Finally, a small victory for hunters.

[CBronson]

That's fair. If someone were to have an agenda, they could sway their results, ie cigarette companies conducting research to prove that cigarettes don't pose a health threat. But thats bad science. Most of these articles, depending on the journal, are put under the review of experts before they are granted publication. Under harsh enough scrutiny, any scientific theory will come up with some holes, but it is the sum of research that determines whether the data or the holes are statistically significant. I'm not saying that article was an end all by any means nor do I disagree that their sample size was pretty small for their claim, but it points in the direction that lead is causing problems.

So far as environmentalists, I would consider myself one as well as anyone intelligent enough to realize it is a bad idea to crap in the water hole (pardon the term). I don't see anything wrong with striving toward a sustainable lifestyle and that is the goal of environmental research. The activists on the other hand, I'll have to agree that the majority of them are either self-righteous idiots or idealist adolescents with too much angst.

Back to the issue, sure, anti-gun politicians can absolutely pervert findings, whether legitimate or not, to suit their agendas. I'm just no sure if that's the case with the Center for Biodoversity. Have they been known for protesting ethical hunting?