coyotemaster Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 Evidently BASC is taking the more informed and scholarly approach to the lead problem. One of their 5 strategic objectives is balanced comment in the media, I interpret that to mean a non radical stand on controversial subjects. Lead in soils is a multifaceted problem, according to a University of California "Home Gardens and lead" much depends on the type of produce grown as to lead contamination. Root veggies being affected more than say peppers and tomatoes. Soil Ph (potential hydrogen) is another factor as low Ph soils are favorable to plant uptake of heavy metals and more base soil 6.8-7.2 are less prone to contamination. As an organic grower myself I strive always to keep a favorable Ph (6.5) for healthy plants. In the U.S. several years ago there was a big blow up on lead in cows milk, the cows that were causing the elevation of lead were pastured along an interstate highway. Obviously the lead from motor fuel exhaust was settling on the grass or being incorporated into the soil and being eaten by the cattle. The hard fact is that man and his environment are one and what we do to improve or deplete it ultimately affects us and future generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 coyotemaster, I listen to what you are saying and respect your views and opinions. But having debated this subject for more than twenty five years and I have to say totally opposed to lead shot restrictions until such time someone comes forward with scientific facts that lead is such a danger to the environment as the American green society have portrayed. We have never been shown the hundreds of wildfowl that die a dreadful death due to ingestion of lead pellets, either corpses or photographs, why not? We have never seen the hordes of madmen suffering from lead poisoning. But most crucial of all we have not seen the economic alternative shot to lead. Lead shot cartridges efficiently kill wildfowl in the hands of competent shots which is the whole point of shooting at them. Alternatives have a higher incidence of wounding birds and that is a fact. A skilled shot does not suddenly become inefficient at shooting when he changes to non-toxic shot, he becomes handicapped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotemaster Posted January 25, 2012 Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 coyotemaster, I listen to what you are saying and respect your views and opinions. But having debated this subject for more than twenty five years and I have to say totally opposed to lead shot restrictions until such time someone comes forward with scientific facts that lead is such a danger to the environment as the American green society have portrayed. We have never been shown the hundreds of wildfowl that die a dreadful death due to ingestion of lead pellets, either corpses or photographs, why not? We have never seen the hordes of madmen suffering from lead poisoning. But most crucial of all we have not seen the economic alternative shot to lead. Lead shot cartridges efficiently kill wildfowl in the hands of competent shots which is the whole point of shooting at them. Alternatives have a higher incidence of wounding birds and that is a fact. A skilled shot does not suddenly become inefficient at shooting when he changes to non-toxic shot, he becomes handicapped. Thank you for the gentleman like reply on a subject you must feel very passionately about. It shows restraint and good breeding on your part. Insidious is the word I would employ when speaking of the poisoning of either men or fowl, as it is a gradual process and you won't likely find a pile of dead ducks or geese or a room full of madmen that would give clear meaning to being poisoned outright. If you found a dead duck or 2 in the marsh you would assume crippling, when you read of a fellow man pitching a rope over a railing or jumping from a bridge you assume instability. But what if the ducks had ingested lead shot and became ill and died and what if the man in question had significant heavy metal exposures that contributed to his state of mind. I am not so young that I don't remember the good old days of hearing a load of lead BBs hit a goose at 60 yds with a resounding whap! And I am in full agreement that "reasonably priced alternatives" is perhaps contradictory at best, hevy shot is great! Can you and I afford it ? Not I. But steel can be and is effective and has some properties that lead does not. Tom Roster has a series of waterfowl shooting tapes that show geese being harvested cleanly out to 70 yds. with the 3" 12 ga. with BBB shot. Roster is a ballistics expert and published the lethality tables for the U.S. Dept of Interior. I would strongly urge anyone who doubts the efficacy of steel to contact Roster for the "Pass Shooting Demonstrations and techniques" ALL shots are recorded with a rangefinder and birds are autopsied for pellet hits and penetration. Thank you for seeing both sides of a touchy subject. CM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Use lead and just keep a few steels in your pocket in case you have to be searched errr what good will that do? Edited January 26, 2012 by cookoff013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Personally, as an ex scientist, I think the Tom Roster work is very good, simply because it looks at what really happens in the field. There has been far too much talk in the UK from ballistic experts who produce wonderful articles on shot performance based on tables and charts and mathematical extrapolation. That’s all well and good but does not reflect accurately or precisely what happens in the field, as Roster has clearly shown. We need to know what really happens , what the limits or restrictions relaly are, what the best shot sizes and loads really are, not want may happen etc based on charts! All heavy metal poisoinings tend to by caused by the cumulative effect of exposure over time and unless taken in massive acute quantities will not present acute poisoning. Hence you will not see mass ‘die offs’ in any one area. Millions of birds die in the UK every year, for illness , starvation, cold or just old age and many of us spend hundreds of hours a year in the woods, fields or on the foreshore- how many dead birds do we see? Almost none. I can remember finding only three dead birds in my entire life (apart from the ones I shot of course) The Lead Ammunition Group is still looking at the effects (if any) of lead shot in the environment or in shot game sold as food. The research is still going on, and you can see on their web page all the meeting reports etc. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) Quote I listen to what you are saying and respect your views and opinions. But having debated this subject for more than twenty five years and I have to say totally opposed to lead shot restrictions until such time someone comes forward with scientific facts that lead is such a danger to the environment as the American green society have portrayed. We have never been shown the hundreds of wildfowl that die a dreadful death due to ingestion of lead pellets, either corpses or photographs, why not? Just read the many scientific papers on lead posioning of wildfowl and you will find plenty of evidence of the effect of lead on wildfowl. Quote We have never seen the hordes of madmen suffering from lead poisoning. But most crucial of all we have not seen the economic alternative shot to lead. Lead is mainly a problem for birds because of their different digestive system compared to mammals. Lead shot cartridges efficiently kill wildfowl in the hands of competent shots which is the whole point of shooting at them. True , but then so does non toxic cartridges as a 50 yard canada killed stone dead with steel the other day found out. Quote Alternatives have a higher incidence of wounding birds and that is a fact. That used to be the case , but modern non toxic loads are greatly improved . True steel does not quite have the killing power of lead at the very limits of range , but Tungstun and hevi-shot does. Quote A skilled shot does not suddenly become inefficient at shooting when he changes to non-toxic shot, he becomes handicapped. Steel has its own skills that need to be mastered compared with lead , but once done it is a very comparable pellet. The main problem is that steel was introduced before the loads had been perfected. Today its a very different story. Use the right shot size ( 2-3 times bigger than lead ) the right gun ( proved for big loads ) and most important for long range shooting the correct after choke. Salopian if you had asked me what I had thought of steel 5 years ago I would have agreed it was pretty usless. But with an average of 2 geese in the bag for every three shots on foreshore geese using fast BB amd BBB pellets with a very full .700 after choke proves that steel can do the job very well within a 50 yard range and is very comparable with most lead magnum loads , with the exception of the old copper plated lead , buffered Winchester XXX 1 7\8th oz loads , which were probably the best cartridge ever made in my opinion. Shooting steel is a different skill , but with a little effore its not too hard. there will come a time when public demand will ban lead , I am not saying we should abandon it without a token fight , but I for one will not morn its loss. Edited January 26, 2012 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 Anser, Could you give me a solution to the many of us who wildfowl with classic English guns which are not suitable for steel shot. Also Tim Woodhouse has written a very good article on the shortcomings of soft iron shot this is in the current edition of the CPSA magazine Pull. I have read most of the scientific papers that have been written on the effects of lead on wildfowl, but I have not seen photographs or numbers recorded of the incidence of lead contamination in specific areas, ie. there is no evidence of noticably higher mortality rates in any specific area where studies were carried out. All that we ever got was blatantly exaggerated figures of mortality on the western seaboard of America to substantiate a ban to save the Bald Eagle and Condor. Hardly endangered species in the Dovey Estuary. Give me an efficient alternative material to lead with similar ballistic properties that will cost 28p (double the cost of a Lead load) and you will get my support. I do not want to pick Ducks that are maimed by steel (soft iron) shot, and this is exactly what is happening with people who conform to the letter of the law on English gameshoots. These Guns are not poor shots, they are handicapped shots. Handicapped by ill thought out legislation that is not being correctly addressed. Why can Scotland get it better than England? It is not difficult to be sensible about this, but it does need our representative body to get off it's backside and earn some credability and start to lobby for a change in the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 I guess you like Tims paper in pull, because his chart and graph article supports you view, but seen to ignore Toms 20 plus years in field research because it does not. Well we are all entitled to our own view if course, but as a scientist I know which one I go for! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted January 26, 2012 Report Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) You do not see large numbers of dead wildfowl suffering from lead poisoning for two main reasons . It takes about 5 7 days for a single ingested pellet to kill a mallard. That bird will be pretty sick for a few days before it dies and will be very likely to be shot as it will be the bird that flys lower or stays on the marsh when all the healthy birds are far out on the roost. A Danish guy did some research by placing 100 dead ducks on a marsh and marking the spots. He kept the spots under observation and saw foxes and crows tackle a number of the corpses and when he returned a week later could only find a handful of the ducks he placed down. Every years 100s of thousands , maybe millions of garden birds die of natural causes and yet how many do you ever find ? For the same reason a mix of predators , and decomposers ( fly maggots , ect ) dispose of the bodies very quickly. Next time you have a good bag of pigeons try out the Danish Guys experiment , I think you will be surprised how few birds you recover a week later. As for guns the answer is simple , buy a gun that will handle the correct steel loads for the job and stop trying to use old English guns for a purpose they are not made for. You have to ask yourself a simple question what is more important to use a traditional gun that will not handle the steel loads needed to make clean kills or carry on using them and accept that you are going to wound birds by using inefficient light steel loads. My old 12 bore stays in the gun safe today while a Browning s\a does a very good job instead. There are some very good steel loads that will cost you the same as lead. Try Gamebore mammoth 3 inch loads in number three for medium size ducks or Remmington 3.5 inch in no 2 for mallard and you will find they are just as effective as lead. As for Scotland having a better law , I doubt it. Lead pellets on farmland can be a problem for birds and makes it almost impossible to gain a conviction for anyone flouting the law and using lead over water. If we want to be shooting in the future its the shooting community who is going to have to change and accept using toxic lead has a very poor image in the public mind and if BASC makes more than a token fight for lead shooting sports will become tarnished in the public eye and we can expect to lose it . I spent hours finding dozens of papers on the effect of lead posioning on birds a couple of years ago and posted them on the forum. I am not going to go through that again , just search back through the posts and the links are there for all to read. Edited January 26, 2012 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think that once again we will have to agree to not accept each others point of view. Tom Roster has made a very good living promoting the use of soft iron as a viable alternative to Lead. At the expense of having to buy a 3 1/2" chambered gun to use loads that can handle sufficient amounts of the junk to try to get near the efficiency of Lead. Thus consigning examples of British craftsmanship to the cabinet rather than being used for the purpose that they were originally built for. Interestingly the (nearly) efficient loads of soft iron can not be commercially bought in this country as they are still not recognised by the Proof Houses. I wonder why that is? I also noted how we conveniently skirted round the Duck shooting issue! How would you feel about shooting 50 of the Super Magnum proof Steel loads in quick succession on a duck flight? Of course we wouldn't do that would we? As driven Duck is not sport. Sorry to say that this non-toxic shot is an ill thought out mess and it is about time it was sorted out properly. Incidentally, how many successful prosecutions have there been for shooting wildfowl with Lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 I think that once again we will have to agree to not accept each others point of view. Tom Roster has made a very good living promoting the use of soft iron as a viable alternative to Lead. At the expense of having to buy a 3 1/2" chambered gun to use loads that can handle sufficient amounts of the junk to try to get near the efficiency of Lead. Thus consigning examples of British craftsmanship to the cabinet rather than being used for the purpose that they were originally built for. Interestingly the (nearly) efficient loads of soft iron can not be commercially bought in this country as they are still not recognised by the Proof Houses. I wonder why that is? I also noted how we conveniently skirted round the Duck shooting issue! How would you feel about shooting 50 of the Super Magnum proof Steel loads in quick succession on a duck flight? Of course we wouldn't do that would we? As driven Duck is not sport. Sorry to say that this non-toxic shot is an ill thought out mess and it is about time it was sorted out properly. Incidentally, how many successful prosecutions have there been for shooting wildfowl with Lead? yes, nontoxic issue is a mess. where interpretation of the law. you cannot shoot clays over a lake using lead shot. i totally agree that the lead ban,it was an over reaction. i thought there was a prosecution for not using nontoxic. but i think it was £100. the joke being its actually cheaper to get prosecuted than actually pay for (decent) non toxic shot. speed steel loads are not recognised by the proof house because of the additional limits. that being shotsize limitation (and interpretation of) speed limitation (1400fps) recoil limitation (15ns) shotsize limitation, so small shot has to be used. speed limitation, no shell manufacturer will get close to 1400 fps, incase one of the test shells go over and the batch has to be ditched. faster shells are shot the more recoil. i think the stocks of old guns are prone to breaking, especially pounded with heavy recoiling shells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 yes, nontoxic issue is a mess. where interpretation of the law. you cannot shoot clays over a lake using lead shot. i totally agree that the lead ban,it was an over reaction. i thought there was a prosecution for not using nontoxic. but i think it was £100. the joke being its actually cheaper to get prosecuted than actually pay for (decent) non toxic shot. speed steel loads are not recognised by the proof house because of the additional limits. that being shotsize limitation (and interpretation of) speed limitation (1400fps) recoil limitation (15ns) shotsize limitation, so small shot has to be used. speed limitation, no shell manufacturer will get close to 1400 fps, incase one of the test shells go over and the batch has to be ditched. faster shells are shot the more recoil. i think the stocks of old guns are prone to breaking, especially pounded with heavy recoiling shells. I shoot over a lake using lead shot every week at Kibworth SG, here's a pic. http://www.kibworthshootingground.co.uk/index.html Sometimes you even have ducks on it watching us, completely unmoved by the banging :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 David, BASC, I do not choose to ignore Tom Roster's findings or anyone else's for that matter. But I do like them to be factual and not emotive. As you are well aware Tom carried out work that highlighted the inefficiency of American wildfowlers shooting skills, BASC then followed suit and found that the British sportsmans shooting ability was not as bad as that of the Americans in the limited tests carried out. This as been my problem all along, we have been led by the nose, cap in hand by American findings on mortality in Wildfowl rather than evaluating what the real problem we have here in the UK. I know that this has been done to death for years but Scientists have never come forward with figures for the UK. If we have a problem let us address it scientifically and factually. Not make statistics support ill founded science. What is the mortality rate and incidences of Lead poisoning in Cornwall, Angelsey, and Minsterley in Shropshire, where lead mining was the local industry? Give me some case studies where Lead shot has been proven to have affected wildfowl numbers in any area in the British Isles please. If clayshooters are shooting lead across water and into water has there been any recorded findings of increased mortality to wildlife. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 The 'problem' if indeed there is one, is being looked at by the Lead Ammunition Group. As for lead shot harming wildfowl in the UK, maybe you remember the pictures on the TV, newspapers etc in the 70's about 'fowl being poisoned with lead shot on inland waterways... If you have not seen Tom’s films of his shooting of steel shot then you should. I don’t think that US duck are any more susceptible to lead than UK ducks, but maybe I am wrong, and maybe all the other scientists in all the other European countries that have banning in parts lead shot are wrong too and maybe you are right…. So I guess you will be filling up with leaded petrol as you pop down the DIY store to get some leaded paint for the kids bedroom and some lead piping for the kitchen water soppy so you can do some DIY this weekend, and don’t forget to buy the lead toy soldiers for your grandkids birthday will you? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 David, What a fantastic response. Do you have any lead soldiers you could give me? They must be worth a fortune, or I could melt them down to make shot. Lead water pipe is still transporting water all over the UK, and my car is a Diesel. BUT, is steel shot still being favoured in Denmark, Sweden & Norway? Especially around the saw mills. If I could still buy leaded paint I would, it is a far superior product with quicker drying time. If steel shot is such a wonderful product, and we are concerned about soil pollution, should BASC not lead the way and use steel loaded cartridges for their shooting school, after all they are cheaper than Lead, which would save the membership money, and also there being more pellets per ounce they possibly would be more efficient on the closer targets. Just a thought. As I said earlier, I have not been convinced on the Lead shot debate, so sadly I will have to agree to disagree. Also my rants and tirades are detracting from the original post, so I think it may be in everyone's interest if I keep my thoughts to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 Sold all my lead soldiers I am afraid As an ex Severn Trent employee I can assure you pipes are being replaced where possible / needed and not with lead. Leads not been used for decades. Lead paint is very dangerous, especially to children, quick drying is no compensation for poisoning kids in my view. We will use lead when and where we choose, with our BASC shooting school, and why not? The price is not the only issue; plastic wads are also a consideration! We can all express our view, and rightly so, agree to disagree and remain friends. Ta Daivd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted January 27, 2012 Report Share Posted January 27, 2012 I find the spokesman for BASC very condescending in his replies about lead shot, as there is still no scientific evidence of lead shot poisoning in the U.K. All the evidence is from other countries and is basically based on speculation here. Can someone tell me how many shooters actually go wild fowling and how many still use lead shot, I believe BASC did a survey and 45% of shooters are still using lead, they must have a good reason for doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZ550Kevlar Posted January 28, 2012 Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 Is there anywhere to find what the alternative steel cartridge is to lead? many moons ago someone spouted off to me that to get the same stopping power in steel you had to go bigger in shot size and load but didn`t know if there was some way of just looking it up. i use 30gram 6 super game extreme which are good to 60 yards on pigeons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) BlaserF3 in my experience compliance with using non toxic shot it 100% on the three club grounds I shoot on . We have to sign a form to say we only use non toxic shot and if any club member is found using lead he will be chucked out of the club. Its one thing to fool a reserve warden about the shells you are using , but other club members will soon cotton on if you are using lead. In the main the people who are not using non toxic shot are game shooters who cant be bothered to change their guns or buy shells that are suitable to use such as Bismuth , despite on the whole being far better off than the average wildfowler. There is no longer any excuse for anyone to be using lead for wildfowling . Modern good quality , shop bought steel kills and kills well , but a major problem is a lot of shooters cant be bothered to learn how to shoot with it. Just try Gamebore mammoth steel in no 3 for your duck shooting and anyone would realise they no longer need to use lead . Over the past decade I have shot many 100s of geese and duck with it and its only a few pence more expensive than lead loads. But what you will not do with steel is bring down those fluky 60 yard shots which in most cases with lead only wound birds anyway. As for documented records of large numbers of wildfowl being killed , I seem to remember 120 + greylag being poisoned on a Scottish loch and a number of whooper swans being poisoned by lead on a Scottish foreshore being published in the Shooting Times a few years ago. I have caught dozens of tufted duck and pochard suffering from lead poisoning while running a duck trap for ringing. And this was at a site where there is no shooting and very little duck shooting within 10 miles. So these birds had picked up the lead pellets elsewhere. While working in a big wildfowl collection my boss once shot a crow over the pens and the result a few weeks later was the loss of a number of duck , autopsys were done and lead shot poisoning was the reason. Years ago even the Field magazine was reporting the loss of pheasants to lead pellet poisoning. To me the quarry is far more important to using a traditional English gun. Anyone who suggests lead does no harm in the environment is living in cloud cuckoo land and has a closed mind. There is so much evidence to the contrary , just read it. Most of us no longer use muzzle loaders today , times have moved on and its time those who still use lead for duck did as well Edited January 29, 2012 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) CZ550 60 yards is well beyond the range of any game No 6 lead cartridge to kill consistantly with minimum of wounding. 50 yards is a damm good shot let alone 60. I suggest you check your range estimates with a range finder ( not paceing it ). Read any book on shooting and it will tell you 45 yards is the normal excepted range of a game lead shell to give consistant clean kills. If you use no 6 in lead for pigeons then step up to no 4 or no 3 in steel. A 32 gr load of steel 4-3s will kill well to 45 yards. But do get a good steel cartridge. I steer clear of Lydale\ Express at any cost. RC , Gamebore or Rio are all good steel shells. Edited January 29, 2012 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Also my rants and tirades are detracting from the original post, so I think it may be in everyone's interest if I keep my thoughts to myself. Nope, you carry on Salopian, the Lead debate has mellowed a bit, & needs brought back into the limelight, whether it distracts from the original post or not...another thread maybe in order... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyotemaster Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 (edited) Nope, you carry on Salopian, the Lead debate has mellowed a bit, & needs brought back into the limelight, whether it distracts from the original post or not...another thread maybe in order... I think that's been done. Or at least I thought that was my intent. Perhaps we do not desire to hear what does work? Edited January 29, 2012 by coyotemaster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 29, 2012 Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 Perhaps we do not desire to hear what does work? I take it by your statement you are referring to steel shot..? If that's the case I think it's debatable, I've never used it & don't intend to either, so reading more negatives than positives to date, I'll stick with lead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Farmers are concerned about lead on their land as it harms livestock, it’s as simple as that. The NFU have, for several years, produced a leaflet on lead contamination of farm land and how to avoid it. From what I can see the vast majority of problems are caused by old lead paint around the farm, batteries, other waste containing lead etc, BUT the leaflet does mention lead shot as a possible cause of deposition of lead on farmland. Ultimately whether we like it or not the people who own the land we want to shoot over call the shots (pardon the pun). As we all know it’s perfectly possible to miss or wound with lead as with any other shot, and regardless of shot type the correct size of shot must be used to ensure a clean kill within the effective range of the gun / cartridge combination you are using. As I have said, graphs and charts that have been published all over the shooting press over the least few years that show…. A lighter object has less kinetic energy that a heavy object. If I fire an object of a given weight a 1200 fps it travels less far than if I shoot it at 1500 fps That light objects with a given muzzle velocity travel faster initially but slow down faster than a heaver object. …in fact mean very little to me. What I am more interested in is the practical application of different shot types in terms of patterning, shot cloud density at a given range, and more importantly pellet penetration into the quarry at a given range. As I said I am more interested in using the correct size of shot to ensure a clean kill within the effective range of the gun / cartridge combination I am using, be that lead or steel. So if any of my permissions say I cant use lead for what ever reason, I will happily switch to steel, all be it a couple of sizes larger. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Farmers are concerned about lead on their land as it harms livestock, it’s as simple as that. The NFU have, for several years, produced a leaflet on lead contamination of farm land and how to avoid it. In all the 40+yrs that I've shot David it's a first on me, never ever been mentioned by any of the land owners once. I agree with Blasers post about your condescending replies at times to other posters concerning the Lead Debate. Also I've a gut feeling that BASC is trying to smooth over this issue that Steel is a better alternative..? Seems that the banning of Lead Shot hinges on the link in the food chain from soil to human, & will be proved at any cost.. 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.