have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[wymberley]

Another interpretation might be to heed the words of the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Su.

 

"Only pick fights that you can be sure of winning."

 

Once this issue reaches the point of open Parliamentary debate, we lose all control of it. It is then in the lap of the gods and utterly subject to political whim.

 

You might wish to advocate blindly "fighting", just to be seen to be having a fight for it`s own sake. My personal preference, and I don`t work for BASC, is to carefully pick the ground of my own choosing.

 

To extend the military analogy. I want the sun behind me, a full supply of arrows, and the enemy charging uphill through thick mud.

 

In your battle plan your troops have lost cohesion and become mutinous, all discipline has collapsed and they are doing what THEY want because the rules are "stupd". Your shield wall has collapsed and half of your left wing is an undisciplined rabble running pell mell down the hill.

 

It`s 1066 all over again and the flawed strategy that you propose will lead to a seismic defeat for shooting.

The grand old Duke of York...................

 

All very well and glib, but you've missed the point. We didn't pick the fight, we were ambushed and as ever, the best defence is attack.

 

I have a lot of time for David BASC with his head above the parapet attitude so I will interpret his, "The future of lead shot is in the hands of shooters" to mean that we need to comply with the legislation thus generating, "an opportunity to move forwards" and not as it could be construed as, 'don't blame us, it's your fault'.

[mudpatten]

Absolutely!

[chrispti]

If 100% compliance was reached, then what?

 

Would it not then be a case of " shooters are all using non toxic successfully, why keep lead "

 

Wouldn't compliance be better achieved if the laws where changed to the same as Scotlands....

[David BASC]

I am afraid eyeglass is trying to lead us down the garden path when he claims the compliance research has been shown to be wrong, it has not. It’s this sort of misinformation and false claim that is not helping with matters.

 

I can confirm that there is no threat that if compliance if high this will result in pressure on lead shot to be banned– the exact opposite is the case.

 

Any form of non-compliance with the laws which govern shooting, not just lead shot compliance, will bring shooting into disrepute and will increase pressure for further restrictive legislation on shooting.

[wymberley]

I am afraid eyeglass is trying to lead us down the garden path when he claims the compliance research has been shown to be wrong, it has not. It’s this sort of misinformation and false claim that is not helping with matters.

 

 

I'm not so sure. And would like to see this aspect put to bed for once and for all. Until we have an evidence backed definitive result following an investigation carried out by someone whom both sides of the debate can have absolute confidence in, this situation will continue. This uncertainty is having more of an adverse effect than the misinformation.

 

However, what I am certain about is the first eleven of eyeglass's bullet points. These highlight the one aspect that those who are determined to get shot of lead will never mention - and I would be happier, much happier, if BASC et al would refer to it on occasion - not to mention having it smeared in indelible ink on the end of their pointy stick when they finally realise what this implement is for and start poking - and that is the fact that one of the conditions that must prevail for NTS to be introduced is that it must be.....................come on, don't all shout at once.

 

Edit: Missing words added.

Edited July 6, 2013 by wymberley

[Scully]

I am afraid eyeglass is trying to lead us down the garden path when he claims the compliance research has been shown to be wrong, it has not. It’s this sort of misinformation and false claim that is not helping with matters.

 

 

We've been here before,and if I recall wasn't the method by which the information/evidence gathered which claimed proof of non-compliance called into question? A question for which we still haven't really had any satisfactory or definitive explanation?Repeating a phrase often enough doesn't necessarily make it true.

Whatever the explanation,I don't think eyeglass' points can really be readily dismissed out of hand,either regarding the subject of non-compliance nor those pertaining to how steel shot performs in a shotgun barrel.Being the owner of a high grade fixed choke shotgun the latter is of concern to me.I would reiterate the post of Wymberley when he says that one of the conditions for NTS to prevail is that is must be................as BASC is so fond of telling us.Are you now telling us that this is no longer the case;that lead could be banned regardless?

[chrispti]

.

Edited July 6, 2013 by chrispti

[wymberley]

We've been here before,and if I recall wasn't the method by which the information/evidence gathered which claimed proof of non-compliance called into question? A question for which we still haven't really had any satisfactory or definitive explanation?Repeating a phrase often enough doesn't necessarily make it true.

Whatever the explanation,I don't think eyeglass' points can really be readily dismissed out of hand,either regarding the subject of non-compliance nor those pertaining to how steel shot performs in a shotgun barrel.Being the owner of a high grade fixed choke shotgun the latter is of concern to me.I would reiterate the post of Wymberley when he says that one of the conditions for NTS to prevail is that is must be................as BASC is so fond of telling us.Are you now telling us that this is no longer the case;that lead could be banned regardless?

And particularly when many of those shotguns which are still in regular use have 21/2" chambers and proofed at 11/8oz.

[mudpatten]

To bring this debate back to the present and to prevent it slipping back into another session of historical, not to say hysterical, navel gazing, might I respectfully suggest that you watch this Sundays episode of Countryfile on BBC 1.

 

It will focus your minds on the realities of the argument that the shooting organisations actually have to deal with. Be prepared for some marvellously unbiased BBC reporting..

 

I notice, incidentally, that it is the BASC which is, as usual, coming in for a lot of unwarranted critiscism. Lets not loose sight of the fact that defence of this issue is also the mainstay of a current campaign by the CA

[David BASC]

The fact that if steel shot comes into contact with the barrels it can cause damage is not ,I am afraid, as reason to ignore the law nor will it in any way make any difference to those who want to see lead banned.

 

The last survey on compliance was in 2 parts.

 

Firstly a survey of duck purchased from butchers, game dealers and other outlets. We checked the sampling protocol and the suggestions made by some that a large number of the ducks samples came from Scotland or overseas were unfounded.

The chemical analysis to test for lead was a standard lab test and the results of this analysis were perfectly valid.

 

The second part was a survey of shooters and shoot managers by BASC and the CLA. Here we saw a significant number saying they did not always comply with the law, all be it for a variety of reasons such as incomplete understanding of the detail of the law, lack of faith in alternatives and so on.

 

The research was also checked over by a third party responsible to DEFRA for checking the validity of the work.

 

There is indeed a very severe risk that is compliance is low, then we will see further restrictions or a ban on lead shot regardless of what alternatives are available

 

This is a very serious situation which is exactly what all the main shooting organisations and others are standing as one on the compliance issues.

 

So if we want to keep lead for our shorter chambered guns we know what we all need to do.

 

David

Edited July 6, 2013 by David BASC

[wymberley]

 

So if we want to keep lead for our shorter chambered guns we know what we all need to do.

 

David

What we could do - there's just about time to organise it even if said pointy stick has to be used to concentrate the minds of a few - is to have a joint BASC/CA initiated survey for this coming season on the grounds that the shooting fraternity wishes to voluntarily investigate any improvement in NTS compliance.

 

Then, when we get a positive result, there is no valid obstacle to prevent any organisation going flat out to ensure that the 'missing link' - the economic criterion - is revisited and given due consideration to ensure that lead continues in use at least until such time as a cost effective alternative to soft iron is available for those guns for which the iron is not an option. Together, of course, with lobbying for change to the current idiotic English legislation.

 

Is there?

[Scully]

Hi mudpatten, your flippant remark regarding us getting hysterical is all well and good, and if that's the route you want to go down then as one of the game shooters you onviously regard with contempt I'll happily come out to play, but it doesn't really achieve a solution to our predicament.

In case you hadn't noticed BASC are getting stick because they are the only shooting organisation which has the balls to stick its head above the parapet(again)but if you want to get in touch with any of the others and invite them to become involved then I'll be more than happy to give them a grilling also.

[David BASC]

 

There will be further promotion, and indeed further investigations over the coming months.

 

As for me / BASC getting stick / a grilling I have no issue with that at all as constructive criticism and meaningful exchange of views is all to the good in my opinion, and I suspect in the opinion of the vast majority of us on here.

 

David

[mudpatten]

Some sensible comments there from Wymberley.

 

The unfortunate fact is that, were the attendant circumstances different, such strategies as he suggests might have stood a better chance of working.

 

The unavoidable fact is that the shooting community may be about to be forced to the negotiating table with egg all over it`s face and with it`s moral and political reputation in tatters. We stand collectively accused of ignoring the law of the land either deliberately, or even worse, through ignorance, even if that law is a complete ***.

 

If things pan out differently over the next few months then I will publically admit to being wrong and we can all go back to thinking up new and exotic reasons for not complying with the law for the coming season.

 

Scully, I think you misunderstand me. I don`t despise game shooters in general, only those who have flouted the law so stupidly and brought us to the edge of a precipice.

[Scully]

 

 

Scully, I think you misunderstand me. I don`t despise game shooters in general, only those who have flouted the law so stupidly and brought us to the edge of a precipice.

Fair enough.

[Dee Wildfowler]

In the decade or so since the ban on lead shot was introduced, is anyone aware of a successful prosecution for using lead shot to kill wildfowl or for use over a wetland?

 

Unless the Law is being enforced, some people will take the chance and ignore it

 

John

[Scully]

In the decade or so since the ban on lead shot was introduced, is anyone aware of a successful prosecution for using lead shot to kill wildfowl or for use over a wetland?

 

Unless the Law is being enforced, some people will take the chance and ignore it

 

John

You'll possibly find it on here if you do a search,but there was the case of the bloke who was prosecuted for not only shooting a wildfowl with lead shot,but also for shooting a protected bird when the 'goose' he thought he was shooting turned out to be a swan!

Don't know if there have been others.

[al4x]

And the only reason he got done was because he took it to a vet.

Its a bit like suggesting cars will be banned if we don't stick to speed limits. There needs to be enforcement and there needs to be a law that makes sense.

[mudpatten]

Once again John ,I`m uncertain where you are going with your argument.

 

I have a horrible suspicion,with respect to enforcement that, given the economic changes since this legislation was first introduced ,massive reductions in police budgets and staff, that this will become an area of contention.

 

Enforcing this piece of law was always at the bottom of the police`s list of priorities. With fewer officers and reduced financial resources there will be a serious temptation to revisit the question of exactly whom is best suited to chasing offenders.

 

Partnership working is increasingly popular and two of the bodies with an interest already have high profile "investigation" departments. Imagine your shoot being visited by the RSPB or the RSPCA, and the latter actually with some real legal authority rather than relying on bluff. Those who remember the passage of the original legislation will recall that this scenario was a very real worry at that time.

 

Perhaps, however, I`m being a bit pessimistic. Perhaps the police will find the time and resources to deal with this once and for all. Bleating that "You`ve never enforced it so we thought you didn't mean it" is a pretty bankrupt idea for a defence strategy.

 

Stop checks when leaving the shoot, raids on shooting days, raids on gamekeepers and game dealers are just some of the nightmare scenarios generated by a constabulary determined to stop these abuses once and for all.

 

Interesting times lie ahead.

[spanj]

The origional data that 70% of ducks in butchers shops were killed with lead comes from a DEFRA survey , but was later confirmed by other organsations. Just ask youreself who shoots enough ducks to have a sizable surpless to sell to the butchers shops. Not average wildfowler , most of whome are restricted by club rules to bag limits and a ban on selling duck. Its the game shoot who has a duck drive or an evening flight over a fed pond who have spare birds to sell to a butchers. Mind you If a ban on lead does come in I for one would not miss lead. I have shot a hell of a lot of pigeons and game with steel in recent years and once learnt how to shoot quality steel shells found it does a very good job. But beware there are a few rubbish steel shells out there.

Brilliant, read post 17 (the one above yours). Divided we stand........... I despair

[spanj]

Same old BASC bashing rubbish from Gunsmoke , He fails to see or perhaps he ignored that fact that this is not a BASC project, but a project developed and promoted by a range of shooting organisations standing together.

 

Its a shame that so many have chosen to ignore the law in the past, and frankly put shooting in a weaker position than we would have been if compliance was high. But we have the chance now to draw a line under that and move forwards

 

The wildfowling clubs have managed to deliver on as close as damn it 100% compliance, this has been done through that part of the shooting community through:

 

Knowledge and understanding of the law

Compliance with the law

Demonstrable self-policing

 

If the same were replicated inland we will see high levels of compliance, and that is exactly what this campaign wants / needs to deliver on.

 

David

Edited July 7, 2013 by spanj

[David BASC]

I think you will find that looking back at the legislation as it evolved in the late 90’s, it was originally proposed that enforcement would be delegated to local authority level - . So it probably would not have been the police stepping forward, but conservation organisations such as RSPB, WWT, and local Trusts and so on. BASC fought this off.

 

No one polices shooting out of season, but we stick to that, no one polices stalkers in relation to the minimum calibre /ME they must use for stalking but I have not heard of wide spread non compliance, no one polices the quarry we shoot but stay within the law, so we know the shooting community can self-regulate without the need for being under the spotlight from a regulator.

 

I take the point that on the foreshore it’s arguably more simple to stick to the law as the environment you are in is non-lead anyway.

 

It’s not that hard to stick to the law in practice inland. On a driven day, if during the pheasant or partridge drive some ducks come through…don’t shoot them. If there is a duck drive, then put in non-lead cartridges.

 

David

 

 

[spanj]

I think you will find that looking back at the legislation as it evolved in the late 90’s, it was originally proposed that enforcement would be delegated to local authority level - . So it probably would not have been the police stepping forward, but conservation organisations such as RSPB, WWT, and local Trusts and so on. BASC fought this off.

 

No one polices shooting out of season, but we stick to that, no one polices stalkers in relation to the minimum calibre /ME they must use for stalking but I have not heard of wide spread non compliance, no one polices the quarry we shoot but stay within the law, so we know the shooting community can self-regulate without the need for being under the spotlight from a regulator.

 

I take the point that on the foreshore it’s arguably more simple to stick to the law as the environment you are in is non-lead anyway.

 

It’s not that hard to stick to the law in practice inland. On a driven day, if during the pheasant or partridge drive some ducks come through…don’t shoot them. If there is a duck drive, then put in non-lead cartridges.

 

David

 

 

Edited after I reread my own post, a point not well made by me ! Must remember to think before posting next time

[eyeglass]

CR0411

Report to Defra

from the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust

with contribution from the

British Association for Shooting and Conservation

July 2010

 

This report gave rise to the Lead Ammunition Group. The outcome of the BASC/WWT project to replace Lead with Steel ammunition. You can read the report above on this link: -

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075

 

The Countryside Alliance has made a strong public statement that there is no evidence against lead ammunition

 

BASC followed a few days and made a similar but weaker statement to the same effect.

 

I am bothering to write this post because I care about shooting and would like to feel confident that BASC is able to defend shooting people rather than alienating them. We need to be able to trust BASC.

 

The BASC posting No. 85 (on this thread) regarding the report listed above is a textbook example of prevarication. It is very troubling. No evidence has been presented in the Post No 85 to support its assertions about this report. Yet BASC persists in backing the WWT’s false claim that 70% of the shooting community breach complyance. It might have at lest said that the jury is out, and disowned the report. Instead it seems to be trying as hard as it can to claim that the report is true.

 

This is not about the law this it is about those who shoot trusting the integrity of those they pay to represent them. That trust has it appears, been abused.

 

The question is why is the BASC Post No 85 evading providing the evidence for it claims? Why continue to support a clearly flawed report that it wrote together with the WWT?

 

They did not know, and do not know even now, where the tested birds came from. The allegations made about compliance cannot be justified.

 

It is on the basis of this report that we are facing the mess that the paid Representation of English shooting has landed us with.

 

BASC Post No 85 says that checks have been carried out to establish the truth in light of the flaws and false conclusions that have been identified in the BASC/WWT 2010 report on Compliance.

 

The questions that arise from that statement in Post No 85 are: -

 

When were these ‘checks’ carried out?

 

Who carried them out?

 

Was a report written up setting out the basis of the conclusions arising from the ‘Checks’ made? If so please supply a copy so that we can see the evidence.

 

I hope the following may help. I kept a copy of the paper (signed AC) that was put on Pigeon Watch by Gunsmoke. It makes a very strong case against the WWT’s claims. The Protocol referred to in the BASC post No.85 is already set out in the WWT/BASC 2010. Just checking what the ‘protocol’ says, achieves nothing of any value. It says what it says. What the ‘protocol does not say is what steps were taken to validate the provenence of the birds that were tested.

 

The points raised in the AC paper need to be answered. DEFRA have reconfirmed that it is not possible to know where the birds tested by the WWT came from.

 

DEFRA also confirm that it is not possible to know if the birds were shot with lead legally or illegally. How do I know this? Because freedom of information documents from DEFRA make these points.

 

A lot of people do not trust BASC on this matter and Post No. 85 has done nothing to help rebuild it.

 

You can see what the AC paper said below: -

 

WWT GAME DEALER SURVEY

 

1. English game dealers source shot waterfowl from established trade networks linking England, Scotland, the Irish Republic, and the EU at large. Because of this a high proportion of wild fowl, legitimately shot with lead ammunition finds it way into the English market system.

 

2. The birds tested in the report cannot be validated or certified. No proof of purchase has been provided, no identity of seller has been provided, nor has proof of geographical or national source been provided, and no date of death has been submitted. The report’s sample birds were bought (in the main) oven-ready, further compounding any scrutiny of provenance.

 

3. The report fails to provide an estimate of the size of the annual overall number of shot waterfowl passed through the retail and wholesale market system in the UK. No analysis of the Scottish and Republic of Ireland market structure and its contribution to the English market structure has been provided. Thus no ‘control’ is established to measure any of the reports findings against a datum point, resulting in meaningless allegations lacking insight.

 

4. One of the largest wild waterfowl markets (besides supermarkets) is the hotel and restaurant trade particularly so in London. The London market has the potential to absorb the entire English harvest on its own. This trade may often be direct between the shoot source and the individual restaurant. This alone undermines the report deductions, as it has only accessed one pathway of the waterfowl trade.

 

5. The hotel and restaurant trade ‘demand’ of available English product (shot with non-lead) may be of such a level that Scottish and Irish product (shot with lead) are vital to fulfil the remaining non-hotel and restaurant demand in English retail outlets.

 

6. The provision of locally shot waterfowl is often insufficient to fulfil local demand let alone the national market, hence the network of game dealers. They distribute produce widely, fulfilling the demand from a broad variety of customers across England. Fulfilling demand is the key role of the game dealer. The English main wholesalers consolidate product from a wide range of sources and re-distribute to sub-outlets according to regional market demand via a trading network.

 

7. The more successful the public promotion of eating game the more the demand. The Scottish and Irish Republic harvest of shot waterfowl will be readily absorbed into the English market because it is economically bigger than the existing Scottish and Irish home markets. Livestock farmers will understand this market mechanism. It is clear that the WWT and BASC do not, or have chosen to ignore this market mechanism for undeclared reasons when writing their report.

 

8. Only a small percentage of shot waterfowl are directly local to the ‘local butcher’ probably accounting for not much more than 2% of this market.

 

9. Game dealers would say that wild-fowling clubs are a source of waterfowl to the market. It is true that a number of clubs will have a ‘rule’ prohibiting such sales of game (I wonder why?). But it is only a club rule, it does not reflect what actually happens and has no legal basis. Indeed direct sales to ‘local butchers & farm shops’ are most likely to have come from local ‘club’ sources as it is economically of mutual benefit.

 

10. A large number of ducks shot inland, in England, have been bred and ‘released’ and are not subject to the same conditions of wild migratory or wild resident waterfowl. The report fails to provide UK evidence to support the allegation that wild English waterfowl are under stress from lead.

 

11. The report fails to distinguish between ‘bred’ and wild waterfowl. English regulation does not address this point despite the likely possibility of ‘released’ waterfowl making up the largest proportion of the season’s harvest. Scotland quite rightly allows the use of lead ammunition away from wetlands as its use does not impact in any way upon migratory waterfowl and most inland waterfowl are bred and released and not subject to the allegations of lead poisoning.

 

12. There is no UK evidence that indicates lead poisoning is impacting to any adverse degree upon waterfowl populations in the UK. Such allegations are agenda manufactured, and have not been shown to exist.

 

CONCLUSION

 

a) The Game Dealers Association was not consulted by the WWT or informed of their intentions. No understanding of the Game Market is evident. Therefore it is not possible to place the ‘bird sample’ into its true context, thus it is fallacious to say that any of the birds were illegitimately shot with lead ammunition.

 

b) Given the scale of English shot waterfowl shooting and the constraints of the Season it is unlikely that the number of birds offered to the market amount to much more than 7% to 10% of the total demand for waterfowl in England and that the bulk of the market is supplied from other sources such as Scotland, the Irish Republic and other EU sources. Furthermore, shot (i.e. not farmed) waterfowl are eaten all year round in restaurants and Hotels indicating that the game dealers stock up and freeze produce. It was notable that of the samples bought, few were in the feather, the majority were oven-ready.

 

c) Oven-ready ducks bought from sources that are unlisted and unknown, without receipts, or dates, cannot provide a credible or viable base, to support accusations maligning the English Shooting Community.

 

Pretty damming. Point C) in the ‘conclusion’ above is of particular note. Particularly so when when you consider the following statement in the report: -

 

Of the 645 ducks purchased overall, the vast majority (621/645, 96%) were prepared

and oven-ready i.e. plucked and with wings, head, neck, feet and viscera removed. Only 24/645, 4%) were in-feather.

 

No one can know where a frozen oven ready carcass distributed through the dealer system started out from or how old it is. Think of the horsemeat scandal.

 

The BASC post No. 85 said: -

 

“Firstly a survey of duck purchased from butchers, game dealers and other outlets. We checked the sampling protocol and the suggestions made by some that a large number of the ducks samples came from Scotland or overseas were unfounded.

The chemical analysis to test for lead was a standard lab test and the results of this analysis were perfectly valid.”

 

Remember no one has ever claimed that the birds tested for lead shot were not shot shoot with lead. I repeat that claim is not in dispute. What is disputed is the provenance of the tested birds. Post 85 seeks to divert attention away from this point. This kind of behaviour does not give confidence.

 

The key point is that the WWT/BASC 2010 report on compliance says 70% of the birds that they acquired and tested contained lead shot, and that this proves that English and Welsh non-compliance with the lead ban on wildfowl was very high.

 

But they cannot say this at all because they cannot say where the birds came from.

 

Is the BASC post 85 now saying that BASC do know?

 

If so please provide the evidence.

 

 

 

EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT

 

Chapter 2 – Game dealer survey Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust

 

Shot were judged to be ‘recent’ when they were:

 

1. found at the site of fractured bones (ensuring that these are fractures that

occurred at the time of death and not those caused thereafter) or within the bones

themselves;

 

2. present within vital organs such as heart and lungs;

 

3. present within large areas of haemorrhage and bruising showing that they entered

the bird at, or very shortly before, the time of death and the bird would have been

unable to fly far with the damage inflicted;

 

4. present at the end of shot tracks containing feathers that had not been ‘walled off’

by the body in any way showing that they had recently occurred;

 

5. found at the back of the bird (or opposite side of entry) having been tracked

through the rest of the body including vital organs.

 

Shot were judged to be ‘non-recent’ when they:

 

1. had been ‘walled off’ by the body showing they have been present for some time;

 

2. showed no sign of bruising or haemorrhage around them;

 

3. were found in non-vital areas such as loose in the coelomic cavity (accepting that

they may or may not have been ‘recent’ but were likely to be non-lethal).

 

In other words, birds that had been shot, processed, frozen, and passed through the commercial meat trade are classified as ‘recent’ when they are presented for retail. The bird could of course be 2 or more years old and have been shot anywhere in or out of the EU.

 

It is standard practice for the meat trade network to freeze for storage. The EU meat mountain was a ‘frozen’ meat mountain. It is also standard practice to defrost meat that is then re-frozen by the purchaser. 96% of the birds tested were oven ready. See below: -

 

 

EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT

 

Of the 645 ducks purchased overall, the vast majority (621/645, 96%) were prepared

and oven-ready i.e. plucked and with wings, head, neck, feet and viscera removed. Only 24/645, 4%) were in-feather

 

Post mortem examination

Research has indicated that free-living wildfowl may contain embedded shot which proved non-lethal from previous exposure to shooting (e.g. Evans et al. 1973; Rees et al.

 

1990; Noer & Madsen 1996; Hicklin & Barrow 2004; Newth et al. In prep).

 

So much for the claim of lead poisoning.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075

 

The latest news I hear, is that the DEFRA dept responsible for dealing with the report and creating its ‘steering group’ is refusing to divulge the name of the senior scientific advisor. He was responsible for advising DEFRA minister that the report should be published. Is it any wonder? I am thinking about the recent NHS cover-up

 

And Finaly wild fowlers take care. It seems from the figures below around 40% of the combined Teal and Wigeon that were bought had lead shot in them.

 

EXTRACT FROM THE REPORT

 

A significantly higher proportion of Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) had been shot with lead than Wigeon (A. penelope) and Teal (A. crecca) (337/459, (73%)vs2/20 (10%) and 5/13 (38%), respectively). This could reflect non-compliance mainly in inland game and/or duck shooting activities as coastal wildfowlers are known to supply game outlets only rarely (however the small samples sizes of Wigeon and Teal should be noted). Although not an offence, 73% of game suppliers sold ducks containing lead shot.

 

But then again where did they com from?

[David BASC]

Eyeglass,

 

You are very keen on posting massive long messages, but please may I ask what evidence (not just blind hypothesis and accusation) but real evidence that the original research from 2010 was wrong?

 

To answer your question of ‘where did they come from’ well it’s all in the report…

 

Page 7 clearly says that checks were made as to where the birds came from – ie to ensure as far as possible they came from firstly England and secondly from the particular region being sampled.

 

Page 9 clearly state they only sampled shot from recently shot birds and ignored any ‘old’ shot that the bird may have carried, although I don’t think wild ducks live for over 8 years typically

 

Page 11 shows how many were purchased per region and on P12 you see the vast majority were purchased from dealers, not shops.

 

Page 14 gives more insight into the checks of rationality

 

If you are not happy with this, may I ask have you raised these issues directly with Defra, if not why?

 

But most importantly, please tell us all how your message above changes the simple fact that the law on the use of lead shot is clear, and that a senior manager of WWT has today been on TV saying that he welcomes the push on compliance by the shooting organisations, and that if compliance is shown to be on the increase there will be no need for a ban?

 

Are you supporting the push on compliance?

 

David