 

[msgriff]

He actually posted in this thread he isnt supporting regulatory non lead use, but entirely voluntary .
Hes been forthright on the issue.

What he said here and what he has said elsewhere are very different stories.

 

[Koda]

What he said here and what he has said elsewhere are very different stories.

Please cite a link to that.

 

[msgriff]

Please cite a link to that.

No. I looked into the "researchers" qualifications when the thread started, and now it's time for you to do your own homework.

 

[solv3nt]

now it's time for you to do your own homework.

 

[Yarome]

He actually posted in this thread he isnt supporting regulatory non lead use, but entirely voluntary .
Hes been forthright on the issue.

What else would you expect a person with an agenda to say... if he's trying to get predominately lead ammo users to participate in shooting themselves in the foot in aide of an agenda? Being honest wouldn't get him very far.

Even if his personal intentions are semi pure that doesn't change the fact that the data he has chosen to collect may be used by others in nefarious ways. He would have to be either extremely naïve or just plain brainless not to realize that... yet is doing it anyway.

As I read it, his intention is to aide in collecting ballistic and performance data for non-lead applications. That doesn't jive since the scope of his study is likely to contain very little non-lead ammo performance data.

If his intention was actually as he stated then his research money and time would be better spent gathering and evaluating the various non-lead ammo offerings in a variety of firearms most commonly used in the animal control field to develop ballistics performance charts for practical use. That would be the most direct and practical means to that end.

IMO, his stated goal and the way he's approaching it makes no reasonable sense... unless... it was mostly BS and it is exactly how it appears. He has a strong anti-lead agenda and trying to dupe people into participating to legitimize what he likely already believes and will contort the data to "prove" it.

We see the same over and over on a regular basis. Just like, "firearms are the #1 leading cause of death among children".

 

[Koda]

No. I looked into the "researchers" qualifications when the thread started, and now it's time for you to do your own homework.

Ive been in this thread since the beginning and havent seen anything. Im not defending him, i have no doubt -oregon- will introduce a lead hunting ban in the future which I do not support.
Im just not gonna cite something unless i can prove it. The burden of proof is on the claim. No... its not my job to prove your claim.

 

[Bobbygun]

Please cite a link to that.

See posts #52 and #53

To think this guy doesn't have a bias toward non-lead ammo would be quite a stretch.

 

[msgriff]

Ive been in this thread since the beginning and havent seen anything. Im not defending him, i have no doubt -oregon- will introduce a lead hunting ban in the future which I do not support.
Im just not gonna cite something unless i can prove it. The burden of proof is on the claim. No... its not my job to prove your claim.

I honestly don't care enough to try and convince you of the bias of the researcher. Move on.

 

[Koda]

See posts #52 and #53

To think this guy doesn't have a bias toward non-lead ammo would be quite a stretch.

Thankyou for citing a source.
Ive read those. They leave out the voluntary part. Hes stated hes supporting the voluntary use of lead free ammo. (See the odfw link in post 78 as well as his replies in this thread).

I get it that people dont believe him.
I dont think hes being dishonest. I do think the state is.

 

[Koda]

I honestly don't care enough to try and convince you of the bias of the researcher. Move on.

All i asked for was a simple citation to your claim. Its ok if you dont have one, i moved on trust me.

 

[Bobbygun]

Thankyou for citing a source.
Ive read those. They leave out the voluntary part. Hes stated hes supporting the voluntary use of lead free ammo. (See the odfw link in post 78 as well as his replies in this thread).

I get it that people dont believe him.
I dont think hes being dishonest. I do think the state is.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. To be the Program Manager and educating people on non-lead ammo, one would almost certainly need to be biased toward the use of non-lead ammo. This isn't to say he is necessarily telling lies about whether he supports a ban on lead ammo or not. But any research he's involved in will certainly be used toward that end and he has to be aware of that.

 

[Koda]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. To be the Program Manager and educating people on non-lead ammo, one would almost certainly need to be biased toward the use of non-lead ammo. This isn't to say he is necessarily telling lies about whether he supports a ban on lead ammo or not. But any research he's involved in will certainly be used toward that end and he has to be aware of that.

Yes but being biased on the use of lead free ammo doesnt mean he personally supports a lead ban. Eg.: hypothetically if everyone used only lead free ammo there would be no science showing lead toxicity in scavengers from hunting to be used against hunters choice. So i can see the promotion of voluntary use of lead free ammo. Its kind of a strech because such a level of voluntary use is not likely....

I do have the same question about what the state does with any research, and agree he has to know it will only be used to support a lead ban. Thats one question he hasnt addressed so far.

 

[Yarome]

This isn't to say he is necessarily telling lies about whether he supports a ban on lead ammo or not. But any research he's involved in will certainly be used toward that end and he has to be aware of that.

Personally, he may very well not be in favor of a ban, but I agree.... continuing this line of research he HAS to be aware of how that info may be used... despite his own personal feelings (he is only 1 person). Approaching a study of any kind with a bias... that's just bad science.

Strike 1 and 2!

The clincher for me is that his stated goal and the scope of his study is largely non relational. That has to beg the question as to why he would take this approach when a more directly relational path of research exists.

Strike 3... I call B.S.

If it walks and quacks like a duck.....

 

[Croat]

Truly, a fool is born every minute.

Just say no. It isn't that hard.

 

[Camelfilter]

Quoting myself here:

"...Work with stakeholders to protect hunter's wildlife conservation and hunting heritage through increasing the use of non-lead ammunition. Develop and implement program plan, identify funding resources, and manage communications. Coordinate activities with a variety of individual stakeholders, organizations and agencies..."

Seems as though this individual is misrepresenting himself. He has the above agenda.

As his job.

Bold highlighted in this quote.

Again, that's his job. For going on 9 years.

No plan would be needed if there wasn't a ban planned. Its that simple.