Lead Ban

[Whitebridges]

When the ban comes in what will we do with all the toxic lead that has been sprayed across our shoots, meadows, pasture land and shooting schools? There must be tons and tons of it? Are there patches of land that are contaminated beyond recovery? Surely another few million lead cartridges fired wouldn't make any adverse difference?

Do the toxic values of lead die in the ground and become less toxic?

Ban lead? What the hell is the point?

Views and thoughts appreciated. Thank you gents.

[apache]

With no lead my Patterdale will run off

[Blunderbuss]

Whilst I'm not in favour of a lead ban, I'm not sure that particular argument will hold much sway with legislators. There are plenty of other examples where previously ubiquitous substances later deemed toxic were banned, despite the fact decades or centuries of use meant residual material would be around long after the ban. Lead in paint and asbestos spring to mind, I'm sure there are loads of others.

[David BASC]

There is no plan for a lead shot ban.

 

Asbestos was / is an interesting one; I used to work in a lab that tested for it in buildings. Asbestos is petty harmless if you leave it alone, the problem was mainly in the production of asbestos insulation products where is was mixed with concrete or other materials as a carrier and sprayed onto buildings, train carriages etc, this released millions of tiny fibres which can cause nasty cancers of the lining of the lung for those exposed to them.

 

The same problems would occur if you were a contractor refurbishing any thing that was insulated with asbestos; as soon as you break into it fibres are released.

 

There was / is no safe limit of exposure to asbestos and the risks to human health were too high to justify its continued use.

 

Lead in certain forms is very easily absorbed into the human body – organic lead compounds for example like those we used to have in petrol, and young people are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning resulting in problems with cognitive function – hence it being removed from toys (kids suck toys) and from paint – lead salts often used in lead paint are sweet so kids licked it. Again once it was proven there were severe risks to human health the production and use was stopped.

 

Can you remove spend lead from land? Yes in some cases you can, at clay grounds for example where most of the shot falls in the same place spent lead shot can be recovered in many cases, and the cost of lead at the moment makes it economically viable.

 

If the shot is more spread out and or there are physical features that make it tricky to access then it will be less viable I guess.

 

The issue being looked at by the lead ammunition group are:

 

Is spent lead shot harmful to the environment?

Is lead shot a risk to human health?

 

Keep up to speed with meetings and what’s going on here: http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/index.html

 

David

[vulpicide]

I wonder if any one has pointed out that lead is dug out the ground where GOD left it we are only recycling it

[Elby]

I find the lead ban on wildfowl ridiculous.

I can sort of understand in on the coast but inland is crazy.

I have the river Ousel run through one of my farms, I can stand next to it all day shooting pigeons with lead but if i go 2 fields up on the stubble where the geese fly I have to use non toxic.

Don't make much sense to me.

[CZ550Kevlar]

All of you that use lead shot should feel ashamed and be made to walk your permissions and clean your mess up.

[the running man]

The lead must make its way,down into the water table somehow.

[sitsinhedges]

All of you that use lead shot should feel ashamed and be made to walk your permissions and clean your mess up.

 

With a magnifying glass and tweezers

[sitsinhedges]

I find the lead ban on wildfowl ridiculous.

I can sort of understand in on the coast but inland is crazy.

I have the river Ousel run through one of my farms, I can stand next to it all day shooting pigeons with lead but if i go 2 fields up on the stubble where the geese fly I have to use non toxic.

Don't make much sense to me.

 

 

There is no sense, same if a pigeon and a duck fly past together on a field that is no where near water.

 

You can shoot the pigeon with lead but not the duck

[sitsinhedges]

There is no plan for a lead shot ban.

 

Asbestos was / is an interesting one; I used to work in a lab that tested for it in buildings. Asbestos is petty harmless if you leave it alone, the problem was mainly in the production of asbestos insulation products where is was mixed with concrete or other materials as a carrier and sprayed onto buildings, train carriages etc, this released millions of tiny fibres which can cause nasty cancers of the lining of the lung for those exposed to them.

 

The same problems would occur if you were a contractor refurbishing any thing that was insulated with asbestos; as soon as you break into it fibres are released.

 

There was / is no safe limit of exposure to asbestos and the risks to human health were too high to justify its continued use.

 

Lead in certain forms is very easily absorbed into the human body – organic lead compounds for example like those we used to have in petrol, and young people are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning resulting in problems with cognitive function – hence it being removed from toys (kids suck toys) and from paint – lead salts often used in lead paint are sweet so kids licked it. Again once it was proven there were severe risks to human health the production and use was stopped.

 

Can you remove spend lead from land? Yes in some cases you can, at clay grounds for example where most of the shot falls in the same place spent lead shot can be recovered in many cases, and the cost of lead at the moment makes it economically viable.

 

If the shot is more spread out and or there are physical features that make it tricky to access then it will be less viable I guess.

 

The issue being looked at by the lead ammunition group are:

 

Is spent lead shot harmful to the environment?

Is lead shot a risk to human health?

 

Keep up to speed with meetings and what’s going on here: http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/index.html

 

David

 

Isn't it about time the BASC challenged the absurdity of the non tox laws that have been pointed out on this thread where you can't shoot wildfowl away from water but you can shoot anything else. Makes no sense and just makes loading legal ammunition awkward for those of us who might only get the odd lucky unexpected chance at a duck

[henry d]

Isn't it about time the BASC challenged the absurdity of the non tox laws that have been pointed out on this thread where you can't shoot wildfowl away from water but you can shoot anything else. Makes no sense and just makes loading legal ammunition awkward for those of us who might only get the odd lucky unexpected chance at a duck

 

They did, that`s why you may shoot lead inland for `fowl in Scotland, unless the spent lead will fall into waterways or onto land that periodically floods.

[sitsinhedges]

They did, that`s why you may shoot lead inland for `fowl in Scotland, unless the spent lead will fall into waterways or onto land that periodically floods.

 

Not much use unless you live in Scotland though

[anser2]

ELBY what on earth difference is between using lead inland or on the coast. It still poisons waterfowl. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to use lead over fields , but how many shooters would stick to this I wonder . There are still many who use it on wetland sites today.

 

The problem is its not easy to locate poisoned birds. Try a simple experiment , scatter 25 dead pigeons about a marsh and mark them with canes. Come back the next week and see how many you will find. It will be very few. Foxes , rats , crows , gulls will remove most of them.

 

Do not doubt that lead pellets poison water birds it does. I used to ring large numbers of ducks and we caught a lot of ducks suffering from lead poisoning. It takes about a week for them to die and for the first few days they are pretty sick flying low and not leaving the marsh until disturbed , unlike healthy birds that flight out to safe areas at first light. The low flying and late flighting duck are far more likely to be the ones that get shot. So evidence is hard to find unless you are catching live birds.

 

With modern steel shells , lead offers little advantage and the excuse for using lead for any sort of shooting is getting thinner and thinner. Most of the people who are against using steel have not used the new modern shells. Its only at the very extreme of range that lead offers any advantage over steel and for 90% of pigeon and duck shooting steel will do the job. And upgrade to 3 inch steel shells and they are just as good as a 1.1\16th oz lead shell and at very little extra cost. £6.05 a box against £5.60 a box for quality lead shells in my local gun shop. Of course cheaper if you buy in bulk

[Whitebridges]

There is no plan for a lead shot ban.

 

Can you remove spend lead from land? Yes in some cases you can, at clay grounds for example where most of the shot falls in the same place spent lead shot can be recovered in many cases, and the cost of lead at the moment makes it economically viable.

 

If the shot is more spread out and or there are physical features that make it tricky to access then it will be less viable I guess.

 

The issue being looked at by the lead ammunition group are:

 

Is spent lead shot harmful to the environment?

Is lead shot a risk to human health?

 

Keep up to speed with meetings and what’s going on here: http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/index.html

 

David

 

I for one appreciate there is no plan for a lead shot ban. I have however read all the information on the lead ammunition group website and thank you kindly for posting this. There is an inference in the RSPB WWT letter the writer(s) would like it banned. This letter has to be the catalyst for the formation of this group.

 

Thank you for your insight on cleaning lead shot from land.

 

Having read the minutes and terms of reference the goals have been tweaked. Are they now exactly as you quote above David? It is shocking that there is still no formal project plan (the minutes make reference to Gantt charts) the deadline for which have consistently been pushed out. This says without doubt the group still do not know what they are going to deliver and by when.

 

I get more and more concerned that BASC are spending bucketfuls of members money without any clear line of sight and benefits to cost.

 

Was there a meeting in August? There is a commitment by the secretariat to publish these within one month from the date of the meeting.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Whitebridges

[Graham M]

With modern steel shells , lead offers little advantage and the excuse for using lead for any sort of shooting is getting thinner and thinner. Most of the people who are against using steel have not used the new modern shells. Its only at the very extreme of range that lead offers any advantage over steel and for 90% of pigeon and duck shooting steel will do the job. And upgrade to 3 inch steel shells and they are just as good as a 1.1\16th oz lead shell and at very little extra cost. £6.05 a box against £5.60 a box for quality lead shells in my local gun shop. Of course cheaper if you buy in bulk

Well there ya go, another shooter giving the government all the excuse it needs to ban lead altogether.

I can just see it now, as the “Honourable MP for Ducksford on Marsh” stands up in the house and spouts

 

“If shooters are ready to admit that lead needs to be banned then why not ban it completely and have done with it.”

 

And of course BASC will have to admit that they can see no alternative……….after all….. the evidence is already starting to look “Irrefutable”

 

 

G.M.

 

 

ps..........you're not a BASC official are you by any chance.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Graham M

[Elby]

ELBY what on earth difference is between using lead inland or on the coast.I would have thought that obvious, it's spent shot that is the proble apparently, not bird poisoning It still poisons waterfowl. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to use lead over fields , but how many shooters would stick to this I wonder . There are still many who use it on wetland sites today.

 

The problem is its not easy to locate poisoned birds. Try a simple experiment , scatter 25 dead pigeons about a marsh and mark them with canes. Come back the next week and see how many you will find. It will be very few. Foxes , rats , crows , gulls will remove most of them.

 

Do not doubt that lead pellets poison water birds it does. I used to ring large numbers of ducks and we caught a lot of ducks suffering from lead poisoning. It takes about a week for them to die and for the first few days they are pretty sick flying low and not leaving the marsh until disturbed , unlike healthy birds that flight out to safe areas at first light. The low flying and late flighting duck are far more likely to be the ones that get shot. So evidence is hard to find unless you are catching live birds.

 

With modern steel shells , lead offers little advantage and the excuse for using lead for any sort of shooting is getting thinner and thinner. Most of the people who are against using steel have not used the new modern shells. Its only at the very extreme of range that lead offers any advantage over steel and for 90% of pigeon and duck shooting steel will do the job. And upgrade to 3 inch steel shells and they are just as good as a 1.1\16th oz lead shell and at very little extra cost. £6.05 a box against £5.60 a box for quality lead shells in my local gun shop. Of course cheaper if you buy in bulk

I don't really get your argument, if lead poisons wildfowl it poisons all birds, would you like a total ban on lead?

Would a wounded bird shot with steel suffer any less?

Are you saying that the late low flying birds are likely to be suffering from lead poisoning? If so surely it's a good thing that these are more likely to be shot.

If evidence is hard to find you can't really lay claim for any basis to your argument (if indeed you have one).

I have never said that I am against the use of steel shot, just that I think the law is daft and that it can't really be administered.

Lets get real, if you're stood in the middle of a field shooting a few flighting pigeons and out of the blue comes a skein of geese or a few duck, how many people are likely to change to non toxic and have a shot?

[Whitebridges]

ELBY what on earth difference is between using lead inland or on the coast. It still poisons waterfowl. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to use lead over fields , but how many shooters would stick to this I wonder . There are still many who use it on wetland sites today.

 

The problem is its not easy to locate poisoned birds. Try a simple experiment , scatter 25 dead pigeons about a marsh and mark them with canes. Come back the next week and see how many you will find. It will be very few. Foxes , rats , crows , gulls will remove most of them.

 

Do not doubt that lead pellets poison water birds it does. I used to ring large numbers of ducks and we caught a lot of ducks suffering from lead poisoning. It takes about a week for them to die and for the first few days they are pretty sick flying low and not leaving the marsh until disturbed , unlike healthy birds that flight out to safe areas at first light. The low flying and late flighting duck are far more likely to be the ones that get shot. So evidence is hard to find unless you are catching live birds.

 

With modern steel shells , lead offers little advantage and the excuse for using lead for any sort of shooting is getting thinner and thinner. Most of the people who are against using steel have not used the new modern shells. Its only at the very extreme of range that lead offers any advantage over steel and for 90% of pigeon and duck shooting steel will do the job. And upgrade to 3 inch steel shells and they are just as good as a 1.1\16th oz lead shell and at very little extra cost. £6.05 a box against £5.60 a box for quality lead shells in my local gun shop. Of course cheaper if you buy in bulk

 

 

Hi Rob, I'm not sure your experiment means anything and accept your conclusion in that the vermin would eat the lot!

No one likes pricked or dead birds lying about and in the majority of instances these would be picked and removed from the ground they had been shot over.

A key question for me in the context of your post is how the ducks got lead poisoning? Are you going back a few years when they picked it up on the foreshore in the weed etc, etc? With the foreshore ban presumably this issue has now disappeared? Are you still tending to ducks with lead poisoning?

 

You are a very experienced 'fowler and I respect your views on the use of steel on the foreshore for duck and geese. I do not accept that steel is the way ahead for game and general vermin control. For one I have never seen a wobbly pheasant, partridge, rabbit or pigeon which has overdosed on lead through eating the stuff.

 

Cheers.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Whitebridges

[gunhills]

The lead must make its way,down into the water table somehow.

Seeing as alot of properties in UK still have lead pipe supplying the drinking water into their homes can't see a problem

[poontang]

Having read the minutes and terms of reference the goals have been tweaked. Are they now exactly as you quote above David? It is shocking that there is still no formal project plan (the minutes make reference to Gantt charts) the deadline for which have consistently been pushed out. This says without doubt the group still do not know what they are going to deliver and by when.

 

I get more and more concerned that BASC are spending bucketfuls of members money without any clear line of sight and benefits to cost.

 

Was there a meeting in August? There is a commitment by the secretariat to publish these within one month from the date of the meeting.

 

Very well said.

 

Very little seems to have happened since the first meeting 5 months ago. We're nearly half way through the consultation process and I've yet to see any real evidence in the support of lead ammunition.

 

It feels to me like a done deal, and the BASC (and others) are just going through the motions.

Edited September 29, 2010 by poontang

[Graham M]

I know that I now get shouldered with the term “BASC basher” by members of BASC due to my constant questioning of their policies. David used to put forward an argument at one time, but now seems to be more content with just insulting me whenever I make my feelings known.

I have been saying for months that I do not believe BASC will oppose this lead ban, and that once it is implemented BASC WILL simply roll over and agree with it saying that they find the evidence to be “irrefutable” and as such needs to be complied with,

When the lead ban for shooting Wildfowl was implemented BASC didn’t fight tooth-and-nail as did other organisations, they simply put forward their own argument that lead WAS poisonous (which we all know to be the truth) but didn’t make any real effort to point out that lead is found naturally in the ground and will always be there whether we shoot it or not.

My own feelings are that any organisation that is paid by its members to protect shooting should do exactly that……..protect shooting. It should not simply take their member’s money and then go off and agree with everything that the opposition says, and then go back to its members with what then amounts to a “fait accompli”.

 

If this lead ban proposal goes through (and I am heartily sick of listening to people saying that there is no proposed ban) then it will not only affect lead pellets, but lead bullets as well, and we will all be expected to use non-toxic rifle ammunition.

I don’t know what many of you are paying per K on your .22rf ammo, but if lead is banned and you have to use a non-lead bullet, then you will be looking at double the price in future with a less effective round.

 

The RSPB are the instigators of this and I believe it was done with the intentions of mischief making to try and stop as much shooting as possible. The RSPB has the backing of 2,300,0000 members and has enormous financial backing as well as the ears of many antis in government. They didn’t just put this idea forward as a bit of a lark or to pass the time of day. It was proposed as a genuine way to stop the use of lead and to make it as expensive as possible (and therefore cutting down the numbers of shooters) to shoot.

Our shooting organisations should be moving forward with a definitive plan to counter these proposals, not simply denying that there is any threat, and then waiting until the ban is proposed before simply agreeing with all the scientific evidence and then telling us all to do as we are told. It’s all very well boasting about having a cosy relationship with ministers, but that cosy relationship doesn’t mean a thing if our representatives are simply having a nice meeting, talking about nice things…………and then simply agreeing with those ministers.

 

The days of capitulation have long gone. We said nothing in 1988 and our semi-auto full bore rifles were taken. We said nothing in 1996 and our pistols were taken. We said nothing in 1999 and lead was banned over wetlands. And if we say nothing now ALL lead ammunition will be banned.

 

I cannot believe that BASC are simple in denial over these proposals. They aren’t just being proposed in this country, they are being proposed all over the western world with the NRA in America already gearing up for the fight.

 

Why are we being lulled into thinking there is no threat?

 

 

G.M.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Graham M

[anser2]

One of the major arguments against lead poisoning birds is that you do not often find the dead birds and my explanation is that scavengers clear most of the carcasses up and shooting is likely to remove many of the affected birds when they are in the early stages of poisoning.

 

Back in the 1980s when it was still legal to use lead shot for wildfowl . I used to catch several thousand duck a year for ringing in the Wensum Valley and a number of these birds were suffering from lead poisoning. Tufted duck and pochard were the worst affected as they could pick up spent shot from the hard bottoms of several near by shot over flooded gravel pits. The symptoms of lead poisoning were very bright green dropping staining their under plumage and a lack of energy in the birds. Later they became listless and stopped feeding and would be dead in about a week. On dissection we found between 1 and 7 pellets in the gizzard.

 

I no longer ring waterfowl , but talking to others there is not much of a problem now with the exception of sites where very heavy shooting has taken place in the past and the pellets are still within reach of the birds. The rate they sink into the pond substrate depends if its soft mud or sand\gravel. And a flood or dredging out the mud can expose pellets fired years ago. If you search back in this forum I did post several links of articles where pheasants and other game birds had been found with lead poisoning. Rabbits are not effected in the same manner as they have a different digestive system with no gizzard. However where exceptional amounts of lead shot has dropped onto the ground grass can absorbe it and them when a rabbit or hare eats the grass it too will suffer from lead poisoning . This happened at Somerlayton clay shooting ground on the Norfolk\Suffolk boarder and for many years the rabbits and hares were unfit for human consumption due to very high lead levels in the body.

 

ELBY yes lead can effect all birds though waterfowl are likely to be worst effected as they dibble at the waters edge. As for wounding , that’s no more a problem with lead than steel with modern cartridges ( though a lot of the early steel shells were rubbish ). The evidence is there if you handle large numbers of live birds , but as I said finding dead birds in the wild is difficult. After all we have millions of song birds in our gardens that die every year and yet how many of us find more than the odd one or two birds every year.

 

Well if you are shooting pigeons you are likely to be using no 6 shot or smaller . That’s far too smaller shot size for a realiable kill at geese. I hope everyone would at the very least change to a more suitable shot size for the larger quarry. And if you are going to do that you might as well use a non toxic cartridge.

 

Gunhills lead does not easily dissolve in water. That’s why it used to be used for water pipes. Anyway dissolved lead is not the real problem , it’s the whole pellets that birds pick up and use to grind down food in the gizzard. Its this grinding process that releases toxic lead into the bloodstream.

 

I think the majority of shooters against steel have not used the new steel shells that have come on the market in the last year or so. I still use lead when pigeon shooting most of the time mainly because my farmer supplies me with free shells , but increasingly when I do buy my own shells I find steel shells cheaper and it does the job almost as well as lead with the exception of those very high shots , that perhaps we really should not take anyway. There are still some pretty poor steel shells out there , but gamebore steel in 4s do the job fine.

[Elby]

Actually I'm quite happy to use No6 shot at geese.

You have your reasons for being anti lead and that's fair enough.

I've used steel and bismuth and found them to be pretty ****, think more birds are wounded due to that.

Also why are they so expensive? if you take a pound of lead to a scrap yard it will fetch far more than a pound of steel.

I've been shooting about 30 years, been a keeper for around 10 years, so far I have never found a pheasant/pigeon/partridge ect dead or dying due to lead poisoning.

Like you say they are hard to find but strangly enough I've not found a fox dying of it neither due to eating all the lead poisoned birds.

If it was as common as you say the big estates that have been shooting for 100's of years would have more birds dying than the predators could eat.

Edited September 29, 2010 by Elby

[BlaserF3]

Can someone point me in the direction to a link which proves there is scientific evidence in the United Kingdom for a ban on lead shot.

 

If "they" ban lead it will finish shooting as we know it and that's what the Government wants, they do not want the populace to be armed at all, it's an easy way out with no compensation issues.

 

What use are air rifles or rim fire without lead projectiles?

[wymberley]

Can someone point me in the direction to a link which proves there is scientific evidence in the United Kingdom for a ban on lead shot.

 

If "they" ban lead it will finish shooting as we know it and that's what the Government wants, they do not want the populace to be armed at all, it's an easy way out with no compensation issues.

 

What use are air rifles or rim fire without lead projectiles?

And, please, while you're looking, could you find which manufacturer makes an affordable alternative to lead in a 21/2" case.

Cheers