"Shooting is pouring lead into soil"

[The_Engineer]

 

In the UK, they'll be referencing SI units which is metric tonnes = 2201 Lbs = 35,216 oz or 1,000,000 grammes

 

That approximates to 33,333 cartridges per tonne assuming an average 30g (or just over 1 oz) load.

 

If the average regular game shooter fires 1000 cartridges per season, that would equate to roughly 333 guns per season per tonne of lead distributed. If there are say 150,000 regular shooters in the UK, then that equates to about 450 tonnes per year which is a fraction of the pollution caused by vehicles or industry or any other statistically significant source.

 

According to DEFRAs own figures, there were about 48,600 tonnes (or 27% of total PM10 emissions) of black carbon diesel particulates discharges into the atmosphere alone in 2001. Cars may be a little cleaner now but there are more of them so I'd expect emissions to be not that different, especially given the number of VWs about

 

There is a more readily damaging link between pollutant, receptor and direct health risk from diesel particulates, especially on children, as they are directly breathed, so what we can (very non scientifically) say from these statistics is that:

 

Diesel particulates are an order of magnitude far more influential on public health than lead shot ever was or ever is likely to be given that the pollutant, receptor and ingestion paths drastically reduce effects of lead shot as any sort of statistically significant public health risk.

 

That, as we all suspect, it is simply a political agenda point being part of the thin end of a "ban shooting" campaign in the UK by various ill informed antis and the campaign is without any real scientific credibility, so should be treated with the derision it deserves. Unfortunately for us, we cannot afford to become apathetic, because the powers that be are being informed as much by misinformation as information and also have political protectionist considerations, therefore we need to keep on fighting our corner and supporting our shooting organisations to do likewise or we will wake up one morning to find things have changed for the worse.

Sums it up nicely! Far worse things to worry about.

[wymberley]

Sums it up nicely!

Indeed it does. Well posted, Savhmr.

 

My question would be is why is such reasoning not appearing in the national media via our organisations?

[Whitebridges]

Suggesting that children are at particular risk from eating game is cheap, sensationalist nonsense. Healthiest people I have known are those who have lived in the countryside their entire lives and have regularly eaten game from an early age.

 

Around 10,000 children

are growing up in households where they

could regularly be eating sufficient game shot

to cause neuro-developmental harm and

other health impairments.

^^ Extract from the OP. Sensationalist bull**** more like. So why didn't Shifty Swifty identify these 10K kids and run some tests on them? Maybe then we would get some facts rather than something that reads like tales from the riverbank.

[The_Engineer]

Indeed it does. Well posted, Savhmr.

 

My question would be is why is such reasoning not appearing in the national media via our organisations?

At the moment the media haven't really ran away with this yet from what I have seen, just small articles and no real air time - we notice more as we care about it. Maybe the organisations think it better to not make a mountain out of a molehill? or maybe they are waiting for the reports to be released so they can respond with strong scientific arguments? I would hope BASC have suitably qualified experts on standby ready to undertake an independent review of the reports.

[The_Engineer]

 

 

Around 10,000 children

are growing up in households where they

could regularly be eating sufficient game shot

to cause neuro-developmental harm and

other health impairments.

^^ Extract from the OP. Sensationalist ******** more like. So why didn't Shifty Swifty identify these 10K kids and run some tests on them? Maybe then we would get some facts rather than something that reads like tales from the riverbank.

 

It's not unfeasible that 10k kids could potentially be exposed to high levels of lead but to publish it without releasing the sufficient evidence and testing is, well, a bit dodgy. The more I read on this LAG it does look like a concerted attempt to ban lead shot. If there is a genuine risk that can be proven then maybe something will have to be done but hopefully the government stand by their stance of no evidence - no legislation. I'm not sure where banning lead shot would leave me with my trusty mk 70 Miroku clay buster (no fleur de lis I can see on barrels), but I know I will start to stockpile it on an industrial scale if it looks like lead shot will be banned

Edited October 7, 2015 by The_Engineer

[Bazooka Joe]

I would hope BASC have suitably qualified experts on standby ready to undertake an independent review of the reports.

 

 

Secret Squirrel Plan B to all accounts.........

[Scully]

Some very well informed and intelligent posts on here.

I don't claim to be anywhere near as articulate or as knowledgeable on the subject as some, but I do have a good sense of logic and would like to think an equally shared capacity for common sense.

With all that has been said above, and with all that we know, including the fact that toxic vehicle emissions (according to a recent BBC programme) are twice the permitted EU levels in Oxford Street and that respiratory illnesses resulting in deaths caused by environmental air toxicity stand at over 20,000 per year (from the same BBC programme) and that the numbers of human deaths caused by spent lead shot are , er.....does anyone know? perhaps it is time those of us with the knowledge and expertise in their fields, and given that our shooting organisations don't seem to be very forthcoming with any information as to how they are, or intend to respond to peer reviewed information, it's time we shooters started submitting our own knowledge and input to MP's etc. Just a thought.

[Teal]

There are quite a few posts on this topic talking about things that are in their view more toxic than lead such arsenic mining or air pollution. I personally don't feel these are particularly good arguments.

 

I think the BASC position - "no evidence no change" is a sound one. But I do think that there is a place and a need for research into the health implications, and this really needs to be from an independent body rather than an agenda pushing stakeholder as has previously been the case.

 

Anecdotal evidence such as knowing someone who has eaten pheasant three times a day for their entire life is fine but it's not really relevant. I personally think there is a place for research into the potential/alleged health implications and that it should be encouraged, although I can understand with some of the agendas being pushed around why it might be feared.

 

Let's be honest if there was a proper scientific conclusion that eating game shot with lead caused significant health issues, how many would reconsider what they were shooting and eating. I know I would. And of course if the conclusion was no significant health issues, well that would be a good result too.

[The_Engineer]

Some very well informed and intelligent posts on here.

I don't claim to be anywhere near as articulate or as knowledgeable on the subject as some, but I do have a good sense of logic and would like to think an equally shared capacity for common sense.

With all that has been said above, and with all that we know, including the fact that toxic vehicle emissions (according to a recent BBC programme) are twice the permitted EU levels in Oxford Street and that respiratory illnesses resulting in deaths caused by environmental air toxicity stand at over 20,000 per year (from the same BBC programme) and that the numbers of human deaths caused by spent lead shot are , er.....does anyone know? perhaps it is time those of us with the knowledge and expertise in their fields, and given that our shooting organisations don't seem to be very forthcoming with any information as to how they are, or intend to respond to peer reviewed information, it's time we shooters started submitting our own knowledge and input to MP's etc. Just a thought.

What have BASC said about how they intend to respond/their plan of action? If BASC Dave is reading I would be very keen to know if an independent review of the reports is being commissioned by BASC. I would imagine that this is the case. As an aside was any member of the LAG a contaminated land expert/toxicologist?

[Scully]

There are quite a few posts on this topic talking about things that are in their view more toxic than lead such arsenic mining or air pollution. I personally don't feel these are particularly good arguments.

 

I think the BASC position - "no evidence no change" is a sound one. But I do think that there is a place and a need for research into the health implications, and this really needs to be from an independent body rather than an agenda pushing stakeholder as has previously been the case.

 

Anecdotal evidence such as knowing someone who has eaten pheasant three times a day for their entire life is fine but it's not really relevant. I personally think there is a place for research into the potential/alleged health implications and that it should be encouraged, although I can understand with some of the agendas being pushed around why it might be feared.

 

Let's be honest if there was a proper scientific conclusion that eating game shot with lead caused significant health issues, how many would reconsider what they were shooting and eating. I know I would. And of course if the conclusion was no significant health issues, well that would be a good result too.

I couldn't agree more. My reference to the air pollution matter above wasn't intended as a 'there are more serious matters to contend with' argument as I regard that argument never really a basis for ignoring the lesser of two evils, but rather as highlighting the difference between an agenda led research and the opposite.

Our shooting organisations are often encouraging shooters to lobby in the face of proposed legislation, and while there is at the moment no proposal of legislation, there most definitely will be depending ( or not ) on the outcome of the peer review.

Our organisations haven't even mentioned lobbying as far as I'm aware. The BASC slogan of 'no evidence-no change' is indeed a sound one, but is merely a soundbite, and with the exception of the CA I haven't heard a whisper form the other organisations.

I have little faith in any of our organisations being able to sway political will if the will is there and believe our best hope lays with a sympathetic government as it did following the shootings in Cumbria (Tory shooting Toffs) and the fact other European countries have overturned a lead shot ban, and the hope that even a sympathetic government can withstand a prolonged and persistent media campaign. We have antis like no other in this country who will make much press if the outcome of the peer review goes against us.

In the face of a lack of advice to the contrary, in my opinion we as individuals should be lobbying now.

A total lead shot ban wont effect Tory Toffs like it will effect the average man in the street.

[BrowningB525]

An anorak moment over coffee!! with all the talk about the "ton" no agency defines whether it is a short ton 2000 lbs (USA)' long ton 2240 lbs (imperial)or metric tonne 2204 lbs approx.

A quick calculation is that there are 32,000 ounces in a short ton x 6000 tons of lead allegedly used for game and clay pigeon shooting at, say, 1 oz lead per cartridge = 192 million cartridges.

Is this feasible? Or am I missing something?

 

It'll be 1,000 kg. So 35,274 ounces.

 

That's easily feasible. I am hardly a massive shooter and will get through about 4,000 cartridges a year (average about 75 cartridges a week rounded up to 4000). That's 112 kg of lead from me alone. There are a lot of people who shoot a lot more than that too.

[Teal]

Scully completely understand where you are coming from, what you wrote all makes good sense Agree with it all.

 

I suspect BASC would be very cautious about spending their member's contributions and doing their own research on it, especially in light of the sensitivity of members towards this as potentially the findings could mean that shooters feel they are "being stabbed in back" by the voice of shooting. It could also be open to the same criticism that the WWT research is. So at this time it would seem we must either look at foreign publications which are a very mixed bag, agenda led bodies like the WWT, or we hope that from somewhere a proper independent UK study comes out.

 

As an aside, in my opinion, the LAG really was a missed opportunity. It should have produced a proper independent UK study using the funds it had available from day one. Instead it seems (from my understanding) that a small group of people had a few meetings over several years, and attempted to do a literature review (despite not being best placed to do this - with respect to bias) and they are then are sending that review out for a second peer review. It just seems like a big paper pushing exercise. Does anyone know what the whole farce cost?

 

I agree the fall back position seems to be to dig in, throw mud, and rely on LAG withering on the vine. Keep fingers crossed for a continued lack of public/media pressure and hope the issue drops off the radar by not giving it Oxygen. This might work for now, but this issue won't go away using this 'strategy'.

[wymberley]

 

Scully completely understand where you are coming from, what you wrote all makes good sense Agree with it all.

 

I suspect BASC would be very cautious about spending their member's contributions and doing their own research on it, especially in light of the sensitivity of members towards this as potentially the findings could mean that shooters feel they are "being stabbed in back" by the voice of shooting. It could also be open to the same criticism that the WWT research is. So at this time it would seem we must either look at foreign publications which are a very mixed bag, agenda led bodies like the WWT, or we hope that from somewhere a proper independent UK study comes out.

 

As an aside, in my opinion, the LAG really was a missed opportunity. It should have produced a proper independent UK study using the funds it had available from day one. Instead it seems (from my understanding) that a small group of people had a few meetings over several years, and attempted to do a literature review (despite not being best placed to do this - with respect to bias) and they are then are sending that review out for a second peer review. It just seems like a big paper pushing exercise. Does anyone know what the whole farce cost?

 

I agree the fall back position seems to be to dig in, throw mud, and rely on LAG withering on the vine. Keep fingers crossed for a continued lack of public/media pressure and hope the issue drops off the radar by not giving it Oxygen. This might work for now, but this issue won't go away using this 'strategy'.

 

A faultless summary. The most critical aspect I think is the "UK" bit which would then reflect our environment, sporting methods/conduct, etc, etc instead of being dependent on a base measure which could well be entirely alien to our own.

[Scully]

 

Scully completely understand where you are coming from, what you wrote all makes good sense Agree with it all.

 

I suspect BASC would be very cautious about spending their member's contributions and doing their own research on it, especially in light of the sensitivity of members towards this as potentially the findings could mean that shooters feel they are "being stabbed in back" by the voice of shooting. It could also be open to the same criticism that the WWT research is. So at this time it would seem we must either look at foreign publications which are a very mixed bag, agenda led bodies like the WWT, or we hope that from somewhere a proper independent UK study comes out.

 

As an aside, in my opinion, the LAG really was a missed opportunity. It should have produced a proper independent UK study using the funds it had available from day one. Instead it seems (from my understanding) that a small group of people had a few meetings over several years, and attempted to do a literature review (despite not being best placed to do this - with respect to bias) and they are then are sending that review out for a second peer review. It just seems like a big paper pushing exercise. Does anyone know what the whole farce cost?

 

I agree the fall back position seems to be to dig in, throw mud, and rely on LAG withering on the vine. Keep fingers crossed for a continued lack of public/media pressure and hope the issue drops off the radar by not giving it Oxygen. This might work for now, but this issue won't go away using this 'strategy'.

 

Yep, as Wymberley says, a 'faultless summary'. The highlighted sentence above sums up my opinion perfectly, and as you say, at what cost?

The entire affair has struck me as an amateurish occasional get together for a few self-appointed experts to inflate their egos while airing their vested interests and agendas towards a section of society they have no liking for. The money could have been put towards commissioning an independently researched work, undertaken by people who actually knew what they were doing, and of whom it could be said had no interest either way as to the outcome. Perhaps then we wouldn't have been subject to the highly biased and misleading articles of D. Payne, nor indeed the seemingly underhanded tactics of a certain person.

[activeviii]

Just a spanner that came to mind reading all this.

 

They want to ban lead because a plant might draw up toxin's that might get into our food chain.

Considering most of UK food is imported how does this work. It's said that food would need to be taken over a long time. UK climate produces seasonal foods.

 

This issue with birds, who's to say that the bird picked up the shot in this country. Same goes for the birds that are found with lead shot in the bodies. Who's to say they had been shot at in the UK.

 

 

To me its just antis trying to find angles to ban the sport. Make it hard, nibble away until

It's all banned.

[Whitebridges]

Lead shot used for shooting won't be banned because it can't be proved as a No 1 enemy.

 

The rest of the world let alone our little tiny land mass if stuffed full of bigger fish to fry.

 

The propaganda is about banning shooting rather than banning lead shot.

 

Stop using alternatives to lead (unless you absolutely have to) and our world will be a much much better place.

[Les*1066]

Doesn't lead come out of the ground in the first place? Just sayin'.

[Savhmr]

Absolutely.

 

Lets look at what are some hard facts....no data, but none needed at this stage (explanation below)*:

 

• Lead, for the vast majority of cases, is likely not present in the ground in sufficient quantities to enter the human food chain through plant take up and later ingestion and most rough shooting is likely not done over food crop anyway bar decoying for pigeon;
• plants, even if subject to lead shot, only draw up what they need (and they don't need lead) and there are (as yet) no proven figures for lead concentrations in food. LAG has come up with none, zero, zilch to date;
• lead contamination through eating contaminated game seems to have been their main thrust. not, bizarrely from ground contamination

It is the last point where most of the loose "research" seems to have been referenced.

 

The fact remains that it is a responsibility for every game dealer and retailer to ensure that the food entering the human food chain is safe and any heavily shot carcass shouldn't be processed, or at least good practice is for shot tracts and heavy damage to be removed. This is just part of HACCP. For game that has not been subject to HACCP, then the frequency and concentration of ingestion of shot game which contains lots of shot tracts has to be such that it breaches current threshold levels for contamination on a regular basis and over a prescribed period for those concentrations to have a significant effect on a person, although the argument that any cumulative toxin should be avoided is used.

 

The last point is unproven by anything that LAG have ever forwarded. Presenting "X" number of carcasses with obvious shot tracts for sale on the open market, proof does not make for anything.

 

The only way to prove any sort of a link is if blood tests from those regularly eating shot game reveal higher than normal levels of toxins in the blood stream and then a link has to be proven back to contaminant including receptor paths. That is unlikely to happen. The answer therefore is to push for a blanked ban on the basis that lead is a toxin...full stop.

 

The drift, as Whitebridges states above, is not really one of lead. it's more about banning shooting. We all know that because the groups pushing for it would love nothing better than to see an outright ban on shooting anything with feather or fur. The real toxicity issue was confined to wading birds where testing so say revealed unacceptable levels of lead in their systems, including from the use of fishing lead weights apparently as well as lead shot, so a ban on lead shot and lead fishing weights over foreshores and on all fishing grounds ensued.

 

That wasn't enough for the antis, so an outright ban on lead for shooting wildfowl, over perhaps the same field you might legally shoot pheasant or pigeon, came into force. What were they thinking, that lead poisoning would kill the duck and not 30g of Nr5 shot well placed? Knee jerk ridiculousness. Not all duck for example are shot over ponds or water, yet it remains illegal to shoot them with anything but non-toxic shot. Bonkers.

 

*(Facts may need to be established but what one can say is that what are obvious insignificant risks are just that, obvious. There are other sources of contamination which provide a far higher risk such as ecoli poisoning and cryptosporidium infections, both of which affect more people in the Uk annually than higher than average toxicity levels from lead shot do or are likely ever to do. Poor food hygiene and poor HACCP are likely responsible for the vast majority of all ill health occurrences from food than just about anything else).

 

If the powers that be spent more time on controlling food hygiene in the human food chain, then perhaps that would be a better way to spend public funds and result in far fewer infections and deaths annually than they ever need to worry about from shooting activities.

 

Don't become apathetic folks, fight this. lobby your shooting organisations, loby your MPs, lobby anyone who will listen. Support your organisations if they ask for your support. The shooting community is often its own worst enemy and is fast to react verbally to things but historically slow to act or provide that real support. Without it, in this case, make no mistake that the anti groups will continue to gain ground unopposed.

 

Whilst BASC's angle is to not react as the law remains the law until evidence is presented which otherwise proves the need for change, we all know that government has often changed laws without such proof, as political pressure is what makes and changes law over time. Policy and votes before facts. We cannot simply ignore this, but we also shouldn't rise to debate the issue with the antis, but to destroy every shred of their so called "evidence" including tearing apart any reports to DEFRA where proper inclusive consultation has not happened. That, I think, is where our organisations should be aiming at present, but that's just my personal view.

[anser2]

Quote "That wasn't enough for the antis, so an outright ban on lead for shooting wildfowl, over perhaps the same field you might legally shoot pheasant or pigeon, came into force. What were they thinking, that lead poisoning would kill the duck and not 30g of Nr5 shot well placed? Knee jerk ridiculousness. Not all duck for example are shot over ponds or water, yet it remains illegal to shoot them with anything but non-toxic shot. Bonkers."

 

I do not think you realy understand the problem with lead. Its got nothing to do with the duck you shoot , for them it doesnt matter if its killed by lead or steel. Its the other living wildfowl and other water birds that pick up lead off the bottom of a pond or off the land that they take in to grind up their food in their gizzard that are posioned. For every shot taken only a hand full of pellets lodge in the body of the bird you shoot , the remainder are scatttered around the countryside. And make no mistake about it lead pellets posions ducks .Full stop.

 

I now use steel for most of my shooting , it kills cleanly at good ranges , its cheap and it is fairly harmless in the envoronment. If anyone cant kill a duck or any other game bird cleanly at 40 yards with steel then you are not using it correctly. You are using the wrong chokes, wrong pellet sizes , too slow a cartridge or do not have the correct gun to use propper effective steel loads. Its time we all woke up and if we want to stop giving amunition to the anties switched over to it. Its a simple no brainer.

 

To slightly misquote Whitebridges "Stop using lead (unless you absolutely have to) and our world will be a much much better place.

Edited October 9, 2015 by anser2

[Savhmr]

Sorry, but its you who've misunderstood. I am not talking about shooting over water, period. As for use alternatives, and quoting "stop using lead", why and on what authority do you base that viewpoint? To my mind, lead shot remains the best shot to get the job done. This is not a debate on ballistics, (lead is far superior, shot size for shot size so there is no ballistics debate to be had) and changing will only lead to a new set of issues elsewhere. If you want to use steel for everything, then good for you. That's your choice. For most of us, we still have our choice and if that is lead, we stand to defend that choice. There are more important things in this world to be concerning us with, so the "world would be a better place" is just a nonsense statement. In what way would "the world be a better place?". It might be a better place if America and Russia stopped invading other countries, or if the rise of extremism was halted, but lead shot?

[wymberley]

From where I shoot I have a lovely view of the Exe estuary; a safe haven and food source for countless wildfowl. Once in a blue moon we did see a mallard or two (no more) on the one pond. We never shot at them nor, with the exception of fox and rabbit with the rifle did we shoot anything else in the area as it was a grassed nursery area and overnight holding field for the dairy herd. Now it's a solar panel array so remains a no no. Similarly, we saw the odd bird on the maize clamp when it was grown. It no longer is and besides, when shooting in the area it was always away from the clamp. So, no duck and certainly, never ever, any geese.

 

So, should I be obliged to use NTS non lead ( ) shot?

[The_Engineer]

Quote "That wasn't enough for the antis, so an outright ban on lead for shooting wildfowl, over perhaps the same field you might legally shoot pheasant or pigeon, came into force. What were they thinking, that lead poisoning would kill the duck and not 30g of Nr5 shot well placed? Knee jerk ridiculousness. Not all duck for example are shot over ponds or water, yet it remains illegal to shoot them with anything but non-toxic shot. Bonkers."

 

I do not think you realy understand the problem with lead. Its got nothing to do with the duck you shoot , for them it doesnt matter if its killed by lead or steel. Its the other living wildfowl and other water birds that pick up lead off the bottom of a pond or off the land that they take in to grind up their food in their gizzard that are posioned. For every shot taken only a hand full of pellets lodge in the body of the bird you shoot , the remainder are scatttered around the countryside. And make no mistake about it lead pellets posions ducks .Full stop.

 

I now use steel for most of my shooting , it kills cleanly at good ranges , its cheap and it is fairly harmless in the envoronment. If anyone cant kill a duck or any other game bird cleanly at 40 yards with steel then you are not using it correctly. You are using the wrong chokes, wrong pellet sizes , too slow a cartridge or do not have the correct gun to use propper effective steel loads. Its time we all woke up and if we want to stop giving amunition to the anties switched over to it. Its a simple no brainer.

 

To slightly misquote Whitebridges "Stop using lead (unless you absolutely have to) and our world will be a much much better place.

Interesting viewpoint. Do you consider steel to be safe? Safer than Lead to shoot? How do you know it is? The harmful effects steel's specific gravity have on stomach lining are enormous.... as are most heavy metals.... sometimes it can be better the devil you know.

 

I think the point is that the true affects that shooting has on the wider environment and ultimately the health of humans and animals has not been confirmed. Jumping to an alternative without any evidence of harm being caused is probably giving the anti's a helping hand rather than saving the environment as you seem to have concluded.

Edited October 9, 2015 by The_Engineer

[kernel gadaffi]

Where I live in Weardale, County Durham, the majority of employment many years ago was either farming or mining, lead and flourspar were the main products removed from the ground and there are many old quarries and works throughout the dale, numbers escape me, but it could be hundreds, given the size of some of these workings, you could dump a ton of lead in some of the larger ones every day of the week for many years and not scratch the surface of how much has been removed.

The clay shooting club I'm a member of uses one of the old workings and has done since 1989, in 26 years of shooting once a fortnight, the amount of lead being dispersed back into the quarry will be considerate but has made not a jot to the area within the quarry. Maybe in another hundred years.

[The_Engineer]

[The_Engineer]

Not sure if those images are clear enough to read but its another article from an industry publication (Brownfield Briefing - subscription only) and it is very one sided.