Lead - the invisible killer

[Scully]

I've 'been there and done that' also, but the alternative is ...what? Keep schtum and let all the deceit etc go unanswered?

You're right, there will only be a handful, but that is down to the apathy of the average shooter and with or without organisations it is ultimately what will do for shooting in the UK.

There are hundreds of thousands of shooters in the UK. If each one sent two emails each then who knows what the result would be; but you're right, it isn't going to happen.

What you have to bear in mind is that the number one priority of any organisation is to ensure the survival of the organisation. If you're not happy with your organisation then leave and give your money to another. I did. Or if you feel the way you obviously do then just buy insurance; you don't need to join an organisation to be insured.

[Scully]

Have just received a very interesting email from the CA; maybe they're where we should be putting our money?

It is quite an enlightening email ( to me anyhow ) and includes much more information than I've read elsewhere. I hadn't realised for instance, that the 'Oxford Lead Symposium' published the report just reported as news by the BBC last year! Nor that all it's findings had already been dealt with during the LAG meetings.

Another for instance I was unaware of, but DEFRA are aware of, is that, according to the email, nearly all of the wildfowl referred to in this report were migratory so there is no way of knowing in which country any lead shot found in digestive systems was picked up.

Another oddity which occurred to me is why, if it has indeed been known for decades that ingested lead shot kills wildfowl, why the owners of the duck farm featured in the WWT video, chose to locate their farm on a site adjacent to a clay pigeon shooting ground ? Just a thought.

[McSpredder]

1. Why does the front cover of the Oxford Lead Symposium report have a diagram of shotgun pellets falling to the ground and being picked up by a swan? Scientific opinion in the report suggests shotgun pellets were never implicated in lead poisoning of swans. Did the publishers hope somebody seeing the front cover would (wrongly) assume it was supported by scientific evidence? Was this a deliberate attempt to deceive, or just an example of slipshod work by the two editors?

 

2. In relation to the poisoning of swans in the 1980s, Professor Newton wrote "These birds got their lead mainly from fishing-weights rather than gunshot." Professor Perrins said "...the sale and use of the most commonly used sizes of fishing leads were forbidden. The result was dramatic, nationally the mute swan population doubled in the next ten years." As he has made such an unequivocal statement, and attributed the increase in swan population solely to the banning of lead angling weights, we must assume that Professor Perrins carefully considered and ruled out all other causes, including shotgun pellets. More recently, he published a paper in the journal Avian Pathology, in which he reported levels of lead found in the blood of swans and stated categorically that "No source of this lead has been identified other than lead fishing weights."

 

3. BASC have already pointed out the absence of any data supporting a headline claim that 50,000-100,000 wildfowl die each winter in UK from lead poisoning, and it seems the figures were simply guesswork. There is one table (page 67) in which the authors brazenly admit that data has been fabricated - they took the number of swans found dead from all causes, and deliberately inserted those same figures into their table under a column heading "Birds shot by hunters". Another notable feature of that same table is the complete absence of any data obtained in modern times - some of the information was published 65 years ago, and even the most recent is at least 32 years out of date.

 

4. What does this report say about the state of science in UK? Professors from the Universities of Exeter and Dundee, who edited the symposium report, have involved themselves in publishing claims about wildfowl deaths that were probably nothing more than guesswork, and have approved use of at least one table containing deliberately fabricated data. Should I be shocked, or is this the sort of behaviour that most senior academics (and Fellows of the Royal Society, such as Professor Perrins) would happily endorse nowadays? The report was published by the University of Oxford, which needs to attract students from around the world, and industrial partners for research; it might not be very good for university reputations if somebody made a critical assessment of the report and circulated it around the web under a title such as "Oxford University's Dodgy Dossier."

 

5. The standard of scientific reporting about wildlife and lead ammunition has sometimes been extraordinarily lax. In one example the authors stated that "The aim of this study was to assess whether lead ammunition could pose a risk to red kite..." but their collection of data was remarkably haphazard. Young kites in captivity were said to have been fed "a variety of prey, many of which had been shot" but the authors either did not know or else could not be bothered to indicate the numbers or the proportion that had been shot. They wrote: "We evaluated exposure to Pb in captive and wild red kites by taking blood samples from 125 captive young red kites.....The birds sampled originated predominantly from the UK and Spain." In other words, an unreported number were obtained in UK, an unreported number were brought from Spain, and an unreported number came were from other unspecified places. It was said that "Carcasses of reintroduced red kites, and a few sick birds, were collected" and obviously the authors either did not know or else could not be bothered to report how many of the birds had been sick when collected. The investigators were incapable, even with the aid of radiography, of finding out where a rifle bullet had entered a rabbit carcase. "Four rabbits shot using a .22 bullet were obtained and radiographed dorso-ventrally. The rabbits were also skinned to identify the site of entry of the bullet..... The bullet entry hole was not identified in a fourth rabbit." Some of the carcases examined were already decomposed, and three quarters of the post-mortem examinations failed to diagnose the cause of death: "Post mortem results and subsequent analyses did not establish a significant diagnosis in 66 of the 87 birds for which either liver or bone concentrations were available; some carcasses were decomposed or in poor condition. Post mortem results and subsequent analyses did not establish a significant diagnosis in 66 of the 87 birds for which either liver or bone concentrations were available; some carcasses were decomposed or in poor condition."

 

Does that sound like rigorous scientific reporting? Well, it was used as Primary Evidence by the Lead Ammunition Group, and the senior author was one of the two people who wrote to the Secretary of State claiming that reports from other organisations "...contain flaws and were not sufficiently rigorous." As a result of their lobbying, the LAG was established.

[Scully]

You don't post very often McSpredder, but they're always worth waiting for.

[rodp]

I've 'been there and done that' also, but the alternative is ...what? Keep schtum and let all the deceit etc go unanswered?

You're right, there will only be a handful, but that is down to the apathy of the average shooter and with or without organisations it is ultimately what will do for shooting in the UK.

There are hundreds of thousands of shooters in the UK. If each one sent two emails each then who knows what the result would be; but you're right, it isn't going to happen.

What you have to bear in mind is that the number one priority of any organisation is to ensure the survival of the organisation. If you're not happy with your organisation then leave and give your money to another. I did. Or if you feel the way you obviously do then just buy insurance; you don't need to join an organisation to be insured.

Even if I shout loud I'll just be a voice in the wilderness, I'm well aware of that. One of the reasons I don't mind paying subs to an organisation (BASC) is that it's supposed to shout up for all, including me, it's the only way my voice is heard.

What I do dislike is the way they always seem to be on the defensive instead of occasionally being on the offensive. When was the last time you saw an unprovoked statement from them in the likes of the Sun or Mirror, and whatever you think of them they're very widely read papers?

Take the article from above post about Oxford university,

Professors from the Universities of Exeter and Dundee, who edited the symposium report, have involved themselves in publishing claims about wildfowl deaths that were probably nothing more than guesswork, and have approved use of at least one table containing deliberately fabricated data. Should I be shocked, or is this the sort of behaviour that most senior academics (and Fellows of the Royal Society, such as Professor Perrins) would happily endorse nowadays?

Shouldn't BASC be on the offensive about that, shouldn't they be on to the daily rags and try to get a story published ? "Top university professors publishing false data for own ends" would make a good headline. It's what the anti's do, slowly but surely they keep publishing rubbish and subconsciously it gets absorbed as truth. It's like brainwashing, if you say it often enough folk believe it.

 

Just my thoughts on it, be interesting to hear what BASC have to say about changing tactics and going for the throat for once. It's the public we have to get to, not just keep answering back to other organisations.

[sitsinhedges]

All BASC appear to do is put a statement somewhere on their own website where few will read it. This whole lead debacle is the one reason I am no longer a member.

[Scully]

Even if I shout loud I'll just be a voice in the wilderness, I'm well aware of that. One of the reasons I don't mind paying subs to an organisation (BASC) is that it's supposed to shout up for all, including me, it's the only way my voice is heard.

What I do dislike is the way they always seem to be on the defensive instead of occasionally being on the offensive. When was the last time you saw an unprovoked statement from them in the likes of the Sun or Mirror, and whatever you think of them they're very widely read papers?

Take the article from above post about Oxford university,

Professors from the Universities of Exeter and Dundee, who edited the symposium report, have involved themselves in publishing claims about wildfowl deaths that were probably nothing more than guesswork, and have approved use of at least one table containing deliberately fabricated data. Should I be shocked, or is this the sort of behaviour that most senior academics (and Fellows of the Royal Society, such as Professor Perrins) would happily endorse nowadays?

Shouldn't BASC be on the offensive about that, shouldn't they be on to the daily rags and try to get a story published ? "Top university professors publishing false data for own ends" would make a good headline. It's what the anti's do, slowly but surely they keep publishing rubbish and subconsciously it gets absorbed as truth. It's like brainwashing, if you say it often enough folk believe it.

 

Just my thoughts on it, be interesting to hear what BASC have to say about changing tactics and going for the throat for once. It's the public we have to get to, not just keep answering back to other organisations.

I agree with everything in your post but it still doesn't stop me from contacting the relevant people if I'm unhappy enough about something. I'm no longer a member so no longer care what BASC do. It's up to BASC members to lobby their organisation if they're not happy.

Have you asked BASC if they intend to 'go for the throat' or any other part of the anatomy?

As much as I'm not interested in hunting with hounds I'm seriously considering joining the CA; they seem to be on the ball at the moment.

[rodp]

Yes, thought crossed my mind when next due to pay.

[Vince Green]

Just an aside, is there such a thing as a forensically qualified vet? Or are the people doing the analysis on the birds slightly lacking in the impartialy stakes? In house autopsies on the birds by people with no proper qualifictions to make a judgement it sounds like to me

.

[Vince Green]

Even if I shout loud I'll just be a voice in the wilderness, I'm well aware of that. One of the reasons I don't mind paying subs to an organisation (BASC) is that it's supposed to shout up for all, including me, it's the only way my voice is heard.

What I do dislike is the way they always seem to be on the defensive instead of occasionally being on the offensive. When was the last time you saw an unprovoked statement from them in the likes of the Sun or Mirror, and whatever you think of them they're very widely read papers?

Take the article from above post about Oxford university,

Professors from the Universities of Exeter and Dundee, who edited the symposium report, have involved themselves in publishing claims about wildfowl deaths that were probably nothing more than guesswork, and have approved use of at least one table containing deliberately fabricated data. Should I be shocked, or is this the sort of behaviour that most senior academics (and Fellows of the Royal Society, such as Professor Perrins) would happily endorse nowadays?

Shouldn't BASC be on the offensive about that, shouldn't they be on to the daily rags and try to get a story published ? "Top university professors publishing false data for own ends" would make a good headline. It's what the anti's do, slowly but surely they keep publishing rubbish and subconsciously it gets absorbed as truth. It's like brainwashing, if you say it often enough folk believe it.

 

Just my thoughts on it, be interesting to hear what BASC have to say about changing tactics and going for the throat for once. It's the public we have to get to, not just keep answering back to other organisations.

Very good post!

[McSpredder]

Computer word-search on the Oxford Lead Symposium report: the disregard for those who live and work in the countryside is very striking, and PW members who have contacts in NFU, NFUS, FUW, CLA and similar organisations (as well as all the shooting bodies) might wish to make them aware of this.

 

"farm" appears only once in all the 152 pages of the report (when farm/estate shops are mentioned in a list of places where WWT purchased shot ducks).

 

"farming" occurs once in a symposium paper ("...some farming practices could hypothetically make lead gunshot deposited decades ago more available") and once in an authors CV.

 

"farmer" and "gamekeeper" are each used just once, in connection with an estimate of game meat consumption in Scotland: ("...contacts included butchers, game dealers, members of shooting clubs, farmers, gamekeepers...")

 

"forester" is used only once: ("...the use of steel shot was considered unacceptable to foresters because of its hardness and the consequent risk of damage to machinery...")

 

"croft", "crofting", "crofter", "smallholder", "smallholding" are not used anywhere in the report.

 

As far as I could see, the only other place where those who live and work in rural areas get a mention is in the following passage: "This lead poisoning does not normally produce obvious mass mortalities of the type that can result from disease, because birds die slowly through the year, a few at a time, their carcasses swiftly removed by scavengers. Lead-caused mortality is therefore largely hidden, invisible to the average hunter or country-dweller."

 

Is the writer unaware that farmers, crofters, stockmen, shepherds, tractor drivers, stalkers, gamekeepers, pest controllers, fencing/hedging contractors, agronomists, foresters, veterinary surgeons, etc, are likely to be out in the countryside rather frequently?

 

Or does he consider such people would lack the intelligence and powers of observation required to recognise a dead bird?

 

Or is there some other reason why the writer (a professor, and former Chairman of the RSPB) might have chosen to insert those particular words in the closing remarks, where they are most likely to be read by Civil Servants, MPs and journalists who do not have time to study the complete report?

[rbrowning2]

It is certainly frustrating how much better the anti's are at getting their message out than the shooting organisation are and by using the likes of swans win the hearts and mind of the general public i.e don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

May be at the end of the day the shooting organisations do not care if a lead shot ban happens as the same shooting organisation that represent us also represent the gun trade and they may just see it as away of selling a lot of new guns, fit for use with steel shot.

 

After all look back over the lag minutes and see how little contribution came from the gun trade association.

 

So hoping I am wrong and we will see all the shooting organisations unite and be much more proactive and not reactive, if not say good by to lead shot/ammunition soon.

Edited November 29, 2015 by rbrowning2

[Vince Green]

It reminds me very much of those academics who were discredited a few years back in the Climategate scandal.

Over 1000 emails were leaked showing widespread collusion among quite a few prominent climate change experts proving they were systematically falsifying their figures on climate change. They all kept their jobs and their "findings" are still out there on the internet and being quoted by campaigners. Nothing happened to them, it was all swept under the carpet.

 

It seems like the environmentalists are on a mission and nothing as inconvenient as the truth is going to get in their way.

Edited November 29, 2015 by Vince Green

[David BASC]

To suggest that BASC has simply put up a post on our website 'where no one will see it' is totally wrong. Firstly, we were the only organisation that was quoted by the BBC, we have sent our releases to all media , not just the shooting press, and our comments have been supported by the CEO of the CA

 

The lead issue will not be resolved by a war of words with the BBC...but BASC together with the other organisations will keep working where it matters and where it gets real results

 

As I have said beofre , as and when anything happens on this or nay other issue, members will be alerted by email and Shooting & Conservation mag, others can see it on our web site

[sitsinhedges]

To suggest that BASC has simply put up a post on our website 'where no one will see it' is totally wrong. Firstly, we were the only organisation that was quoted by the BBC, we have sent our releases to all media , not just the shooting press, and our comments have been supported by the CEO of the CA

 

The lead issue will not be resolved by a war of words with the BBC...but BASC together with the other organisations will keep working where it matters and where it gets real results

 

As I have said beofre , as and when anything happens on this or nay other issue, members will be alerted by email and Shooting & Conservation mag, others can see it on our web site

 

You don't have to get involved in a war of words with the BBC but as the self proclaimed voice of shooting maybe should have at least claimed a right to respond to allegations made by the anti's. I haven't seen or heard you defending lead anywhere apart from PW. The JS debacle leaves BASC with a great debt to repay to shooting if it wants to regain any credibility and you wont do that by hiding away or just preaching to the converted.

[Vince Green]

To suggest that BASC has simply put up a post on our website 'where no one will see it' is totally wrong. Firstly, we were the only organisation that was quoted by the BBC, we have sent our releases to all media , not just the shooting press, and our comments have been supported by the CEO of the CA

 

The lead issue will not be resolved by a war of words with the BBC...but BASC together with the other organisations will keep working where it matters and where it gets real results

 

As I have said beofre , as and when anything happens on this or nay other issue, members will be alerted by email and Shooting & Conservation mag, others can see it on our web site

I don't actually agree with one of your assertions. "The lead issue will not be resolved by a war of words with the BBC" That is not the issue with the BBC, the BBC has allowed itself to be used as the vehicle by which inaccurate information has been fed to the public. This breaches the BBC's own constitutional requirement to be impartial and requires a formal complaint to prevent it happening again and to highlight the fact that they have breached their terms.

 

Clearly there are people in the BBC who are sympathetic to the lead issue but they cannot bring their personal prejustices to work and expect to get away with it.

 

A formal complaint has to be investigated an it has to be replied to which rather focuses the minds of the people involved. Of course they will squirm their way out of it but they will be more careful next time..

[David BASC]

My position on lead is exactly the same as BASC's and always has been, and it on the BASC web site, and has been promoted outside on PW.

 

BASC will continue to work with others who support us, and face up to any unwarranted attack on shooting regardless of what that attack may be and from where ever it comes.

[rodp]

My position on lead is exactly the same as BASC's and always has been, and it on the BASC web site, and has been promoted outside on PW.

 

BASC will continue to work with others who support us, and face up to any unwarranted attack on shooting regardless of what that attack may be and from where ever it comes.

Isn't this perhaps the problem ? A defensive mentality, always answering wrongful attacks. never going on the attack, never being seen on the BBC or in the media BFORE anything untoward comes our way.

And, if so active on putting the story straight in the media, how come, as a member of the general public, I never see it ? I watch the news, I read papers, what I never see is any articles from BASC on how good shooting is to rural communities, or the benefits to deer management etc. ??

[David BASC]

BASC and shooting are mentioned in positive ways in the media, indeed we were in one of the Sunday papers this week. In the not too distant past we have been on BBC TV putting forward the positives of shooting, on the radio (I have given an interview to Radio 4 let alone other members of staff) and so on

 

Others will try to attack us, and that's why its important to have a well resourced BASC to stand up to any such attack

[geordieh]

BASC should be orchestrating a campaign of letter writing and emailing about this biased article. Registering their disappointment about the article is not enough.

BASC should be orchestrating a campaign of non compliance.We should be saying NO we are not going to stop using lead.Banning lead for wildfowl shooting is a bad law as it was set out, so we should be saying it is more humane to shoot duck and geese with lead so that is what we are going to do because it is our responsibility to kill these birds in the most humane way,so stuff your law

[Guest stevo]

 

 

Others will try to attack us, and that's why its important to have a well resourced BASC to stand up to any such attack

David , that's all well and good but if we have such a well resourced BASC why should it only be used for defence ??

why cant it be used for going on the offensive ? , basc keeps banging on about there legal team , why cant BASC start to slam down on these antis ? you have more than enough income from members to start making a proper stand for your members , and your jobs .

 

myself and no doubt a lot of others members couldn't give a hoot about braces of pheasants given to MPs , or bags of game flavoured crisps

 

we as shooters are getting absolutely slaughtered out there . Basc need to get off there backsides and show some teeth .

[Guest stevo]

" BASC and shooting are mentioned in positive ways in the media, "

 

go on then find me something Current that is positive regarding us shooters , that does not involve bags of bloody Crips or giving game birds away .

 

and I mean something in the public arena , not tucked away on a shooting / hunting website , .

 

I think you may struggle ,

 

David , I have the utmost respect for you as a person , and hand on heart I'm not having a pop at you personally , but you have to understand that we as a community are getting a little frustrated

[BrowningB525]

 

 

go on then find me something Current that is positive regarding us shooters , that does not involve bags of bloody Crips or giving game birds away .

 

and I mean something in the public arena , not tucked away on a shooting / hunting website , .

 

I think you may struggle ,

 

David , I have the utmost respect for you as a person , and hand on heart I'm not having a pop at you personally , but you have to understand that we as a community are getting a little frustrated

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/shooting/16513361

 

What do I win?

[Guest stevo]

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/shooting/16513361

 

What do I win?

its hardly current is it ..............

[Pushandpull]

geordieh - we seem to have a campaign of non-compliance going strong already, which has generated some of the evidence used against us.......