Actually, if you took the time to read the studies(which I have, several yrs ago when this debate first surfaced), you would find that the studies used by those supporting the lead ban are ridiculously designed and make absurd conclusions and claims based on sham "science." The studies that allege "proving" lead ingestion by condors are ones in which they fed massive amounts of lead BBB's to birds in captivity and then measured their serum Pb concentration. Naturally, it went up(but not by as much as you'd expect and only a small percentage of them died). The amount they fed them though was a quantity they'd NEVER ingest in the wild. Those studies(and more like it) are the ones used by those with an agenda to eliminate lead without any proof of it's effect on the condor's demise. There are also countless studies now that show, despite a nearly 100% compliance rate by hunters using non-lead in the Condor range, the Condor continued to decline without the alleged ammunition lead source. There's plenty of data in the studies posted on the website if you took the time to read them. Like I said, it's not my job to educate you or read them to you. It's called objective reasoning. Look at the evidence from both sides and form your OWN conclusion, rather than believe what they want you to believe. Most of the studies used by the anti-lead "scientists" would NEVER see the light of day in a reputable scientific journal as they're not worth the paper they're written on.