Jump to content

Govt statement on lead shot


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Conor,

Please don’t think you’re being discredited or ‘picked on’. This is not personal. The reason you’re getting some push-back is simply because your cited paper (re 50,000 to 100,000 toxicity deaths / year) is not credible - or evidential in any way. For your own sake, I would give up flogging that very dead horse. 

I can only speak for my self, in that I am not pursuing an anti lead ban agenda (as you appear to assume). It’s just that I don’t wish to witness the shooting community discredited in PR terms by the promotion of bias pseudo science. 
 

Does that seem reasonable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Connor, reading the article in 2005 4.5% of birds sampled had ingested lead shot (5 years after the ban on lead for wildfowl) and arguably not all shooters had swapped over and lead pellets hadn't become unavailable.

 

What are GCWT and BASC doing to confirm what was the percentage in 2019 or 2020.

 

Geese Swans etc live for up to 20 years, so we will only now be encountering generations of wildfowl that have not been exposed to lead shot on a regular basis.

 

Going on the Swan report mentioned above 2.4% of swans are treated (from what I assume is legacy material) which is almost half the rate suggested  in the 2005 and swans are the longest lived and will have legacy issues, duck etc which mainly far shorter lives, will likely be much lower and would suggest the numbers would be much lower than the suggested 50k to 100k, most likely  5k to 10k for deaths if ingestion is so low.

 

As to the 200k to 400k with ingested and imbedded (shot with gun) lead, this is similarly going to be much lower as their in E&w be no imbedded shot as it's illegal and any ingestion should only be from historical sources which are becoming more out of reach all the time as lead being very dense settles into the muds soils etc.

 

A study in 2020 is required to confirm the problem, not rely on historical and inaccurate data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

Conor,

Please don’t think you’re being discredited or ‘picked on’. This is not personal. The reason you’re getting some push-back is simply because your cited paper (re 50,000 to 100,000 toxicity deaths / year) is not credible - or evidential in any way. For your own sake, I would give up flogging that very dead horse. 

I can only speak for my self, in that I am not pursuing an anti lead ban agenda (as you appear to assume). It’s just that I don’t wish to witness the shooting community discredited in PR terms by the promotion of bias pseudo science. 
 

Does that seem reasonable?

Thank you for clarifying your position and its a reasonable point you make. BASC commented on the cited figures in 2015.

https://basc.org.uk/science-cats-and-the-importance-of-context/

11 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Connor, reading the article in 2005 4.5% of birds sampled had ingested lead shot (5 years after the ban on lead for wildfowl) and arguably not all shooters had swapped over and lead pellets hadn't become unavailable.

 

What are GCWT and BASC doing to confirm what was the percentage in 2019 or 2020.

 

Geese Swans etc live for up to 20 years, so we will only now be encountering generations of wildfowl that have not been exposed to lead shot on a regular basis.

 

Going on the Swan report mentioned above 2.4% of swans are treated (from what I assume is legacy material) which is almost half the rate suggested  in the 2005 and swans are the longest lived and will have legacy issues, duck etc which mainly far shorter lives, will likely be much lower and would suggest the numbers would be much lower than the suggested 50k to 100k, most likely  5k to 10k for deaths if ingestion is so low.

 

As to the 200k to 400k with ingested and imbedded (shot with gun) lead, this is similarly going to be much lower as their in E&w be no imbedded shot as it's illegal and any ingestion should only be from historical sources which are becoming more out of reach all the time as lead being very dense settles into the muds soils etc.

 

A study in 2020 is required to confirm the problem, not rely on historical and inaccurate data.

Thanks, I will raise your suggestion with our research team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stonepark said:

Connor, reading the article in 2005 4.5% of birds sampled had ingested lead shot (5 years after the ban on lead for wildfowl) and arguably not all shooters had swapped over and lead pellets hadn't become unavailable.

 

What are GCWT and BASC doing to confirm what was the percentage in 2019 or 2020.

 

Geese Swans etc live for up to 20 years, so we will only now be encountering generations of wildfowl that have not been exposed to lead shot on a regular basis.

 

Going on the Swan report mentioned above 2.4% of swans are treated (from what I assume is legacy material) which is almost half the rate suggested  in the 2005 and swans are the longest lived and will have legacy issues, duck etc which mainly far shorter lives, will likely be much lower and would suggest the numbers would be much lower than the suggested 50k to 100k, most likely  5k to 10k for deaths if ingestion is so low.

 

As to the 200k to 400k with ingested and imbedded (shot with gun) lead, this is similarly going to be much lower as their in E&w be no imbedded shot as it's illegal and any ingestion should only be from historical sources which are becoming more out of reach all the time as lead being very dense settles into the muds soils etc.

 

A study in 2020 is required to confirm the problem, not rely on historical and inaccurate data.

Good post, we need current evidence based data such that we are then in a position to respond factually to the likes of wild justice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Conor.

Still confused though. Matt Ellis of BASC (2015) in response to the paper’s publication - per your attachment- said:

“BASC’s position remains the same; no sound evidence, no change.“

A perfectly sensible stance. Why therefore cite the paper as credible evidence now? Every organisation is entitled to a mistake occasionally, but I’m afraid this is a    ‘credibility bomb‘ which requires safe disposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Fellside - the government response cited the figures. BASC has not commented on the figures since 2015. I have raised stonepark's suggestion with the research team. 

With all due respect to stonepark, why should it take an excellent suggestion from a PW forum member to initiate this, I would hope BASC research team were more switched on than requiring a poke from a PW member, no wonder we are always on the back foot or reacting after the horse has bolted.

 

Edited by rbrowning2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

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    .......

The very first on that list of 100 research papers is titled:

Lesser White-fronted (Anser erythropus) and Greater White-fronted (A. albifrons) Geese wintering in Greek wetlands are not threatened by Pb through shot ingestion

(Aloupi M, Kazantzidis S, Akriotis T, Bantikou E, Hatzidaki VO, Science of the Total Environment, 2015)

...  and some of the conclusions are interesting:

In both species and in both areas Pb intake appears to be solely through soil/sediment rather than shot ingestion since shot ingestion would be expected to result in significantly higher Pb concentration values in the feces.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Perazzishot said:

Connor

will You or BASC make comment on the ISSF proper scientific study in support of lead?

 

if not why not?

I think we all know the answer to that. 

Its pretty clear the BASC et al have decided what course of action they are taking and no amount of evidence to the contrary will persuade them otherwise. In short, they have bet the farm on the non toxic shot horse, and cannot back out now. 

Its also why the rather excellent suggestion from stonepark is sadly pointless. Any study commissioned by our organisations will be starting with the conclusion (lead shot bad) and will cherry pick data to support that conclusion, rather than hypothesising that lead shot is bad, and seeing where the evidence takes them. Its the same story in many 'research' establishments, where vast sums of money and time seem to be spent trying to fit the data to the desired outcome, usually to suit whomever commissioned the study. Or you can bet that any findings not producing the desired outcome will be quickly buried. 

The reasons as to why they have chosen to do this will doubtless become clear in due course, but by then unfortunately, it will be too late. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, adzyvilla said:

The reasons as to why they have chosen to do this will doubtless become clear in due course, but by then unfortunately, it will be too late. 

Well it has nothing to do BASC and its association with the British Game Alliance of course.

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/07/2020 at 21:29, Conor O'Gorman said:

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 

 

 

Conor, 

Please see above. You have cited the study and appear to consider it credible.

May I suggest that you take some constructive (and hopefully helpful) feedback to your science team and rework the message somewhat.

Good luck and no hard feelings.

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...