Govt statement on lead shot

[Guest cookoff013]

8 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

275 dead wildfowl a day I’m sure I would have found some in the Last 40 years 

cant accept the figures there just made up 

 

Made up and multiplied. Poor form indeed. 

[Scully]

If wildfowl are still dying in those numbers ( considering the length of time the ban has been in place ) from ingesting lead shot, then there’s something seriously amiss somewhere!  

[Salopian]

Gentlemen ,

 I am sorry to see this post has been started by Conor O'Gorman , quoting MP's using unsubstantiated  and old figures . Then later in the post Conor highlights another piece of unsubstantiated 'proof' from another anti article .

Is Conor in the right job? Are BASC really representing the shooting sports correctly or are they hell bent on persecuting us?

Amazingly for more than twenty years now we have had to read reports on thousands of wildfowl deaths but never seeing the evidence .

I am sure that probably all wildfowlers adhere to the law and use non-toxic shot , so where is the huge increase in wildfowl on our shores that we should have saved in the last twenty years ?

[Perazzishot]

BASC should be challenging that research paper on the amount of deaths not accepting it. It was done by the RSPB, next they will be accepting the findings of the RSPB on our grouse moors.

Considering BASC members are directors within the British Game Alliance who have a commercial interest in supplying game to supermarkets lead free, and the BGA have links to Eley cartridges to promote their steel shot this is just all part of the Gravy train with scant regard to it's members and all to do with money!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Perazzishot said:

BASC should be challenging that research paper on the amount of deaths not accepting it. It was done by the RSPB, next they will be accepting the findings of the RSPB on our grouse moors.

Considering BASC members are directors within the British Game Alliance who have a commercial interest in supplying game to supermarkets lead free, and the BGA have links to Eley cartridges to promote their steel shot this is just all part of the Gravy train with scant regard to it's members and all to do with money!

Here, here, quite bizarre really, they do seem keen to just allow the changes to happen and even rushing change against the wish of the majority of their remaining members.

[Smokersmith]

11 hours ago, Perazzishot said:

Broad estimates indicate that in the UK in the order of 50,000-100,000 wildfowl (c. 1.5-3.0% of the wintering population) are likely to die each winter (i.e. during the shooting season) as a direct result of lead poisoning. For migratory swans, this represents a quarter of all recorded deaths. Wildfowl that die outside of the shooting season will be additional, as will those that die of causes exacerbated by lead poisoning. 

Conor … please help me interpret this statement above correctly.

I think P'shot is right … they are 100% confusing getting poisoned with getting shot!!

[Conor O'Gorman]

21 minutes ago, Smokersmith said:

Conor … please help me interpret this statement above correctly.

I think P'shot is right … they are 100% confusing getting poisoned with getting shot!!

 

I posted the following info and links yesterday - which should help - so I will post them again in case you missed it.

 

Read more about the estimate of between 50,000 and 100,000 wildfowl dying each year in the UK due to lead poisoning from spent gunshot on GWCT website here:

https://www.gwct.org.uk/policy/briefings/lead-ammunition/ 

The 2015 research paper is here:

http://www.oxfordleadsymposium.info/wp-content/uploads/OLS_proceedings/papers/OLS_proceedings_pain_cromie_green.pdf

In summary, from a recent article in Sporting Shooter:

The simple fact, the GWCT says, is that lead is dangerous to wildlife. When any bird or mammal ingests spent lead ammunition by mistaking it for grit or foodstuffs, or by scavenging unretrieved shot quarry, it can result in lead poisoning. In addition, animals that are shot but not killed may carry lead shot in their bodies and this adversely affects their wellbeing.

Lead ammunition degrades very slowly and so may take several decades or longer to become unavailable to foraging wildlife. Recent published estimates (2015) suggest 50,000-100,000 wildfowl die each year from lead poisoning in the UK, with between 200,000 and 400,000 thought to suffer welfare effects from ingestion or through embedded lead.

Computer modelling of bird populations and correlative studies suggest that lead poisoning may be affecting population growth rates and sizes in a number of bird species in the UK, including dabbling ducks, diving ducks and grey partridges, and in common buzzards and red kites in Europe.

Source:
https://www.sportingshooter.co.uk/features/the-science-behind-lead-toxicity-1-6655115 

 

[Cannon]

Conor you're not listening to your members

[243deer]

That is not science. When words such as 'estimate' and 'thought' are used I could equally write a paper that 'suggests' that the thoughts and estimates are wildly exaggerated for the purposes of anti-shooting organisations.

Where is the actual proof? Where are the carcasses? It is mightily convenient that none of them can be found. If so many wildfowl are being ingested by predators - where are the carcasses of badgers and foxes that have died of lead poisoning? Similarly where are the raptors killed by ingesting lead shot, with so many of them tracked now  the true causes of death are  becoming more documented - we do not get to see the figures as it does not suit the anti shooting brigade. 

I was a pretty serious match angler when the swan deaths apparently showed it was anglers fault. So lead shot of certain sizes was banned, shooting lead over wetlands was banned and the swans are still dying in their thousands because of lead poisoning 20 years later? - show me some evidence of this - I accept a few shooters might still use lead and a few anglers the lead shot but it is not my experience at all amongst my circle of friends, they do actually care about our environment and so use non-lead for wildfowling and angling. Illegal use would have to be on an enormous scale to account for the figures being spouted. 

As for grey partridge deaths being attributed to lead shot - this is cobblers - learn your history. The demise of grey partridge can be directly attributed to loss of habitat and loss of food due to the use of pesticides. They also shot tons of lead shot in Victorian times, mainly at grey partridge.

I am as disappointed with the GWCT spouting this unproven hypothesis as I am with BASC for not having the common sense to question it.

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, 243deer said:

That is not science. When words such as 'estimate' and 'thought' are used I could equally write a paper that 'suggests' that the thoughts and estimates are wildly exaggerated for the purposes of anti-shooting organisations.

Where is the actual proof? Where are the carcasses? It is mightily convenient that none of them can be found. If so many wildfowl are being ingested by predators - where are the carcasses of badgers and foxes that have died of lead poisoning? Similarly where are the raptors killed by ingesting lead shot, with so many of them tracked now  the true causes of death are  becoming more documented - we do not get to see the figures as it does not suit the anti shooting brigade. 

I was a pretty serious match angler when the swan deaths apparently showed it was anglers fault. So lead shot of certain sizes was banned, shooting lead over wetlands was banned and the swans are still dying in their thousands because of lead poisoning 20 years later? - show me some evidence of this - I accept a few shooters might still use lead and a few anglers the lead shot but it is not my experience at all amongst my circle of friends, they do actually care about our environment and so use non-lead for wildfowling and angling. Illegal use would have to be on an enormous scale to account for the figures being spouted. 

As for grey partridge deaths being attributed to lead shot - this is cobblers - learn your history. The demise of grey partridge can be directly attributed to loss of habitat and loss of food due to the use of pesticides. They also shot tons of lead shot in Victorian times, mainly at grey partridge.

I am as disappointed with the GWCT spouting this unproven hypothesis as I am with BASC for not having the common sense to question it.

Good post. It won’t be questioned by our shooting orgs as it doesn’t fit with the current agenda, which is to promote shot game into the food market in attempts to boost shooting. 
However, it does us well to try to promote the sustainable part of shooting, but if ‘game’ birds were in fact popular to eat In the UK, then someone would be farming them as they do chickens. Game meat is popular on mainland Europe however, where they have had a tradition of hunting the likes of which the UK has never had, and they dictate policy regarding what that game is shot with, especially if we are to export that meat in the quantities needed for the survival of UK shooting. 
So whether the evidence stacks up or not, if UK shooting in its entirety is to survive, we need to toe the line when it comes to shooting with non toxic shot, that game which is aimed for export.....and who shoots quantities of game in such numbers to make that viable? Driven game shooters of course. 
Like it or loathe it, without commercial shooting the days of UK shooters are numbered.
They may still be anyhow; game shooting was once the reserve of the wealthy elite and the landed gentry; I see nothing from preventing it becoming so again. 

 

[matone]

It`s a whitewash and a cop out ,nothing more we`re being sold down the road pandering to `science ` that is at best shaky .Our enemies,for that is what they are,have being pursuing a campaign of death by a thousand cuts for many years and our beloved Orgs have failed to counter them. The enemy have won too many skirmishes and identified the weakness of our representatives long ago,what we are listening to now confirms their impotence and lack of real wiil.

[Smokersmith]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I posted the following info and links yesterday - which should help - so I will post them again in case you missed it.

Given that I quoted from the link, it's clear that I didn't miss it.

 

[243deer]

11 minutes ago, Scully said:

Good post. It won’t be questioned by our shooting orgs as it doesn’t fit with the current agenda, which is to promote shot game into the food market in attempts to boost shooting. 
However, it does us well to try to promote the sustainable part of shooting, but if ‘game’ birds were in fact popular to eat In the UK, then someone would be farming them as they do chickens. Game meat is popular on mainland Europe however, where they have had a tradition of hunting the likes of which the UK has never had, and they dictate policy regarding what that game is shot with, especially if we are to export that meat in the quantities needed for the survival of UK shooting. 
So whether the evidence stacks up or not, if UK shooting in its entirety is to survive, we need to toe the line when it comes to shooting with non toxic shot, that game which is aimed for export.....and who shoots quantities of game in such numbers to make that viable? Driven game shooters of course. 
Like it or loathe it, without commercial shooting the days of UK shooters are numbered.
They may still be anyhow; game shooting was once the reserve of the wealthy elite and the landed gentry; I see nothing from preventing it becoming so again. 

 

Scully, I agree, if the consumer wants non-lead shot game and venison than that is what we have to give them. I have no problem with that at all. We should, of course, do it now, this season, not in 5 years as the market may well be gone by then. You can use just about any gun - just ask the Danes. As a part of making this required change and as a compromise to those of us that only have pockets deep enough for the odd day, will I be allowed to use my semi-auto on a driven game day as it is the only gun I have currently that is both steel shot proof and which I would want to put steel through?

Why do I have to have 2 inch .410 cartridges filled with #9 shot that I use in preference to poison, for ratting inside barns holding feed, banned in 5 years for no good reason. In fact we all know the use of poisons is dangerous to many other animals including our beloved birds of prey - even when used according to best practice it is a fact that we find dead rats in the yard when poison is used for a short period of time as a last resort.

Instead of a well thought through course of action which requires the use of appropriate ammunition for anything going in to the public food chain whilst retaining lead use where appropriate and as a personal choice -  22lr subsonic ammo for rabbiting is another good example - we get a blanket policy based on non-science that alienates members.

It all smacks of ill thought through, knee jerk reaction without a semblance of strategic thinking and common sense inserted as a balance.

[Perazzishot]

Clear and simple birds didn’t die during the  shooting season from ingesting lead shot! They were shot with lead shot! 
 

Once again why are BASC not challenging this report?

Edited July 23, 2020 by Perazzishot

[Fellside]

Apologies for picking up this thread late. I have just read the 2015 paper - upon which this whole argument appears to hinge. It is not an independent and rigorous primary study, but merely a literature review, using ‘cherry picked’ figures from other sources, many of which are only crude estimates (guesstimates) at best. Lots of neat columns containing numbers can look impressive and authoritive, until they are properly evaluated. 
 

This paper is basically saying: ‘if a handful of biased interest groups are providing numbers - we consider them correct’. If I handed this in for marking as an undergrad’, I would have been returned with a red line across it and a comment also in red pen asking, where is your evidence base?

I’m not BASC bashing, as I believe they have done some excellent work for the shooting community, but this paper should have been EVALUATED and brought down like a well shot duck - steel shot of course....!!

[mick miller]

Using the same powers of a complete lack of peer reviewed research and figures I plucked from my backside, I estimate none die. 

Why not use that figure instead? It's got about the same amount of underlying 'science' behind it. Honestly, it's beyond credulity. 

[clangerman]

26 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Using the same powers of a complete lack of peer reviewed research and figures I plucked from my backside, I estimate none die. 

Why not use that figure instead? It's got about the same amount of underlying 'science' behind it. Honestly, it's beyond credulity. 

i used the highly scientific method proven to be a 100% correct i asked friends who shoot wildfowl surprise surprise NONE of them have seen all these dead fowl 

[Salopian]

Have any of you found one of these birds that have died from Lead poisoning?

You have had a 50,000 to 400,000 chance to say yes .

Complete and utter rubbish I would have thought .

[243deer]

11 hours ago, Fellside said:

This paper is basically saying: ‘if a handful of biased interest groups are providing numbers - we consider them correct’. If I handed this in for marking as an undergrad’, I would have been returned with a red line across it and a comment also in red pen asking, where is your evidence base?

 

Well put

[Conor O'Gorman]

Those of you feeling strongly about this because it does not suit your narrative - that lead ammunition has no impact on wildlife - should perhaps contact the GWCT given that you know better than all the scientists in the GWCT? The figures are included on the following website https://www.whatthesciencesays.org/lead-shot-your-questions-answered/ and specifically this download https://www.whatthesciencesays.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Lead-your-questions-answered-2020-FINAL.pdf with the context given on why wildfowl are susceptible to spent lead shot.

Comment on the figures from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust here:
https://www.wwt.org.uk/news/2020/02/24/wwt-welcomes-steps-towards-removing-lead-ammunition-from-the-environment/18544

There have been at least 100 research papers published on the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife alone since the Lead Ammunition Group submitted its report to Defra in 2015.

These are listed here:

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/information/#toggle-id-2 

In the 2015 LAG report are the lists of all the previous research papers

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LAG-Report-June-2015-without-Appendices.pdf

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/LAG-Report-June-2015-Appendices-without-Appendix-6.pdf

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/LAG-Report-June-2015-RISK-MITIGATION-REGISTER-Appendix-6.pdf

[243deer]

6 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Those of you feeling strongly about this because it does not suit your narrative - that lead ammunition has no impact on wildlife

Sorry Connor, but that is a ridiculous thing to say. We are not questioning that lead shot can affect wildfowl.

We are very much questioning the figures as stated as they are estimated figures and there is no empirical evidence that they are correct. Yet they are now being constantly quoted as correct.

I suggest you go and have a word with your wildfowling department and get another view. Please do a survey and ask them whether they still use lead shot at all wildfowling and then publish the percentage figure that do here - gather some real evidence yourself.

Here are some actual completely independent figures for you - the percentages of a statistically valid data set seem to be rather at odds with other data that has been published as a percentage with no reference to the size of data set used nor when the data was collected

http://www.theswansanctuary.org.uk/lead-poisoning-in-swans/

Currently out of a yearly throughput of 3000 Mute swans we treat about 6 per month (around 72 per year) for lead poisoning. This is in contrast to before the Control of Pollution ( Angler’s Lead weights) Regulations 1986 when 86% of cases required treatment For lead poisoning (although the yearly throughput was lower).

Many of our wildfowl are migratory - the evidence about where in the world they are ingesting lead seems to be conveniently overlooked.

I for one am very pleased that I stopped using lead shot for angling as I like swans, just as I am absolutely sure that the vast majority of wildfowlers are using non-lead as they also happen to like and respect their quarry.

[Conor O'Gorman]

Fair enough 243deer - will you contact GWCT with your concern about these figures?

You state that you are not questioning that lead shot can effect wildfowl. What evidence are you relying on to support your belief on this?

[Perazzishot]

Conor

What a total cop out to blame your members of seeking a different narrative. Norway reversed the lead ban as it agreed that more birds were suffering as a result of using non toxic shot. You are leading us down a road of being exposed to yet more bad press going forward as more people will try to gather evidence of birds suffering. Expect the likes of Packham and Avery (who I noticed contributed to these reports) to start asking members of their ilk to record gameshoots and pigeon shooting to demonstrate how cruel it is. You are walking straight into their trap on how to ban shooting. By getting the public to lobby and call us out for being cruel.

Also the reports all reference dangerous to other wildlife where high concentrations of lead can build up namely clay shooting grounds. Yet no proposal to ban lead in clay shooting.

 

The figures in human consumption of those eating enough game to potentially cause health issue named as heavy eaters of shot game is guesstimated yet these folk are still all alive to be counted. To suggest 10,000 children also fall into the bracket is complete and utter tosh!

You are using the anti's conjecture and waffle to support your own greed and personal profit at BASC.

Please can you comment on this full scientific report and pass to your fellow directors for comment and state why you are not supporting this document and promoting it. 

Can I also ask why the heavy use of lead ammunition on open land by all parts of the police and MOD is not mentioned in any reports? This is a direct attack on using lead to kill animals. When clay shooting and MOD use is not considered.

As said above you are taking your members blindly through a trap door to support the British Game Alliance and your investments and future profits with total disregard to your members!

Shame on you!

ISSF-ECHA-comments.pdf

[clangerman]

27 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Those of you feeling strongly about this because it does not suit your narrative - that lead ammunition has no impact on wildlife 

it’s embarrassing enough for basc you tried to peddle this rubbish as fact so don’t start crying now you have been caught out YOU posted the rubbish it’s a fact of life if there are NO corpses there are NO deaths as for the lead narrative if you think breaking a few brittle clays is going to convince anyone who shoots it works the only one your fooling is your self 

[243deer]

39 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Fair enough 243deer - will you contact GWCT with your concern about these figures?

You state that you are not questioning that lead shot can effect wildfowl. What evidence are you relying on to support your belief on this?

I have contacted the GWCT and I shall be removing my membership support of them if the unsubstantiated claims are not removed. It is very disappointing that the GWCT, who have always claimed to only produce material based on hard evidence have dropped so low in their standards.

As to evidence, is not the evidence I presented and linked to with real life figures not evidence enough? If not in what way is it not valid. For all statistics to be meaningful and not just made up cobblers to suit an agenda you need a large,  verifiable data set.

When being taught statistics, it comes to light that samples as low as 20 can, very conveniently, be deemed meaningful in the statistics world - well it keeps statisticians gainfully employed doing chi-squared validation tests.  It also means that those of us that have studied statistics in some depth can spot made up rubbish a mile off.