Jump to content

have BASC shot shooting in the foot?


Recommended Posts

There is another thread going in the reloading section at the moment. For 12 gauge there is a fibre option in steel from Gamebore. (thanks to all on that thread who put me onto them). The choice is limited at present but it might be worth asking the manufacturs whether they will expand the menu in that format, especially in standard steel. Not tried them yet but will be looking around for them to perhaps try a box or two.

 

Edit: Dodgy spelling (again)

 

Yeah they are expensive and won't go through normal proof guns like cip rated normal steel plas wads...... Unbelievable amount of plastic in the sea that kills hundreds of seabirds I'm afraid

http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/plastic-seabird.html#cr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 473
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest cookoff013

david.

the ricochet risks will increase, as soon as more steel is shot. thats just a common sense approach. i think that skeet fields in america have chipboard over the skeet sides, as this absorbs the shot.

 

as for sporting stuff, i`d say more than likely insignificant. unless shooting in dense wood, or the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of stats quoted in the reports I've read about the number of shots and weight of lead which results. Then therE is the accumulation argument. and then there is the sedimentation beyond reach argument.

It seems logical to me that whilst lead is toxic - if ingested (or shot with) then how many ducks can be at risk ?

If you dont use lead for ducks but use them for pheasants, the deposition of lead continues everywhere.

If you exclude all wetlands then how much falls in a truly duck -related environment ? How long is it likely to remain ? Clay is worse than silts but how does that correlate with lead deposited under either of the laws in place in the UK ?

Figures of 160 tons of lead annually from shot are quoted as being deposited where ducks etc MIGHT feed, 4% of wildfowl die from lead poisoning are quoted - how is this assessed.

How long might exposure to lead under either law be possible and what percentage of the duck/wildfowl population will be 100% exposed for 100% of the time ?

The statistics are being misused, tests are being used to support little researched facts wrt UK ducks. and a vision is being created of every duck being at risk all the time.

Obviously no migration takes place, no local movement - ducks I have shot tend to come from somewhere else ! Most of the ducks I shoot never get or got tested as they were eaten locally. How is the massive lack of compliance justified if the question had said - how many of your shot duck are passed into the human food chain?

I despair - so much to question, so little willingness to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lead is a stable compound but can and does react with the environment. , but in the presence of organic acids for example it will form more soluble compounds. None the less lead can hang around for many years.

 

As to % duck exposed poisoned in the UK, a valid point, you may wish to e-mail the LAG to ask?

 

I take your point about lead deposition under the UK laws, and this question has also been asked in some of the European countries where further restrictions or total bans have been the result, is this what we want?

 

I can’t agree that a vision is being created that all ducks are at risk all of the time, I have never heard that stated anywhere in Europe.

 

Very few duck from small to medium shoots are put through dealers, simply because not enough are shot on a typical day, they are taken home by the guns and eaten…however on commercial shoots where there are duck drives or duck as mixed in with pheasant, that’s another matter, most of them will go to dealers….

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David can I ask why you are asking Kes to ask the LAG for answers, he has raised some very pertinent questions, surely BASC the largest shooting organisation should be asking for proof of the facts, questioning methods, raising issues about the validity of the information and research being used by the LAG, if the information being used is flawed then how can the answers found be acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Two reasosns, firstly its important that shooters engage where they can and Kes could then get the answer from the horses mouth as it were,but happy to take this forward but I am about to go on holiday for a week so would not want to promise something i cant deliver on in the short term, thats all.

 

So just to be clear, the key questions is what evidence is there that UK waterfowl are being poisoned by lead shot and what % of the UK waterfowl population are poisoned?

 

 

David

Edited by David BASC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Several things crop up but the question for the LAG is twofold - for somewhat obvious reasons.

- Is lead, shot over other than wetlands, a threat to wildfowl in their view, or is it simply lead pellets in water ? If its in water, are there shot sizes which are not a problem (i think the one ounce limit enforced by the EA would need a hell of a big duck to ingest it) Finally, what assessed percentage of wetlands used by waterfowl will present lead shot in a manner likely to cause ingestion? I'm thinking here of silty bottoms versus clay bottoms ?

 

If we are talking lead from shot in the Environment we may as well give up. However there are papers I have seen which suggest the ban on lead is a foregone conclusion becuase they have known about the detrimental effects of waterfowl for 30 years - if it were that universally toxic and that universally available it would most certainly have been banned.

 

Also David of those ducks sampled - which have been reared on pheasant shoots where lead is available for ingestion and will especially be in duck ponds, how many of the ducks from those shoots had lead in them through ingestion rather than being shot and what percentage of those reared fowl, in the worst possible environments died from lead poisoning which takes between 2 and 12 days to kill a duck !. It seems to me that only wildfowl are susceptibel and non of the duck sampled had lead shot in them other than to kill them.

By the way David the world wont end if the answers take a little time - enjoy your holiday - I can wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you i will see what I can find out.

 

I agree that environment / geology could play a major part, lead that sits on or just below the surface for example is bound to present a much greater risk than that which sinks away and is not available as 'grit' or from dabbling.

 

As you may be aware from looking at some of the papers from Europe, lead in the environment has been such an issue due to its longevity, it’s been banned from shotgun cartridges, or there are processes in place for a total phase out in several states. I am not saying for one moment that it’s a foregone conclusion that this will happen in the UK...

 

Last I heard from WWT was that one of the reasons they are so keen to get compliance up is so they / we can measure what if any effect there is from historical lead shot, makes sense to me...

 

As to the sampled ducks (2008 / 9 research I assume) I will see what I can find out. As I have said before I am confident the vast majority were shot in England...however, how many were shot on duck drives on pheasant shoots...that’s a key question in my book

Edited by David BASC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David thanks for the reply, For me its pretty much has Kes has asked but I would also ask or have liked BASC to look much deeper into where the duck came from, its simply not good enough to have a report stating lead shot this and that, IF it cannot be confirmed where the duck came from. The report cannot be accepted as factual if its based on assumptions.

Personally I would like BASC to do a similar excersise this coming season, then at least we will have results to compare with what ever WWT, RSPB etc come out with, plus you will now exactly which shoots to target for non compliance.

Enjoy you holiday fella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, trust me there is lots of looking into this that and the other going on!

 

The people on LAG are no fools, and poor papers that stretch credibility to breaking point stick out like a sore thumb!

 

As to what we may do this season,well we will see, :ninja:

 

Off now on holiday so see you all soon!

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All,

 

I have been informed that the LAG are taking a very close look at non wetland 'contamination' and what if any real evidence of a threat to the environment, including the animals and plants that live there.

 

Also all of the 'evidence' , including that of duck poisoning is undergoing tight scrutiny, as is the source of the alleged lead shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All,

 

I have been informed that the LAG are taking a very close look at non wetland 'contamination' and what if any real evidence of a threat to the environment, including the animals and plants that live there.

 

Also all of the 'evidence' , including that of duck poisoning is undergoing tight scrutiny, as is the source of the alleged lead shot.

Isn't that a case of which do you want first, the bad news or the good news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it to be a clear indication that the evidence for contamination / ingestion that has been presented is under the microscope as it were. People are not going to get away with 'evidence' that stretch credibility as I said last week.

 

If there is no real evidence of a problem, then we have little to fear.

 

But (and sorry for sounding like a broken record) that still means we need to comply with the current laws!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it to be a clear indication that the evidence for contamination / ingestion that has been presented is under the microscope as it were. People are not going to get away with 'evidence' that stretch credibility as I said last week.

 

If there is no real evidence of a problem, then we have little to fear.

 

But (and sorry for sounding like a broken record) that still means we need to comply with the current laws!

David, hope you enjoyed your break !

If the scrutiny shows little evidence of contamination/ ingestion, I agree. But, and its big one, who has more to lose from a verdict that environmental lead contamination is low from shooting and does not damage waterfowl- most of the other organisations on the LAG is who. I hope JS is up to it !!!

 

By the way, as I said before, how many of the inland duck shoots that 'provided the sampled birds' have had fatalities in their duck numbers due to ingestion? Remember the 2 -12 days to paralyse the stomach muscles and force the duck into starvation - I'd bet none. So is lead shot from shooting in wetlands - (shoot ponds) a problem, since most of those shoots have been shot over very much more intensively than other land and for a very long time?

 

All samples of shot duck, (past and future) must be very carefully scrutinised - I suggest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, hope you enjoyed your break !

If the scrutiny shows little evidence of contamination/ ingestion, I agree. But, and its big one, who has more to lose from a verdict that environmental lead contamination is low from shooting and does not damage waterfowl- most of the other organisations on the LAG is who. I hope JS is up to it !!!

 

By the way, as I said before, how many of the inland duck shoots that 'provided the sampled birds' have had fatalities in their duck numbers due to ingestion? Remember the 2 -12 days to paralyse the stomach muscles and force the duck into starvation - I'd bet none. So is lead shot from shooting in wetlands - (shoot ponds) a problem, since most of those shoots have been shot over very much more intensively than other land and for a very long time?

 

All samples of shot duck, (past and future) must be very carefully scrutinised - I suggest

I feel that's a very good point and well put :good::good::good:

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...