National Game Dealers Association statement on lead free ammunition

[matone]

Now,now Harkom ,don`t ask difficult questions like that ! (a very good question tho`!)

[harkom]

2 minutes ago, matone said:

Now,now Harkom ,don`t ask difficult questions like that ! (a very good question tho`!)

So , please answer me - anybody -as to why bsac are still following the policy of the late, departed and non-lamented swift ?

[clangerman]

truth of the matter is as always when the money rolls in orgs work it so members have as little control or say as possible which then allows them to ignore both opinions or the RIGHT path members have so little control over basc it’s embarrassing 

[Gas seal]

Hi Harkom when the law changed some twenty years and wildflowers had to find an alternative to lead l would say we all understood spent lead pellets killed wildfowl. Wildflowers don’t sell what they shoot so this change in policy won’t affect them. Wildflowers are mainly solitary shooters, but we sat down and found alternative shot to lead. When you have 40 wildflowers in a pub , who would normally argue about what to argue about, we did a good job of it. Again with bio wads wildflowers are using them. Non lead pellets kill wildfowl. If you look to Tom Roster in USA he has lethality charts on shotgun cartridges. I’m surprised this lead shot debate has lasted this long. If anyone sells game they need different ammunition we found it because we wanted to keep shooting. 

[8 shot]

When the lead ban was introduced for wilfowling you could pretty much say that the enviroment in which they where shooting was pretty much the same across the country. The Game Shooting topography is completely different, some arable, some pasture and grazing and some woodland areas, and some open to public access. Obviously wildfowlers sleep easy knowing they've left thousands of plastic wads floating about on the foreshore and waterways out of sight of the public for the next hundred or so years, but can you imagine the negative press shooting would get if the general public found all this plastic just left there,and as said in the Podcast these Biowads just aren't going to happen anytime soon.

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Gas seal

I read your comments from a wildfowlers' perspective with interest and I will PM you as regards your game dealers query.

When I started working for BASC 18 years ago on wildfowling leases and consents I recall many wildfowlers who refuted the evidence supporting a lead shot ban in wetlands that came into effect in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and some accused BASC and others of capitulation and selling shooting down the river etc. Some resigned and much time and resource was wasted on infighting.

Move forward almost a generation (!) and the very same evidence that justified a lead shot ban in wetlands all those years ago now seems widely accepted by wildfowlers and those from other shooting disciplines.

And the evidence continues to grow.

The presence of lead shot continues to have a negative impact in wetlands. Acceptance of the evidence in the shooting community has changed. Whether many actually took the time to read the evidence on the negative impact of lead shot in wetlands then and now is a moot point.

Perhaps those commenting in this and other threads on the wider phase out of lead ammunition and the evidence underlining that phase out might have a view in the context of the above information?

We are not unique in the UK as a shooting community dealing with change. This is outlined well in "Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark":

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30506141/

[Jim Neal]

Since the ban on lead for wildfowling has there been any trustworthy, meaningful data gathered on the number of wildfowl dying from ingesting lead?

in other words, how can any proof be put forward that banning lead had any effect?

it’s hard enough finding a dead pheasant in a release pen even though you can smell it a mile off.... so how on earth does anyone accurately count  the number of expired ducks and geese in the wild?

And still the double-decker sized elephant in the room refuses to budge... at the moment, non-toxic means PLASTIC WADS and I’m sick of hearing about these bio wads, they are a terrible idea. 

[8 shot]

12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The presence of lead shot continues to have a negative impact in wetlands.

Can't be ! There shouldn't be any there by now, surely it's silted over by now 

[clangerman]

12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Gas seal

I read your comments from a wildfowlers' perspective with interest and I will PM you as regards your game dealers query.

When I started working for BASC 18 years ago on wildfowling leases and consents I recall many wildfowlers who refuted the evidence supporting a lead shot ban in wetlands that came into effect in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and some accused BASC and others of capitulation and selling shooting down the river etc. Some resigned and much time and resource was wasted on infighting.

Move forward almost a generation (!) and the very same evidence that justified a lead shot ban in wetlands all those years ago now seems widely accepted by wildfowlers and those from other shooting disciplines.

And the evidence continues to grow.

The presence of lead shot continues to have a negative impact in wetlands. Acceptance of the evidence in the shooting community has changed. Whether many actually took the time to read the evidence on the negative impact of lead shot in wetlands then and now is a moot point.

Perhaps those commenting in this and other threads on the wider phase out of lead ammunition and the evidence underlining that phase out might have a view in the context of the above information?

We are not unique in the UK as a shooting community dealing with change. This is outlined well in "Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark":

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30506141/

so far you have produced everything BUT the one thing we are all STILL waiting to see where are the BODIES we had enough talk time to see the walk stump up the corpses just to show how fair i am if your stuck for a skip to move them it’s on me lol

Edited April 11, 2021 by clangerman
mispell

[Conor O'Gorman]

10 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Since the ban on lead for wildfowling has there been any trustworthy, meaningful data gathered on the number of wildfowl dying from ingesting lead?

in other words, how can any proof be put forward that banning lead had any effect?

it’s hard enough finding a dead pheasant in a release pen even though you can smell it a mile off.... so how on earth does anyone accurately count  the number of expired ducks and geese in the wild?

And still the double-decker sized elephant in the room refuses to budge... at the moment, non-toxic means PLASTIC WADS and I’m sick of hearing about these bio wads, they are a terrible idea. 

The most relevant UK data is here which was based on several thousand recovered waterbirds over different time periods:

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

Elevated levels of lead (i.e. >20.0 μg/dL) were found in the blood of 34 % (n = 285) of waterbirds tested at four sites in Britain during the 2010/2011 winter and accounted for the deaths of at least 10.6 % (n = 2,365) of waterbirds recovered across Britain between 1971 and 2010 and 8.1 % (n = 1,051) between 2000 and 2010, with lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning.

[Jim Neal]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The most relevant UK data is here which was based on several thousand recovered waterbirds over different time periods:

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

Elevated levels of lead (i.e. >20.0 μg/dL) were found in the blood of 34 % (n = 285) of waterbirds tested at four sites in Britain during the 2010/2011 winter and accounted for the deaths of at least 10.6 % (n = 2,365) of waterbirds recovered across Britain between 1971 and 2010 and 8.1 % (n = 1,051) between 2000 and 2010, with lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning.

Thanks for your response.  Just to clarify - is the paper you linked to the "star witness" that BASC is using to support their push towards forcing lead-free ammunition upon the UK's shooters?  I hope not, because there is a rather obvious problem with the findings of the study.  In the abstract, it states:

Our results indicate that lead poisoning has continued to affect a wide range of British waterbirds long after legal restrictions were introduced....................The proportion of birds dying from lead poisoning in England did not vary significantly after the introduction of legislation.

Let's just say that again: Banning lead shot over wetlands and for waterfowl shooting has had no significant effect whatsoever.

It's obvious that there is no way of ascertaining the exact level of compliance with the lead shot ban, but surely it is reasonable to assume that the majority of wildfowlers made the transition in a timely manner and continue to adhere to the law.  I wouldn't doubt that there exists a small minority who continue to use lead.

So, why do BASC think it will make any difference from a toxicity to wildlife aspect if the ban is widened to all live quarry shooting?  That question is bearing in mind that the spent shot from shooting over land is a completely different issue from spent shot falling into water where aquatic birds feed.

I don't give a monkey's about Jemima Poshfrock who may or may not be concerned about lead shot in her diced pheasant breast bought at Waitrose.  That's a different subject, and Jemima probably wouldn't have worried about it until she was told to be worried about it by the left-wing propagandists.  But one thing's for sure, she'll be worried when she crunches down on a steel no.3

I find one sentence in the abstract you quoted deeply disturbing, because science is a discipline that deals in unquestionable facts proven by sound methodology and without bias; it isn't a gossip column.  A "scientific" study should NOT contain sentences such as the following:

lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning

Most likely?  Best guess?  Probably?  Shoulder-shrugging stab in the dark?  I read those words with utter disbelief.  They discredit the whole paper.  In science, if you can't prove it you don't say it.  That's a golden rule.

Do you have access to the full report?  I don't really feel like spending £30 on a piece of toilet paper.  I'd be interested to know exactly what the methodology was in "recovering" dead birds and examining them.  Were the researchers able to distinguish between a bird that has died from ingesting spent lead shot through feeding from one which had been pricked and later died, or one that was shot and not retrieved?  I'm pretty sure if you scoured the woods on the day after a game shoot you'd find a few cases of "lead poisoning" that weren't retrieved the day before.

What sort of locations were the dead birds recovered from?  Foreshore?  Estuaries?  Inland lakes?  Major rivers?  Little babbling brooks?  Farm ponds?  Were they wildfowling club waters or just random sites?

Finally, the following sentence steps way outside the remit of a "scientific study"

Existing legislation needs review and extension to ensure [..] a broad-scale transition to the use of non-toxic shot [..] in all environments.

Wow.  These guys feel they've got the power to insist in a change of the law because they made a big fat guess at something?

Do we really think the people who wrote this paper are unbiased scientists?

Has BASC been unwittingly infiltrated by the anti-shooting lobby?

What an an utter disgrace.

When all's said and done, the metal that our shot is made from is irrelevant.  The affront on lead ammunition is a back-door ploy by the anti-shooting lobby to shut our sport down and BASC have fallen for it hook, line and (non-toxic) sinker.

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Jim, the only point you missed was adding the word AGAIN to the sentence "Has BASC been unwittingly infiltrated by the anti-shooting lobby?"

[Fellside]

33 minutes ago, Jim Neal said:

Thanks for your response.  Just to clarify - is the paper you linked to the "star witness" that BASC is using to support their push towards forcing lead-free ammunition upon the UK's shooters?  I hope not, because there is a rather obvious problem with the findings of the study.  In the abstract, it states:

Our results indicate that lead poisoning has continued to affect a wide range of British waterbirds long after legal restrictions were introduced....................The proportion of birds dying from lead poisoning in England did not vary significantly after the introduction of legislation.

Let's just say that again: Banning lead shot over wetlands and for waterfowl shooting has had no significant effect whatsoever.

It's obvious that there is no way of ascertaining the exact level of compliance with the lead shot ban, but surely it is reasonable to assume that the majority of wildfowlers made the transition in a timely manner and continue to adhere to the law.  I wouldn't doubt that there exists a small minority who continue to use lead.

So, why do BASC think it will make any difference from a toxicity to wildlife aspect if the ban is widened to all live quarry shooting?  That question is bearing in mind that the spent shot from shooting over land is a completely different issue from spent shot falling into water where aquatic birds feed.

I don't give a monkey's about Jemima Poshfrock who may or may not be concerned about lead shot in her diced pheasant breast bought at Waitrose.  That's a different subject, and Jemima probably wouldn't have worried about it until she was told to be worried about it by the left-wing propagandists.  But one thing's for sure, she'll be worried when she crunches down on a steel no.3

I find one sentence in the abstract you quoted deeply disturbing, because science is a discipline that deals in unquestionable facts proven by sound methodology and without bias; it isn't a gossip column.  A "scientific" study should NOT contain sentences such as the following:

lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning

Most likely?  Best guess?  Probably?  Shoulder-shrugging stab in the dark?  I read those words with utter disbelief.  They discredit the whole paper.  In science, if you can't prove it you don't say it.  That's a golden rule.

Do you have access to the full report?  I don't really feel like spending £30 on a piece of toilet paper.  I'd be interested to know exactly what the methodology was in "recovering" dead birds and examining them.  Were the researchers able to distinguish between a bird that has died from ingesting spent lead shot through feeding from one which had been pricked and later died, or one that was shot and not retrieved?  I'm pretty sure if you scoured the woods on the day after a game shoot you'd find a few cases of "lead poisoning" that weren't retrieved the day before.

What sort of locations were the dead birds recovered from?  Foreshore?  Estuaries?  Inland lakes?  Major rivers?  Little babbling brooks?  Farm ponds?  Were they wildfowling club waters or just random sites?

Finally, the following sentence steps way outside the remit of a "scientific study"

Existing legislation needs review and extension to ensure [..] a broad-scale transition to the use of non-toxic shot [..] in all environments.

Wow.  These guys feel they've got the power to insist in a change of the law because they made a big fat guess at something?

Do we really think the people who wrote this paper are unbiased scientists?

Has BASC been unwittingly infiltrated by the anti-shooting lobby?

What an an utter disgrace.

When all's said and done, the metal that our shot is made from is irrelevant.  The affront on lead ammunition is a back-door ploy by the anti-shooting lobby to shut our sport down and BASC have fallen for it hook, line and (non-toxic) sinker.

 

Jim Neale, I think your assessment of the paper is entirely accurate. It is flawed and biased from beginning to end. You may be interested to know that the lead author was non other than Julia Newth of WWT!! 

[Jim Neal]

Just now, Fellside said:

Jim Neale, I think your assessment of the paper is entirely accurate. It is flawed and biased from beginning to end. You may be interested to know that the lead author was non other than Julia Newth of WWT!! 

Thanks, yes after further scrutiny I have started to see it in a clearer light... and we are currently commenting on each others' post on two different threads on the same subject but I believe we're on the same wavelength here.

You really couldn't make this **** up.

24 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Jim, the only point you missed was adding the word AGAIN to the sentence "Has BASC been unwittingly infiltrated by the anti-shooting lobby?"

Yes I should have been sharper.  Had a bottle of wine tonight

[TIGHTCHOKE]

A whole bottle?

[Jim Neal]

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

A whole bottle?

To be fair I opened it at around 5pm 😇

[Old farrier]

7 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Thanks, yes after further scrutiny I have started to see it in a clearer light... and we are currently commenting on each others' post on two different threads on the same subject but I believe we're on the same wavelength here.

You really couldn't make this **** up.

Yes I should have been sharper.  Had a bottle of wine tonight

Better get tested then as there was probably a pest control operative using lead shot protecting the grapes 🤔

proberably contaminated the whole crop for centuries 🥴

do you know which vineyard?🤭

[udderlyoffroad]

8 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

I don't give a monkey's about Jemima Poshfrock who may or may not be concerned about lead shot in her diced pheasant breast bought at Waitrose.  That's a different subject, and Jemima probably wouldn't have worried about it until she was told to be worried about it by the left-wing propagandists.  But one thing's for sure, she'll be worried when she crunches down on a steel no.3

Well you bloody well should be.  Jemima Poshfrock (aka. the chattering classes) have a far bigger influence on policy than other sections of society, rightly or wrongly.

And it's not a different subject: This thread (originally) was about the NGDA's decision to move away from lead.

And, once again, it's extremely unlikely she'll crunch down on no. 3.  Part of the point of the NGDA's decision, is it's easier for even the smallest dealer to run a metal wand over all his product to ensure no steel shot leaves his premises.  Try doing that with lead.

I get that for most PW members, myself included, the NGDA's decision is an irrelevance, as any surplus game is distributed amongst friends/family/ferrets.

8 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Do you have access to the full report?  I don't really feel like spending £30 on a piece of toilet paper. 

Can I respectfully request you keep your 'peer reviews' to the other thread?

Rubbishing a paper based on only reading the abstract is poor form.

You may well be right, that it's a toilet-meta-review written by someone starting from an entrenched position*.  But until you actually read it...

Perhaps BASC could have a word and arrange for the PDF to be made available to members?

*Insert cheap jibe about most academic papers being same here.

 

[Jim Neal]

The purpose of an abstract is to summarise the paper. Therefore is it not reasonable to comment on the paper based upon what is written in the abstract?

Making a speculation is the antithesis of scientific research. 

[udderlyoffroad]

1 minute ago, Jim Neal said:

Therefore is it not reasonable to comment on the paper based upon what is written in the abstract?

You can do, but I don't listen to film critics who haven't watched the movie in full, either.

Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if the paper doesn't pass the sniff test, but I sure as hell won't comment on a public forum till I've read the damn thing.

[clangerman]

24 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You can do, but I don't listen to film critics who haven't watched the movie in full, either.

Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if the paper doesn't pass the sniff test, but I sure as hell won't comment on a public forum till I've read the damn thing.

if it’s good enough for those to post birds are dying it’s good enough to call them out to produce the corpses they couldn’t do so when wild fowling had this rubbish they can’t produce them now and never will because it’s a scam 

[Old farrier]

11 minutes ago, clangerman said:

if it’s good enough for those to post birds are dying it’s good enough to call them out to produce the corpses they couldn’t do so when wild fowling had this rubbish they can’t produce them now and never will because it’s a scam 

With the supposed thousands dying of ingested lead shot they should be able to production thousands of autopsy reports with a count of the number of shots in each gizzard 

sadly there’s virtually nothing credible in the reports 

[Conor O'Gorman]

9 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Perhaps BASC could have a word and arrange for the PDF to be made available to members?

Access to the full paper has to be paid for - but possibly free for students in universities to access -  or I guess one could request a copy from one of the authors. I am fairly sure it would be a breach of copyright law to publish the paper in full online. However, the full paper and many more has been reviewed by scientists at the GWCT and they have published a lead shot Q&A here:

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

There are also many full access papers on the topic available from the 2014 Oxford Lead Symposium here:

http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/

[Jim Neal]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

There are also many full access papers on the topic available from the 2014 Oxford Lead Symposium here:

http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/

Check out the form book of the people involved in that project:

http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/speakers/

Basically, it's the guest list for an afternoon tea party round at Packham's house.  Their CVs contain pretty much a full house of all the anti-shooting organisations you could think of.

This is deeply disturbing.

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, Jim Neal said:

Their CVs contain pretty much a full house of all the anti-shooting organisations you could think of.

Not quite, The BASC played no part