Lead ban & BASC

[lancer425]

3 hours ago, Konor said:

Could someone post references to papers published in the UK appertaining to the Scientific Case against Lead Shot I have not read any in depth examination of this in any UK shooting magazine . Was all this information deliberately kept from us over the years to stall the introduction of non lead shot? I am aware of American information on the extent of wildfowl being poisoned in shallow pools where they were able to access spent shot but nothing at all on the extent of the problem on the UK foreshore or on UK flight ponds.

Regardless ,change or disappear I won’t be disappearing and would like to counter my scepticism on the lead shot debate by reading some science based reasoning for the ban as opposed to the highly emotive “ your poisoning the environment” as I am suspicious that no science based evidence is being quoted to strengthen the case for a ban.

BEINTEMA,N. 2001. Lead poisoning in waterbirds. International Update Report 2000. Wetlands In-ternational and UNEP/African-Eurasian Water-bird Agreement Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.DEWAILLY,E.,P.AYOTT,S.BRUNEAU,G.LEBEL,P.LEVALLOIS, AND J.P.WEBER. 2001. Expo-sure of the Inuit population of Nunavik (Arctic Quebec) to lead and mercury. Archives Envi-ronmental Health 56:350–357.JOHANSEN,P.,G.ASMUND, AND F.RIGET. 2004. High human exposure to lead through consump-tion of birds hunted with lead shot. Environ-mental Pollution 1

[lancer425]

1 minute ago, Konor said:

Thanks Lancer 425 I’ll read through and hit google

The reading list is off a PDF i can not link as i am on the phone but a cut and paste the book list. I have some at the time Conversations on eric begbies forum On disk these were all lost but i downloaded everything and off decoying uk too.I have a lot more but usa bassed Off AW Forum.

[Scully]

20 minutes ago, mick miller said:

I really have no idea, presumably there is an upper limit to what a parcel of land could hold without being overly dense. Equally there must be a lower limit that would make it a pointless exercise. On the farm here they release around 1,500 annually (I think), it's a 250 acre farm. Most of those tend to vanish before the season starts as it's only keepered on a part-time basis. But they have several good days with around 90 - 150 shot between the guns, almost all are picked, returned and shared amongst the guns, beaters and locals. Nothing is wasted, everyone seems to have a good day without having to have a sky blackened with birds.

It is nice to see an admission however that it really isn't all about conservation, environmental enrichment, shooting as a whole, target shooting, clay shooting, pest control, toxicity or supporting shooting sports in general but rather about making money and maintaining access to it for the big four organisations. That does rather explain why they appear to have done naff all of use to the rest of us for years and why I no longer bother to support any of them.

The nutters in WJ et al would not support any, although Avery himself admits to not being against pest control or deer stalking, likely Packman too although I find it hard to trust a word he says on the matter either.

 

I pointed this out to you from the offset of this thread, but you were too busy ranting about 'big bag' days to notice. 

Its worth pointing out that on the days I see 'a sky blackened with birds' (🙄) nothing is wasted either, and everyone has a tremendous day if the smiles are anything to go by. Just a thought. 

[8 shot]

2 hours ago, motty said:

Most wildfowlers offset this when they do their marsh clean ups. You should see the amount of plastic bottles, beer cans, car tyres etc etc etc that we clear up each year. 

Our small amount of plastic pales into insignificance. 

I can't believe you actually posted that.

[lancer425]

10 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

is it only now that GWCT worked all this out??

I can not imagine that, but not sure. It says LAST UPDATED 19TH February 2020. How much of it was there before that date i have no idea.

[lancer425]

1 minute ago, 8 shot said:

I can't believe you actually posted that.

And i can not believe you posted that either. Come on man what are you doing. ? 

If we had Alternative wadding we would be using it. Its a voluntary transition not law.  he is just outlining what is undertaken routinely on foreshores all over the country. ! wad is too much and when we get alternatives there will not even be one wad. Meanwhile clean ups are all we can realistically bring to yjr table. At least we are trying to do something.

[rbrowning2]

Very interesting video that gives a good idea as to why biodegradable plastic is not easy to create and why it costs more  also confirms it is technically unreasonable to expect the uk cartridge manufactures to use wads other than any they can buy else where.

 

 

[lancer425]

3 hours ago, mick miller said:

Let's not forget the rabbit shooters, pigeon shooters, crow shooters, rat shooters, fox shooters and deer stalkers all getting tarnished with the title of 'raptor persecutors' due to the actions of a few representatives of large, commercial interests and the pressure put on them by land owners to ensure a 'good day's sport'.

 

True not good but not as on topic for this thread as the game dealers lead in ducks. Trying to present game shooting in a favourable light, when this is in the recent archives is not good for the case.

[lancer425]

6 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Very interesting video that gives a good idea as to why biodegradable plastic is not easy to create and why it costs more  also confirms it is technically unreasonable to expect the uk cartridge manufactures to use wads other than any they can buy else where.

 

 

I do not think The adopted wadding will come from bio degradable plastic.  I think it will be a card/ fibre and might not be dissimilar to the current Gamebore offering.

The video on TGS on this though not that scientific  looks to me to show these card wads as a bit irregular. I got some given in Ten Ga, i will be sure to say how i found em in due course.

 

[rbrowning2]

12 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

I do not think The adopted wadding will come from bio degradable plastic.  I think it will be a card/ fibre and might not be dissimilar to the current Gamebore offering.

The video on TGS on this though not that scientific  looks to me to show these card wads as a bit irregular. I got some given in Ten Ga, i will be sure to say how i found em in due course.

Possible or a combination of both, posted the video to show the scale of the challenge one thing is certain who ever cracks the problem and can offer steel shot cartridges in a bio degradable wad at similar price to today lead shot pigeon cartridges will stand to make a fortune.

At this time neither options look to be perfect especially if as you are saying you need to line the cardboard cup wad with plastic to stop the steel pellets from protruding through the side of the wad.

Edited March 3, 2020 by rbrowning2

[lancer425]

8 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Possible or a combination of both, posted the video to show the scale of the challenge one thing is certain who ever cracks the problem and can offer steel shot cartridges in a bio degradable wad at similar price to today lead shot pigeon cartridges will stand to make a fortune.

At this time neither options look to be perfect especially if as you are saying you need to line the cardboard cup wad with plastic to stop the steel pellets from protruding through the side of the wad.

I dont say it needs lining with plastic i said Aloy foil.   I just can not imagine what these will work like just at the moment, we got to go with something. I think at least try steel get it working worry about the move away from plaswads when the alternatives  come available whatever form they are in.

I got to start reloading soon for next year, i got loads to Try too TSS and Bismuth , before i worry too much about these card cups and BBB T &F steel.

[Old farrier]

Is there a possibility for a heavy copper plating process on the steel shot? 
this could help if a shot went through the shot cup 

just a thought 

to test you could use a solid copper shot and observe streaks on the barrel walls 

just another thought 

[lancer425]

19 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Is there a possibility for a heavy copper plating process on the steel shot? 
this could help if a shot went through the shot cup 

just a thought 

to test you could use a solid copper shot and observe streaks on the barrel walls 

 

Its something i just can not comment on, i have no experience see. Could be they work ok, but 3.50 a box before anything else its not cheap but when you look at those black golds at £9a box. .

 

[mick miller]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

I pointed this out to you from the offset of this thread, but you were too busy ranting about 'big bag' days to notice.

Yes, I have gone off on one a tad...

[AULD YIN]

19 hours ago, lancer425 said:

Straight questions would be a prime place to get straight answers. Being obtuse and trying to get cute with me does not become you .

Ask  what you want to know, i am done with your bile. . one or the other i do not suffer fools gladly sir. .

getting cute with you, giving your mind a treat now.carry on with your indoctrination 

[McSpredder]

6 hours ago, Konor said:

Could someone post references to papers published in the UK appertaining to the Scientific Case against Lead Shot I have not read any in depth examination of this in any UK shooting magazine   ......    would like to counter my scepticism on the lead shot debate by reading some science based reasoning for the ban as opposed to the highly emotive “ your poisoning the environment” as I am suspicious that no science based evidence is being quoted to strengthen the case for a ban.

Can anybody name a report in which an actual person’s health problem is shown to have been caused by lead contained in that individual’s actual consumption of game?

[lancer425]

Humane society of the united states.    https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/lead-ammunition-toxic-wildlife-people-and-environment

Detailed sources here.

Detailed sources are available upon request.

 

Lead ammunition: Toxic to wildlife, people and the environment

Despite excellent alternatives, lead ammunition still exposes people and animals to this life-threatening poison

Share

 

Bald eagles and other federally protected birds are poisoned when they eat animals shot with lead ammunition.

Ken Canning

/

iStock.com

 

 

The HSUS, in partnership with the HSUS Lead-Free Wildlife National Advisory Council, is working to protect animals and the environment from toxic lead ammunition.

In 1991, after biologists and conservationists estimated that some 2 million ducks died each year from ingesting spent lead pellets, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service outlawed the use of lead ammunition to hunt migratory waterfowl.

Despite the overwhelming evidence that lead ammunition is toxic to wildlife and people and the broad support for eliminating its use, it remains so widely used by hunters that an estimated 10 to 20 million nontarget animals in the United States die from lead poisoning each year.

Frequently Asked Questions about Lead Ammunition

How does lead ammunition poison wildlife?

Lead ammunition is toxic to wildlife in two ways:

• Primary poisoning: An animal ingests spent ammunition (or fragments of ammunition) directly from the environment, usually when foraging for food on the ground.
• Secondary poisoning: An animal consumes spent ammunition while eating wounded or dead prey or while scavenging contaminated remains left behind by hunters.

Both avenues can be lethal.

How much lead ammunition does it take to harm an animal?

A single shotgun pellet can cause organ failure and brain damage, inhibiting an animal’s critical neuromuscular, auditory and visual responses. Lead poisoning can induce lethargy, blindness, paralysis of the lungs and intestinal tract, seizure and death. Animals who survive often experience long-term negative effects that make them more susceptible to dangers such as predation and car collisions.

How widespread is the threat of lead ammunition in the United States?

Animals at every level of the food chain face varying degrees of exposure: more than 130 species from frogs, mice and squirrels to ducks, swans and deer to bald eagles, grizzly bears and people.

How dangerous is lead ammunition to human health?

Lead is a toxic metal for which there is no safe human exposure level. Individuals who consume meat from animals killed with lead ammunition are at high risk for lead exposure. Several studies using X-ray imaging have shown that lead ammunition fragments very easily and very far from the wound channel; therefore, it is nearly impossible to remove completely from meat even after professional processing. Those who eat a lot of animals shot with lead ammunition tend to have higher levels of lead in their blood. Pregnant women and children are most susceptible to negative effects from lead, even at low levels of exposure.

What are the alternatives to lead ammunition?

Many manufacturers are developing nontoxic ammunition using the most advanced technologies. As of April 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had approved 13 nontoxic varieties for hunting. Ammunition made of steel, copper and bismuth, among the most common and effective nontoxic materials, is available at major outfitters throughout the U.S. and widely available online. And since the 1991 federal ban on the use of lead ammunition to hunt waterfowl, the price of lead-free ammunition, such as steel, has fallen.

How do lead-free alternatives compare to lead ammunition?

A recently published multi-year, peer-reviewed study led the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to conclude that the performance of lead-free shot in dove hunting is equivalent to that of lead shot and therefore that lead-free shot is suitable for dove hunting. And a survey conducted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department found that nearly 80 percent of hunters rate the performance of nontoxic ammunition better than or equivalent to that of lead. The superior performance and lower toxicity of lead-free ammunition has spurred the U.S. Army to "get the lead out" of many of its bullets.

How commonplace are restrictions on lead ammunition?

Thirty-four states have expanded restrictions beyond the 1991 federal ban on the use of lead ammunition to hunt waterfowl. Government entities such as the U.S. Army and the National Park Service have made serious commitments to eliminate lead ammunition because of environmental and animal welfare concerns. In 2013, California passed the first statewide phase-out of lead ammunition for all forms of hunting.

How effective are restrictions on lead ammunition?

The mandated use of lead-free ammunition has proven to be an extremely effective way to reduce lead poisoning and contamination. Within just six years of the 1991 federal ban on the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting, researchers found significant reductions in the levels of lead in the blood and bones of various waterfowl species. Researchers found that the use of lead-free shot reduced the death of mallards from lead poisoning by 64 percent and saved approximately 1.4 million ducks a year.

What do scientists say about lead ammunition and its impact on wildlife?

Scientists resoundingly agree that spent lead ammunition poses a risk to human health and wildlife. More than 500 scientific papers published since 1898 have cited the many dangers caused by lead exposure from spent ammunition. And in 2013, 30 national and international experts signed a scientist consensus in support of eliminating the introduction of lead ammunition into the environment.

 

[lancer425]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01194-x#additional-information

[lancer425]

The Arguments to  defend lead pale into insignificance when you look at the health risks, nobody in their right mind is going to want to be anywhere near Lead in their meat. WHY would you chose to eat some animal shot with lead when you could just as easy have the same thing shot with a non toxic shot type.?  Consumers do not give a hoot about old guns and Stubborn individuals who do not want to use a non toxic shot. 

 They are concerned about what they are eating or feeding their children. We live in informed times every phone can get detailed info on leads toxicity, they will just not buy anything they see as potentially harmful, why on earth would they. Lead is toxic there is just no defending it especial in today’s society.

[rbrowning2]

6 hours ago, lancer425 said:

The Arguments to  defend lead pale into insignificance when you look at the health risks, nobody in their right mind is going to want to be anywhere near Lead in their meat. 

 

So now that is confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt and the 70 percent of game that did end up in the food chain now has no market what do you suggest? We stop shooting for 2, 3, 4, or 5 years while they manufacture enough wads and steel shot to satisfy demand? 

[8 shot]

That would seem the sensible and logical way to do this, also plastic wads, they need to go to immediately.

3 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

So now that is confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt and the 70 percent of game that did end up in the food chain now has no market what do you suggest? We stop shooting for 2, 3, 4, or 5 years while they manufacture enough wads and steel shot to satisfy demand? 

 

[theshootist]

14 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

So it is a class action because we are all toffs!

Same as the fox hunting debate. It will continue to be a class issue at heart. 

[Scully]

9 hours ago, mick miller said:

Yes, I have gone off on one a tad...

Understandable. 

[McSpredder]

8 hours ago, lancer425 said:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01194-x#additional-information

That report does not mention even a single case of an actual person’s health problem being caused by eating game killed with lead shot.

It does say “There appear to be no published studies in which B-Pb was related to ingestion rates of ammunition-derived lead in children.”   The same authors wrote the same thing in a 2012 paper, which suggests that neither they nor any other scientist thought it worth investigating in the intervening seven years.

[Smokersmith]

1 hour ago, 8 shot said:

, also plastic wads, they need to go to immediately.

 

I think if BASC want to fly the "eco" flag … then this would be sensible and broadly achievable for game and pigeon shooting (BASC don't influence clays so I'll not go there).

The next bit is a bit of 'devil v deep blue sea' … as fowlers are #winning by not using lead, but polluting by using steel in the only widely available and suitable wadding material which is plastic.

This conundrum is at the heart of the issue we face … easy to win on one, but not both.