"Shooting is pouring lead into soil"

[The_Engineer]

To follow this up and to give BASC the credit they deserve for addressing my email to them highlighting the original (bias) article the following was published in the Brownfield Briefing in Nov/Dec:

Just thought you all might want to read it. I will copy across the latest comments from Dr Mark Avery that have come up in this little known industry publication for you to read this afternoon.

 

"Sports shooters are not luddites

 

I was interested to read your report on the

 

Lead Ammunition Group (BB, October 2015). Much of the current discussion has been sparked by the release of a letter from the chairman of what should now be referred to as ‘LAG-lite’ to the DEFRA secretary of state. By ignoring the confidentiality requirements of the terms of reference set by previous Labour DEFRA ministers, the concerns over failures in process expressed by those who resigned en masse look even more justified. The language used in the letter is clearly partial and designed to direct Government towards one conclusion. However, events have already moved on and the words “busted flush” spring to mind. Government has indeed returned to the LAG’s terms of reference and has confirmed that the submitted report will be peer-reviewed. This apparently caused some considerable consternation among LAG’s remaining members. We trust that the peer review will be both comprehensive, thorough and avoid

“white hat bias”. Shooting and countryside bodies have never argued that lead cannot be toxic. To portray shooters as luddites, as some try and do, is just plain wrong. The truth is that the risk is far from uniform and must be identified and quantified using sound evidence delivered through rigorous and consistent process. Thereafter proposals to address any risks must meet the Principles of Better Regulation, which are in place to guard against the damaging effects of bad and inappropriate regulation. Regulators have already acted where lead can cause problems. Even before the LAG was established, risk assessment and regulation had already been applied to the areas the group was asked to look at. And, in 2012, even while the LAG was deliberating, the Food Standards Agency conducted its own assessment of lead-shot game meat and produced advice and guidance along the lines of those for oily fish and tuna. What remains concerning is that ‘LAG-lite’ hasn’t mothballed itself, but appears to be busy morphing into a self-appointed lobby. In a letter to The Times in December 2014 the president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, wrote: “Scientists have a responsibility to work with and correct those who misuse and misrepresent science to support their particular politics or ideologies…we must remain vigilant to ensure that evidence comes before opinion”. I have seen nothing that convinces me that existing regulations covering lead ammunition should be extended. Recent decisions in Norway and Austria on lead ammunition and a new study by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council support that view.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Ali

Chief Executive

British Association for Shooting & Conservation"

Edited January 22, 2016 by The_Engineer

[The_Engineer]

And this issues response from the simply delightful, well informed, non-biased Dr Avery:

 

Lead ammunition needs to be banned

 

"Richard Ali of BASC seems to be living in the past as far as lead

ammunition is concerned (Letters, BB, November-December 2015).

Calls for lead ammunition to be banned are loud and clear and

come from the scientific and health communities but are opposed

by the shooting industry. Not only does the Lead Ammunition

Group’s report see no other way to avoid human health impacts

and wildlife damage than a ban on lead ammunition (http://

www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/

LAG-Letter-to-SoS-Environment-030615_Redacted.pdf) but another

recently-published scientific symposium on the dangers of lead

ammunition does the same (http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/).

The calls for a ban come from eminent scientists such as Prof

Ian Newton FRS who says: “My own view is that a legislative ban

is needed on the use of lead in all ammunition used for hunting.

At one stroke this would alleviate the problems created for people

(especially the hunters themselves), for wildlife and for domestic

livestock by this unnecessary but highly toxic material” and Prof

Lord Krebs FRS who says: “Lead ammunition may be traditional

but it is doubtful whether future generations would perpetuate a

tradition of knowingly adding lead to food or exposing wildlife to

poisoning”.

You can’t get much clearer scientific advice than that. No

wonder the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Wildfowl and Wetlands

Trust are all calling for lead ammunition to go.

Richard Ali tries to give the impression that other countries are

rethinking lead ammunition bans whereas the UK agreed with

other countries to phase out lead ammunition within three years

in November 2014.

Hunters all over the world use non-toxic ammunition in their

sport – there is a simple cheap alternative to lead. Denmark banned

the use of lead ammunition 20 years ago and its hunters wouldn’t

want to see it come back – hear them in this youTube video

(

). The same is

true of leading California shooters (http://www.shotgunlife.com/

shotgun-lives/holly-heyser/hunting-unleaded.html) who carry on

shooting unperturbed by using non-toxic ammunition.

DEFRA needs to ban lead ammunition despite the pressure it

is under from the shooting lobby. Sign here to give them a nudge

(https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/111533) .

Dr Mark Avery"

 

Although I would love to see an equally strongly worded response from our BASC Chairman in next month’s issue, I am reminded of the American comedian George Carlin's quote " Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience".

The_Engineer

[Shotguneddy]

All a load of, people worrying about lead Jesus

[anser2]

If anyone does not think lead can be a problem read this link

 

http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/01/lead-poisoning-flint-chicago/

[Scully]

If anyone does not think lead can be a problem read this link

 

http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/01/lead-poisoning-flint-chicago/

Ye Gods! No one has ever denied the toxicity of lead; absolutely no one! This is about LEAD SHOT! Lead shot is also toxic, because it is lead, but the argument many people have with the lead shot issue is the deliberately exaggerated if not downright false information that is used by those who oppose shooting as to the effects of lead shot on either flora, fauna or human health.

It is no accident that those who keep pursuing this issue are the very same bodies which have an agenda against shooting and those who shoot.

Do you honestly believe that by changing to non-toxic shot the WWT, RSPB et al will stop harassing the shooting fraternity? It is already illegal to shoot wildfowl in many countries with lead shot, so why are they still campaigning for an all out ban?

[panoma1]

No one is diputing lead is toxic, what is in dispute is the level of toxicity eating game meat shot with lead ammunition has on human health? When in fact beer, potatoes, etc etc! and any number of other things contains a higher level of lead than game shot with lead ammunition.......so why not ban beer, potatoes and everything else that contains more lead than ammunition eh?.....because banning all the other foods that contain more lead than game is not on the agenda of the anti shooting brigade....because........it would not hurt shooting!!!

 

It comes to something when shooters are scaremongering in support of the anti's shooting brigades unscientific and emotional war on lead ammunition!

 

If lead was as harmful to human health as the WWT and RSPB et al would have us believe......the anti lead lead ammunition group would have found conclusive evidence of it and included such evidence in their report to DEFRA.........And they didn't!