The demise of lead shot and small bore shot guns

[Penelope]

45 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Yes more game in my younger years than now and still do crop protection, but game shooting has changed from rearing a sensible number of birds killed by the people who daily lovingly look after them and finally eat them to a very large commercial business making money with an end product that the guns don’t want and a consumer level which is behind that of the numbers produced.

 

 

Mmm! I think that you need to look up the history of driven game shooting. The Edwardian period would be a very good start.

[Smokersmith]

1 minute ago, Scully said:

Really? I can agree WJ have used the toxicity of lead as a means with which to attack us. In truth they aren't bothered what we kill birds with, it's the killing for sport they object to. Banning lead wont placate the likes of WJ etc, but it may make game meat more saleable. If game dealers wont buy lead shot game because their customers wont buy it, then what do you suggest we do? 

Big bag days aren't a recent trend; the landed gentry and aristocracy have gathered together on their country estates for generations to shoot thousands upon thousands of reared game birds each season. All the evidence is there if you care to look for it, and we have had opponents since then also...LACS have been around since the 1920's. You seem to have taken your time in reaching the conclusion that game shooting wasn't for you! 

I find it quite baffling and more than a little amusing how some shooters have the impression that opposing a type of shooting they disapprove of will be any better thought of by those who oppose us, than the type of shooting they do approve of! You're still killing something you don't need to kill...for sport! Is it me? 

No ... not you ... worrying isn’t it!

[Penelope]

3 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

No ... not you ... worrying isn’t it!

Ditto.

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

No ... not you ... worrying isn’t it!

Not just worrying, mind boggling! 

[rbrowning2]

4 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Mmm! I think that you need to look up the history of driven game shooting. The Edwardian period would be a very good start.

But lots has changed since then they did have internet or WJ or need to be politically correct lol they still hunted foxes on horse back and they had never heard of non toxic shot or plastic wads, times have changed the past is no guarantee of the future, you cannot wind the clock back only live for the now and wonder if the mega amount of non native birds we now release is fit for purpose.

[Old farrier]

51 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I am sure when your grandfather reared game he did so in a compassionate and considerate way enhance the enjoyment from the farm was it to make money?

flora and fauna as I understand it gets substantial subsidy money paid to farmers these days so may be the value of land need to be considered in a bigger picture.

 

No he reared as much as he could and we beat out every corner for every bird and sold them for a profit 

there will be nothing left of the coverts if game shooting goes I’ll build houses in them (on your suggestion) 

[Penelope]

8 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

But lots has changed since then they did have internet or WJ or need to be politically correct lol they still hunted foxes on horse back and they had never heard of non toxic shot or plastic wads, times have changed the past is no guarantee of the future, you cannot wind the clock back only live for the now and wonder if the mega amount of non native birds we now release is fit for purpose.

I feel that your prejudice clouds your objectivity.

I would suggest more people shoot game birds than shoot other winged quarry.

On my shoot there are 16 guns, we have 1,200 acres or there abouts of mixed arable, woodland and hedges and two 16 acre lakes and have 10 formal days game shooting with a duck/goose flight afterwards and the occasional morning flight. Of those 16 (a wide demographic in regards to age, income, profession/trade), 4 are active pigeon shots on the ground and around 5 regularly stay on for ducks or attend the morning flights (3 off those are also the active pigeon shots). The rest only shoot on the game days and for most, that will be their only shooting throughout the season.

Game shooting is now the cornerstone of live winged quarry shooting, without it the rest crumbles like a 1906 San Francisco whorehouse.

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

So which do you want, an ‘end to game shooting’ or a ‘limit to the numbers released’? I’m guessing the latter? 

I did this year do a simulated game day and it was a very good (cheap) and sociable day, so if all live game shooting came to an end from the enjoyment side It may not be the end of the world. 

however I do believe it or not accept that game shooting creates jobs and profits for the gun trade,  farmers, local businesses etc and is a way of life for many. Hopefully quality of bird presented should be more important than quantity.

the outcome is out of my hands given WJ has issued a JR it’s wait and see how it all concludes.

[rbrowning2]

18 minutes ago, Penelope said:

I feel that your prejudice clouds your objectivity.

I would suggest more people shoot game birds than shoot other winged quarry.

On my shoot there are 16 guns, we have 1,200 acres or there abouts of mixed arable, woodland and hedges and two 16 acre lakes and have 10 formal days game shooting with a duck/goose flight afterwards and the occasional morning flight. Of those 16 (a wide demographic in regards to age, income, profession/trade), 4 are active pigeon shots on the ground and around 5 regularly stay on for ducks or attend the morning flights (3 off those are also the active pigeon shots). The rest only shoot on the game days and for most, that will be their only shooting throughout the season.

Game shooting is now the cornerstone of live winged quarry shooting, without it the rest crumbles like a 1906 San Francisco whorehouse.

Sounds nice,  if ok to ask how many birds do you put down.

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

I did this year do a simulated game day and it was a very good (cheap) and sociable day, so if all live game shooting came to an end from the enjoyment side It may not be the end of the world. 

however I do believe it or not accept that game shooting creates jobs and profits for the gun trade,  farmers, local businesses etc and is a way of life for many. Hopefully quality of bird presented should be more important than quantity.

the outcome is out of my hands given WJ has issued a JR it’s wait and see how it all concludes.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with the banning of lead shot for live quarry shooting, nor why you think when you kill something for sport, it is more acceptable than anyone else killing something for sport. It smacks of hypocrisy or inverted snobbery to be honest. You want to curtail one type of killing for sport but not your own. 

[rbrowning2]

41 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

No he reared as much as he could and we beat out every corner for every bird and sold them for a profit 

there will be nothing left of the coverts if game shooting goes I’ll build houses in them (on your suggestion) 

Even if in an ideal world you were paid to maintain and keep the coverts for the benefit of future generations and wildlife via subsidies?

Always assuming of course you could get planning consent for the houses lol

 

[Penelope]

1 minute ago, rbrowning2 said:

Sounds nice,  if ok to ask how many birds do you put down.

500 when we had 900 acres. The land owner acquired the other 300 odd, last year. The new ground was shot this year, but no addition birds released. It will decided how many more at the AGM (DIY syndicate - no keeper, guns do all of the work), but somewhere between 2-300, a mix of pheasant and partridge. Previously, all pheasant and a token 50 duck, but no duck over the last two seasons.

Very, very fortunate to be part of it.

[rbrowning2]

18 minutes ago, Scully said:

I have no idea what any of that has to do with the banning of lead shot for live quarry shooting, nor why you think when you kill something for sport, it is more acceptable than anyone else killing something for sport. It smacks of hypocrisy or inverted snobbery to be honest. You want to curtail one type of killing for sport but not your own. 

The banning of lead shot for all live quarry type looks like a poor attempt at trying to ensure large estate commercial game shooting continues when as has been said WJ don’t agree with releasing and killing non native birds so shot type is not the be all and end all.

and I certainly do not object to anybody legally enjoying any type of live quarry shooting. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by rbrowning2

[enfieldspares]

5 hours ago, mick miller said:

There is virtually no current market for game. To suggest that using steel shot will lead to a miraculous and wholesale acceptance of pheasant, partridge or grouse by the wider public is, frankly, utter ********.

This is simply throwing everyone that doesn't 'enjoy' a 500 bird day on a commercial shoot under the proverbial bus. Simply to protect the interests of a minority from increasing scrutiny. By the way, it won't work. RSPB, WJ et al are not morally opposed to lead, or pest shooting, or deer stalking - they are morally opposed to the annual release of tens of thousands of non-native, formally captive birds, held in place with feed and dogs to provide 'sport' shooting.

Tell me, if releasing cage pigeons to the gun is so reprehensible as to be outlawed for years, what makes game shooting so acceptable? Is the lack of a wicker box or the size of the bank accounts of those that take part?

+1. Well said. I don't like some of it but all of it makes valid points.

Edited February 26, 2020 by enfieldspares

[rbrowning2]

9 minutes ago, Penelope said:

500 when we had 900 acres. The land owner acquired the other 300 odd, last year. The new ground was shot this year, but no addition birds released. It will decided how many more at the AGM (DIY syndicate - no keeper, guns do all of the work), but somewhere between 2-300, a mix of pheasant and partridge. Previously, all pheasant and a token 50 duck, but no duck over the last two seasons.

Very, very fortunate to be part of it.

Indeed, enjoy.

[lancer425]

1 hour ago, rbrowning2 said:

Farmers are only temporary owners of the land for the benefit of society, Is it not possible to financially reward farmers to look after the land for the benefit of future generations and where they can grow insect and bird friendly crops and maintain hedges and trees after all they get subsidies and grants for all sorts of things. So why not to help keep nature in balance and fight global warming, and maintaining the countryside?  

Moorland Association set out their shopping list for stopping damaging upland areas wants from defra

so why not treat farmers the same if they had to reduce their income from game shooting.

 

And all this will cost us the tax payers money, money that could be spent elsewhere. We are seeing the start of change in our country, our untidy stempts to leave the EU are a topic for another post.

 But it has to be said that now, given the circumstances we are facing, not going to have the luxury of throwing money willy nilly to a bunch of vegans who have taken over the asylum at NE.

Though the GL situation last year was not good for shooting, it was not exactly a victory for NE either. and i do not think they expected the events that occurred.

Uncertainty on the GLs show the dedication and resolve of these people, which i feel has to have been noted by those in government.

 Now as i personal do not think this government as such are particularly Pro shooting, i do not think they are particularly against it either. This though not ideal could have been as i see it much worse, but with The recent ban 50 cal etc events the government clearly showed that we were not firmly in their targets,. BASC and others are doing as good a job as they can advising and suggesting / lobbying where they can on our behalf. 

I do not see a rose tinted future for shooting i am sorry to say, but in a childish naive sort of way i still clutch on to the ideals i was brought up into.

like right and wrong. And i do firmly believe dispute the apparent opposite that right will prevail, and the government will come good and eventually call time on the Current Rageme in NE.

Plus  the NE its self perhaps could indeed die out of the lack of funds from a country trying to catch up on over three effectively wasted years. This on top of the monumental task of the trade negotiations and all the other tasks over 40 years have created, we/ they have got their hands full.   Shooting is not broken it needs no fixing, its not harmful to the environment in fact beneficial or really should not be, and this voluntary lead/ plas ban is a step in that direction to addressing the former for sure.

Land owners and managers, and as  stewards of the marshes etc, shooters are there committed and willing with a close affinity to the areas they love. we are the finger on the pulse of our land, if something is wrong we notice first. Many of us OWN the land we love i am not saying that is always an indicator of genuine care all by itself but coupled with passion for this sport it tends to keep us all focussed.

I genuinely feel this runs deeper in our veins than any aesthetically idealistic WJ etc supporter.   This is just my view and i do not see how anything that removes shooting and shooters to manage areas  that uses tax money to get the same job done just to not have shooting in place could ever float. But time could prove me wrong i supose.

[McSpredder]

To all the shooting organisations, “Nul points” for your communication skills.   Individual shooters might agree or disagree with the collective decision taken, but the way this has been sprung on the membership is likely to result in loss of goodwill.  

 

In the past some of our organisations said that decisions on use of lead ammunition ought to be based on rigorous science.   They must be well aware that the most prominent campaigners in UK have been Rhys Green and Debbie Pain, who:

-  hold no qualifications in any branch of nutrition, medicine, human physical health, human mental health, or intellectual development of children;

-  have not reported any experimental work or data collection on this subject, and have done nothing but manipulate of other people’s figures;

-  have never been to find any studies in which concentration of lead in the blood was related to game meat consumption;

-  have never produced information of any kind relating the actual health of individuals to their actual consumption of game;

-  have never assessed results of any actual SATs test or other in relation to actual game meat consumption;

-  have ignored expert advice on childrens’ diet, and grossly over-stated the risks to human health by assuming that a 30 month old child would eat meat portions three times the quantity recommended by the NHS, and the same size as the Food Standards Agency recommends for an adult.

 

Were any weaknesses in the scientific agreement ever publicised by the people to whom we pay our subscriptions?  

PW members may make their own assessment about whether the anti-lead campaigners can be considered true scientists.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 hours ago, McSpredder said:

To all the shooting organisations, “Nul points” for your communication skills.   Individual shooters might agree or disagree with the collective decision taken, but the way this has been sprung on the membership is likely to result in loss of goodwill.  

 

In the past some of our organisations said that decisions on use of lead ammunition ought to be based on rigorous science.   They must be well aware that the most prominent campaigners in UK have been Rhys Green and Debbie Pain, who:

-  hold no qualifications in any branch of nutrition, medicine, human physical health, human mental health, or intellectual development of children;

-  have not reported any experimental work or data collection on this subject, and have done nothing but manipulate of other people’s figures;

-  have never been to find any studies in which concentration of lead in the blood was related to game meat consumption;

-  have never produced information of any kind relating the actual health of individuals to their actual consumption of game;

-  have never assessed results of any actual SATs test or other in relation to actual game meat consumption;

-  have ignored expert advice on childrens’ diet, and grossly over-stated the risks to human health by assuming that a 30 month old child would eat meat portions three times the quantity recommended by the NHS, and the same size as the Food Standards Agency recommends for an adult.

 

Were any weaknesses in the scientific agreement ever publicised by the people to whom we pay our subscriptions?  

PW members may make their own assessment about whether the anti-lead campaigners can be considered true scientists.

Not very well thought through by those who should have known better!

[mick miller]

11 hours ago, Scully said:

I find it quite baffling and more than a little amusing how some shooters have the impression that opposing a type of shooting they disapprove of will be any better thought of by those who oppose us, than the type of shooting they do approve of! You're still killing something you don't need to kill...for sport! Is it me? 

In the interests of clarity, I don't consider that I shoot animals for sport.

Fox shooting - on the rare occasions I shoot foxes, mainly if they have proved to be a pest with peoples livestock (geese, ducks or chickens most often) I don't regard it as sport. It's just something that needs to be done, as humanely as possible (why I won't use an hmr). Otherwise I'm just as happy to watch them where they aren't a problem. I don't actively go out to shoot every fox I see.

Rabbit shooting - I will happily shoot rabbits where they are a problem until the numbers are low enough to no longer cause an issue or, as in the case last night, where they are in a fenced garden causing damage to the planting to the point of eradication for the owner. They can be eaten myself or cooked and used for pet food, or beheaded and put out for the buzzards and kites. I don't consider it sport shooting. With the recent decline in rabbit numbers around here I no longer shoot rabbits on farmland, unless there is a localised issue.

Crows - I rarely shoot them, I live in an arable area mainly, but should they prove a problem at lambing time I wouldn't have a problem shooting them to protect the newborn lambs. Not sport shooting.

Magpies - little *******, I'll shoot these on sight if possible as there are way too many and knacker any attempts by songbirds to raise a brood. Again, not sport shooting.

Hares - I don't shoot them.

Squirrels - same as magpies. But hardly sporting, sat in a hide on a feeder, dull as dishwater.

Pigeons - whilst I really enjoy pigeon shooting and it's an undeniable challenge sometimes, it is really simply pest control, pest control that the byproduct can be eaten or shared with friends. Is this sport shooting? I think not.

Deer - My passion. I love deer stalking or sitting in a highseat waiting for the opportunity to present itself, but with an estimated 2m deer in the UK I don't consider it sport shooting, it's species and number control, protection of crop and woodland with a great byproduct for me, my family, my friends and to a lesser extent, the food chain. If deer numbers plummeted due to disease or other reasons I would simply stop.

Target shooting - Love it. It is sport shooting, but nothing dies.

Clay shooting - as above.

The differences with all the above examples is that I am not artificially rearing and releasing animals into the environment and baiting to keep in a location until the time arrives for me to drive them from the area to which they have become habituated to present to a row of guns. If you struggle to see that viewpoint, however much you disagree with it, then it's not me that is confused. I can't really make it much clearer.

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by mick miller

[Feltwad]

Maybe I am misunderstanding  this lead  ban I thought it was a total lead ban not only for game shooting but also clay shooting  rifle and pistol shooting . I had too pensioned of my wild fowling muzzle loaders with the  lead ban for wildfowl and now it looks has though my game guns are also to go .

Feltwad

[lancer425]

11 minutes ago, Feltwad said:

Maybe I am misunderstanding  this lead  ban I thought it was a total lead ban not only for game shooting but also clay shooting  rifle and pistol shooting . I had too pensioned of my wild fowling muzzle loaders with the  lead ban for wildfowl and now it looks has though my game guns are also to go .

Feltwad

Its vaulantry ban on all live quarry and single use plastics. it wont effect clays or rifles.

[figgy]

Watched Fieldsports Britain on the lead ban. Not very happy, had sound bites by Dave Carrie and Dennis Stepney Sage100 on here and a Danish shooter. Dennis hit the nail on the head, who is going to buy a third of my stock that's not steel.proofed. Dave High Bird Carrie said cart makers will bring something out suitable for high birds.

The Danish shooter said they don't take shots at 70yards for over 24 years since the lead ban was law. Average for birds shot are 25-30 meter and no more.  They also worried about steel blowing up guns but not had any reported in all the years and use steel in Damascus barrels no problems. They use plastic wads, were getting more heat to ban plastic wads so interesting times ahead.

It's a vouluntary ban at the moment, who's to say as they're all singing the same hymn it won't become law.

Dave Carrie had some good words to say that mimmicks what we as shooters are saying, what on earth are the shooting orgs playing at. We as members had no consultation on this at all. Done deal behind our backs.

Edited February 27, 2020 by figgy

[lancer425]

2 hours ago, figgy said:

Watched Fieldsports Britain on the lead ban. Not very happy, had sound bites by Dave Carrie and Dennis Stepney Sage100 on here and a Danish shooter. Dennis hit the nail on the head, who is going to buy a third of my stock that's not steel.proofed. Dave High Bird Carrie said cart makers will bring something out suitable for high birds.

The Danish shooter said they don't take shots at 70yards for over 24 years since the lead ban was law. Average for birds shot are 25-30 meter and no more.  They also worried about steel blowing up guns but not had any reported in all the years and use steel in Damascus barrels no problems. They use plastic wads, were getting more heat to ban plastic wads so interesting times ahead.

It's a vouluntary ban at the moment, who's to say as they're all singing the same hymn it won't become law.

Dave Carrie had some good words to say that mimmicks what we as shooters are saying, what on earth are the shooting orgs playing at. We as members had no consultation on this at all. Done deal behind our backs.

The Danes are under more restriction than just shot type. Some years ago from 2000 there was a forum "PATRONTEST DK.". It had many names on it that were synoninous with steel shot reloading In the states and Denmark, One was DAN or DRS but others BEBS etc did load work on fast steel that were posted on that forum. That forum  died 8 /10 year ago and its data with it, i did download it at the time, have it on a disk somewhere.

 From what i could teli  the danes could only shoot steel shot sizes up to about 4s from memory. Nothing bigger alowed. I never did read why.

I think this was why the danes came out with lots of fast steel loads, get a bit more ft/lbs with the speed . They got around 2000fps or very close.  .

Re the basc becoming law. Including the Orgs handling of it.

 This is my thoughts on this matter, i have heard or read nothing to sujest this is the case just how i imagine it came about.

 Lead was under atack last year or two, BASC ETC did a good job of fending of any bans, and presented lead in as good a light has humanly possible. And nobody can deny they did a tidy job of this.

  But when the dust settled, i imagine they breathed a sigh of relief and sat down and said PHEW that was a close one, do not ask me to do that again, we used up our lifelines and we have nothing more to give.

But the pressure against lead will never go away, and its really impossible to defend it. its toxic. Period.

I imagine they decided to look at ways of bringing about change, but factories will only make what they could sell, the market simply was not there. I mean come on the evidence was there year on year. game shooters just broke the law killing ducks with lead with zero respect for the law. I can not paint it any prettier they just did not care full stop.

 This gave the antis good evidence shooters are flaunting the law because they were.  Not good at all, very ungood Rodney.

TO encourage movement from the factories and a soft uptake on steel into live quarry, they came up with this voluntary ban and five years.

This i feel was a good move, we were no longer being forced we were choosing, which gives us the moral high ground and buys us time, and it effectively gives our orgs a strong position if any lead ban is launched before that time scale. Government can not deny we are bringing about change which is exactly what they are doing with this idea.

So the lack of consultation, .  NO way would shooters have gone for this, we would have had we will fight them on the beaches rhetoric spouted from every hilux tailgate stage on every shoot in the uk.

NO we are by nature rebellious will not take our medicine so it detract open in and rub the throat swallowed.  Cry all we want now, its in and we will be better eventually for it. OK flippant and very much tongue in cheek but i do not think that far of the mark actually.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by lancer425

[Scully]

10 hours ago, mick miller said:

In the interests of clarity, I don't consider that I shoot animals for sport.

Fox shooting - on the rare occasions I shoot foxes, mainly if they have proved to be a pest with peoples livestock (geese, ducks or chickens most often) I don't regard it as sport. It's just something that needs to be done, as humanely as possible (why I won't use an hmr). Otherwise I'm just as happy to watch them where they aren't a problem. I don't actively go out to shoot every fox I see. 

Rabbit shooting - I will happily shoot rabbits where they are a problem until the numbers are low enough to no longer cause an issue or, as in the case last night, where they are in a fenced garden causing damage to the planting to the point of eradication for the owner. They can be eaten myself or cooked and used for pet food, or beheaded and put out for the buzzards and kites. I don't consider it sport shooting. With the recent decline in rabbit numbers around here I no longer shoot rabbits on farmland, unless there is a localised issue.

Crows - I rarely shoot them, I live in an arable area mainly, but should they prove a problem at lambing time I wouldn't have a problem shooting them to protect the newborn lambs. Not sport shooting.

Magpies - little *******, I'll shoot these on sight if possible as there are way too many and knacker any attempts by songbirds to raise a brood. Again, not sport shooting.

Hares - I don't shoot them.

Squirrels - same as magpies. But hardly sporting, sat in a hide on a feeder, dull as dishwater.

Pigeons - whilst I really enjoy pigeon shooting and it's an undeniable challenge sometimes, it is really simply pest control, pest control that the byproduct can be eaten or shared with friends. Is this sport shooting? I think not.

Deer - My passion. I love deer stalking or sitting in a highseat waiting for the opportunity to present itself, but with an estimated 2m deer in the UK I don't consider it sport shooting, it's species and number control, protection of crop and woodland with a great byproduct for me, my family, my friends and to a lesser extent, the food chain. If deer numbers plummeted due to disease or other reasons I would simply stop. 

Target shooting - Love it. It is sport shooting, but nothing dies.

Clay shooting - as above.

The differences with all the above examples is that I am not artificially rearing and releasing animals into the environment and baiting to keep in a location until the time arrives for me to drive them from the area to which they have become habituated to present to a row of guns. If you struggle to see that viewpoint, however much you disagree with it, then it's not me that is confused. I can't really make it much clearer.

 

Really? It's amusing how we can all bend descriptions of what we do, in order to justify it to ourselves isn't it? If you're not a professional pest controller and it isn't your land, ( which means you're a recreational shooter ) then why are you shooting all those species you've listed above? I'm finding it hard to understand why you would go to all the hassle and expense of applying for your tickets so you can go out and do something you're not really enjoying....oh, but wait, you do enjoy it, by your own admission! 🙂

You can call it sport, or not as you prefer, ( there's nothing 'sporting' about shooting live quarry if you know your way around a rifle or shotgun, it's a ridiculous term ) but you're still doing it because you enjoy it, just like the rest of us. If you weren't you wouldn't do it, it's that simple. Anyhow, none of what you have described above ( nor the way you have tried to justify it ) will endear you to those who oppose what you do, whether you're killing stuff for recreation with either lead or steel. 

I no longer lamp foxes in any circumstances because I quite like foxes. I can agree with you regarding shooting deer, however; there's no sport in that at all,  it's as easy as falling off a log, which incidentally is why I stopped. Have fun.

[Scully]

21 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

The banning of lead shot for all live quarry type looks like a poor attempt at trying to ensure large estate commercial game shooting continues when as has been said WJ don’t agree with releasing and killing non native birds so shot type is not the be all and end all.

and I certainly do not object to anybody legally enjoying any type of live quarry shooting. 

I'm not really sure we're gaining anything by pursuing this debate...nothing logical anyhow! You appear confused as to what it is you want exactly. One minute you're saying game shooting should be banned, but you participate in it yourself and you're congratulating someone on their rearing ( to shoot ) and releasing of 500 birds! Admittedly it's not a lot ( but more than we release on our syndicate and rough shoots combined ) but locally I can easily bring to mind at least eleven shoots ( and more if I sat down and thought about it ) which release between 300 and 3000 birds each season, and even taken at it's lowest number ( 300 x 11 ) that's over 3000 birds released for the sole purpose of shooting.That's in one small area  ( five mile radius ) of the Eden Valley alone and doesn't include the big commercial shoots or the surrounding moors. I'm assuming with your skewed logic you will claim that WJ would find this acceptable. 

Driven shooting, regardless of numbers released, comprises of the biggest bulk of recreational ( or 'sport' if you prefer ) live quarry shooting in the UK. Why else do you think the major organisations are clamouring to save it? It's big business, an industry if you like; and if that industry goes, we all do.....from 35 bag days ( which is what we average ) to 500 bag days, no matter what we're using to kill them.