BASC Lead Ammunition Update about DEFRA Consultation on Lead Ammunition.

[Fellside]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

While I never broadcast my shooting to the none shooting general public, if the topic ever comes up wherever I am, I never shy away from discussing it, and will and have discussed it with many people, from those who scoff at the term ‘sport’ ( not a term mentioned by me I hasten to add )  to those who have shouted various things at us on driven days. The latter is great fun. 🙂
There was a time I regularly had debates with LACS members and Avery, although the format of their podium makes it quite difficult. Strangely, amongst all the things I’ve discussed, not one has ever mentioned excess birds allegedly being dumped. Not even the antis!
The only people who have mentioned this to me have been on this forum, and equally strangely, never backed up by evidence. 
Anyhow, I have been stocking up on lead for quite some time now, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. I will be shooting lead throughout the season and the one after that, and so on, with perhaps the exception being beaters day on the BIG shoot, because no matter what anyone says, if game dealers won’t buy lead shot quarry, then we’ll be using NTS. This shoot is the only one  I’m involved with which sells its quarry to a dealer. No one has mentioned NTS yet and I haven’t asked. 
In my experience, no one wants birds in feather, not even for free ( except my local restaurant chef ) but most are willing to give it a go if they’re dressed, irrespective of what it’s been shot with, which so far has never been mentioned. 
I supplied lead shot rabbits for many years to people who paid me to supply them with fresh meat for their pets, and once while in Malta ( national dish is rabbit based ) it was amusing to find many British wolfing it down with relish, who would just smile sheepishly when I mentioned I couldn’t give them away back home. In this day and age no one wants to prep. 🙂

P.S The antis have been highly vocal re dumping - videos and photos etc. I was going to post some links here, but it makes for tedious reading. Just google the words pheasant dumping if you really must. They seemed to peak in about 2019. Hopefully it isn’t such an issue now. 

[Scully]

55 minutes ago, Fellside said:

If you don’t mention your shooting to non field sports contacts - you’re not likely to hear about their concerns. The dumping excess bags (mostly exaggerated) issue was hot a while ago, and a point raised to me by several people, but has since cooled somewhat. 
 

If you understand the shooting world….as I’m sure you do… you might not think it so strange that no one is prepared to demonstrate evidence re excess bags etc. on a public forum. As I emphasised in our last discussion, we all know it has occurred, if we’re prepared to be open and honest. Hopefully, due to the stink it caused (no pun intended) things are in better shape. 

What I said was I don’t advertise it. I have spoken to many none shooting people about shooting, including antis. 
 

[Scully]

47 minutes ago, Fellside said:

P.S The antis have been highly vocal re dumping - videos and photos etc. I was going to post some links here, but it makes for tedious reading. Just google the words pheasant dumping if you really must. They seemed to peak in about 2019. Hopefully it isn’t such an issue now. 

Post as many as you like. Like I’ve said to others, if you’ve witnessed it and did nothing, you're compliant and part of it. 
Many shooters dump the remains of processed birds, as like most other folk, they can’t be bothered to process even the brace or two they take home, so they breast them, as many do with pigeons; the remainder ( with pigeons ) is either dumped in a hedgerow, or if at home, put in the bin or wherever. 
As an aside, I didn’t bring up this topic on a thread about lead shot, but am duty bound to respond when someone did, so if you want to start another thread on the dumping of shot quarry, then fill your boots. 


 

[Fellside]

28 minutes ago, Scully said:

Post as many as you like. Like I’ve said to others, if you’ve witnessed it and did nothing, you're compliant and part of it. 
Many shooters dump the remains of processed birds, as like most other folk, they can’t be bothered to process even the brace or two they take home, so they breast them, as many do with pigeons; the remainder ( with pigeons ) is either dumped in a hedgerow, or if at home, put in the bin or wherever. 
As an aside, I didn’t bring up this topic on a thread about lead shot, but am duty bound to respond when someone did, so if you want to start another thread on the dumping of shot quarry, then fill your boots. 


 

I’ve covered the points you’ve mentioned - especially re witnessing etc. My conscience is clear. Short memory..?! 

[McSpredder]

9 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

I think its time we all just get with the programme. The transition is happening. It's not really a DEFRA thing anyway it's a societal shift that we just have to accept.

I agree there is likely to be ever-increasing pressure on shooting, but that doesn’t mean we must accept low standards from within the scientific community.   Poor quality work deserves to be exposed.

People campaigning vociferously against use of lead shot are in many cases the people who constantly attack every aspect of shooting.   It is within their rights to do so, but I would not expect any reputable scientist to ignore actual health records and cherry-pick data in order to “build a case”.

Bad science could quickly undermine this country’s reputation for excellence in scientific education and research .

If you wanted to take a degree in zoology, would you apply to a university department where professors seemed to think protein intake would be a measure of energy expenditure?

If you wanted information about the potential market for a new medicine, where would you award the research contract?   To someone who will find out how many people actually suffer from particular health problems, or to a university department that prefers ten-year mathematical modelling studies?

Do you believe that a 2.5 year old child eats 100g of meat in a single meal?   If so, you have probably decided that the modellers are right and the Great Ormond Street Hospital nutritionists don't know what they are talking about (they suggest 20-30g meat portions for a child of 2-3 years).

Have the modellers been striving to improve health and welfare of the people most likely to eat a lot of game meat (ie  the shooting community), or do they have different objectives?   Decide for yourselves.

Edited October 15, 2021 by McSpredder

[Robden]

14 hours ago, Old farrier said:

This is the problem not lead shot 

the general public haven’t got a clue about lead shot and it dosent concern them however what they see does and plastic is the number 1 concern at the moment 

it took me 10 minutes to collect the pile of wads and I only strayed a few yards away from the public footpath I could have looked all day and not found a piece of shot 

 

Don't fancy walking down that footpath with all those wads and no cases there. A lot of the lead would have had to cross the path.

[Old farrier]

2 hours ago, Robden said:

Don't fancy walking down that footpath with all those wads and no cases there. A lot of the lead would have had to cross the path.

Why not there’s plenty of people who shoot across paths and plenty of footpaths through shoots and shooting grounds 

 

[Scully]

14 hours ago, Fellside said:

I’ve covered the points you’ve mentioned - especially re witnessing etc. My conscience is clear. Short memory..?! 

No, memory is fine thanks, as clear as your conscience. 🙂

[Scully]

11 hours ago, McSpredder said:

I agree there is likely to be ever-increasing pressure on shooting, but that doesn’t mean we must accept low standards from within the scientific community.   Poor quality work deserves to be exposed.

People campaigning vociferously against use of lead shot are in many cases the people who constantly attack every aspect of shooting.   It is within their rights to do so, but I would not expect any reputable scientist to ignore actual health records and cherry-pick data in order to “build a case”.

Bad science could quickly undermine this country’s reputation for excellence in scientific education and research .

If you wanted to take a degree in zoology, would you apply to a university department where professors seemed to think protein intake would be a measure of energy expenditure?

If you wanted information about the potential market for a new medicine, where would you award the research contract?   To someone who will find out how many people actually suffer from particular health problems, or to a university department that prefers ten-year mathematical modelling studies?

Do you believe that a 2.5 year old child eats 100g of meat in a single meal?   If so, you have probably decided that the modellers are right and the Great Ormond Street Hospital nutritionists don't know what they are talking about (they suggest 20-30g meat portions for a child of 2-3 years).

Have the modellers been striving to improve health and welfare of the people most likely to eat a lot of game meat (ie  the shooting community), or do they have different objectives?   Decide for yourselves.

Cynic that I am, I am prone to believe that ‘the science’ often conveniently finds in favour of those funding it. 

[Newbie to this]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

Cynic that I am, I am prone to believe that ‘the science’ often conveniently finds in favour of those funding it. 

Doesn't sound cynical, sounds plausible.

Edited October 16, 2021 by Newbie to this

[Gas seal]

Twenty years ago lead was (banned) for shooting wildfowl. The commercial cartridges were not good but we loaded alternative cartridges that were better. None lead cartridges are killing wildfowl a lot bigger than pheasants or other game birds. Lead can be loaded with a (bio) type wad as non lead can. The lead (ban) is for the environment not for the sale of wildfowl. Spent lead shot will and is still killing wildfowl ,and birds of prey. The sale or disposal of shot game is governed by regulations and the market for it. The lead shot (ban) is for environmental reasons not commercial. I’ve been told many times over the years by bird watchers lead dead pigeons kill buzzards. 

[Fellside]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

No, memory is fine thanks, as clear as your conscience. 🙂

Good, glad you remember.

I know that this thread is about lead ammunition - which has been done to death - but it’s about much more than that too. What we all seem to agree on, is that shooting needs a good reputation re Jo public, who only ever gets fed the occasional sound bite. We have to ensure that the majority of those sound bites are positive. My main point is that the use of lead in shooting is to them an obscure and seldom mentioned aspect - i.e not on their radar. 

Other issues, much capitalised upon by the antis, such as those I’ve mentioned, form a more urgent priority. What we, the orgs and all, need to do is to become more proactive in generating positive PR stories, rather than being constantly caught in a defensive position. 

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Twenty years ago lead was (banned) for shooting wildfowl.

I believe it was banned over wetlands ? Not for shooting wildfowl ?

6 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

The lead (ban) is for the environment not for the sale of wildfowl. Spent lead shot will and is still killing wildfowl ,and birds of prey. There is little actual proof of this , Ivge seen videos of birds full of lead fishing weights , and the blame put squarely on shooters, despite the obvious size of the shot , not coming from any load Ive ever seen.

4 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

None lead cartridges are killing wildfowl a lot bigger than pheasants or other game birds.

Im not an expert on wildfowling, but dont you generally use much heavier loads anyway 40 g + ?
Which makes that argument a little... obtuse ?

9 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

The lead shot (ban) is for environmental reasons not commercial. I’ve been told many times over the years by bird watchers lead dead pigeons kill buzzards. 

Not the most unbiased source of information, but to be fair, how would they know ?
Do twitchers generally perform post mortems on dead birds, do they know the difference between shot and weights ?

I doubt it.

[Fellside]

5 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Twenty years ago lead was (banned) for shooting wildfowl. The commercial cartridges were not good but we loaded alternative cartridges that were better. None lead cartridges are killing wildfowl a lot bigger than pheasants or other game birds. Lead can be loaded with a (bio) type wad as non lead can. The lead (ban) is for the environment not for the sale of wildfowl. Spent lead shot will and is still killing wildfowl ,and birds of prey. The sale or disposal of shot game is governed by regulations and the market for it. The lead shot (ban) is for environmental reasons not commercial. I’ve been told many times over the years by bird watchers lead dead pigeons kill buzzards. 

You raise some interesting points Gas seal. I take some encouragement from your experience re steel doing the job. About buzzards - I’ve often pondered any effects re lead shot pigeons. I do a lot of pigeon shooting in my area and often when I finish the day, I have a walk beneath near by trees or woods. My dog loves to find the odd pricked bird which has dropped off its perch. Increasingly over the years there is only the headless body and the breast meat gone and feathers everywhere - i.e a buzzard has feasted on it. They are so numerous and bold now, they will even start ripping in to a pigeon as soon as it comes down in a neighbouring field. I have no empirical data of course, but anecdotally, I don’t observe any impact re their lead shot ingestion. Certainly it hasn’t negatively effected population growth as their numbers have increased massively. 

[Fellside]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I believe it was banned over wetlands ? Not for shooting wildfowl ?

Im not an expert on wildfowling, but dont you generally use much heavier loads anyway 40 g + ?
Which makes that argument a little... obtuse ?

Not the most unbiased source of information, but to be fair, how would they know ?
Do twitchers generally perform post mortems on dead birds, do they know the difference between shot and weights ?

I doubt it.

Hi Rewulf, 

It was banned for shooting wildfowl in England and Wales. Scotland banned it over Wetlands - a much more sensible approach really. The law is sometimes an **s as they say…..?!

[Rewulf]

6 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Hi Rewulf, 

It was banned for shooting wildfowl in England and Wales. Scotland banned it over Wetlands - a much more sensible approach really. The law is sometimes an **s as they say…..?!

Fair do's 

[Scully]

When I was a lad, Buzzards were seldom seen, now they appear to be everywhere. We regularly have at least three on our rough shoot.

Lead without doubt can kill a raptor, but the only dead Buzzards we find tend to be at the foot of those telegraph poles with transformers on them. That doesn’t necessarily rule out lead as the culprit of course.
There will be loads of species feeding on the results of a days  shooting. 
Many anti shooting organisations based their claims against lead shot on its alleged effect on wildlife, and specifically wildfowl, which as far as I’m aware, the extent of which remains highly debateable. Then it’s effect on human health, which is negligible, and now of course it’s effect on the environment. 
If lead shot were everything bad it is claimed to be, it would have been banned by now, and if as detrimental to the environment as claimed, clay pigeon shooting would be included also. 
Arguments for or against aren’t convincing if it is possible to cherry pick its effects. 

[Fellside]

14 minutes ago, Scully said:

When I was a lad, Buzzards were seldom seen, now they appear to be everywhere. We regularly have at least three on our rough shoot.

Lead without doubt can kill a raptor, but the only dead Buzzards we find tend to be at the foot of those telegraph poles with transformers on them. That doesn’t necessarily rule out lead as the culprit of course.
There will be loads of species feeding on the results of a days  shooting. 
Many anti shooting organisations based their claims against lead shot on its alleged effect on wildlife, and specifically wildfowl, which as far as I’m aware, the extent of which remains highly debateable. Then it’s effect on human health, which is negligible, and now of course it’s effect on the environment. 
If lead shot were everything bad it is claimed to be, it would have been banned by now, and if as detrimental to the environment as claimed, clay pigeon shooting would be included also. 
Arguments for or against aren’t convincing if it is possible to cherry pick its effects. 

It is unfortunately also possible for media outlets and key opinion leaders to cherry pick it’s effects. So now the issues (or non issues) are swirling around in the dark murky waters of politics……?!

[bigroomboy]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

 Many anti shooting organisations based their claims against lead shot on its alleged effect on wildlife, and specifically wildfowl, which as far as I’m aware, the extent of which remains highly debateable. Then it’s effect on human health, which is negligible, and now of course it’s effect on the environment. 
If lead shot were everything bad it is claimed to be, it would have been banned by now, and if as detrimental to the environment as claimed, clay pigeon shooting would be included also. 
Arguments for or against aren’t convincing if it is possible to cherry pick its effects. 

Mate... seriously.... its is being banned because of those things. I don't think you can use an example of how long you delay things as evidence it isn't true. Lead is a toxic heavy metal that has cumulative effect in humans and other animals. Interestingly even small amounts are thought to have neurological effects, especially in children. How much or how likely you are to ingest it from game meat is hard to say but I would say its not hard to eat the odd pellet here and there. Regarding the above mentioned research a 3 or 4 times safety margin doesn't seem unreasonable when looking for health effects.

[Rewulf]

32 minutes ago, bigroomboy said:

Mate... seriously.... its is being banned because of those things. I don't think you can use an example of how long you delay things as evidence it isn't true. Lead is a toxic heavy metal that has cumulative effect in humans and other animals. Interestingly even small amounts are thought to have neurological effects, especially in children. How much or how likely you are to ingest it from game meat is hard to say but I would say its not hard to eat the odd pellet here and there. Regarding the above mentioned research a 3 or 4 times safety margin doesn't seem unreasonable when looking for health effects.

For starters , it's not 'getting banned ' BASC , without any consultation have offered to phase it out, how this is any decision of their's is questionable ? Do BASC pass laws now ?

If lead is so toxic , we had best remove every lead water pipe out the ground also , an impossible task.

Again , where's the evidence of harm in humans ? It simply isn't there ?

There are so many toxins out there to do us harm , yet the one we've used for hundreds of years is suddenly the most important.

It's not about lead its about private gun ownership, end of.

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, bigroomboy said:

Lead is a toxic heavy metal that has cumulative effect in humans and other animals. 

with lead in use from day one if that’s correct wild fowl would be extinct and probably us! 

[bigroomboy]

17 minutes ago, clangerman said:

with lead in use from day one if that’s correct wild fowl would be extinct and probably us! 

You are free to do your own research but there are plenty of journal articles to back that up. Here is the top of the search list and quite a reasonable read.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961898/

I'm not sure quite why we are disputing well understood scientific understanding in this way. Is lead good for shot/ammunition - yes. Is it toxic - yes. Is society going to ask us to find an alternative - probably. Are there alternatives that work - yes some are better than lead and some are not quite as good... yet. You need to choose that alternative based on what you will be doing. Average syndicate pheasant 20 yards, steel is more than adequate. High pheasants, then tungsten or bismuth. The cost is insignificant compared to the cost of the day. The move by BASC is in the knowledge that this is likely to happen and therefore stimulate the industry to make better options before we are forced down that route. Just look how much more innovation there has been in biowads in the last year. Industry are lazy and will not do anything unless they are pushed. 

[clangerman]

who needs

3 minutes ago, bigroomboy said:

You are free to do your own research but there are plenty of journal articles to back that up. Here is the top of the search list and quite a reasonable read.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4961898/

I'm not sure quite why we are disputing well understood scientific understanding in this way. Is lead good for shot/ammunition - yes. Is it toxic - yes. Is society going to ask us to find an alternative - probably. Are there alternatives that work - yes some are better than lead and some are not quite as good... yet. You need to choose that alternative based on what you will be doing. Average syndicate pheasant 20 yards, steel is more than adequate. High pheasants, then tungsten or bismuth. The cost is insignificant compared to the cost of the day. The move by BASC is in the knowledge that this is likely to happen and therefore stimulate the industry to make better options before we are forced down that route. Just look how much more innovation there has been in biowads in the last year. Industry are lazy and will not do anything unless they are pushed. 

who needs research the wild fowl still being here speaks for itself come to that so are we and still drinking water from lead pipes lol

[McSpredder]

2 hours ago, bigroomboy said:

Mate... seriously.... its is being banned because of those things. I don't think you can use an example of how long you delay things as evidence it isn't true. Lead is a toxic heavy metal that has cumulative effect in humans and other animals. Interestingly even small amounts are thought to have neurological effects, especially in children.

Which would you say is a bigger risk to human health in UK – eating game meat or playing football?

Several million people in UK play soccer or rugby, tens of thousands every year need hospital treatment for fractures, many suffer severe concussion, some are disabled for life due to spinal injuries, others incur head injuries leading to serious loss of mental capacity in later life, and occasionally a player dies.   There are actual medical records for these cases, not just predictions from a mathematical model.

1 hour ago, bigroomboy said:

I'm not sure quite why we are disputing well understood scientific understanding in this way.

"well understood scientific understanding" is not always quite as reliable as people expect.   Money talks.   A wise person remarked that “Universities were once populated by people in search of the truth, and are now populated by people in search of funding.”  

Funding, promotion and salary for a scientist depend mainly on the numbers of publications, and the number of times those publications are quoted (“citation count”).  

A very effective way to increase your number of publications is to join the jet set and present the same information (with minor alterations) at meetings and conferences around the world.   Each set of conference proceedings will then contain a paper published under your name.   Just add a little bit more information and you'll be ready for the next round of conferences.

Citation count can be boosted by quoting your own previous publications (“self citation”).   Deborah Pain managed to cite no fewer than 14 of her own  publications in a single paper at the Oxford Lead Symposium.    Citation counts can grow quite quickly when a group of like-minded individuals start writing papers on the same subject and quoting each other.

I am sure the majority of scientists steer well clear of any dubious practices, but a combination of ambition and zealotry is apt to influence the way investigations are carried out and reported.

 

[Gas seal]

BASC can’t pass laws. Laws are passed on expert evidence. Up to date the evidence doesn’t look good for using lead pellets in shotguns. I grew up in a house with lead pipes, the water heated on a stove for the tin bath in front of the open coal fire. I had lead toys to play with, adults in the house smoked, every house I went into some one smoked. I’m still here, l have five great grandchildren, but I wouldn’t  smoke in front of them or give them lead toys to play with. Using lead cartridges or not is voluntary. Wildflowers use large type cartridges for geese, and also use light steel loads for duck, teal and wigeon. A lot of wildflowers have never used lead to kill wildfowl they only know none lead. When lead is eaten by birds it’s not a quick death, not like when they are shot with it. Thousands of wildfowl have died, and are still dying from eating lead shot fired over twenty years ago. We have plenty of buzzards , it’s a sign of a good wildlife area. Lead effects the hatching of eggs and if the birds are affected with lead how long will it be before they die or stop breading. The USA have been testing non lead cartridges since nineteen  seventy , and study’s on lead shot and wildfowl. We are playing catch up , we should look at what they have done and are still doing. They look to the future, we look to the past. It’s easy to see who’s making the most progress.