Conor O'Gorman Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 BASC has challenged the findings of a study on the prevalence of lead shot in oven-ready pheasants that was part-funded by the RSPB and Wild Justice. https://basc.org.uk/poor-methodology-undermines-validity-of-game-meat-research/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 22 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: BASC has challenged the findings of a study on the prevalence of lead shot in oven-ready pheasants that was part-funded by the RSPB and Wild Justice. https://basc.org.uk/poor-methodology-undermines-validity-of-game-meat-research/ Interesting. Do you know how did they determine if it was lead (can't access the paper). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HantsRob Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 1 hour ago, Docleo said: Interesting. Do you know how did they determine if it was lead (can't access the paper). Try this link instead: Microsoft Word - Green_et_al_CEJ_20_1_7.docx (conservationevidencejournal.com) I'll let you read through it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave at kelton Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 3 hours ago, Docleo said: Interesting. Do you know how did they determine if it was lead (can't access the paper). By scientific testing and analysis of each pellet removed from a carcass determine composition as I read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Docleo Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harkom Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 Any "serious" science based paper requires the authors (in this instance the term is more appropriate than researchers) to add a statement which would identify sponsors of their research paper - the aim of this process being to annul any potential compromise of the content. Read up Rhys Green and co-authors..... RSPB, WWT, et al are main sponsors of this shower of activists. This is a glaring example of exactly why any organisation which purports itself as the main defender of field sports should be scrutinising the members on any Defra/uk.gov review panel appointed to advise on amendment and formulation of new regulations. It is an exercise in futility to be wise after the event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 25, 2023 Report Share Posted April 25, 2023 1 hour ago, harkom said: This is a glaring example of exactly why any organisation which purports itself as the main defender of field sports should be scrutinising the members on any Defra/uk.gov review panel appointed to advise on amendment and formulation of new regulations. It is an exercise in futility to be wise after the event. Probably why it's posted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.