Lead Ammmunition Group

[anser2]

I have said this time and time again if any of you do not beleve lead posions waterfowl do a simple test and see it with your own eyes. raise a dozen mallard in a pen allow them access to no 6 lead pellets and see how many are still alive at the end of the month. I can tell you now the answer will be none , but you will not beleve me so ty it for yourselves.

 

As for paying £300 a thousand for 32 gr steel loads is daft. Shop around. None of the gun shops in Norfolk are anywhere that price. gamebore or Lydale are between £200 and 220 a thousand. The same price as an average thousand budget lead shell , though a little more expensive than some lead clay shells.

[Kes]

I think the point here is 'availability' . I wouldnt want to find one lead shot in a hectare containing 250,000 it would take half a month. Force feed lead and things will die but its the availability in the environment which will determine duck mortality. Some quoted figures suggest mortality is very limited. Then one has to consider how lead settles in silts etc. It would be my bet that fishing weights come with lines and bait but shotgun pellets? I have no wish to kill waterfowl with lead but do find the truth more attractive than oblique and opinionated comments.

Perhaps its just me ?

Reading between the lines about inland poisioning, lead availability from shot is limited to a very short time frame.

[Scully]

I have said this time and time again if any of you do not beleve lead posions waterfowl do a simple test and see it with your own eyes. raise a dozen mallard in a pen allow them access to no 6 lead pellets and see how many are still alive at the end of the month. I can tell you now the answer will be none , but you will not beleve me so ty it for yourselves.

 

 

You keep repeating this statement; have you actually done this? Last time you made this claim I followed your links to trials carried out which consisted of fowl not grazing lead shot but rather having the shot forcibly injected into their gizzards. Whether this is accepted practise in such trials I have no idea, but it's not exactly natural, and whether the outcome resultant from such practises is still seen as viable evidence in reaching a conclusion as to the effects of lead shot in fowl I have no idea either, so, I ask again, have you actually done what you are suggesting above?

It would be interesting to learn also where the 238 (?) 'found' dead and poisoned fowl were in fact found, and whether this discovery was en masse or independent samples discovered over a period of time, and in which case, how long are we talking here....days, weeks, months, years? I only ask because depending on who you listen to, 'found' dead poisoned fowl are either non-existent or people are tripping up over them.

[rbrowning2]

£300 per 1000 daft it may sound now but if a swift total ban on lead shot became fact, then the "laws" of supply and demand would take over. There would not, for some time be enougth steel shot produced to fill the void and price of steel shot would then increase in the short term significantly as every cartridge manufacture supplying the UK market would be trying to buy steel shot - current suppliers China, Germany others?.

 

The technology to make steel shot is a lot different from lead shot and would need some serious money invested in new manufacturing plant.

I would guess you would not see the likes of Eley or Gamebore invest in replacing their lead shot manufacturing facilities until they were confident on what market remained in the medium to long term.

 

So yes £300+ per 1000 for a basic steel cartridge could become the norm for a while. The risk would depend on the period of notice given before any total lead ban was implemented

i.e several months or several years.

 

But let's hope it is never - long live lead shot.

[Vince Green]

going to be a lot of shotmakers getting sold then? but what about muzzle loaders etc. As I read it you can still use lead for clays which is rather counter productive. AFAIK its only a hunting ban they are talking about.

 

In reality the antis are just out to cause whatever damage they can

Edited December 30, 2014 by Vince Green

[gunsmoke]

 

The incidence and significance of ingested lead pellet poisoning in British Wildfowl

• G.P. Mudge^∗

Show more

Choose an option to locate/access this article:

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution

Check access

Purchase $35.95

• 

doi:10.1016/0006-3207(83)90090-3 Get rights and content

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the extent of lead pellet ingestion by British wildfowl, particularly ducks and geese, and to examine regional variations. The gizzard contents of 2445 shot and 238 found-dead birds were examined, and lead concentrations were determined for 1620 liver and 1841 wing bone samples. In addition, X-ray photographs and blood samples were taken from live-caught birds. Ingested lead pellets were found in 3·2% of the birds examined. For a range of species, including pink-footed goose, white-fronted goose, barnacle goose, wigeon, teal, pintail, shoveler, scaup and moorhen, recorded incidences were either very low or zero. Relatively high incidences were noted for swans, greylag goose (7·1% of shot birds), gadwall (11·8%), mallard (4·2%), pochard (10·9%), tufted duck (11·7%) and goldeneye (6·7%). Most ingested pellets originated from shotguns, though anglers' split shot were found in one pochard and four mute swans. A marked seasonal variation in the extent of pellet ingestion was noted for mallard, with a peak in September, and evidence of high levels immediately before and after the shooting season. Pellet ingestion by mallard was found to be of widespread occurrence, though with considerable variation in recorded incidence from place to place. Inland areas tended to be worse, with the highest incidences recorded for birds shot at flight ponds and other freshwater bodies. Six per cent of mallard shot at inland sites contained ingested pellets, compared with 2·6% of those collected from coastal areas. The observed extent of pellet ingestion in British mallard is calculated directly to cause the death of at least 8000 each winter. Some measures that could be taken to alleviate the lead-poisoning problem in Britain are discussed, and progress of the USA's non-toxic pellet programme is examined.

∗

Present address: RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, Great Britain.

It would be interesting to determine whether all shot birds had ingested lead (which therefore did not kill them) and how many of the 'found -dead' were killed as a result of lead ingestion as separate groups. A similar study into 'lead poisoning' of wildfowl in the Ebro delta notes concentration of an average lead concentration of 250,000 pellets per hectare and estimates that 10,000 out of a winter population of mallard of 36,000 were poisoned by lead. The first occurrence of lead poisoning was noticed (in Waterfowl) in 1988.

The evidence of mass fatal poisoning of mallard particularly, does not seem to stack -up wherever the analysis is done. Why is this a relatively recent phenomenon, compared to numbers of shooters, which I would guess peaked in the 1970's.

We all need to check the data very carefully.

 

 

The number of mallard in the UK, 1999 when the lead ban for wildfowling came in was around 500,000. The latest number I can find is 2010 and the number of mallard is only 180,000.

that is a loss of around 32,000 a year for the last 10 years.

 

Where have all the mallard gone?

 

I do not believe that wildfowl only start dying from lead shot ingested from 1983. Why was it not pick up before?

 

The French study which I posted a report on PW last year came up with the same number of birds around 2-3% would be ingesting lead shot but they came to the conclusion that the birds where flying around happy until they where shot.

 

How do they come up with the figure of 8000 birds a year?

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2014 by gunsmoke

[gunsmoke]

I read somewhere that wildfowling only shoot 6000 birds a year is this correct?

[anser2]

Scully , I used to work in one of the worlds largest collections of waterfowl in Norfolk. Prior to the duck pens being built the ground had been shot ( as a game shoot ) and we were always losing waterfowl to lead poisoning. Most dead birds had a vets autopsy done on them in case the cause was a serious disease. So we usually knew the cause of death. On one occasion the owner shot a stoat out of a tree outside the pens , not thinking where the shot was going to land. The shot had been in line with a pond where we had a pen of goldeneyes and smew, about 150 yards off. We lost the first one to lead poisoning within a week and 9 more over the next 6 weeks despite the concrete pond being drained and scrubbed several times. The duck must have been picking the lead pellets up off the ground.

 

Kes , your quote “ Force feed lead and things will die but its the availability in the environment which will determine duck mortality” , In none of the cases were the duck force fed lead. They search out lead mistaking it for grit.

 

Quote “Reading between the lines about inland poisoning, lead availability from shot is limited to a very short time frame.” Wrong lead availability can last for a very long period of time , lead does not “rot down “ it lasts almost for ever. I know of one waterfowl collection where birds are still being lost to lead despite no shooting taking place over the land for 50 years.

 

Rbrowning2 , come now you are dreaming in fantasy. At worst the price of steel shot is likely to remain the same , but with the laws of supply and demand the tiny increase in the world wide demand for steel shot if lead is far more likely to make steel shot cheaper. For waterfowl shooting we knew the lead ban was coming for years and we had a long switch over period and I think any future change over will be the same.

 

Why o why are so many on here so frightened of steel. 90% of all my game \pigeon shooting is done with steel these days and when you have mastered the new skills needed to shoot steel you will never want to go back to lead. I am not an exceptional shot , but this season I have shot 20 geese , most in the 45-55 yard bracket for 30 shots. Only 4 have been wounded with most clean kills , a better average than I ever got with lead in the old days.

 

My English guns have gone , they are a relic of a bygone age . I use guns that are made for the job, I use good quality cartridges , pellets 2 -3 times bigger , faster cartridges and chokes that are tailored for what ever shot size I am using. The result for me has been better shooting , cleaner kills and cheaper cartridges. I will give the lead lovers one thing , what steel will not do is pull down those fluky beyond sensible range birds that in hind sight should never been shot at.

 

Gentlemen we have a simple choice move with the modern world that does not like lead or see our sport come under repeated attacks from antis , but this time with stronger public support which government cant ignore and then our will see game \ pigeon shooting become a thing of the past. Or change over to non toxic shot removing a major string in the bow of the anti shooting movement and see all forms of game shooting thrive.

Edited December 31, 2014 by anser2

[anser2]

Gunsmoke the wintering population of mallard in the Uk has been declining for years due to short stopping. We no longer have the cold winters we used to have so they are now wintering further east.

 

Quote “I do not believe that wildfowl only start dying from lead shot ingested from 1983. Why was it not pick up before?”

 

Lead poisoning has been known about for a very long time , but like the dangers from smoking its only in recent years its been widely publicised and govenments are starting to take action. I think they are talking about the first time it was noticed in the Ebro Delta.

 

 

It takes several days to a week before a duck starts to show signs of suffering from lead poisoning during which time it will be flying about. However once it becomes weak it is likelyto be less viligant , fly lower or be later before leaving the marsh at dawn so runs of higher risk of predation from shooting or hawks.

 

Quote “I read somewhere that wildfowling only shoot 6000 birds a year is this correct?"

 

It’s a guess , nobody knows for sure how many wildfowl are shot in the UK each year any more than they know how many pigeons or rabbits are shot

[Scully]

Scully , I used to work in one of the worlds largest collections of waterfowl in Norfolk. Prior to the duck pens being built the ground had been shot ( as a game shoot ) and we were always losing waterfowl to lead poisoning.So knowing of how toxic it is claimed spent lead is to fowl, perhaps it wasn't a good idea to then build 'duck pens' on ground previously used for game shooting?

Most dead birds had a vets autopsy done on them in case the cause was a serious disease. So we usually knew the cause of death.

On one occasion the owner shot a stoat out of a tree outside the pens , not thinking where the shot was going to land. The shot had been in line with a pond where we had a pen of goldeneyes and smew, about 150 yards off. We lost the first one to lead poisoning within a week and 9 more over the next 6 weeks despite the concrete pond being drained and scrubbed several times. The duck must have been picking the lead pellets up off the ground.Again, perhaps not the ideal habitat for keeping duck? This has to be pure speculation surely, all those dead ducks from one spent shot? But again, whichever way you look at it, it doesn't shine a favourable light on the owner.

I once worked at a local castle, owned back then by Fergusson Industrial Holdings. It was a rare breeds sanctuary and we dug and built ponds (concrete, like yours) for the waterfowl. Since then it has changed hands, but the ponds are still there and inhabited by duck, but inbreeding and escapes as well as interlopers have ended the 'rarity' factor. There was for quite a few years a regular clay shoot held within the grounds for family and friends, but I can't recall any dead ducks.

 

Kes , your quote “ Force feed lead and things will die but its the availability in the environment which will determine duck mortality” , In none of the cases were the duck force fed lead.

In the studies carried out in which you provided links for, ducks were indeed 'force fed lead' , directly into the gizzard. They search out lead mistaking it for grit. It can't sink on concrete, but does in the natural habitat.

 

Quote “Reading between the lines about inland poisoning, lead availability from shot is limited to a very short time frame.” Wrong lead availability can last for a very long period of time , lead does not “rot down “ it lasts almost for ever. I know of one waterfowl collection where birds are still being lost to lead despite no shooting taking place over the land for 50 years.

 

Rbrowning2 , come now you are dreaming in fantasy. At worst the price of steel shot is likely to remain the same , but with the laws of supply and demand the tiny increase in the world wide demand for steel shot if lead is far more likely to make steel shot cheaper. For waterfowl shooting we knew the lead ban was coming for years and we had a long switch over period and I think any future change over will be the same.

 

Why o why are so many on here so frightened of steel. I don't think it's a case of being frightened by steel; I use steel on a regular basis and it isn't scary (unless you're a duck) but it's more of a case of not only shooters being lied to and deliberately misled, but the unknowledgeable public also. It's not surprising and only to be expected from those who oppose shooting; there are agendas at work here ( and forgive me for not believing it's based on the environment or the welfare of our wildfowl ) but when there's also scepticism regarding those who are supposed to be representing us, then it's no surprise really that this entire matter is sidetracked by claim and counterclaim and riddled with distrust. 90% of all my game \pigeon shooting is done with steel these days and when you have mastered the new skills needed to shoot steel you will never want to go back to lead. ​I have no knowledge of these 'new skills' you speak of; I just swing through and shoot as I do with lead. I am not an exceptional shot , but this season I have shot 20 geese , most in the 45-55 yard bracket for 30 shots. Only 4 have been wounded

(As far as you know; by your own admission you have shot at 10 which never came down) with most clean kills , a better average than I ever got with lead in the old days.

 

My English guns have gone , they are a relic of a bygone age .So who will buy these relics of a bygone age when they are rendered useless by a lead ban? Has there been any suggestion of Government compensation due to changing legislation such as occurred following Dunblane? I use guns that are made for the job, Don't we all? I use good quality cartridges , pellets 2 -3 times bigger , faster cartridges and chokes that are tailored for what ever shot size I am using. The result for me has been better shooting , cleaner kills and cheaper cartridges. I will give the lead lovers one thing , what steel will not do is pull down those fluky beyond sensible range birds that in hind sight should never been shot at.

 

Gentlemen we have a simple choice move with the modern world that does not like lead or see our sport come under repeated attacks from antis , As I've already said, the move away from lead will not stop any repeated attacks from antis but this time with stronger public support (by moving from lead to steel? Are you serious?) which government cant ignore (don't you believe it) and then our will see game \ pigeon shooting become a thing of the past.

Or change over to non toxic shot removing a major string in the bow of the anti shooting movement and see all forms of game shooting thrive. To suggest the transition from lead to steel will have any effect on how we are perceived by the antis is simply delusional, and to suggest game shooting will thrive as a result is just ridiculous; it's thriving now and has been doing so for generations.

If the threat of toxic shot is as real as some claim, why oh why is the LAG taking so long to come to that conclusion? Anyone? The proof is there apparently, for all to see, and has been since the trials in the 1970's. What has taken over 40 years to ascertain?

[gunsmoke]

 

 

If the threat of toxic shot is as real as some claim, why oh why is the LAG taking so long to come to that conclusion? Anyone? The proof is there apparently, for all to see, and has been since the trials in the 1970's. What has taken over 40 years to ascertain?

 

The LAG was waiting for the FSA Scottish report to finish its work, however the FSA bye-past the LAG altogether.

 

So the WWT produce more papers on lead in game meat. Which I have already report on.

 

The other reason is to hold out until the election, in the hope that they get a Labour government who will ban lead.

 

I believe its all been rigged from the start. you had the Compliance report from the WWT with the help from the BASC then that lead to the LAG set up. The WWT chaired the Compliance report steering group and BASC chaired the LAG. Now I have the minutes for the steering ground, we now know that the RSPB where a corresponding member of the steering group.

 

SO we had the WWT and RSPB along with BASC on the steering and they all set on the Lead Ammunition Group. However BASC no long have an active member on the LAG as John Swift as retired.

 

Should the WWT and RSPB even be setting on the LAG if they are producing the papers they are looking at?

 

[Kes]

Scully,

Since you have posted, I dont have to. I agree with your view.

 

Lead in the environment is available in many forms. The most serious and dangerous is historical lead from industryand industrial pollution from the start of the industrial age.

One thing you do not do is disturb old sediments, as these will contain toxic elements from the industrial past when the rivers once served as sewers. Lead, zinc,mecury and many other toxic products settled into the older layers of silt and are still available and still poisonous.

Tidal movements in estuarial waters move sand banks and silt layers, freeing toxic elements into the water used by wildfowl which are then ingested in the water taken in by ducks and other waders. You will note that Avocets and Reshank have been killed or have extremely elevated levels of lead in their bloodstreams - this is NOT from pellets ingested as they are surface feeders (avocet) or probe for worms. The scenario of poisoning in the Ebro may well owe its inaccuracy to this cause but it doesnt fit the purposes to mention it when a study is to look at the effects of lead shot.

One river I dredged as part of a civils project had highly toxic levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, zinc and other rare metals. The silt removed had to go to the tip as it was so dangerous to fish and wildlife. It could be that Anser2's pond digging so disturbed the ground that this historic toxicity accounted for a number of the birds, that, and a failure to provide suitable grit or directly ingestible food.

Peer review would sort some of this wheat from the chaff.

If I remember correctly when lead in drinking water pipes was a concern, it was only for the developing brains of children and adults using lead pipes were unaffected. There is a weight of rubbish being talked about lead and wildfowl mortality - who can we rely on to sort it out?

 

Shooting wildfowl has been carried out since the 1800's using lead shot - strange that it became an issue only in the 1980's,

Can we presume the Romans died from lead poisoning as their greatest reason for mortality or perhaps their children?

 

As a final point, the suggestion that older guns are 'out-of-date ' and should be replaced by new ones is not a shooting man speaking - gun mechanisms havent changed markedly since the early 1900's when we had the advent of the hammerless ejector. They were also marvels of engineering and trace the proud history of English and Scottish gun-making.

Throw them away? Stop using them - I think not.

[anser2]

I think in only one study were the duck force fed the normal method the yanks have used is to allow the birds to pick up the lead themselves and it was the method used by the WWT 25 years ago in several of their studies. We scrubbed the ponds out as soon as we realised so lead pellets had dropped into the pen , but the ducks were still finding the pellets so they must have been picking them up off the ground as I have already stated.

 

When we lost the goldeneyes and smew they were the first we had lost from lead poisoning in 20 years , but the losses started within days of the stray shot being fired.

 

Several studies have been done scattering dead ducks around known places on wetlands. In each case only a fraction of the dead birds were ever found. Foxes , crows , rats, and other vermin are presumed to have removed them.

 

Over most of East Anglia its hard to find any land that has not had lead pellets fired over it. As for the pellets sinking into the substrate that depends on what the substrate is. Over soft mud perhaps , but over gravel bottoms the lead stays close to the surface. 100s of greylag were poisoned on a Scottish loch when the water levels were lowered for the first time in 25 years o the pellets had not disappeared into the mud. On the Ythan Estuary the lead pellets had gathered to form a bank by the tide and a lot of wild swans were poisoned.

 

Quote “As far as you know; by your own admission you have shot at 10 which never came down”

 

O come on you cant expect me to kill 100% of the geese I shoot at. But 66% is a better average than I used to get from lead.

 

Quote “As I've already said, the move away from lead will not stop any repeated attacks from antis “

Very true as far as the hard core antis , but it will remove the objections from a large section of the public . There will always be a section of the public who are just against killing birds , but there is a far larger section who are neutral or just have no interest. There interest is likely to be aroused when they realise we are spreading toxic lead about the countryside. I used to teach university students environmental issues . Most were against shooting , but after explaining shooting issues in an honest manner and pulling no punches from a section of the public who are traditionally bias against shooting the majority have a rational approach to the sport and though they were unlikely to shoot themselves accepted shooting was part of the traditional country pastimes. A switch over to non toxic shot would have reinforced this.

 

If shooters do not embrace non toxic shot them the battle for the future is lost. BASC realised this , but too many on its membership have just stuck their heads in the sand and if they do not pull them out pretty soon it will be too late. When I suggest many are frightened of steel what I mean is that the majority of strong objectors have not tried modern steel and do not want to. Some of those who do use it the same way as lead and will never get the best from it. Very few who regularly shoot steel have any worries about its effectiveness.

Edited December 31, 2014 by anser2

[Kes]

I have nothing to say regards BASC but Mr Harradine had obviously seen the writing on the wall in 2004 and the 'inevitable' may have been expected by his employer since then.

We have done this aspect to death before.

In my view the key is 'availability' . The poisoning which is endemic in waterways MUST be killing ducks and other waterfowl but no deaths are attributed to this range of historic poisons.

Shotgun pellets are not the only lead in the environment and may not be the lead which kills the majority of waterfowl - still no definitive proof just indications that shotgun pellets made of lead may play some part in waterfowl mortalit.

It would be helpful to map absorbed lead values in many populations, there will inevitably be some in humans but not due to ingested lead shot. This background mapping would then set

a geographical benchmark and elevated levels assessed and their cause, above that level.

[Scully]

We scrubbed the ponds out as soon as we realised so lead pellets had dropped into the pen , but the ducks were still finding the pellets so they must have been picking them up off the ground as I have already stated. Fair enough, but it doesn't seem to be a constant example. The ducks in and around the castle where I worked were unaffected and there was a lot more than one shot.

 

 

 

Several studies have been done scattering dead ducks around known places on wetlands. In each case only a fraction of the dead birds were ever found. Foxes , crows , rats, and other vermin are presumed to have removed them.

I'm not really sure what point you're attempting to make here really. What was the point of this exercise? If it's to prove that 'found' poisoned dead birds are hard to find, it depends on who you listen to. As I've already mentioned, we have found all manner of dead animals on our land, but never ducks, which is quite strange really when you consider the amount of spent shot there is on our land and in our ponds, and the numbers of ducks on it. Have found a number of Buzzards laying dead at the base of poles carrying high voltage cables though, and we only have around 8 resident Buzzards. Your guess is as good as mine as to the numbers of ducks we get.

 

Over most of East Anglia its hard to find any land that has not had lead pellets fired over it. Ditto for Cumbria. There is a driven game shoot syndicate less than 2 miles from me which now has 3 large ponds and they shoot more than a thousand ducks each season. I used to beat and shoot there regularly and the 'keeper (now long dead) was a mate of mine. I can honestly say I never found any birds which had died by any means of other than being shot. As for the pellets sinking into the substrate that depends on what the substrate is. Over soft mud perhaps , but over gravel bottoms the lead stays close to the surface. 100s of greylag were poisoned on a Scottish loch when the water levels were lowered for the first time in 25 years o the pellets had not disappeared into the mud. On the Ythan Estuary the lead pellets had gathered to form a bank by the tide and a lot of wild swans were poisoned.

 

Quote “As far as you know; by your own admission you have shot at 10 which never came down”

 

O come on you cant expect me to kill 100% of the geese I shoot at. But 66% is a better average than I used to get from lead. Of course I can't expect a 100% kill rate, and that isn't what I was suggesting. You claimed you only wounded four. I was merely suggesting you only wounded four as far as you know. You obviously shot at those which never came down, and if they never came down you can't claim you only wounded four; for all you know you may have wounded all of them. It's simply a strange claim to make really while singing the praises of steel shot. I found it an odd claim to make, that's all.

 

Quote “As I've already said, the move away from lead will not stop any repeated attacks from antis “

Very true as far as the hard core antis , but it will remove the objections from a large section of the public . There will always be a section of the public who are just against killing birds , but there is a far larger section who are neutral or just have no interest. There interest is likely to be aroused when they realise we are spreading toxic lead about the countryside. I used to teach university students environmental issues . Most were against shooting , but after explaining shooting issues in an honest manned and pulling no punches from a section of the public who are traditionally bias against shooting the majority have a rational approach to the sport and though they were unlikely to shoot themselves accepted shooting was part of the traditional country pastimes. A switch over to non toxic shot would have reinforced this. It's all just supposition as to what the public will or wont think. Those who oppose shooting will always oppose it, those who have no interest either way are not likely to be endeared to us by our choice of shot. There are many ways, it is claimed, in which we can improve or save our environment, but we only tend to pay this mind when it doesn't effect us personally. Sorry, but I remain very sceptical regarding the above paragraph, as I do regarding the entire lead shot issue.

 

If shooters do not embrace non toxic shot them the battle for the future is lost. Not true. When we give up fighting for the future of shooting will be when it is lost.BASC realised this , but too many on its membership have just stuck their heads in the sand and if they do not pull them out pretty soon it will be too late. When I suggest many are frightened of steel what I mean is that the majority of strong objectors have not tried modern steel and do not want to. Some of those who do use it the same way as lead and will never get the best from it. Very few who regularly shoot steel have any worries about its effectiveness. Again, you're missing the point entirely. I don't have any worries about steel, what I am worried about is the validity of some of the claims and science regarding not the toxicity of lead, but the scale of the effect this toxicity has on our environment, our health and our wildlife.

[Whitebridges]

If lead is banned it will lead to the death knell of shooting in the UK.

 

For once the Scots see the wood from the trees and lead will not be banned up there.

[gunsmoke]

I have nothing to say regards BASC but Mr Harradine had obviously seen the writing on the wall in 2004 and the 'inevitable' may have been expected by his employer since then.

We have done this aspect to death before.

In my view the key is 'availability' . The poisoning which is endemic in waterways MUST be killing ducks and other waterfowl but no deaths are attributed to this range of historic poisons.

Shotgun pellets are not the only lead in the environment and may not be the lead which kills the majority of waterfowl - still no definitive proof just indications that shotgun pellets made of lead may play some part in waterfowl mortalit.

It would be helpful to map absorbed lead values in many populations, there will inevitably be some in humans but not due to ingested lead shot. This background mapping would then set

a geographical benchmark and elevated levels assessed and their cause, above that level.

The lead in air is going up. I read a report which I've trying to find, that lead in air when down from 1920's until the remove lead from petrol. Then it started to go back up. Could the lead in the air be going into waterways?

[Scully]

The lead in air is going up. I read a report which I've trying to find, that lead in air when down from 1920's until the remove lead from petrol. Then it started to go back up. Could the lead in the air be going into waterways?

Off topic I know, but I've been racking my brain trying to remember where I read that the emissions from cars since catalytic converters were introduced are responsible for the same gases some are claiming is creating climate change.

[victorismyhero]

I am not so concerned about changing to steel shot except.............WHAT ABOUT THE B%^$%$Y WAD? ......what about farmland where you cant use plaswads...like pasture land (especially for cattle) and sheep grazing areas???

HUH? that will certainly see your grouse shoots truely stuffed.....

 

 

(edited to self censor since the swear bot cant cope :lol: :lol: )

Edited December 31, 2014 by victorismyhero

[anser2]

You can buy steel with felt wads , but in any case the risk to livestock must be almost non existant. I have always used plas wads since the 1970s and so do 99% of the shooters I know. I have been in wildfowling clubs where the membership to a man use plaswads and 1000s of shots have been taken place over inland marsh where cattle , sheep and pigs graze and yet the clubs have never had an instance of any problem with plaswads. There may be the odd farmer who does not like them , but if there have been any problems from livestock eating them , but it must such a small risk that it can be almost discounted , indeed on several mixed arable\livestock farms where the farmer supplies me with cartridges they have always been with plaswads. I have never liked the litter from plaswads but Plaswads quickly breakdown in sunlight so dissapear within a year. I will be on a cocks only day soon where the landowner , farm manager and almost all the guns will be farmers. From past experiance they will all be using plaswads so I think this isssue is blown up way out of propotion after would the cartridge makers realy be exposing themselves to law suits if there was a real risk of any problems.

 

Whitebridges quote "If lead is banned it will lead to the death knell of shooting in the UK."

 

No it will be the death knell who do not want to use steel. Shooting for those who change to steel will carry on as usual.

[brett1985]

My biggest issue is, once again, the 'im alright jack' stance taken by some people on here...

 

I appreciate the fact that some can afford to sell their 'outdated guns from a bygone age' and buy new gear that will take steel, but the truth of the matter is, alot wont be able to. And more to the point, they shouldnt be forced into doing so.

[Guest stevo]

My biggest issue is, once again, the 'im alright jack' stance taken by some people on here...

 

I appreciate the fact that some can afford to sell their 'outdated guns from a bygone age' and buy new gear that will take steel, but the truth of the matter is, alot wont be able to. And more to the point, they shouldnt be forced into doing so.

+1 I totally agree

[manton]

I agree with the statement and sentiments expressed above.

[spanj]

I agree with the statement and sentiments expressed above.

 

As do I

[gunsmoke]

+1 I totally agree

AND me, that why I am fighting so hard to show you the scam being inflicted on the shooters of the country.