Lead ammunition review extended by 6 months after 'overwhelming response'

[PeterHenry]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Sure. Let's start with grey partridge.

A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time.

Potts, G.R. (2005). Incidence of ingested lead gunshot in wild grey partridges (Perdix perdix) from the UK. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 51:31–34.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-004-0071-y

Hi Conor - is there a place where links to all the research are collated? 

I've read the abstract linked above and can say - on the face of it - it does not make particularly joyful reading.

Edited February 20, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Gas seal]

Hi that’s a good response for using lead shot for trap shooting. If I was a member of a clay shooting club l would be looking into grants available to sporting clubs. Council’s have departments for sports grants, and are asking people to apply.

hi I know other products contain lead but the HSE are involved with lead ammunition. Any enquiries concerning lead in other products should be discussed with the HSE . I doubt they will allow or disallow lead ammunition just because it’s on a roof or anywhere else. 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Gas seal said:

Hi I was watching an international top class shooting competition on tv . I noticed fine nets in the background it was to collect spent shot. Lead shot was banned from the site, I think it was Birmingham were the competition was. I’ve also seen nets in the USA shooting competitions. I’m sure the clay shooters will know about it. Its not the first time, or the last time this will happen. No doubt the HSE will point this out to target shooters. 
hi Conor I doubt anyone has raised the issue of moderators with the HSE I don’t think anyone has noticed it on the general license. It’s  also applicable to.22 rime fire. I have tested and used non lead pellets in.177 for the range of my air rifle they will work. I’ve not seen or used any non lead.22 rime fire rounds. Rime fire.22 that are used for pest control most will have a moderator fitted. I doubt if any lead would remain in the animal or birds shot , unless from segmented rounds. The spent round would be to large to be picked up by birds for grit .if birds ingest lead pellets it won’t kill them outright, it’s a poison like it or not. The long term problem could be addled eggs or chicks not surviving. We have a license for pest control, moderated firearms are part of the license. The way I see it is moderated fire arms should be exempted from any legation regarding lead. I think that’s a good response for some of the shooting I do. 

 

 

If there are any exemptions that would mean any commercial loads ( would those loads even be commercially viable given that they would be in a minority? ) would be available also to those with unmoderated shotguns. 
There can be no exemptions; lead shot is either toxic to flora and fauna or it’s not. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, Scully said:

lead shot is either toxic to flora and fauna or it’s not. 🤷‍♂️

Only when it comes out those nasty boomsticks 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

Hi Conor - is there a place where links to all the research are collated? 

I've read the abstract linked above and can say - on the face of it - it does not make particularly joyful reading.

A starting point is the following GWCT advice which includes a list of 54 papers

https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/lead-ammunition/effects-of-lead-on-wildlife-and-wildfowl/

The Lead Ammunition Group website includes a list of several hundred papers

https://leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/resources/

Google scholar is useful also to generate lists tailored to the key words in your search. For example choose research only since 2022 for "lead ammunition bird poisoning" brings up over 1000 studies and whilst not all might be relevant many are.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2022&q=lead+ammunition+bird+poisoning+&btnG=

[PeterHenry]

6 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

A starting point is the following GWCT advice which includes a list of 54 papers

https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/lead-ammunition/effects-of-lead-on-wildlife-and-wildfowl/

The Lead Ammunition Group website includes a list of several hundred papers

https://leadammunitiongroup.org.uk/resources/

Google scholar is useful also to generate lists tailored to the key words in your search. For example choose research only since 2022 for "lead ammunition bird poisoning" brings up over 1000 studies and whilst not all might be relevant many are.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2022&q=lead+ammunition+bird+poisoning+&btnG=

Thanks - appreciated 👍

[rbrowning2]

3 hours ago, Gas seal said:

Hi that’s a good response for using lead shot for trap shooting. If I was a member of a clay shooting club l would be looking into grants available to sporting clubs. Council’s have departments for sports grants, and are asking people to apply.

hi I know other products contain lead but the HSE are involved with lead ammunition. Any enquiries concerning lead in other products should be discussed with the HSE . I doubt they will allow or disallow lead ammunition just because it’s on a roof or anywhere else. 

Problem with council grants is they do not cover all of the cost and have a maximum amount so the grant could be significantly under the amount need to install such netting, requiring the Club to fund the shortfall, which may not be possible.
During Covid no financial support was available to not for profit clubs or indeed not even the CPSA as they are a not for profit entity.

With increasing cartridge prices happing now and clay prices likely also the sport is already experiencing a challenging time any addition operating cost or participation costs has got to see less people shooting, which can only then yet further increase the cost to all. 
 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by rbrowning2

[243deer]

7 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Sure. Let's start with grey partridge.

A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time.

Potts, G.R. (2005). Incidence of ingested lead gunshot in wild grey partridges (Perdix perdix) from the UK. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 51:31–34.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-004-0071-y

All these studies have proved is that they have lead shot in their gizzards or have ingested it, not that they have died of lead poisoning.

 

 

[PeterHenry]

37 minutes ago, 243deer said:

All these studies have proved is that they have lead shot in their gizzards or have ingested it, not that they have died of lead poisoning.

 

 

From what I can understand, no one is claiming that they are dying outright (apart from when subjected to extremely high doses) - but that lead poisoning is instead causing birds to be more susceptible to other means of fatality.

I don't know if you have ever cut open a gizzard - I have a few times when a recipe calls for them - and I have no doubt that it would make short work of lead shot, from which point, it would seem a sensible belief that it would enter the birds digestive tract in a far more soluble (?) form than a complete peice of shot enters ours.

[243deer]

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

it would seem a sensible belief

The thing is that the so called representative bodies of shooting who will have considerable weight in the consultation process continue to make unqualified generalised statements that will have the effect by their repetitive nature of being accepted as true when there is no unequivocal scientific  evidence to support the claims.

If English courts ran on the basis of as you say 'it would seem a sensible belief' there would be far more convictions, especially for rape, but they run on evidence.

The 'evidence' being quoted by Conor is decades old so if a serious danger from lead shot was known to BASC and the other organisations why were they not calling for a phasing out of lead shot all those years ago on conservation grounds? Could we still have a decent population of grey partridge if our shooting organisations had been genuinely conservation minded? Now they trot out this 'evidence' when it is convenient for their current narrative. 

It does not make sense to me, too much inconsistency.

 

[PeterHenry]

44 minutes ago, 243deer said:

The thing is that the so called representative bodies of shooting who will have considerable weight in the consultation process continue to make unqualified generalised statements that will have the effect by their repetitive nature of being accepted as true when there is no unequivocal scientific  evidence to support the claims.

If English courts ran on the basis of as you say 'it would seem a sensible belief' there would be far more convictions, especially for rape, but they run on evidence.

The 'evidence' being quoted by Conor is decades old so if a serious danger from lead shot was known to BASC and the other organisations why were they not calling for a phasing out of lead shot all those years ago on conservation grounds? Could we still have a decent population of grey partridge if our shooting organisations had been genuinely conservation minded? Now they trot out this 'evidence' when it is convenient for their current narrative. 

It does not make sense to me, too much inconsistency.

 

I'm not a scientist, but in my very limited experience of these things, I think I'm right in saying there is rarely unequivocal proof?

Half of the English courts (the Civil courts) do run on something very close to 'a sensible belief' - known more accurately as the balance of probabilities. Criminal cases, by virtue of the seriousness of the matter, have a far greater evidential burden - that being 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. The thinking behind this is that its better five guilty men are free, than one innocent man imprisoned (not an exact quote, but you get the gist)

Re your third point - you can't have it both ways and argue againt a lead shot ban and then criticise the organisations for not acting on evidence you disagree with sooner? Can you?

Edited February 20, 2023 by PeterHenry

[8 shot]

Bag records show that the largest numbers were shot between 1870 and 1930, during which period around two million grey partridges were killed annually.

The same bag records indicate that, after the Second World War, the numbers of grey partridges dropped by 80% in 40 years. Our research has established three main causes for the decline:

1. Chick survival rates fell from an average of 45% to under 30% between 1952 and 1962. In the first weeks of life, grey partridge chicks feed almost exclusively on insects to obtain the proteins needed for rapid  growth. The introduction of herbicides in the early 1950s eliminated many crop weeds that were insect food  plants and, by the 1980s, the number of chick food insects in cereals had fallen by at least 75%. Although the drop in chick survival rates was partially compensated by lower over-winter losses, it reduced autumn stocks sufficiently to upset the economics of game management
2. Many gamekeepers either lost their jobs or turned towards pheasant rearing, resulting in less predator control and an increase in predation during the nesting season, leading to more hen and nest losses.
3. In some areas the situation was exacerbated by the removal of grassy nesting cover as fields were enlarged  by removing hedgerows and field boundaries.

These findings have been confirmed by separate experiments showing that where predators are controlled, chick food insects restored and nesting cover replanted, grey partridge density increases.

From GWCT own Webpage.

I presume all shot with lead shot and presume mostly all wild stock. So presumably Lead poisoning is a new modern phenomenon, over 100 years on and we're still trying to reinvent the wheel. 

[PeterHenry]

32 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

Bag records show that the largest numbers were shot between 1870 and 1930, during which period around two million grey partridges were killed annually.

The same bag records indicate that, after the Second World War, the numbers of grey partridges dropped by 80% in 40 years. Our research has established three main causes for the decline:

1. Chick survival rates fell from an average of 45% to under 30% between 1952 and 1962. In the first weeks of life, grey partridge chicks feed almost exclusively on insects to obtain the proteins needed for rapid  growth. The introduction of herbicides in the early 1950s eliminated many crop weeds that were insect food  plants and, by the 1980s, the number of chick food insects in cereals had fallen by at least 75%. Although the drop in chick survival rates was partially compensated by lower over-winter losses, it reduced autumn stocks sufficiently to upset the economics of game management
2. Many gamekeepers either lost their jobs or turned towards pheasant rearing, resulting in less predator control and an increase in predation during the nesting season, leading to more hen and nest losses.
3. In some areas the situation was exacerbated by the removal of grassy nesting cover as fields were enlarged  by removing hedgerows and field boundaries.

These findings have been confirmed by separate experiments showing that where predators are controlled, chick food insects restored and nesting cover replanted, grey partridge density increases.

From GWCT own Webpage.

I presume all shot with lead shot and presume mostly all wild stock. So presumably Lead poisoning is a new modern phenomenon, over 100 years on and we're still trying to reinvent the wheel. 

Playing devils advocate - I don't see anything in the above that suggests lead shot wasn't a problem - only that later on there were a number of other problems. A bit like an otherwise healthy person who smokes is still considered fit and well. However, the smoking has never actually been good for them regardless of whether they develop further ailments.

[Rewulf]

Here's another example of lead pollution, from light aircraft, yet despite alternatives being available, no moves by the HSE to ban it. 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/puh2.27#:~:text=Despite this widespread recognition and,during operation to prevent fouling.

We all need to understand, its not about lead in gizzards, or the environment, its about the unpopular notion of private individuals owning and shouting guns. That's why there are no moves to ban lead projectiles for military or police use. 

[PeterHenry]

8 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Here's another example of lead pollution, from light aircraft, yet despite alternatives being available, no moves by the HSE to ban it. 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/puh2.27#:~:text=Despite this widespread recognition and,during operation to prevent fouling.

We all need to understand, its not about lead in gizzards, or the environment, its about the unpopular notion of private individuals owning and shouting guns. That's why there are no moves to ban lead projectiles for military or police use. 

I suppose there must have been similar concerns about pepole owning panoramic cameras 17 years ago - https://www.ephotozine.com/article/new-ec-law-forces-hasselblad-to-discontinue-xpan-camera-2935

I'm perfectly willing to go along with you that there are people out there who don't believe others should own guns - but just because because thats the case, it does not preclude the possibility that lead is actually harmful to wildlife.

Some of them may hypothericaly sit in both camps and hold ernest beliefs that gun ownership AND lead shot are bad.

As mentioned previously on this forum, I have always looked at the move towards banning lead ammunition through the lenses of human health and damage to guns - but I also believe that we are in the middle of a political / environmental sea change. There is talk of banning log burners, and the government aims to phase out petrol / diesel vehicles. I have freinds who now practice no till drilling on their farms. 

It's not only us who are at the pointy end of the stick on certain environmental grounds. Viewed in the round, I think holding to this position of 'there must be no change, ever, to my sport / hobby / lifestyle, while the entire world is changing around me' (regardless or not of how justified or unjustified that change may be) is the most likely thing that will seriously damage shooting - in other words, an absolute refusal to engage with whats going on around us.

If there's a genuine environmental reason - which I rarther naively had not actually considered as a possibility - then that's all the more reason to engage.

Edited February 21, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

If there's a genuine environmental reason - which I rarther naively had not actually considered as a possibility - then that's all the more reason to engage

If there's a genuine environmental reason, or a genuine human health reason, then of course we should do our bit. 

The problem is, the evidence as such is hardly compelling, if it were, then the proposed ban would indeed, extend to military and police use, the leaded petrol in small aircraft would be under a bigger spotlight, and there would be a concerted effort on the matter of lead water piping, amongst many other lead source issues that potentially have far greater impact on human and environmental health. 

Unfortunately, we live in times where the most quiet voices are the first victims of cancel culture, against a tide of media driven rhetoric, much of which is not data driven, or by impartiality. 

BASC  either by miscalculation, or knowingly, have fallen into the trap of giving some ground, and now face catastrophe, with firearms owners facing the cost, yet they still refuse to face up to, or recognise the threat. 

I see the threat as being vastly reduced numbers of licenced firearms owners, as a direct result of lead bans, more legislation, and the Doctors note debacle. 

Less licence holders means, an even quieter voice, making us ripe for further restrictions in the future, and BASC cannot help but see this, but seem rather non plussed about it, again, it suits their agenda to put shooting into categories that suit their agenda. 

[PeterHenry]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

If there's a genuine environmental reason, or a genuine human health reason, then of course we should do our bit. 

The problem is, the evidence as such is hardly compelling, if it were, then the proposed ban would indeed, extend to military and police use, the leaded petrol in small aircraft would be under a bigger spotlight, and there would be a concerted effort on the matter of lead water piping, amongst many other lead source issues that potentially have far greater impact on human and environmental health. 

Unfortunately, we live in times where the most quiet voices are the first victims of cancel culture, against a tide of media driven rhetoric, much of which is not data driven, or by impartiality. 

BASC  either by miscalculation, or knowingly, have fallen into the trap of giving some ground, and now face catastrophe, with firearms owners facing the cost, yet they still refuse to face up to, or recognise the threat. 

I see the threat as being vastly reduced numbers of licenced firearms owners, as a direct result of lead bans, more legislation, and the Doctors note debacle. 

Less licence holders means, an even quieter voice, making us ripe for further restrictions in the future, and BASC cannot help but see this, but seem rather non plussed about it, again, it suits their agenda to put shooting into categories that suit their agenda. 

Out of interest, what level of proof would you need to be convinced of an environmental reason to ban lead shot?

Edited February 21, 2023 by PeterHenry

[Gas seal]

Hi I’ve been banned from using lead for over twenty years like a lot of other people. It’s against the law, a lot of wildflowers have only known non lead cartridges for wildfowl. I’ve gave a couple of reasons for using lead shot . If another lead ban becomes law l would say that the.22 rimfire has more chance exemption for using in the field. The evidence that lead shot is toxic to me is falconers won’t feed lead shot birds to there bird’s.I have sold and given a lot of steel shot pigeons for animal food it takes a lot of trust for that. Not one of them has asked or would take anything shot with lead. As for the numbers of grey partridge in the 1800s maybe the photo will explain why. Shooting is under attack, is it five gamekeepers prosecuted for killing birds of prey and it will be business as usual on these estates. Shooting will always be under attack. 

[neutron619]

There are so many problems with the arguments on both sides of this debate that I both despair and hardly know where to begin.

On the one hand, the paper referenced above saying that the incidence of lead shot ingestion in dead birds had increased doesn't actually state that lead killed them - just that they found it inside the birds they tested. It doesn't mean the birds suffered from or died of lead poisoning. It's no more conclusive than noting that a good proportion of elderly people die with but not from various kinds of relatively benign cancers (i.e. prostate cancer). If such cancers were caused by household cleaning products, would we be looking to ban bleach, even though no real harm occurs? This conflation of "birds contain lead" with "birds are suffering from lead poisoning and dying because of it" is neither scientific, nor helpful, but BASC seem to be fully on board with it all the same.

But that's just one of the huge number of problems with the idea that banning lead will solve anything. Not the least of which is that we've been blasting lead pellets all over the place for coming up to 500 years - the damage is done. Even a total ban right now is not going to halt whatever effects lead has on birdlife, because it's there already. As an ex-chemist, it frustrates me enormously that we seem to get worked up about (generally inert) lead metal and treat it the same as (genuinely dangerous) salts of lead (e.g. lead oxide, lead chloride) which are actually responsible for most of the lead poisoning cases that occur. Metallic lead in the form of shot doesn't react with stuff - so the body can't pick it up. The salts do, hence the body absorbing them and the damage occurring. Does anyone in BASC or the GWCT understand this point? Perhaps the acidic conditions of birds' gizzards create the salts - but I'd be surprised if it was significant. And so on...

On the other hand, as someone who's made the effort to move over to shooting steel and bought / disposed of guns to do so, I am putting my money where my mouth is - we are not going to win this argument. The reason is simple: whatever the real consequences of lead going into the environment might be (and I'm sure that no-one actually knows), we are suffering like many marginalized groups - smokers, drinkers, the obese, people who want to mind their own business, and so on - from the institutional adoption of the precautionary principle.

I've been thinking about this this week, mostly in relation to the ULEZ being introduced in London, but it applies here too. Please bear with me whilst I lay it out in simple terms.

The mayor's argument is that, because of the precautionary principle, a risk of harm - i.e. lung disease resulting from vehicle emissions in the capital - should be eliminated because there is a mechanism by which it can be. Of course, this relies on scientific evidence or modelling, but note the important point - it's a moral argument masquerading as expert opinon. I'll come back to that, but first let me illustrate the point another way.

Suppose one was a member of a group which wanted to raise (drivers association) or lower (car accident victims charity) the speed limit. If you were advocating for a higher speed limit, you might make a technical argument. You could say that cars have got lighter since the limit was introduced; more safety features are now standard in vehicles; brakes are better and so on. It might even be possible to argue that in terms of miles travelled per accident, people are better drivers than they were. There are many technical reasons to support that change. You could also, of course, argue for shorter journey times and greater convenience.

Likewise, you could advocate for a lower speed limit. You could argue that because there are more journeys, the overall number of accidents is higher and more people are getting hurt, so one must compensate by making vehicles move more slowly. In extremis you could argue for a 3mph limit, or a total ban on automobiles - no-one will die in car crashes if no-one drives cars. You could say that cars aren't getting lighter, due to batteries being significantly heavy and are therefore are harder to stop in an emergency. There is a good argument for the avoidance of lithium (i.e. battery) fires which are hard to extinguish. In short, there are many technical reasons to support that view.

However, the real reason that the speed limit is 70mph on the motorway is because that is broadly where society's opinion on the balance between the convenience of reaching one's destination in a timely fashion and the avoidance of road deaths and injuries lies. It is not something that you can support or refute with technical arguments - it's just a collective feeling that we're prepared to accept this number of dead and maimed users of cars each year in exchange for the convenience of not having to walk, ride a horse or rely on some other form of transport.

If that's the reason, then only argument one can make to achieve real change is a moral one. One has to persuade society at large that it's worth accepting either a higher number of casualties for the convenience of getting to where we're going faster (e.g. some European countries and US states) or conversely that the number of casualties is too high and that increased inconvenience and longer journey times are a price worth paying to save lives (e.g. New Zealand).

Returning to the ULEZ and to lead shot:

The reason that those protesting about the introduction of the ULEZ have a chance of getting it overturned is that societal opinion currently doesn't value the supposed health benefits as much as they value the freedom to drive and the avoidance of significant extra inconvenience and taxation. The technical argument about saving 4000 lives may be true, but let's be honest - most of us don't give a **** about that if we're one of the 10 million people that are going to have to pay to visit the city. They have a moral argument that the mayor's position is totally unrepresentative of the position society currently takes on the balance between convenience of travel and the cost of emissions. They might win on that basis.

Unfortunately, however, we will lose, for the same reason. "Society" does not care about the ballistic superiority of lead, or technical arguments to do with the shotguns or rifles shooting it. But it does care about food safety and "environmental" (I use the word with some caution) issues, and although the evidence remains thin, its current position is that "lead is bad" and that "birds are cute". We (the shooting community) are outliers in this respect, because our moral position (that the risk of birds dying from lead poisoning is sufficiently low that we can tolerate it for the improved likelihood of clean kills in the field) is far removed from the majority.

Since we have no persuasive moral argument to oppose the eventual restrictions and since we spend our time arguing (evidently) the technical points, rather than opposing the precautionary principle upon which the restrictions proposed are based, we will lose.

The only way to change that is to identify (in every area of public policy) and oppose the principle itself: to say that we do not accept the premise that risks must always be reduced or eliminated; to remember that risk is often what makes life fulfilling and worthwhile.

Unfortunately for lead shot, it's too late. BASC are only being pragmatic when they recognize that fact.

Edited February 21, 2023 by neutron619
Missing word, tenth paragraph, first sentence.

[PeterHenry]

14 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

There are so many problems with the arguments on both sides of this debate that I both despair and hardly know where to begin.

On the one hand, the paper referenced above saying that the incidence of lead shot ingestion in dead birds had increased doesn't actually state that lead killed them - just that they found it inside the birds they tested. It doesn't mean the birds suffered from or died of lead poisoning. It's no more conclusive than noting that a good proportion of elderly people die with but not from various kinds of relatively benign cancers (i.e. prostate cancer). If such cancers were caused by household cleaning products, would we be looking to ban bleach, even though no real harm occurs? This conflation of "birds contain lead" with "birds are suffering from lead poisoning and dying because of it" is neither scientific, nor helpful, but BASC seem to be fully on board with it all the same.

But that's just one of the huge number of problems with the idea that banning lead will solve anything. Not the least of which is that we've been blasting lead pellets all over the place for coming up to 500 years - the damage is done. Even a total ban right now is not going to halt whatever effects lead has on birdlife, because it's there already. As an ex-chemist, it frustrates me enormously that we seem to get worked up about (generally inert) lead metal and treat it the same as (genuinely dangerous) salts of lead (e.g. lead oxide, lead chloride) which are actually responsible for most of the lead poisoning cases that occur. Metallic lead in the form of shot doesn't react with stuff - so the body can't pick it up. The salts do, hence the body absorbing them and the damage occurring. Does anyone in BASC or the GWCT understand this point? Perhaps the acidic conditions of birds' gizzards create the salts - but I'd be surprised if it was significant. And so on...

On the other hand, as someone who's made the effort to move over to shooting steel and bought / disposed of guns to do so, I am putting my money where my mouth is - we are not going to win this argument. The reason is simple: whatever the real consequences of lead going into the environment might be (and I'm sure that no-one actually knows), we are suffering like many marginalized groups - smokers, drinkers, the obese, people who want to mind their own business, and so on - from the institutional adoption of the precautionary principle.

I've been thinking about this this week, mostly in relation to the ULEZ being introduced in London, but it applies here too. Please bear with me whilst I lay it out in simple terms.

The mayor's argument is that, because of the precautionary principle, a risk of harm - i.e. lung disease resulting from vehicle emissions in the capital - should be eliminated because there is a mechanism by which it can be. Of course, this relies on scientific evidence or modelling, but note the important point - it's a moral argument masquerading as expert opinon. I'll come back to that, but first let me illustrate the point another way.

Suppose one was a member of a group which wanted to raise (drivers association) or lower (car accident victims charity) the speed limit. If you were advocating for a higher speed limit, you might make a technical argument. You could say that cars have got lighter since the limit was introduced; more safety features are now standard in vehicles; brakes are better and so on. It might even be possible to argue that in terms of miles travelled per accident, people are better drivers than they were. There are many technical reasons to support that change. You could also, of course, argue for shorter journey times and greater convenience.

Likewise, you could advocate for a lower speed limit. You could argue that because there are more journeys, the overall number of accidents is higher and more people are getting hurt, so one must compensate by making vehicles move more slowly. In extremis you could argue for a 3mph limit, or a total ban on automobiles - no-one will die in car crashes if no-one drives cars. You could say that cars aren't getting lighter, due to batteries being significantly heavy and are therefore are harder to stop in an emergency. There is a good argument for the avoidance of lithium (i.e. battery) fires which are hard to extinguish. In short, there are many technical reasons to support that view.

However, the real reason that the speed limit is 70mph on the motorway is because that is broadly where society's opinion on the balance between the convenience of reaching one's destination in a timely fashion and the avoidance of road deaths and injuries lies. It is not something that you can support or refute with technical arguments - it's just a collective feeling that we're prepared to accept this number of dead and maimed users of cars each year in exchange for the convenience of not having to walk, ride a horse or rely on some other form of transport.

If that's the reason, then only argument one can make to achieve real is a moral one. One has to persuade society at large that it's worth accepting either a higher number of casualties for the convenience of getting to where we're going faster (e.g. some European countries and US states) or conversely that the number of casualties is too high and that increased inconvenience and longer journey times are a price worth paying to save lives (e.g. New Zealand).

Returning to the ULEZ and to lead shot:

The reason that those protesting about the introduction of the ULEZ have a chance of getting it overturned is that societal opinion currently doesn't value the supposed health benefits as much as they value the freedom to drive and the avoidance of significant extra inconvenience and taxation. The technical argument about saving 4000 lives may be true, but let's be honest - most of us don't give a **** about that if we're one of the 10 million people that are going to have to pay to visit the city. They have a moral argument that the mayor's position is totally unrepresentative of the position society currently takes on the balance between convenience of travel and the cost of emissions. They might win on that basis.

Unfortunately, however, we will lose, for the same reason. "Society" does not care about the ballistic superiority of lead, or technical arguments to do with the shotguns or rifles shooting it. But it does care about food safety and "environmental" (I use the word with some caution) issues, and although the evidence remains thin, its current position is that "lead is bad" and that "birds are cute". We (the shooting community) are outliers in this respect, because our moral position (that the risk of birds dying from lead poisoning is sufficiently low that we can tolerate it for the improved likelihood of clean kills in the field) is far removed from the majority.

Since we have no moral argument to oppose the eventual restrictions and since we spend our time arguing (evidently) the technical points, rather than opposing the precautionary principle upon which the restrictions proposed are based, we will lose.

The only way to change that is to identify (in every area of public policy) and oppose the principle itself: to say that we do not accept the premise that risks must always be reduced or eliminated; to remember that risk is often what makes life fulfilling and worthwhile.

Unfortunately for lead shot, it's too late. BASC are only being pragmatic when they recognize that fact.

👍

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

Out of interest, what level of proof would you need to be convinced of an environmental reason to ban lead shot?

Neutrons excellent post has sort of answered your question, but Ill add this.

There is little to no evidence of detrimental effects in humans, where lead shot birds have gone into the food chain.
Indeed , ANY lead poisoning at all in humans, the stats are miniscule.

Lead shot found in gizzards of a very small percentage of birds, with no way of knowing if that had any detrimental effect of their life, or indeed caused their death.
If we assume some birds die of lead poisoning, due to ingestion, what numbers are we looking at, because Im pretty sure no one has carried out mass testing, and getting the RSPB to provide figures wouldnt be the greatest idea.

Like I say , if lead is considered so dangerous, why isnt it banned in all aspects ?
Why start at shooting , when human health issues have not been demonstrated in this case.
And lets be honest about the birds, if 1 % get lead in their gizzards , how does that compare to the millions shot, or eaten by cats, badgers and foxes ?

[PeterHenry]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Neutrons excellent post has sort of answered your question, but Ill add this.

There is little to no evidence of detrimental effects in humans, where lead shot birds have gone into the food chain.
Indeed , ANY lead poisoning at all in humans, the stats are miniscule.

Lead shot found in gizzards of a very small percentage of birds, with no way of knowing if that had any detrimental effect of their life, or indeed caused their death.
If we assume some birds die of lead poisoning, due to ingestion, what numbers are we looking at, because Im pretty sure no one has carried out mass testing, and getting the RSPB to provide figures wouldnt be the greatest idea.

Like I say , if lead is considered so dangerous, why isnt it banned in all aspects ?
Why start at shooting , when human health issues have not been demonstrated in this case.
And lets be honest about the birds, if 1 % get lead in their gizzards , how does that compare to the millions shot, or eaten by cats, badgers and foxes ?

Sure - but keep in mind that it has largely answered yours as well, insofar as the main threat comes from society / governments tendency towards being risk averse, as opposed to somone actively being out to get us - or as I suggested when I wrote, we are witnessing a sea change.

I also wont disagree with the opinions of somone who is more qualified than I am insofar as lead and its effects are concerned - it would be a pointless and fruitless exercise. In that respect I am happy to defer, and leave it to others with more in depth knowledge to disagree should they wish to.

That said, the fact that we can both agree that Neutrons post is an excellent one, suggests we do share common ground and it may be better if we looked towards that, rather than at what we disagree on. We all joined this forum for largely the same reasons after all.

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

That said, the fact that we can both agree that Neutrons post is an excellent one, suggests we do share common ground and it may be better if we looked towards that, rather than at what we disagree on. We all joined this forum for largely the same reasons after all.

Agreed 👍

[PeterHenry]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Agreed 👍

👍

[Conor O'Gorman]

The grey partridge study published in 2005 almost 20 years ago showed that grey partridge ingest lead shot in their gizzard and I think was one of the first studies to consider the impacts of lead shot in terrestrial situations - much of the research having focused on uptake of lead shot by wildfowl in wetlands.

Since then studies across Europe have found bird species mistaking various sizes of lead shot as grit in terrestrial situations.

Whether in wetland or on dry land when birds ingest lead shot it grinds in their acidic gizzards and toxic lead salts are absorbed into the blood stream and find their way into the tissues of vital organs and bone causing sub-lethal or lethal effects depending on the species and how much lead shot that species of bird eats. 

A study of red grouse in Scottish and Yorkshire moors published in 2009 almost 15 years ago found that when high levels of lead were found in the bones of grouse the source was lead shot using lead isotope analysis, with the authors recommending mitigation measures including the use of non-lead shot on grouse moors to reduce exposure risks. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19264349/