Evidence that is not tainted by politically-motivated ideology, constructed for the purpose of selling a selected narrative over the truth. Such was not argued. Rather it was pointed out that there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate conclusively that non-lead ammunition choices are just as good as lead ammunition at performing a specific task or tasks.
Do state departments of wildlife have a political ideology against hunting, and without evidence to the contrary how do you know that the lead poisoning story isn't the truth, other than your ideology? All of my hunting partners use lead based bullets. I've helped field dress animals where full penetration did not happen, only parts of the bullet was recovered during the process and none was recovered later in the meat (we do our own butchering). Logic tells us that the gut pile had lead in it, and the pile was left for scavengers to recover. Also, prairie dog hunting is very popular in my state. Varmint rounds are lead based and highly fragile. The carcasses are not recovered but left for scavengers. We can disagree as to the extent of the issue, but personal experience tells me that it exists. It's why I don't personally hunt with lead based ammo.
Given, we have hunted with lead bullets for over 500 years, I am surprised there is any game left that has survived lead poisoning. Still waiting for a study that will make a correlation between guns/ammo and global warming....
It isn't the game we hunt that's the concern of those who suggest non-lead bullets; it's that she animals who scavenge the gut piles and carcasses of game and varmints tainted with lead that are the issue. Hopefully the game we shoot dies well before actual lead poisoning kills them. I think I suggested that possibility very early in this thread.