Jump to content

Non Lead


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Simple answer  i firmly believe it was worded such, to protect the government and we poor shooters.

  From the constant wrangling of opponents to shooting,  looking to find a aspect of any shot type known that could be termed TOXIC.

 NON LEAD Is just that LEAD they wanted that gone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Simple answer  i firmly believe it was worded such, to protect the government and we poor shooters.

  From the constant wrangling of opponents to shooting,  looking to find a aspect of any shot type known that could be termed TOXIC.

 NON LEAD Is just that LEAD they wanted that gone.

 

I reckon the opponents of shooting, don’t care about lead, they just want shooting gone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whereas Panoma 1 is perfectly correct, it does not mean to say that our opponents and particularly the smart ones will ignore any opportunity to cause us problems. As the government has clearly stated the criteria for the introduction of  NTS, it, or anybody else for that matter, when push comes to shove will only be concerned with the toxicity one. So if it can be shown that the non lead option that we've chosen is not actually also non toxic and the finger is being pointed at the politicians, will they take the hit or lay the blame at our porch? So, it may just be prudent if we are going to go along with the voluntary moratorium, while we're at it to ensure that all is also well in the toxicity stakes. Any nasty little surprises later on would be a disaster.

I have to confess that the sceptic in me is such that I don't want protection from the fact that the non lead is not as non toxic as it should be which I can't help but think that that has something to do with the name change, but would rather it really did turn out to be NTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

stop one shot type at a time    no more shooting     stop reared birds one at a time same result        you only have to look to Holland       non toxic and  native wild birds only     no reared at all  or migrating birds of any kind to be shot  as informed by a Dutch guy shooting at Gams  estate 15 years ago       one chip at a time the oak tree falls

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, panoma1 said:

I reckon the opponents of shooting, don’t care about lead, they just want shooting gone!

This !  :good:

If you stopped the average man or woman in the street they wouldnt have a clue whats fired from a shotgun. Most would probably say `bullets`.

Ask them if they support or are against shooting, then they will certainly have a view.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, panoma1 said:

I reckon the opponents of shooting, don’t care about lead, they just want shooting gone!

 

33 minutes ago, JJsDad said:

This !  :good:

If you stopped the average man or woman in the street they wouldnt have a clue whats fired from a shotgun. Most would probably say `bullets`.

Ask them if they support or are against shooting, then they will certainly have a view.

 

Yes and I still believe it is more of a class action as we have always been seen as toffs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

A gullible “right on” public who fund the likes of WJ!...and other extreme protectionist pressure groups!

Happy to take your word for it. I suppose that being just an average 'grunt' and because of the nature of my work I've always lived where shooting has been the norm rather than the exception. That said, it does seem that the foggy dews are bringing some of their more distatsteful habits with them of late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the "Toxicity" page most interesting.  They assumed the toxicity of lead  or other non lead, was  caused by its solubility in water. To the extent that it affected water -living organisms.

I was told that lead was toxic to waterfowl because the picked it up while dabbling, and ground it to small particles in their gizzards. Where it was acted upon by stomach acids.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cardigun said:

I found the "Toxicity" page most interesting.  They assumed the toxicity of lead  or other non lead, was  caused by its solubility in water. To the extent that it affected water -living organisms.

I was told that lead was toxic to waterfowl because the picked it up while dabbling, and ground it to small particles in their gizzards. Where it was acted upon by stomach acids.?

:good:My point exactly.

Lead has to go for the reasons you've given and which we all understand. At the moment we all can feel the warm glow and cosy feeling that we've done the right thing and have agreed to a voluntary restraint in its use. Soon that voluntary action will be replaced with binding legislation. No problem. Until, that is, some bright spark lets it be known that our cheaper end non lead alternatives are not actually non toxic and demands that they too are banned. It turns out that in the trials mentioned, lead shot came out of it quite well.

We really need to ensure that there's no more little surprises further down the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The opponents have done extremely well, gradually banning several Field Sports and we are next in the crosswires and eventually they will succeed.

Ironically they do not give a damn about foxes, hares, pheasants or lead.

Does anybody genuinely think a lead shot ban will will give us respite from the onslaught. 

When the shootings gone will they pack in ? NO they'll go for the fishing.

To voluntarily play into their agenda is very foolish and naive. We should defend what we've got kicking and screaming and not volunteer an inch.

Rant over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, nothing's changed.

Apparently the UK lead pollution in the 12th century was as bad as that in the 19th century industrial revolution. How on earth did we survive?

Naturally, given this discovery someone has got to come up with a means as to how to exploit lead's toxicity. In this case, they've blamed it for the murder of Thomas Becket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, wymberley said:

Well, nothing's changed.

Apparently the UK lead pollution in the 12th century was as bad as that in the 19th century industrial revolution. How on earth did we survive?

Naturally, given this discovery someone has got to come up with a means as to how to exploit lead's toxicity. In this case, they've blamed it for the murder of Thomas Becket.

I thought he was put to the sword, i dont think Lead was involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History will show that at this present time there is nothing as efficient, as a lethal , economic material for shot as Lead.

Interesting to note that Wymberley's observation above , so really there is no new news!

I am currently researching the shooting exploits of Annie Oakley who is recorded as dying of 'Pernicious Anaemia  Lead Poisoning '.

But she didn't suddenly die , she lived to a good age and suffered from the effects of a car accident. But in her time she most certainly handled a great deal of Lead and undoubtedly ate a great deal of Game that had been shot with Lead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Salopian said:

History will show that at this present time there is nothing as efficient, as a lethal , economic material for shot as Lead.

Interesting to note that Wymberley's observation above , so really there is no new news!

I am currently researching the shooting exploits of Annie Oakley who is recorded as dying of 'Pernicious Anaemia  Lead Poisoning '.

But she didn't suddenly die , she lived to a good age and suffered from the effects of a car accident. But in her time she most certainly handled a great deal of Lead and undoubtedly ate a great deal of Game that had been shot with Lead. 

There is no safe limit for lead in the human diet, its that basic. Its toxic. if it Lead that kills you or something totally unrelated is neither here nor there we know its bad news , Alternatives are there its pointless to keep on with this stuff in out diet.    I eat what i shoot, apart from crows and fox. And as such i do not want Lead in my food, i have eaten loads of it and passed it and dont see any evidence its killing me but i know its toxic. It needs to be gone from Live quarry shooting. And People will not be subjected to the Lead ingestion us older people have been exposed to in the past. The move from Lead is a positive step with no downsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...