Sustainable ammunition articles

[TIGHTCHOKE]

26 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

This is not only about human health. although there are many papers setting out how damaging lead is to humans. 

This is about wildlife. there are many papers setting out how bad lead is to wildlife. 

This is about the perception of shooting. many people do not want anything shot with lead, this is also now starting to be the case with Venison. 

We need to move with the times. 

I think it is even simpler than that, they do not want anything shot!

[McSpredder]

56 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

This is not only about human health. although there are many papers setting out how damaging lead is to humans. 

You apparently failed to notice that Conor posted a statement that "There have been at least 44 research papers published on the impact of lead ammunition on human health since the Lead Ammunition Group submitted its report to Defra in 2015.  .....   These are listed here....."

...and I replied with a simple question about the impact of lead ammunition on human health.  

Perhaps Conor will answer my question, and perhaps not.   Perhaps BASC will allow members to see what evidence was submitted on their behalf, and perhaps not.  

I am neither pro-lead nor anti-steel, but I am pro-openness and anti-obfuscation.  

[Conor O'Gorman]

16 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

You apparently failed to notice that Conor posted a statement that "There have been at least 44 research papers published on the impact of lead ammunition on human health since the Lead Ammunition Group submitted its report to Defra in 2015.  .....   These are listed here....."

...and I replied with a simple question about the impact of lead ammunition on human health.  

Perhaps Conor will answer my question, and perhaps not.   Perhaps BASC will allow members to see what evidence was submitted on their behalf, and perhaps not.  

I am neither pro-lead nor anti-steel, but I am pro-openness and anti-obfuscation.  

Your question was "Conor, I assume that BASC staff will have studied all the relevant research papers.   Can you name any document in which there is a record of an ACTUAL person suffering ACTUAL harm from eating game killed using lead ammunition?"

I think it's up to you to decide your view and for you to do your research if you feel strongly enough to comment/lobby on a public forum on this topic. Nine shooting and rural organisations have reviewed the evidence thus far and made a statement in February. 

Given your comment that you are pro-openness and anti-obfuscation I would recommend the following paper:

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

Where do you see yourself on the scale having read this paper?

[rbrowning2]

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

Where do you see yourself on the scale having read this paper?

Conor, is that paper as I read it really based on a sample of just 30 who participated? 

A total of 36 people were approached; 30 (83.3%) actually participated (two individuals declined, two initially agreed to participate but later withdrew and two did not respond to the invitation). 

[McSpredder]

Openness (lack of).   Refusing to answer a simple question.   Denying BASC members access to the evidence submitted on their behalf and paid for through their subscriptions.

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Your question was "Conor, I assume that BASC staff will have studied all the relevant research papers.   Can you name any document in which there is a record of an ACTUAL person suffering ACTUAL harm from eating game killed using lead ammunition?"

I think it's up to you to decide your view and for you to do your research if you feel strongly enough to comment/lobby on a public forum on this topic.

It looks as though EITHER:

(a) BASC is unable to name a single document recording actual harm to any actual person from eating lead-shot game  OR

(b) BASC does hold such information, but has chosen to withhold it.

As it happens, I have already studied many of the papers relating to this subject over the years, particularly those published from UK by Green and Pain, but never found anything more than predictions of risk as derived from mathematical modelling.   That is why I asked whether BASC could refer me to any actual data.   As one of those members who has been paying BASC staff salaries for more than 30 years, I can only say that I find Conor's response distinctly unhelpful.

 

Obfuscation.    Attempting to obscure the discussion by introducing extraneous information.   Asking the questioner to refer to a document which fails to answer the original question.

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Given your comment that you are pro-openness and anti-obfuscation I would recommend the following paper:

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

Where do you see yourself on the scale having read this paper?

Presumably Conor has read that paper himself, in which case he must be aware that it contains no data at all relating to actual health effects from eating game meat, and is simply an analysis of opinions expressed by a very small sample of individuals.

[BrowningB7]

4 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Your question was "Conor, I assume that BASC staff will have studied all the relevant research papers.   Can you name any document in which there is a record of an ACTUAL person suffering ACTUAL harm from eating game killed using lead ammunition?"

I think it's up to you to decide your view and for you to do your research if you feel strongly enough to comment/lobby on a public forum on this topic. Nine shooting and rural organisations have reviewed the evidence thus far and made a statement in February. 

Given your comment that you are pro-openness and anti-obfuscation I would recommend the following paper:

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

Where do you see yourself on the scale having read this paper?

After doing my research on the first five authors to this paper and finding out that as well as writting articles for their universities, they all work in some capacity for the WWT, I didn't bother looking up the final 3 as there seems to be a clear theme to this paper. 

1. Is this paper not going to be biased on the lead issue as it is written by employers of the WWT who wanted lead shot faised out by 2017? 

2. Why is a shoot org promoting the work of such potentially biased papers by those who wish to see the shooting of birds stopped altogether? 

[mick miller]

The answer to the question above is quite simple. The quality of staff employed at BASC are little better than that you would find at any local council. Questioning the scientific relevance or organisational bias of a paper is not the sort of thing your average Joe Schmoe with a secondary school education considers. Someone with an ology wrote it, therefore it must be irrefutable. 

Hell, Conor himself offered some irrelevant codswallop about lead levels in children from developing countries as if it had any relevance whatsoever. 

And people still think this is a capable organisation worthy of financial support? The mind boggles.