gunsmoke Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) The New Zealand fish and game council have rejected plans to widen the lead ban to small bore guns. The lead ban is only for 12 bore guns. They can still use lead in 16, 20, 28 and .410's. One shooter in New Zealand told me that they used the CA's 'Case of Lead' to help them fight the case. He also told me that some of my information helped too. The file is to big to attach to the post so I add a link below where you can find the PDF of the Gun Trade World article. www.facebook.com/groups/386424074747289/ Edited September 29, 2014 by gunsmoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted September 29, 2014 Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 Seems that their legislation must be as farcical as ours . Its ludicrous that you could shoot a 30 gram load of lead through a 16 or 20 gauge and be legal but put the same load through a 12 gauge and not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted October 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 New Zealand loads up with lead despite ban calls New Zealand shooters are celebrating after the lead ban on small bore guns was rejected by the Fish & Game New Zealand Council. There is a lead ban with 12 bores within 200 meters of a body of water. So they can now use 16, 20, 28 and .410 with lead. It would have been unsafe to use steel in 28 and .410’s I would even question using steel in 20 bore in the UK. It is report in the Gun Trade World report: “Since 2006, largely as a result of steel shot and the massive increase in the crippling factor, the number of mallards- which is the main hunting species- has plummeted from millions to a level where it is in danger of disappearing completely, along with duck hunting.” They are reducing the bag limit and a shorter hunting session to help bring back duck numbers. Are we going to start seeing a deduction in wildfowling days to years to come in England as the number of Mallard have fallen from 500,000 in 1999 when the lead ban came in to 180,000 in 2010. figures from the BTO I’ll add to this the talk behind closed doors about BIRD DISTURBANCE how long before wildfowler and other shooting are ask to deduce the number of days they go out shooting because of the disturbance to wildlife? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 It is report in the Gun Trade World report: “Since 2006, largely as a result of steel shot and the massive increase in the crippling factor, the number of mallards- which is the main hunting species- has plummeted from millions to a level where it is in danger of disappearing completely, along with duck hunting.” I'll readily admit I'm not the brightest light n the room, and any news to the detriment of steel as opposed to lead is good news as far as I'm concerned, but how has it been determined that the 'crippling factor' as opposed to outright killing, is responsible 'largely',for the dwindling number of Mallard? Doesn't a crippled bird die (albeit slowly and painfully) eventually, which is the exact same outcome as a cleanly killed one? How can crippling a bird be responsible for a reduction in numbers, but killing one not be? What difference does it make to the quarry what type of projectile it is 'crippled' with? Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I'll readily admit I'm not the brightest light n the room, and any news to the detriment of steel as opposed to lead is good news as far as I'm concerned, but how has it been determined that the 'crippling factor' as opposed to outright killing, is responsible 'largely',for the dwindling number of Mallard? Doesn't a crippled bird die (albeit slowly and painfully) eventually, which is the exact same outcome as a cleanly killed one? How can crippling a bird be responsible for a reduction in numbers, but killing one not be? What difference does it make to the quarry what type of projectile it is 'crippled' with? Am I missing something? Maybe if there's a bag limit you'll keep on shooting because you're not harvesting the crippled ones as part of that limit but they still die ultimately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted October 1, 2014 Report Share Posted October 1, 2014 I do wish we might consider the conservation benefits of using steel rather than harp on about steel being so poor. It kills ducks and geese just fine as long as you don't apply lead ballistic data to steel loads. .410 is going to be near useless with steel though that much is true. Todays steel is nothing like the loads of the past and wont continue to spread poison grit for our duck to ingest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Maybe if there's a bag limit you'll keep on shooting because you're not harvesting the crippled ones as part of that limit but they still die ultimately. Sorry for the late reply but I was waiting for the OP to reply, but it doesn't appear forthcoming. The point you make above is a good logical point, but doesn't even 'reducing the bag' as the OP states merely mean the same circumstances exist? I just can't see how it is proposed for numbers to regenerate unless steel is banned or in fact shooting is banned, bearing in mind the reasons for the policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 (edited) A good alternative non toxic load is what we need a yea died soft steel pellet would be great. Bismuth and other soft lead alternatives are far to expensive. Think there reasoning must be that loads of availability In twelve gauge and not in the sub gauge calibers. Why we couldn't use coated lead like copper or Nickle coated as the toxic pasty is contained then. Figgy Edited October 5, 2014 by figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 New Zealand loads up with lead despite ban calls New Zealand shooters are celebrating after the lead ban on small bore guns was rejected by the Fish & Game New Zealand Council. There is a lead ban with 12 bores within 200 meters of a body of water. So they can now use 16, 20, 28 and .410 with lead. It would have been unsafe to use steel in 28 and .410’s I would even question using steel in 20 bore in the UK. It is report in the Gun Trade World report: “Since 2006, largely as a result of steel shot and the massive increase in the crippling factor, the number of mallards- which is the main hunting species- has plummeted from millions to a level where it is in danger of disappearing completely, along with duck hunting.” They are reducing the bag limit and a shorter hunting session to help bring back duck numbers. Are we going to start seeing a deduction in wildfowling days to years to come in England as the number of Mallard have fallen from 500,000 in 1999 when the lead ban came in to 180,000 in 2010. figures from the BTO I’ll add to this the talk behind closed doors about BIRD DISTURBANCE how long before wildfowler and other shooting are ask to deduce the number of days they go out shooting because of the disturbance to wildlife? I honestly do not know what your agenda is. Your logic is strange. By the way, there is nothing wrong with steel shot through a 20. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Why we couldn't use coated lead like copper or Nickle coated as the toxic pasty is contained then. Figgy I spoke to a local shooting MP many moons ago about this very point at the time when some bloke had devised a method by which the lead pellet was contained within an impervious outer shell (it may well have been nickel; I can't recall now) and his reply was that the general consensus is that 'no matter what it is coated in, it is still a lead pellet'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 The bad news is because it looks like we have been let down by the organisations we pay to support us it looks like it may not be long before we see a total ban on lead shot in the UK look at http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/ and the 25th June meeting minutes and just about all issues that were pro lead shot have been pushed a side with steel shot gaining the upper hand. In 2010 a total ban looked unlikley now in 2014 in looks like it will come very soon. How many clay grounds will continue how many will give up shooting why is John Swift ex-BASC and Chairman of the lead shot ammunition group not shouting keep lead shot? we have been sold out !!!! Just away banning or reducing shooting via the back door. I spoke to a local shooting MP many moons ago about this very point at the time when some bloke had devised a method by which the lead pellet was contained within an impervious outer shell (it may well have been nickel; I can't recall now) and his reply was that the general consensus is that 'no matter what it is coated in, it is still a lead pellet'. It was call T shot and was a self healing coating, but as you say it is lead shot what ever coat you put on it so not PC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Re http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/LAG%20-%20minutes%20-%2025%20June%202014.html Why was 3.2 so quickly dismissed are the conclusion not that the Norwegians have concluded that lead shot is so much better than steel for certain types of shooting why were the pro shooting attendees like John Batley Gun Trade Association not commenting on this in a pro lead way? Such as what they said was recorded in the minutes. I spoke to a local shooting MP many moons ago about this very point at the time when some bloke had devised a method by which the lead pellet was contained within an impervious outer shell (it may well have been nickel; I can't recall now) and his reply was that the general consensus is that 'no matter what it is coated in, it is still a lead pellet'. g) Possible benefit of developing “encapsulated lead shot”? The Chairman reported this was likely to be of little benefit to wildfowl, as the lead core would exceed the allowable lead content under the lead shot regulations. Early research in the 1970’s had showed that the powerful muscular gizzard of waterfowl is able to erode the encapsulation, eventually leading to lead toxicity. It was questioned whether encapsulated lead shot could help to reduce toxicity in humans, but this was discounted as the main issue resulted from the fragmentation of lead shot. This would result in small un-encapsulated fragments of lead that could easily be more easily absorbed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.