Jump to content

Fellside

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fellside

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

460 profile views
  1. Conor, I have now read the paper you sent me re lead shot / terrestrial habitats. Well..... more of a literature review really. I have to say it was very robust and thorough. This is the authoritative evidence I’ve been looking for - and does leave us in no doubt re phasing out lead shot. May I recommend that this paper becomes your ‘gold standard’ study’ - the clincher. The earlier biased and weak papers which were being bandied about were never credible. You were always going to meet resistance with those. I think you (we) have an irrefutable evidence base now. I hop
  2. Hello Jim Neal, I have too have been curious about this Bioammo. After doing a lot of digging, all I can find out is that the wad is made from material of “vegetable origin”. It doesn’t appear to be a bio plastic as such. It would be good to see some audacious publicity tests - getting animals to ingest it etc.....?!
  3. My two penneth: I think it’s more of a nee jerk piece of ‘environmentalism’ from gov’ and org’s. Being seen to ride the ‘green wave’ re populism etc.
  4. Scully, I think your assessment re the political is correct. I have concluded similar. It can be the only reason why DEFRA’s announcement was so bias in favour of non-lead (with spurious figures of shaky origin). It also has to be why BASC et al are thrashing out the same type of message...... and staying on messages no matter what. This appears to be a done deal.
  5. Just out of interest - what kind of ‘non lead’ are you using through your 28 bore to kill Canadas?
  6. Conor, Just for clarity. Personally I am not a conspiracist nor a BASC basher. I merely insist upon high quality ‘clean evidence’ re terrestrial context - thus far not demonstrated. I appreciate your contributions to the discussion.
  7. Conor, I am well aware of where the estimate (50,000 to 100,000) originates. It is still an ‘estimate’ and relates to wildfowl not terrestrial fauna. Further, the DEFRA press release was an extremely bias political stunt - to demonstrate strong favourability towards a lead ban. Ground preparation really. Much of its quoted evidence lacked credibility as it shared a similar source to yours. It was primarily a hard sell to Jo public - hardly a balanced appraisal. It was also highly unfortunate (but not surprising) that there wasn’t any reply facility on that particular press page.
  8. Jim Neale, I think your assessment of the paper is entirely accurate. It is flawed and biased from beginning to end. You may be interested to know that the lead author was non other than Julia Newth of WWT!!
  9. Thanks for your reply Conor. Unfortunately the Newth et al paper you posted was seriously flawed and biased. At best It lacked credibility. At worst it is propaganda cloaked as science. I may get to evaluate some of the other studies you have referred to - I will try to find the time. Thank you for forwarding them. However I am slightly concerned re your bullet points. When an author ‘estimates’ such an imprecise range: 50,000 to 100,000 deaths. I think we can call this ‘estimate’ a guess at best. Quotes like “may be effecting population growth rates”. This means it equally may not.
  10. Conor, I have this morning read and evaluated the abstract alone from the “relevant research” paper you have sent me. It is quite revealing. The paper is riddled with bias and contradiction - but of course it would be as the lead author is non other than Julia Newth from the WWT! The paper does nothing more than to contrive and contort in order to achieve a lead banning message. If this was a clinical trial, it wouldn’t get passed the editorial review stage - down to the abstract alone. 1. It quotes 10.6% waterfowl mortality - but these figures are unfortunately from 19
  11. Conor, Could you please ask your contacts at WWT for any robust data / evidence (if there is any) arising from this film. It has been established here that some of the lead pieces in the gizzard contents are in fact split shot, the type once used in Angling. These were outlawed in 1987 - although the great majority of anglers had stopped using them at least 2 years prior. It would be helpful if good ‘clean’ science could prevail. At the moment this film appears only as a propaganda piece.
  12. Either way it’s a piece of pseudoscience. The main problem arising - is that many people will ‘buy it’ so to speak.
  13. Apologies Scully - yes there appears to be a couple of split shot there amongst the others. Desperately bad science though....!!
  14. My apologies Clangerman (and Scully). I have enlarged the WWT video and also scrutinised the pellets with my reading specs. I can now see that at least one of the pellets is a split shot. I had a very good image and sharp detail - I could see one more that could have been split also. Where this bird could have picked them up is a mystery as they have not been sold in the UK (or Europe) for decades......?! Perhaps somewhere on its long haul migration....... or it is very old footage. Unfortunately though, most of the pellets don’t appear split. I agree with above comments however, that this is
×
×
  • Create New...