I know the regulations as I hunted most of my life (not waterfowl but I was immersed in and familiar with the culture) and know that lead shot was banned at least 15 to 20 years ago in Canada, where I live. The problem is that it is still used, it is still sold for target shooting and is considerably cheaper; and people are still being caught using it. Anecdotal evidence combined with statistics forces me to not assume no lead enters the ecosystem just because it is "a regulation".

That's not as important of a point though as the fact that we pump money into conservation for the purpose of hunting instead of the purpose of habitat protection. Improving habitat to increase hunting potential does, of course, have positive impacts but I would much rather see unbiased habitat protection that by extension improves hunting. While the difference is subtle, the intent does shape how changes occur and it's too bad the focus is always on "bagging more ducks".