YES OR NO Phasing out Lead

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Robertt said:

NO.

Once lead shots gone they'll find a problem with steel shot.

+1. Those that think voluntarily surrendering lead shot and throwing everybody else under the bus for the sake of the "big bag" boys trying to justify excessive putting down birds as "they sell it the pheasants to Waitrose" are following a false star.

Wild Justice oppose grouse shooting per se...regardless of if the grouse are shot with lead or non-toxic. Wild Justice oppose releasing reared game per se...regardless of if it is shot with lead or non-toxic.

Voluntary banning lead shot won't change it. Indeed even if a legal ban on lead shot were enacted by Parliament on lead it wouldn't change those two aims of Wild Justice. A voluntary ban on lead shot offers no benefit to most of us. It is simply the delusional equivalent paying of "Danegeld" with base metal instead of noble metal.

Edited March 23, 2020 by enfieldspares

[Old farrier]

23 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

+1. Those that think voluntarily surrendering lead shot and throwing everybody else under the bus for the sake of the "big bag" boys trying to justify excessive putting down birds as "they sell it the pheasants to Waitrose" are following a false star.

Wild Justice oppose grouse shooting per se...regardless of if the grouse are shot with lead or non-toxic. Wild Justice oppose releasing reared game per se...regardless of if it is shot with lead or non-toxic.

Voluntary banning lead shot won't change it. Indeed even if a legal ban on lead shot were enacted by Parliament on lead it wouldn't change those two aims of Wild Justice. A voluntary ban on lead shot offers no benefit to most of us. It is simply the delusional equivalent paying of "Danegeld" with base metal instead of noble metal.

Could you be kind enough to tell me the difference between a big bag boy on a day shooting 500 between 8 

and you going out shooting 100 pigeon a day 

wj don’t like shooting if you don’t support the whole of shooting they will start at the top or bottom and nibble away at it 

ia a voluntary ban on plastic wads and lead shot over 5 years transition period such a bad thing for the majority? 
or would you prefer a instant ban on it with no time to develop new loads 

[Dangerous Brian]

27 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

+1. Those that think voluntarily surrendering lead shot and throwing everybody else under the bus for the sake of the "big bag" boys trying to justify excessive putting down birds as "they sell it the pheasants to Waitrose" are following a false star.

Just a thought on the big bag boys- Would you include decoyers in that? There are quite a few who shoot an awful lot of pigeons per year and sell to dealers for distribution in Europe. Once Europe has banned lead that market dries up along with Waitrose.

 

[wymberley]

14 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Could you be kind enough to tell me the difference between a big bag boy on a day shooting 500 between 8 

and you going out shooting 100 pigeon a day 

wj don’t like shooting if you don’t support the whole of shooting they will start at the top or bottom and nibble away at it 

ia a voluntary ban on plastic wads and lead shot over 5 years transition period such a bad thing for the majority? 
or would you prefer a instant ban on it with no time to develop new loads 

It might be better to ask Joe Public your first question because their answer decides just how much dosh WJ gets poured into their coffers  which in turn then defines their ability to continue to make a nuisance of themselves. Your second point explains why the answer should not make any difference to us.

[lancer425]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

They will if it's copper plated (washed).

Well copper plated "washed which its not"  wont be the way to go unless they can dream up a way of getting it to go on thicker and faster. The coatings thickness gets more expensive as it gets thixker and copper is like 10 microns.

Zink softer and 20 microns goes on essay and faster and its holding on better, more mailable.   The CGR current zink is still not thick enough, but a platter who can handle bigger amounts could run it through a zink proses like wildfire.

Pellets of copper i fired at the plate retrieved show cracking its not flaking off but its visible under a microscope. The zink for me is my choice. It leaves flats dips where they have rubbed bumped against each other, but not seen any cracking as such yet.

I think i am going down the zink road, and i think it will survive longer in the environment than copper and at 20 microns it could resist rusting probably into decades if not hundreds of years.

 I remember reading in Petersens hunting in the late 70s tests on zink platted shot, they were getting lots of input from science at that time trying to defend lead, and The Steel kills too idea was born. The zink plated shot it was felt would erode in like tidal mudflats estuaries etc, but by its nature it did not erode and oxidized at the same time, and thus any environmental impact was subdues if not eliminated completely.

Naked steel shot can be criticised but plated "perhaps not with copper as its an easy target "  Environmental is pretty bomb proof. and certainly not essay to present a practical challenge to it in law if Leigh & Day are presenting it or not. No forget The steel shot will go idea it wont be an issue. And before anyone jumps up with WHY not plate lead?. Its not so much the plating but it is washed and it will rub off its not practical to seal Lead in such a way, the Hard nickel plated Lead is tough , no denying that but Leads toxicity dictates its impact once unclad is considerably higher than steel which rules it out for this approach. 

[lancer425]

34 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Could you be kind enough to tell me the difference between a big bag boy on a day shooting 500 between 8 

and you going out shooting 100 pigeon a day 

wj don’t like shooting if you don’t support the whole of shooting they will start at the top or bottom and nibble away at it 

ia a voluntary ban on plastic wads and lead shot over 5 years transition period such a bad thing for the majority? 
or would you prefer a instant ban on it with no time to develop new loads 

I think the anti big bag idea, is born out of some peoples ethical perspective even individuals own experiences and requirements.

  I am not a advocate of big bags in anything , i chose to take what i eat. I use my port as a way of bringing food to the table.   Some aspects of shooting i do not care to take part in, for its just how i think and not saying its wrong or right. 

   Big bags to me are in my way of thinking, just a huge outside round up and harvesting of a crop of birds. No different in fact much more ethical then, unloading cattle driving it down a production line at a slaughter house. 

If people want to pay to shoot and kill the harvest that is a big plus as long as its done cleanly and humanely i see nothing not to like about it.

Bigger the better, just landowners diversifying and using their land as they chose fit. Game shooting is a win win win for all.

[wymberley]

35 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Well copper plated "washed which its not"  wont be the way to go unless they can dream up a way of getting it to go on thicker and faster. The coatings thickness gets more expensive as it gets thixker and copper is like 10 microns.

Zink softer and 20 microns goes on essay and faster and its holding on better, more mailable.   The CGR current zink is still not thick enough, but a platter who can handle bigger amounts could run it through a zink proses like wildfire.

Pellets of copper i fired at the plate retrieved show cracking its not flaking off but its visible under a microscope. The zink for me is my choice. It leaves flats dips where they have rubbed bumped against each other, but not seen any cracking as such yet.

I think i am going down the zink road, and i think it will survive longer in the environment than copper and at 20 microns it could resist rusting probably into decades if not hundreds of years.

 I remember reading in Petersens hunting in the late 70s tests on zink platted shot, they were getting lots of input from science at that time trying to defend lead, and The Steel kills too idea was born. The zink plated shot it was felt would erode in like tidal mudflats estuaries etc, but by its nature it did not erode and oxidized at the same time, and thus any environmental impact was subdues if not eliminated completely.

Naked steel shot can be criticised but plated "perhaps not with copper as its an easy target "  Environmental is pretty bomb proof. and certainly not essay to present a practical challenge to it in law if Leigh & Day are presenting it or not. No forget The steel shot will go idea it wont be an issue. And before anyone jumps up with WHY not plate lead?. Its not so much the plating but it is washed and it will rub off its not practical to seal Lead in such a way, the Hard nickel plated Lead is tough , no denying that but Leads toxicity dictates its impact once unclad is considerably higher than steel which rules it out for this approach

35 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

 

As you've mentioned the zinc plated pellets from back along, can you recall what happened to the homogeneous version?

Also as an aside, could you kindly revisit my question about NZ and lead shot? If there is no - or very little - driven game shooting, this would explain their Government's attitude to lead shot. Many thanks.

EDIT: Dashed I-Pad!

[lancer425]

15 minutes ago, wymberley said:

As you've mentioned the zinc plated pellets from back along, can you recall what happened to the homogeneous version?

Also as an aside, could you kindly revisit my question about NZ and lead shot? If there is no - or very little - driven game shooting, this would explain their Government's attitude to lead shot. Many thanks.

EDIT: Dashed I-Pad!

II know not to what the Homogenios version is you refer too. pray enlighten me.

 As for NZ its a small country and its not massive compared to the states for example but what is. But there was talk of bringing it in for upland and doing away with the 20ga lead exemption. not sure if it ever went through , as i came back home at that time about 10/ 15 years ago.

[wymberley]

14 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

II know not to what the Homogenios version is you refer too. pray enlighten me.

 As for NZ its a small country and its not massive compared to the states for example but what is. But there was talk of bringing it in for upland and doing away with the 20ga lead exemption. not sure if it ever went through , as i came back home at that time about 10/ 15 years ago.

This is solid - not plated/washed - zinc shot.

[McSpredder]

2 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

A voluntary ban on lead shot offers no benefit to most of us. It is simply the delusional equivalent paying of "Danegeld" with base metal instead of noble metal.

"..... we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane."

[lancer425]

2 minutes ago, wymberley said:

This is solid - not plated/washed - zinc shot.

No i can not but i only ever saw hard nickel Lead and that was high antimony. Softer it flaked off like the copper wash on Winchester Lead did. High antimony was better.  Electron plating on hard etched steel is rock solid, but i accept some depression thinning of the cladding will take place, its mailable. and then it could well be thinned to say 10 microns from the original 20 or so. It will erode more in say a tidal area, but only a few of a loads pellets will be like this. thus slowing down any eventual release of the steel to start oxidisation. Its effectively a slow release which environmentally is good.

[enfieldspares]

Quote

Could you be kind enough to tell me the difference between a big bag boy on a day shooting 500 between 8 

and you going out shooting 100 pigeon a day 

Nobody as far as I know breeds and releases pigeons. It is a wild bird. And it is a pest species. Putting down any amount of pheasants isn't a problem if the acreage of land is what would be said to be sufficient to naturally....with an amount of feeding...sustain a reasonable density of birds. The reality is that the for the "big bag" boys pheasants have become little more than feather bearing clay pigeons and the land is excessively stocked with these things beyond any reasonable density that then gives credence to the likes of Packham et al claiming that an artificial monoculture (of pheasant) has been imposed on the immediate environment. 

[motty]

2 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Nobody as far as I know breeds and releases pigeons. It is a wild bird. And it is a pest species. Putting down any amount of pheasants isn't a problem if the acreage of land is what would be said to be sufficient to naturally....with an amount of feeding...sustain a reasonable density of birds. The reality is that the for the "big bag" boys pheasants have become little more than feather bearing clay pigeons and the land is excessively stocked with these things beyond any reasonable density that then gives credence to the likes of Packham et al claiming that an artificial monoculture (of pheasant) has been imposed on the immediate environment. 

Where is your evidence that the density is too much? In what way do you believe this is to the detriment of anything else?

[lancer425]

8 minutes ago, motty said:

Where is your evidence that the density is too much? In what way do you believe this is to the detriment of anything else?

^^^^ I would love to hear an answer to this any takers.?

[Old farrier]

14 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Nobody as far as I know breeds and releases pigeons. It is a wild bird. And it is a pest species. Putting down any amount of pheasants isn't a problem if the acreage of land is what would be said to be sufficient to naturally....with an amount of feeding...sustain a reasonable density of birds. The reality is that the for the "big bag" boys pheasants have become little more than feather bearing clay pigeons and the land is excessively stocked with these things beyond any reasonable density that then gives credence to the likes of Packham et al claiming that an artificial monoculture (of pheasant) has been imposed on the immediate environment. 

Ok you’ve convinced me 

ill cancel the pheasant shooting on my land and all the beaters and helpers that get the free pigeon and roost shooting can  find somewhere else to go and do the pest control

 I’ll do it with my big bag mates 

unless they want to pay me for the privilege  

[wymberley]

29 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Nobody as far as I know breeds and releases pigeons. It is a wild bird. And it is a pest species. Putting down any amount of pheasants isn't a problem if the acreage of land is what would be said to be sufficient to naturally....with an amount of feeding...sustain a reasonable density of birds. The reality is that the for the "big bag" boys pheasants have become little more than feather bearing clay pigeons and the land is excessively stocked with these things beyond any reasonable density that then gives credence to the likes of Packham et al claiming that an artificial monoculture (of pheasant) has been imposed on the immediate environment. 

Superb. The most reasonable, rational and considered post as yet on this whole topic. A quick scan does not do it justice; it's necessary to think while you're reading. The number of birds put down should not concern us provided we get it right. Failure to do so invites the likes of Packham in with open arms to do their worst which is what they'll do. We have to remember that they don't need to be correct/truthful or honest in order to convince their target audience - glib is sufficient and they're very, very good at it.

[clangerman]

you can put as few or as many down as you like the difference is game shooting has no justification it’s seen as purely fun from outside where’s pigeon shooting is justified on both damage and as a free food source 

[David BASC]

Stocking density guidelines / limits are contained within the Code of Good Shooting Practice based on considerable research by the GWCT, sticking within those limits will ensure there is no negative impact, its all about sustainability and ensuring the activities we undertake put back more than we take out.

I can state categorically that none of this project by the main organisations has anything at all to do with 'protecting the big bag boys' , its all about facing proactively the very real threat  coming in via international legislation, shooters taking the initiative and taking away from the anti's a stick to beat us with, as clearly mentioned within the FAQ's on the relevant associations web sites.

[clangerman]

take the stick from the antis that would be a first as for legislation we can make our own rules now until we come up with a way to justify game shooting to the public the end is just a waiting game  

[enfieldspares]

Quote

Stocking density guidelines / limits are contained within the Code of Good Shooting Practice based on considerable research by the GWCT, sticking within those limits will ensure there is no negative impact, its all about sustainability and ensuring the activities we undertake put back more than we take out.

Thank you for posting where this can be found. I'm ever ready to throw sticks, stones and half-bricks so I also think it right to give thanks too even if I still take a counter view to your second paragraph. Thank you for posting the reference. Here's the link:

https://www.gwct.org.uk/game/research/species/pheasant/the-impact-of-pheasant-releases/

https://www.gwct.org.uk/game/research/species/pheasant/long-term-effects-of-pheasant-release-pens/

It's then not too difficult to then work out using the acreage of the shoot and the record for that season's total bag for the period 1 January to 31 December (so the last four weeks or the previous season and the first three months of the season just ended) to work back what the stocking density might have been (based on the usual acknowledged return rates of 33% put down to birds actually brought to the game larder).

Or indeed simply to ask how many birds were put down. Added to how many birds might reasonably have been expected to have remained on the acreage from the season that ended that 1 February that year.

Again thank you for posting where an advised "best practice" density figure can be found.

Edited March 23, 2020 by enfieldspares

[David BASC]

Thank you very much for posting those links,

Justifying game shooting, in what ever form, surely comes from demonstrating the conservation and wider environmental benefits that game shooting brings.  Greater biodiversity for example, look at the cover crops that shoots put down that provide cover and feed for a range of wildlife, if there was no shooting on the land, who would pay from their own pockets for that? Look at the supplementary feeding of wild birds that shoots deliver though putting put feeders, who woukd pay for that out of htier onw pockets if the shoots were not doing it?

If anyone thinks BASC members are only involved in running big bag days thing again, nothing could be further from the truth!

 

 

[panoma1]

46 minutes ago, David BASC said:

Thank you very much for posting those links,

Justifying game shooting, in what ever form, surely comes from demonstrating the conservation and wider environmental benefits that game shooting brings.  Greater biodiversity for example, look at the cover crops that shoots put down that provide cover and feed for a range of wildlife, if there was no shooting on the land, who would pay from their own pockets for that? Look at the supplementary feeding of wild birds that shoots deliver though putting put feeders, who woukd pay for that out of htier onw pockets if the shoots were not doing it?

If anyone thinks BASC members are only involved in running big bag days thing again, nothing could be further from the truth!

 

 

Don’t worry! Avery, Packham, Tingay et al will fill the conservation void, when/if they get their way! 

[andrewluke]

2 hours ago, motty said:

Where is your evidence that the density is too much? In what way do you believe this is to the detriment of anything else?

you could argue that one is too many because they are non native,

[andrewluke]

1 hour ago, David BASC said:

Thank you very much for posting those links,

Justifying game shooting, in what ever form, surely comes from demonstrating the conservation and wider environmental benefits that game shooting brings.  Greater biodiversity for example, look at the cover crops that shoots put down that provide cover and feed for a range of wildlife, if there was no shooting on the land, who would pay from their own pockets for that? Look at the supplementary feeding of wild birds that shoots deliver though putting put feeders, who woukd pay for that out of htier onw pockets if the shoots were not doing it?

If anyone thinks BASC members are only involved in running big bag days thing again, nothing could be further from the truth!

 

 

well i didn't get much from BASC(in fact nothing),yes i bash BASC because i think they deserve it others may think different and they are welcome to try to defend them,not a problem

[clangerman]

32 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

well i didn't get much from BASC(in fact nothing),yes i bash BASC because i think they deserve it others may think different and they are welcome to try to defend them,not a problem

basc eley thread says it ALL mate anyone innocent would stump up PROOF not just keep repeating statement! statement! like a parrot it’s ridiculous