Conor O'Gorman

That is where modelling of the data comes in - what does 1% look like, what does 5% look like and so on. The HSE looked at this in its final report and a table produced for 1%. See page Table 2.15. Background document to the Agency Opinion on the Proposal for a restriction - Lead

Yes, you did mention 'banning lead' in your earlier comment and the research paper draws on data you have already described as 'outdated historical studies'? This is the rabbit hole we go down when 'white hat bias' comes into play.

With that in mind may I ask if you agree or disagree with the latest Value of Shooting research results? And may I enquire after the reason for your answer if you do give one? https://basc.org.uk/the-value-of-shooting-report-2024/

Here is the nub of it, what evidence are you relying on for that assertion and when were the studies carried out? Also, who is calling for banning lead? Certainly not BASC or myself.

Nobody is forcing you to change your ways or beliefs. There is an ongoing voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting based on the evidence. It is your choice if you wish to continue shooting with shotgun cartridges containing lead shot for your live quarry shooting. I think we all get it on the forum that you disagree with the voluntary transition and that is fine, and I will continue to share updates on the evidence of lead shot ingestion in various species on this thread.

Yes, and the ministerial response stated "As you know the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) has been asked by the European Commission to gather information on the potential risks presented by metallic lead, to establish if there is a case for regulating its use within the European Union; we will keep the evidence presented by the ECHA under review". Remember that this response on 12 July 2016 was a few weeks after the Brexit referendum and a day after the Conservative leadership campaign - and a day after Lis Truss's letter, her role in government changed under Teresa May's new cabinet. Since then we have now had a 3-year HSE review under post-Brexit regulations UK REACH, mirroring the ECHA review in the EU, and we await a ministerial response from Defra for England, and there may be responses from Scotland and Wales govts. Powers to regulate lead ammunition are devolved so we may see different approaches in England, Scotland and Wales - we may see no action at all - or we may see some going beyond the HSE recommendations. Meanwhile the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry continues and the following reasoning for that was is outlined here: https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/moving-away-from-lead/ and specifically: "Recent technological developments have made non-lead shot more effective, more widely available and more affordable. Equally, biodegradable wads are now a possibility. These advances are continuing apace and it is now time for the wider live quarry shooting community to join the wildfowlers, who have used non-lead alternatives successfully for the last 20 years. In addition, there are over-burdening legislative changes coming down the line as a result of work being undertaken by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Despite Brexit, we are expecting that these regulations will be implemented in the UK either due to a requirement to sell lead-free game into Europe, or by UK legislation." As for the evidence it is explained that "There is growing concern about the damage lead shot causes to wildlife away from wetlands. The fact that non-lead alternatives of suitable quality are increasingly available means that we should transition towards them".

Thanks. Your evidence may well give some food for thought, albeit I don't think I have actually asked members for evidence (an oversight on my part), rather that I was asking for feedback on the evidence that I am posting on various species. The thread has not resulted in much feedback on the evidence itself but there are plenty more species to come! As regards timescales I think it matters not when the research was done - if certain bird species were found to be dying of lead shot poisoning 100 years ago, they will likely still be doing so today. To answer your question on game shoots, many small and large have been moving away from the use of lead shot.

BASC was there and a quick overview post-event is here: https://basc.org.uk/advocating-for-the-future-of-shooting/

Woodcock Lead shot ingestion by woodcock in the UK has not been studied as far as I know, but there could be a primary or secondary exposure risk (as per HSE report to government), as per evidence found in other members of the Scolopax genus. The following article on research for American woodcock (Scolopax minor) in Wisconsin is an interesting read weighing up the various aspects to this. American Woodcock Accumulate Lead According to Study https://projectupland.com/hunting-conservation/american-woodcock-accumulate-lead-according-to-study/ The research itself is here: Lead contamination in American woodcock (Scolopax minor) from Wisconsin https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16132412/ See also some research from Canada Elevated lead exposure in American woodcock (Scolopax minor) in Eastern Canada https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10047602/ Lead and stable lead isotope ratios in soil, earthworms, and bones of American woodcock (Scolopax minor) from eastern Canada https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14587896/ Effects of Nontoxic Shot Regulations on Lead Accumulation in Ducks and American Woodcock in Canada https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00244-004-0044-x Exposure, Effects and Absorption of Lead in American Woodcock (Scolopax minor): A Review https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28710526/

Well on that note, let's crack on with reviewing the various studies on lead shot ingestion in birds without the need for ad hominem arguments. Woodcock will be next.

I do like a game of darts. Maybe one day in a happy utopia we will throw a few in a proper pub in Scotland whilst putting the world of shooting and politics to rights, without a pub brawl.

You are an anonymous person on the internet pontificating about transparency and accountability as an argument against the offer to speak to BASC staff on matters of concern to you about BASC. That's on you. You don't support the voluntary transition away from lead shot and that is absolutely your decision and choice. However, many many others think differently, understanding is growing on the evidenced impacts of lead shot on birds, shoots are moving away from lead shot, people are trying alternatives like steel shot with great success. As regards potential restrictions ahead, the HSE review of lead in ammunition was initiated because of Brexit not because of the voluntary transition. Did you vote 'Yes'? I did, so maybe that is something we have in common.

Your first comment in that thread was "The latest claim that the voluntary transition away from lead shot use over 5 years was not in itself part of a move towards a legislative ban is laughable". Straight into the pub swinging punches and you were more or less last man standing, winner of the most comments in a thread, as usual. If you were genuinely interested in a 'peaceful forum experience' you would pick up the phone to me or Terry Behan, you have had countless offers that you have turned down. What have you got to lose or hide?

Thanks, and not a mention of lead shot bans there. What sparked it all off was this BASC update: https://basc.org.uk/moving-forward-for-the-future-of-shooting/ And the thread ended with @welsh1wheeling out the 'dogs barking at each other' video 🤣

Here is what I wrote in Shooting Times last year on this: I am not saying that chicks eating lead shot is a primary reason for the decline of wild greys in the UK. Without shooting interests keeping the remaining pockets of wild grey populations going they would be long extinct as a British breeding bird. What I’m suggesting is that lead shot is likely stifling our conservation efforts and perhaps we need to consider a fourth leg for that ‘three legged stool’ by moving away from lead shot where we can? It does bemuse me that you think I support a lead ban. I have been fighting lead bans for BASC for over a decade. Have a look online for the evidence. But let's have a wee bit of fun and ask all knowing AI the question "Does Conor O'Gorman of BASC support a lead ban?" Google Gemini BASC, the organization Conor O'Gorman represents, supports a voluntary transition away from lead shot. They have worked to extend the timeline for this transition to ensure the shooting community is prepared. While BASC is not against the idea of reducing lead in the environment, they advocate for a gradual and well-managed change. Chat GPT Conor O'Gorman, as the head of policy and campaigns at the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), has been actively involved in discussions regarding the proposed lead ammunition ban. BASC has advocated for a voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting, emphasizing the need for effective and affordable non-lead alternatives before implementing legal restrictions. O'Gorman has expressed concerns about the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE) proposals, particularly regarding the transition timelines and the availability of suitable non-lead ammunition. He has also highlighted the importance of evidence-based and proportionate restrictions, ensuring that any changes are realistic and guided by the shooting sector to meet market demands. In summary, while O'Gorman and BASC acknowledge the environmental concerns associated with lead ammunition, they advocate for a measured approach that considers the availability of alternatives and the practical implications for shooters. Pi.ai Hmm, I'm not seeing anything specific about Conor O'Gorman of BASC directly supporting a lead ban. However, there is a lot of discussion around BASC's stance on the HSE's proposals to restrict lead ammunition, with BASC advocating for a voluntary transition away from lead shot. It seems like this is a topic BASC and O'Gorman are quite involved in.