Lead shot for live quarry - a five-year transition, not a one-year solution

[Conor O'Gorman]

On 09/04/2021 at 18:51, Fellside said:

Conor,

Could you please ask your contacts at WWT for any robust data / evidence (if there is any) arising from this film. It has been established here that some of the lead pieces in the gizzard contents are in fact split shot, the type once used in Angling. These were outlawed in 1987 - although the great majority of anglers had stopped using them at least 2 years prior. It would be helpful if good ‘clean’ science could prevail. At the moment this film appears only as a propaganda piece. 

The most relevant research is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-012-0666-7

[Old farrier]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The most relevant research is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-012-0666-7

It costs £30 to read the full article?

[Fellside]

14 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The most relevant research is here:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-012-0666-7

Conor,

I have this morning read and evaluated the abstract alone from the “relevant research” paper you have sent me. It is quite revealing.
 

The paper is riddled with bias and contradiction - but of course it would be as the lead author is non other than Julia Newth from the WWT! The paper does nothing more than to contrive and contort in order to achieve a lead banning message. If this was a clinical trial, it wouldn’t get passed the editorial review stage - down to the abstract alone. 
 

1. It quotes 10.6% waterfowl mortality - but these figures are unfortunately from 1971 to 2010. Also there isn’t any indication of which end of the timescale the majority of these deaths occurred. 
 

2. It quotes “elevated levels” of lead in  plasma during the winter of 2010 to 2011, and implies mortality but without proof or figures of such. Actually it bizarrely links these lead levels (which are small and non lethal) to mortality rates quoted in the 1971 - 2010 study. 
 

3. This so called ‘study’ quotes “lead gunshot being the most likely source”. However, during many of the timescales mentioned, lead split shot was in common use for angling. 

There are several more equally valid points I could mention, but I think we have enough to conclude. If this paper is typical of the WWT purpose and intent, we unfortunately can not accept any WWT source material as being anything more than bias junk driven by their anti shooting agenda. I am extremely saddened that BASC would openly support this material and the WWT lead shot film piece of the same ilk. 
That said, if it transpires that terrestrial lead shot use (and I do emphasise TERRESTRIAL) is harmful to wildlife, I would reconsider my position. For this, robust evidence needs to be demonstrated. 

[GingerCat]

30 quid to read a bias paper written by the wwt and uses 11 year old ddata. Spouted by the basc as the most relevant research. Hasn't the basc done any research?

Can't help but wonder whose side the basc is on. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Fellside

That paper covers a large dataset over many years and there are hundreds of more research papers available for review on this topic from around the world. The GWCT has reviewed the research so far and they state the following:

• 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.
• Effects of lead poisoning have been documented extensively in waterbirds, and also in terrestrial birds including game and predatory species. In some species present in the UK, namely mallards, whooper swans and golden eagles, recent studies have shown effects at lower blood concentrations than previously reported. This development reflects conclusions that there is no clear threshold below which human health is not affected by lead exposure.

For more info see:

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

If you wish to disagree and find flaws with the science and scientists at the WWT, GWCT and others worldwide you are of course free to do so.

Also, here is an interesting video that has interviews with a scientist in Spain and with a scientist in Denmark and with other snippets of information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIIwjE_usQ8

[8 shot]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Fellside

That paper covers a large dataset over many years and there are hundreds of more research papers available for review on this topic from around the world. The GWCT has reviewed the research so far and they state the following:

• 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.
• Effects of lead poisoning have been documented extensively in waterbirds, and also in terrestrial birds including game and predatory species. In some species present in the UK, namely mallards, whooper swans and golden eagles, recent studies have shown effects at lower blood concentrations than previously reported. This development reflects conclusions that there is no clear threshold below which human health is not affected by lead exposure.

For more info see:

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

If you wish to disagree and find flaws with the science and scientists at the WWT, GWCT and others worldwide you are of course free to do so.

Also, here is an interesting video that has interviews with a scientist in Spain and with a scientist in Denmark and with other snippets of information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIIwjE_usQ8

Having read most but not all you have put up, the only limit for anything is ZERO according to all this. What percentage of these birds have migrated here, have all the birds tested lived here all there lives? What is the average age of these birds ? It's all a bit vague for me. People have allergies at wheat, we haven't ban bread, there are millions of alcoholics we haven't ban beer. What percentage is acceptable to you ?.

[Jim Neal]

It's over, guys.  The antis are behind the wheel and we're heading straight for Beachy Head at full throttle.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Sold down the river!

[Fellside]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Fellside

That paper covers a large dataset over many years and there are hundreds of more research papers available for review on this topic from around the world. The GWCT has reviewed the research so far and they state the following:

• 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.
• Effects of lead poisoning have been documented extensively in waterbirds, and also in terrestrial birds including game and predatory species. In some species present in the UK, namely mallards, whooper swans and golden eagles, recent studies have shown effects at lower blood concentrations than previously reported. This development reflects conclusions that there is no clear threshold below which human health is not affected by lead exposure.

For more info see:

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

If you wish to disagree and find flaws with the science and scientists at the WWT, GWCT and others worldwide you are of course free to do so.

Also, here is an interesting video that has interviews with a scientist in Spain and with a scientist in Denmark and with other snippets of information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIIwjE_usQ8

Thanks for your reply Conor. Unfortunately the Newth et al paper you posted was seriously flawed and biased. At best It lacked credibility. At worst it is propaganda cloaked as science. 
 

I may get to evaluate some of the other studies you have referred to - I will try to find the time. Thank you for forwarding them. However I am slightly concerned re your bullet points. When an author ‘estimates’ such an imprecise range: 50,000 to 100,000 deaths. I think we can call this ‘estimate’ a guess at best. Quotes like “may be effecting population growth rates”. This means it equally may not. All a little woolly. In your last bullet point, you assume that potential lower lead exposure impacts in birds, is paralleled in humans. Why, when, by whom?

By the way I’m not picking an argument with you as a person. Conor. You’re probably a perfectly decent chap for all I know. All I insist upon is that the science you quote is clean and credible. If so it is less likely to be contested. You may be interested to know (or not) that I remain open minded re this matter and will follow best evidence based practice, but like many I will not be hoodwinked. We shall see. 

[Jim Neal]

16 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Thanks for your reply Conor. Unfortunately the Newth et al paper you posted was seriously flawed and biased. At best It lacked credibility. At worst it is propaganda cloaked as science.

100% genuinely I have just seen this thread, after raising some serious doubts myself about that paper in a different topic.

They don't care about lead.  All they care about is stopping shooting.  BASC have thrown their gates open to the Trojan Horse.

[matone]

9 hours ago, GingerCat said:

30 quid to read a bias paper written by the wwt and uses 11 year old ddata. Spouted by the basc as the most relevant research. Hasn't the basc done any research?

Can't help but wonder whose side the basc is on. 

Many more of us think the same......

[White Rabbit]

Having tried to stay neutral on the subject I now feel we've been placed on a slippery slope from which we cannot return.

Our organisations seemed to have gone the way of the rest of society where to be seen to be doing the "right" thing trumps actual facts and common sense.

What is behind all this? The need to shift all the pheasants we over produce? There's an easier way of curing that. 20% of shoots currently produce 80% of the pheasants. Do they seriously think there's millions of potential customers out there being put off by lead shot? Seriously!

Is it environmentally driven? If so, why is it species specific? Is lead fired at a clay pigeon less poisonous?

Or is it just a case of being seen to be doing something. I see the rush that the younger shooting generation have to embrace anything considered woke, alternative or trendy regardless of the consequences. Merrily posting their environmental credentials on youtube via their chinese smart phones.

In 10-15 years time the same flawed studies will declare that wildlife is still being poisoned. Nasty shooters aren't complying. Shooting banned and we'll be blamed for it.

Well done BASC etc.

WR.

[udderlyoffroad]

1 hour ago, White Rabbit said:

Or is it just a case of being seen to be doing something. I see the rush that the younger shooting generation have to embrace anything considered woke, alternative or trendy regardless of the consequences. Merrily posting their environmental credentials on youtube via their chinese smart phones.

Wow, that is an epic rant, worthy of a PW rant of the week award, and it's only Monday.

Exactly which Youtuber promoting our pastime and/or conservation efforts have raised your ire by being too woke?

The days of being quiet and minding our own business, and hoping we'll be left alone are simply over.

We need proper promotion of our activities by articulate people. 

[Rewulf]

10 hours ago, Fellside said:

Thanks for your reply Conor. Unfortunately the Newth et al paper you posted was seriously flawed and biased. At best It lacked credibility. At worst it is propaganda cloaked as science. 

I often wonder if Conor believes some of the spiel he comes out with to justify BASCs 'position' ?
It certainly doesnt help with his condescending tone.

In a nut shell , they have taken your membership money, promising to promote shooting sports , and lobby for its continued freedoms.
Instead, they have promoted themselves, and suggested a phase out of lead, rather than trying to fight to retain it.

Can you imagine the NRA in the US doing anything remotely like that ?

[matone]

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I often wonder if Conor believes some of the spiel he comes out with to justify BASCs 'position' ?
It certainly doesnt help with his condescending tone.

In a nut shell , they have taken your membership money, promising to promote shooting sports , and lobby for its continued freedoms.
Instead, they have promoted themselves, and suggested a phase out of lead, rather than trying to fight to retain it.

Can you imagine the NRA in the US doing anything remotely like that ?

We`re being talked to like unruly schoolchildren and that doesn`t endear any intelligent person ! Anyone can see that we`ve been sold down the river on this issue  by the PC brigade without any real ,factual evidence.White Rabbit nails it ,I feel.

[Conor O'Gorman]

18 hours ago, Fellside said:

When an author ‘estimates’ such an imprecise range: 50,000 to 100,000 deaths. I think we can call this ‘estimate’ a guess at best.

The GWCT reference was to the following 2015 paper from the 2014 Oxford Lead Symposium:

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

For more information on the 2014 Oxford Lead Symposium and all the papers published see:

http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/

It is worth noting that the 50,000 - 100,000 figure and other estimates were quoted in a recent Defra press release about a two-year UK lead ammunition review:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-announced-to-phase-out-lead-ammunition-in-bid-to-protect-wildlife

The UK lead ammunition review will need to consider a complex mix of economics, technical factors and attitudes.  I think the review will provide opportunities for a rational assessment and positive solutions and after all, as conservationists, we are committed to further reducing the risks of lead ammunition to the environment, wildlife and human health.

That said, there is a key principle we must not lose sight of, that further restrictions on lead ammunition must not be imposed until effective and affordable types of sustainable ammunition are available in sufficient volumes to meet demand.

Ammunition manufacturers in the UK and abroad are developing new products but the amount of non-lead ammunition required for the UK and world-wide market with current production facilities is a significant challenge; especially with biodegradable wads in the mix.

[Westley]

To sum it all up, I am glad that I am at the end of my shooting career and not the beginning. I can reflect on some 65 years of game, wildfowl and pigeon shooting and the many, many happy hours and the great number of friends who's company I have enjoyed. Most of my game shooting having been done with a traditional English side by side 12 bore, which has been more than capable of killing a lot of game at some extreme, but sensible ranges. Like me, that gun is now feeling it's age too, although I am 25 years it's junior, I am reluctant to spend a lot of money to restore it and probably reproof it, but I shall have some of the choke removed from the left barrel just in case I have the misfortune to have to put steel through it. I shall spend my remaining shooting days, shooting at clay pigeons through my 'modern' steel proofed over and under and smiling at the blurb being pedalled about how 'superior' the new steel cartridges are,  compared to those horrible nasty lead things that 'they' were unfortunate enough, to have to use in the 'old days'  ! I can possibly enjoy the occasional pheasant that has been bought from my local Supermarket and no longer contains any shot that I shall die from eating (although I have managed to stay alive to almost 'four score', never mind three score and ten), washed down with a nice cuppa, safe in the knowledge that my drinking water is as pure as a mountain stream,  due to the fact that it flows through plastic piping. After all, the Utility Companies are adamant that ALL water pipes are now plastic (not).

I am sorry Connor, but I,  like a lot of other shooters, believe that our representing Association, sadly of which,  I just happen to be a Life Member, have rolled over and accepted the inevitable. Rather than making a stand and resisting any change, until we can see some tangible proof of the large scale devastation that lead shot is causing, BASC does seem rather too willing to 'sell us down the river' once more  ! 

[rbrowning2]

Conor, if at the end of the government review they conclude that the health and environmental issues far out weight the 

“key principle of, that further restrictions on lead ammunition must not be imposed until effective and affordable types of sustainable ammunition are available in sufficient volumes to meet demand.”  

argument,

Then clearly then the rug has been pulled out from under basc feet as you can only but agree with the such a conclusion and embrace a total ban on lead.
Then it will matter not that their is no effective and affordable sustainable ammunition in sufficient quantity. 

which realistically could take a lot longer than the four years now remaining to achieve, if ever for some types.

[400_racer]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The GWCT reference was to the following 2015 paper from the 2014 Oxford Lead Symposium:

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

For more information on the 2014 Oxford Lead Symposium and all the papers published see:

http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/

It is worth noting that the 50,000 - 100,000 figure and other estimates were quoted in a recent Defra press release about a two-year UK lead ammunition review:

<snip>

Hi Conor,

Just wondering why the change in view from BASC (and admittedly possibly the other orgs) over the evidence submitted by the Oxford Lead Symposium?  

The email communication i’ve just found below from BASC in 2015 seem to support other posters’ concerns.  

What has changed?

Regards

 

BASC STATEMENT ON  ATTACKS ON LEAD AMMUNITION

In response to reports on the alleged risks presented by the Oxford Lead Symposium and reported by the BBC this morning, BASC has issued the following statement, which has been sent to all national media.

The risks to wildlife and human health from lead ammunition alleged by speakers at the Oxford Lead Symposium, neither of whom have medical expertise, have been exaggerated and distorted by quoting selectively from research, according to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

Estimates from the Oxford Lead Symposium that between 50,000 and 100,000 waterfowl could be affected are so wide as to represent little more than guesswork and the report itself says that “more precise estimates cannot readily be made.”  They are based on extrapolation and are not supported by hard evidence. Despite the worst estimates of bird mortality, there is no evidence of an impact at a population scale.

The effects on human health are similarly distorted and the research appears to take no account of recent Swedish data that shows how properly processing game meat eliminates any contamination. The Food Standards Authority has already issued guidance on game meat consumption – similar to that for tuna and swordfish - to significantly reduce any risk.

BASC chairman Alan Jarrett said:

“The presence of a risk alone is no justification for a ban. Risks can be managed and reduced by taking the appropriate actions. BASC has seen nothing to justify extending existing regulations covering lead ammunition. Policymakers should be guided by reliable science, robust evidence and the principles of better regulation; none of these are present in the reports from the Oxford lead symposium. BASC will continue to work with its sister organisations on this important issue and will continue to insist on sound evidence and proper process. We will not let our guard drop.”

[Scully]

36 minutes ago, 400_racer said:

Hi Conor,

Just wondering why the change in view from BASC (and admittedly possibly the other orgs) over the evidence submitted by the Oxford Lead Symposium?  

The email communication i’ve just found below from BASC in 2015 seem to support other posters’ concerns.  

What has changed?

Regards

 

BASC STATEMENT ON  ATTACKS ON LEAD AMMUNITION

In response to reports on the alleged risks presented by the Oxford Lead Symposium and reported by the BBC this morning, BASC has issued the following statement, which has been sent to all national media.

The risks to wildlife and human health from lead ammunition alleged by speakers at the Oxford Lead Symposium, neither of whom have medical expertise, have been exaggerated and distorted by quoting selectively from research, according to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

Estimates from the Oxford Lead Symposium that between 50,000 and 100,000 waterfowl could be affected are so wide as to represent little more than guesswork and the report itself says that “more precise estimates cannot readily be made.”  They are based on extrapolation and are not supported by hard evidence. Despite the worst estimates of bird mortality, there is no evidence of an impact at a population scale.

The effects on human health are similarly distorted and the research appears to take no account of recent Swedish data that shows how properly processing game meat eliminates any contamination. The Food Standards Authority has already issued guidance on game meat consumption – similar to that for tuna and swordfish - to significantly reduce any risk.

BASC chairman Alan Jarrett said:

“The presence of a risk alone is no justification for a ban. Risks can be managed and reduced by taking the appropriate actions. BASC has seen nothing to justify extending existing regulations covering lead ammunition. Policymakers should be guided by reliable science, robust evidence and the principles of better regulation; none of these are present in the reports from the Oxford lead symposium. BASC will continue to work with its sister organisations on this important issue and will continue to insist on sound evidence and proper process. We will not let our guard drop.”

Oh dear! 😀

[Jim Neal]

I think the word we're looking for here folks is.....

BETRAYAL

[matone]

8 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

I think the word we're looking for here folks is.....

BETRAYAL

Yep......and there`s a history of that!

[8 shot]

Having spoken to a BASC rep this morning in a nutshell the transition from lead is solely about increasing the market of game in the UK and Europe. Is does seem to me Conor has gone a bit off script🤔

[Scully]

13 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

Having spoken to a BASC rep this morning in a nutshell the transition from lead is solely about increasing the market of game in the UK and Europe. Is does seem to me Conor has gone a bit off script🤔

Which is what I’ve been trying to tell everyone right from the start. 
When you look at it logically, it is claimed that oodles and oodles of waterfowl plus others are dying each year from ingesting lead shot. It’s a dangerous precedent ( from the point of shooting ) on which to base legislation, because if lead shot was banned for the former around 20 (?) year ago, and there’s no decrease in the numbers of ( especially fowl ) dead birds turning up, then it’s only logical to assume that in another 20 years, and after a compete lead shot ban for live quarry, those same numbers will still be dying. It either means that no one is complying or generations of spent lead shot are still claiming the lives of today’s birds and small mammals, and will continue to do so despite the change to NTS. 
It is a stick with which to beat us, and will remain so adinfinitum, aided and abetted by our shooting orgs.

Driven Shooting will return to be the preserve of the well heeled and connected, as only they will be able to afford to shoot the alternatives to lead. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

A fair summation.

And to think they (BASC) are meant to represent shooters!