Jump to content

The use of Lead Shot in the British Isles


Salopian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Received the following email earlier today , it makes interesting reading.

Smear campaign - more false allegations.

Serious miss-representation, or an ingeniously cunning strategy?

BASC* Director of Communications- Christopher Graffius: “…levels of illegality are so high. An RSPB survey in 2002 found that 70% of duck bought from English game dealers had been illegally shot with lead. In 2010 when DefRA repeated the survey[Correction; should read ‘when WWT/BASC repeated..] with a larger sample the figure was 69.9%. Most of us are guilty to some extent, if only of not insisting on compliance….” (and) “ This is not a wildfowling problem. Rarely are wildfowl shot by ’fowlers sold to dealers, so this is a game-shooting problem, particularly for those who shoot driven duck. My experience when gameshooting bears this out.”

(The Field Oct. 2013)

CA* Campaigns Director - Tim Bonner: “But anyone who shoots live quarry must sign up to the "Use lead legally" campaign…” (and) " …compliance with the current restrictions is appalling. People are shooting ducks with lead and selling them into the market.”

(The western Morning News Oct. 2013)

NGO* Political and PR adviser - Charles Nodder: “…bad publicity comes from breaches of these agreed norms….” (and) “…the many who blatantly ignore the regulations on non-toxic shot..”

(The field Nov. 2013)

Why are shooting’s finest stalwarts, bad-mouthing the shooting public?

It is a fair question because there is no evidence of non-compliance with the English & Welsh regulations on the use of lead ammunition. Yet, the representative shooting organisations listed above are forthrightly on the record making these totally unsubstantiated allegations against the shooting public. What perverse instinct is at work here?

The anti-shooting lobby agenda is based upon hearsay, rumour, anecdote, and deeply flawed maliciously dishonest reports.

It is not as if anyone is unaware for example, that the WWT/BASC 2010 report has already been soundly discredited having been shown to be flawed to the point of deception. Mr Grafius goes even further out onto a limb and quotes the RSPB 2002 report based upon a sample of 40 birds. That was laughed out of court at the time and remains so.

The authors of the quotes above provide no proof. No names, incident reports, witness statements, autopsies, photographs, diary notes, plaintiff affidavits, are offered. It is beyond belief.

Consider the public outcry over similar abuse and use of rumour, hearsay, and miss-representation, by the Police and others, in the case of Andrew Mitchell and the ‘plebgate’ affair. Or consider, the BBC potential defaming of Prince Harry about cocaine consumption, (to name the most current examples). A pause for thought might have been prudent given that these recent media events illustrate the damage that false accusation can give rise to.

 

You would be hard pressed to find one bit of research (regarding shooting) emanating from the WWT/RSPB over the last 20 years or so that has been validated by empirical proof or experiment.

It might be wise for shooting’s representatives to apologise for the defamatory abuse that they have levelled at the shooting public. Their only other option is to fully disclose the proof that has allowed them to make the allegations in the quotes above.

Why this cult of self-harm? Or is it a case of cognitive dissonance, naivety, or a hidden deal, an ‘arrangement’, a double bluff?

As you will see from the quotes above, the shooting organisations support rather than challenge this iniquitous state of affairs. It needs an explanation.

In conclusion: neither NUDGE nor SPIN will do, they are not substitutes for truth and honesty. So the question is who is twisting arms and why? If the answer is no one, then they (shooting organisations) are duty bound to provide unequivocal proof (of non-compliance) to the shooting public or challenge these false alligations.

The same goes for the LAG which has become totally opaque and silent, emitting no light. Please tell us what is going on?

BRIEFING NOTES

1) Why the birds tested have no provenance.

It is not possible to say where they have been shot. There are many locations in the EU, Ireland, NI. and Scotland where wildfowl can be legitimately (legally) shot with lead. The UK dealing network quite legally trades in birds shot with lead from all of these territories. The magnitude of English market demand for shot wildfowl is at least 20 times greater than the supply of shot wildfowl that the English shooting season can supply. Thus, dealers freeze and stock from a variety of sources. It is doubtful if the dealer network stock contains more than 5% of English shot wildfowl. The remaining 95% originating from elsewhere.

96% of the birds that were tested by the WWT/BASC 2010 report on ‘compliance’ were processed oven ready birds.

2) Lead shot wildfowl ‘processed’ in England are legitimately labelled as ‘English sourced’.

This means that a bird shot with lead ammunition, sourced in Scotland, Southern Ireland, and/or the EU, and then imported to and processed (oven ready) in England, by an English game dealer/butcher/supermarket, can be labelled and sold English. Thus a retailer will be unaware of the true provenance and rely upon what the label claims.

3) Mr Grafius has stated that “This is not a wildfowling problem” .

He is wrong. He will know that the WWT/BASC 2010 report on ‘compliance’ report states a combined 48% of Teal and Wigeon (fore-shore birds) contained lead shot. As we know BASC defends this report.

*BASC – British Association of shooting and Conservation

*CA – Countryside Alliance

*NGO - National Gamekeepers Organisation

*LAG – Lead Ammunition Group

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Shooting Times 17th June page 4.

Stephen Crouch a spokesman for The National Gamedealers' Association and a LAG member who has resigned, said " I think everybody who sat around a table five years ago was of a mind that we'd do the best we could with the information given, and we haven't got any. The only result was that there is still no information................. ' But there was no evidence.' I don't think that's a success.

 

So like Norway and Austria, could we please overturn the Lead ban and get back to using classic English made SxS for Wildfowling and Duck shooting using efficient Lead loads designed for these valuable pieces of English heritage ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting article and throws light on the frankly amateurish approach taken by so many organisations involved in these studies.

 

The sad thing is that there are many professional scientists in the organisations in question, yet they seem to disregard established scientific protocol and process for the sake of a political ideology, it is a real shame. I actually think that makes it all the more disappointing for me that the professional people involved in these reports are quite so willing to promote wilful deception and complete and utter misrepresentation of the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As signatories of the AEWA I doubt we could get the ban on lead shot over wetlands repealed, however we should push for an amendment to get rid of the species specific element of the legislation, the whole purpose of the AEWA was to stop the ingestion of lead shot by wildfowl where wildfowl feed ie. Wetlands! It was not intended to stop wildfowl from being shot with lead shot! Banning shooting wildfowl with lead shot was spiteful and unnecessary! There is no difference between shooting wildfowl with lead shot and shooting pheasant, partridge, pigeon grouse or any other quarry species?

The discredited LAG has had five years to come up with scientific evidence that prove the allegations from the RSPB and WWT that lead ammunition is dangerously hazardous to animals and human health, there is no doubt that lead is toxic, but there is no evidence that it is any more toxic to animals and human health than many many other everyday items including the air we breath!

The way lead shot is dangerously toxic to wildfowl is if they ingest sufficient quantities of it, the only way lead shot is dangerous to all animals is the way it was intended to be!!! When they are shot with it!

Shooters were shafted when the government prompted by the anti lead/protectionist (RSPB/WWT/former BASC employees?) made the shooting of wildfowl (specifically) with lead shot illegal! the same protectionists then proceeded to police the new law themselves, and allegedly test purchased and found ducks at the game dealers contained lead shot, this gave them what they were after all along, the foot in the door to say the shooting community were breaking the law by not complying with the ban, so all lead shot should be banned!

All along this has nothing to do with animal welfare or protecting human health.....it was manufactured and orchestrated by the protectionists for one purpose.....to damage all live quarry shooting and shooting interests!

 

I trust BASC are now pointing this out to DEFRA and the relevant government ministers as I write?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting article and throws light on the frankly amateurish approach taken by so many organisations involved in these studies.

 

The sad thing is that there are many professional scientists in the organisations in question, yet they seem to disregard established scientific protocol and process for the sake of a political ideology, it is a real shame. I actually think that makes it all the more disappointing for me that the professional people involved in these reports are quite so willing to promote wilful deception and complete and utter misrepresentation of the truth.

The problem is though as Sir Barney detailed in his resignation letter, many of these professional scientists are passing opinions of topics outside of their chosen field. Although one can not deny their intelligence, this fact makes them no more qualified to comment than the average Joe Bloggs with a decent brain. Rats, I believe is an example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma 1 is correct, that the international agreement that the UK as well as many other countries signed is the reason we have restrictions over wetlands,and the probability of the UK reneging on this international agreement are slim.

 

Compliance with the current laws are important, as we will not get laws changed by breaking them.

 

BASC's position remains the same, we will defend the use of lead shot as clearly stated on our web site as we have over many decades.

 

Whether pushing for the Scottish system, i.e. banning shooting lead on or over RAMSAR sites is a moot point, remember this would mean not being able to shoot any species or any clays over, of if the shot could land on, any wetland, ponds, streams rivers, bogs ect regardless if wildfowl were found there

 

How many inland game shoots or farms where pigeon shooting, or rabbit shooting or corvid shooting take place, or clay shoots have wetlands on them? Most i suggest. So would that not be more restrictive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma 1 is correct, that the international agreement that the UK as well as many other countries signed is the reason we have restrictions over wetlands,and the probability of the UK reneging on this international agreement are slim.

 

Compliance with the current laws are important, as we will not get laws changed by breaking them.

 

BASC's position remains the same, we will defend the use of lead shot as clearly stated on our web site as we have over many decades.

 

Whether pushing for the Scottish system, i.e. banning shooting lead on or over RAMSAR sites is a moot point, remember this would mean not being able to shoot any species or any clays over, of if the shot could land on, any wetland, ponds, streams rivers, bogs ect regardless if wildfowl were found there

 

How many inland game shoots or farms where pigeon shooting, or rabbit shooting or corvid shooting take place, or clay shoots have wetlands on them? Most i suggest. So would that not be more restrictive?

As I understand it currently the law in Scotland is site specific ie, No lead to fall into wetlands, in England and Wales it is also site specific ie. No lead to fall into wetlands.......but in Scotland we can shoot ducks and Geese over farmland....in England and Wales we can't!......it's the species specific element in England that is the problem!

If as per Scottish law English law didn't prohibit the use of lead shot to shoot duck and geese.......there would be no issue of non compliance for the protectionists to use to attack shooting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is though as Sir Barney detailed in his resignation letter, many of these professional scientists are passing opinions of topics outside of their chosen field. Although one can not deny their intelligence, this fact makes them no more qualified to comment than the average Joe Bloggs with a decent brain. Rats, I believe is an example

I appreciate that they are not experts in the specific fields under investigation, but a rigorous scientific approach should be the fundamental basis of their work, so that means observing tried and trusted methodologies the most fundamental being transparency and objectiveness in the process.

 

I'm not a scientist, but I understand the principles that underpin scientific theory, I am an engineer by trade and now do strategic business analysis and the approach is very similar, you construct a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis until it fails, then repeat. If the hypothesis cannot stand scrutiny then it is invalid.

 

The LAG has followed political science, i.e. you skew the results to suit the agenda, either by being very careful in your selection criteria or by employing partiality in your testing criteria.

 

I know i'm preaching to the converted, but that is why I feel let down by the folks on the LAG, it is slipshod science and that is inexcusable amongst professionals.

Edited by grrclark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma1, the law in Scotland and England is different, in England lead is prohibited on the foreshore and certain SSSI's only and yes all duck / geese anywhere, in Scotland its ALL wetlands as prescribed under RAMSAR where lead shot cannot be used

 

So yes, in Scotland you can shoot a duck inland with lead, but NOT if the duck is in any wetland including ponds, rivers streams bogs ect, nor can your shot pass over any wetland. Nor can you legally shoot a pigeon, rabbit, crow, pheasant partridge ect in Scotland with lead if you are in any wetland or the shot could fall into wetland or your shot passes over wetlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting things into law is all well and good if those things can be policed , who exactly is policing the lead ban on wildfowl ? how many prosecutions has there been for non compliance since it was introduced ?

 

Despite signing to say I will comply with the lead ban I think it is pretty pointless , those that do not sign will carry on as normal and even some of those that have will do as they please , saying is one thing doing is another.

 

To try and discredit studies that say game shoots are still using plenty of lead on duck is laughable , we all know it goes on , I have been told by more than one game shot that the keeper tells them just to have a couple of steel loads in their pockets and use what they want in the gun !

 

While I do not want to see lead banned its no good burying our heads in the sand and pretend everyone is complying with the law , but those not complying will continue to do so until we start to see some prosecutions and there is some policing of the ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fenboy, I think that your point is bang on, a law that cannot be policed or enforced is bad law. The danger is that bad law is open to abuse, not only from those not complying in this example, but also by those who claim that the law is not strong enough.

 

No lead shot at all is easier policed in comparison than the current species or habitat specific law. Will anybody drag a bog or pond to prove that any found lead shot was used by the person in question? I guess with species specific that the police could confiscate shot game and determine if shot with lead or otherwise, but who do you prosecute if multiple shooters?

 

The level of policing required to enforce such a law would be excessive in comparison to the crime committed, no police authority could stand the cost.

 

The law as it stands is a token to the complainers, it is nothing more than a gesture. That is why the complainers will always want more, they know it is a gesture too, but the evidence is not nearly compelling enough to justify the impact to industry so it will not happen (I hope). We will be still arguing this issue in 20 years from now I'm sure.

 

We should still fight our corner though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Despite signing to say I will comply with the lead ban I think it is pretty pointless , those that do not sign will carry on as normal and even some of those that have will do as they please , saying is one thing doing is another.

 

 

At long last, and which is exactly why I haven't and wont sign. I comply with the legislation anyhow; why do I need to sign some puerile poll to say I'm complying with law? I'm 55 for crying out loud, not 5. It is absolutely meaningless.

Should we start a campaign with a poll to sign in order to 'prove' we comply with the national speed limits, or we don't take illegal drugs, or drink and drive?

In my opinion it proves about as much as the provenance of those lead shot ducks the WWT bleated on about. Are we taking this matter seriously or just farting about?

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma1, the law in Scotland and England is different, in England lead is prohibited on the foreshore and certain SSSI's only and yes all duck / geese anywhere, in Scotland its ALL wetlands as prescribed under RAMSAR where lead shot cannot be used

 

So yes, in Scotland you can shoot a duck inland with lead, but NOT if the duck is in any wetland including ponds, rivers streams bogs ect, nor can your shot pass over any wetland. Nor can you legally shoot a pigeon, rabbit, crow, pheasant partridge ect in Scotland with lead if you are in any wetland or the shot could fall into wetland or your shot passes over wetlands.

 

 

 

 

In a previous post you suggested that possibly the Scottish system is more restrictive than in England and Wales. Would it not be worth finding out? It shouldn't be too difficult. Then, if what you imagine is not the case and the Scottish system would suit the English and Welsh shooters better, if we were so minded an attempt could be made to alter the southern legislation accordingly - assuming, of course, the LAG/Defra situation doesn't put paid to that option.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard of this guy the NGO* Political and PR adviser - Charles Nodder: But clearly he does not know anything about the subject. I have rearly read such a load of spin and rubbish. When will people get it into their heads that lead posions wild birds and wildfowl in particular. There is a host of research papers on the subject and I posted the links to a lot of them in the forum a few years ago , but it seems some people just want to ignore anything that they do not agree with. There is plenty of evidence out there but most shooters do not want to know about it.

 

We now have very good steel shells that do the same job as lead at a cheaper price so its time people moved with the times , got a gun that will handle quality steel shells and moved on. Lead is becoming outdated and its time to move with public opinion and use steel.

Edited by anser2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The AEWA is not about shooting wildfowl with lead, when the principal aim is to kill them!

The AEWA is about not allowing lead to poison them through ingestion!

 

I have no problem with legislation to prevent the latter!

I do have a problem with the legislation that prevents the former!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard of this guy the NGO* Political and PR adviser - Charles Nodder: But clearly he does not know anything about the subject. I have rearly read such a load of spin and rubbish. When will people get it into their heads that lead posions wild birds and wildfowl in particular. There is a host of research papers on the subject and I posted the links to a lot of them in the forum a few years ago , but it seems some people just want to ignore anything that they do not agree with. There is plenty of evidence out there but most shooters do not want to know about it.

 

We now have very good steel shells that do the same job as lead at a cheaper price so its time people moved with the times , got a gun that will handle quality steel shells and moved on. Lead is becoming outdated and its time to move with public opinion and use steel.

I doubt Charles Nodder has heard of you either so I wouldn't be too concerned. He's a very knowledgeable bloke actually, but I have no idea what qualifies him for the job.

I've read some of the reports you posted links to some time ago, but one in particular sticks in the mind; the one in which proof of leads fatal toxicity to ducks was claimed following direct force feeding of lead into the ducks throat. I rather think force feeding lead directly into any animals throat would have a detrimental effect on its health.

The evidence for leads toxicity isn't in question, but the effect it has on our wildlife and environment is, likewise your claim that lead is outdated. It isn't.

Steel shot is indeed very effective but that doesn't negate leads effectiveness, as indeed Norway and Sweden (?) have now attested to.

Not everyone wants to abandon their best English guns and buy one which will 'handle quality steel', and neither should they be forced to. There are plenty of vintage and classic vehicles still around exempt to modern legislation, why should classic and vintage guns be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma1, the law in Scotland and England is different, in England lead is prohibited on the foreshore and certain SSSI's only and yes all duck / geese anywhere, in Scotland its ALL wetlands as prescribed under RAMSAR where lead shot cannot be used

 

So yes, in Scotland you can shoot a duck inland with lead, but NOT if the duck is in any wetland including ponds, rivers streams bogs ect, nor can your shot pass over any wetland. Nor can you legally shoot a pigeon, rabbit, crow, pheasant partridge ect in Scotland with lead if you are in any wetland or the shot could fall into wetland or your shot passes over wetlands.

I understand that David, to comply with the responsibilities of being signatories of the AEWA lead should not fall onto wetlands where wildfowl feed in order to prevent them ingesting it.

In Scotland you must not use lead shot on the foreshore and ensure your shot does not fall in these wetland areas by any means including adjusting your shooting, so is self regulating, similarly in England except that you must not use lead shot only in certain areas, that can also largely done by self regulation.

The problem for me with the English legislation is that by making the law species specific English shooters are prohibited from shooting any wildfowl anywhere with lead shot which was never a requirement or the intention of the AEWA and in persuance of this unfair prohibition to add injury to insult are being policed not by the police but by anti shooting protectionists! Who as we have seen in the disgraceful LAG fiasco, are anything but impartial!

Edited by panoma1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no other appropriate thread currently open, so just out of interest: Looked on the LAG site a minute or two ago and there was the BASC logo. Couldn't understand it (honest, I'm not on anything stronger than coffee) so 're-dialled' and where it was is now the CLA logo. Someone obviously having a play with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma1, thank you and I fully understand your point, I just council caution that any suggested change must be thought through carefully.

 

I accept this is a personal view, but for example on the shoot where I help with the 'keepering, 7 out of 10 drives have a stream or pond within them, the shoot as a whole is 'blessed' with natural wetlands of this type and given the potential for shot to travel 250m or more,its not possible to simply adjust the positioning of the guns to prevent lead falling on to these features...I bet my shoot is not unique...

 

So my question is, is having the ability to shoot a duck over inland habitats with lead sufficient grounds for potentially restricting the shooting of all other species over a range of habitats that are not necessarily key holding areas for duck / geese inland?

 

 

Wymberley - the BASC logo was removed from the LAG site a couple of weeks ago, perhaps the page you originally looked at was the old one that was stored on your machine, but when you refreshed the site it took you to the current page.

Edited by David BASC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma1, thank you and I fully understand your point, I just council caution that any suggested change must be thought through carefully.

 

I accept this is a personal view, but for example on the shoot where I help with the 'keepering, 7 out of 10 drives have a stream or pond within them, the shoot as a whole is 'blessed' with natural wetlands of this type and given the potential for shot to travel 250m or more,its not possible to simply adjust the positioning of the guns to prevent lead falling on to these features...I bet my shoot is not unique...

 

So my question is, is having the ability to shoot a duck over inland habitats with lead sufficient grounds for potentially restricting the shooting of all other species over a range of habitats that are not necessarily key holding areas for duck / geese inland?

 

 

Wymberley - the BASC logo was removed from the LAG site a couple of weeks ago, perhaps the page you originally looked at was the old one that was stored on your machine, but when you refreshed the site it took you to the current page.

Possibly. But I don't store the site but go in each time 'cold' and the last time I looked, as you say, it wasn't there so had the site been stored then it shouldn't have been. A mystery of no real consequence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

panoma1, thank you and I fully understand your point, I just council caution that any suggested change must be thought through carefully.I accept this is a personal view, but for example on the shoot where I help with the 'keepering, 7 out of 10 drives have a stream or pond within them, the shoot as a whole is 'blessed' with natural wetlands of this type and given the potential for shot to travel 250m or more,its not possible to simply adjust the positioning of the guns to prevent lead falling on to these features...I bet my shoot is not unique...So my question is, is having the ability to shoot a duck over inland habitats with lead sufficient grounds for potentially restricting the shooting of all other species over a range of habitats that are not necessarily key holding areas for duck / geese inland?Wymberley - the BASC logo was removed from the LAG site a couple of weeks ago, perhaps the page you originally looked at was the old one that was stored on your machine, but when you refreshed the site it took you to the current page.

I also understand the implications as per the example you give David, however whilst I accept every effort must be made to prevent lead falling into wetlands, it inevitably will because of human error or mistake, the lead ban as enacted in the UK is bad law because it is Ill thought out and total compliance is probably unachievable because it's pretty near unenforceable, consequently and as such no government enforcement agency is going to waste their precious resources trying!........well except any non compliance of the English species element that is!...........and that is being used not by the enforcement authorities to ensure compliance with AEWA but by the protectionists..........not to protect animals or human health but as a excuse to attack live quarry shooting, I believe the reported (mis)conduct and abuses within the LAG have shown this as their agenda beyond any reasonable doubt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...