Anyone?

[Scully]

A few comments in another thread by various people and one by @Old farrierstating which cartridges he used for high driven birds, primarily because I use the same cartridges, had me thinking. 
Part of my job on a big local commercial shoot is to collect empty cases from pegs after each drive. Last season I came across a few Eley non toxic loads and what was left of their eco wads, but the vast vast majority were lead shot loads, and this season I haven’t collected any non toxic cases at all. It’s worth mentioning that guns on this shoot travel from all over the country. 
In total I’m involved in around four local shoots either as a beater or a shooter, and I know countless shooters, none of whom are using non toxic shot.

I’m aware Warter Priory have apparently made the move to non toxic shot, and BASC have stated they have received commitments from various sections of the shooting community to make the transition, but am unaware if any have of those have actually done so. 
This seasons almost over and it won’t be long until the Wetlands Trust and other anti shooting organisations will be buying shot game to test for lead shot to bolster their agenda. They will undoubtedly find it as there is no reason why it shouldn’t be there. 
Do any live quarry shooters ( except wildfowlers ) and in particular driven game shooters on PW, know of anyone who has foregone lead shot for non toxic? 

My question to you @Conor O'Gormanis BASC ready to respond to antis when they attempt to make hay with the fact that the dead birds they have bought and tested, contain lead shot? If so what will that response consist of?

Given that manufacturers are still making and indeed continue to develop lead loads and some gun manufacturers are still designing guns to specifically handle those lead high bird loads, will BASC inform those people that there is absolutely no reason why those birds shouldn’t contain lead shot, given that it is perfectly legal to use lead shot? 
 

Edited January 21 by Scully
Grammar

[holloway]

Running tangent to Scullys  thread ,i have noticed that in the for sale section lead cartridges are nearly always snapped up very quickly as long as not offered at silly money whilst non toxic even at bargain prices nearly always remain unsold .

My own conclusion has been that non toxic is not being widely used.

Edited January 21 by holloway

[Old farrier]

Apart from wartor priory I’m not aware of any shoots that are non lead for game although all bar one asked for fibre wad I have asked all the shoots this year that I have attended 

none though it would make any difference to the amount of game sold 

one said they wouldn’t want steel used as they grew a lot of timber and were worried about the damage to the timber crop they have a lot of woodland drives 

please note I use steel bismuth and tss as and when required or requested to 

however I prefer lead as does the rest of the team and between us we shoot many cartridges at game and pick up the empty ones at the end of each drive 

perhaps if you could scully give us a indication of approximate number of empties you pick up as a part of your job on a shoot day 

many thanks 

of 

[Scully]

There are four drives twice weekly ( sometimes more days but never less than two ) and eight guns on each of those two days. 
The least I have ever picked up from one peg was 12 if I recall, but the norm is anywhere between one or two boxes on each peg, so between 25 and 50. It isn’t rare to collect many more from one peg dependant on which drive we’re doing, and on one drive last week I collected 85! Other beaters collected similar on the same drive. 
They are all dumped into feed bags at days end and I make a point of rummaging through just out of interest to see what folk are using…..came across some from Proper Cartridges last Friday called ‘Stone Dead’ ! Never seen those before! 
Anyhow, admittedly I don't beat every shoot day due to work constraints, but I do rummage through those bags from days I’m not there. These aren’t comprehensive searches but if they’re there then I’ve missed them. 
 

[Old farrier]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

There are four drives twice weekly ( sometimes more days but never less than two ) and eight guns on each of those two days. 
The least I have ever picked up from one peg was 12 if I recall, but the norm is anywhere between one or two boxes on each peg, so between 25 and 50. It isn’t rare to collect many more from one peg dependant on which drive we’re doing, and on one drive last week I collected 85! Other beaters collected similar on the same drive. 
They are all dumped into feed bags at days end and I make a point of rummaging through just out of interest to see what folk are using…..came across some from Proper Cartridges last Friday called ‘Stone Dead’ ! Never seen those before! 
Anyhow, admittedly I don't beat every shoot day due to work constraints, but I do rummage through those bags from days I’m not there. These aren’t comprehensive searches but if they’re there then I’ve missed them. 
 

So approx 800 to a 1000 shots each shoot day 👍

thank you 

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Old farrier said:

So approx 800 to a 1000 shots each shoot day 👍

thank you 

No problem. 👍

[oowee]

I don't know anywhere or anyone that has gone down this route. Most will opt for non plastic wads and that's about as far as it gets. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

A good question from Scully.

I know of nobody that has made the change yet.

Most use only fibre wads and I take some steel (soft iron) with me if we are to search for ducks.

Edited January 21 by TIGHTCHOKE
Spellage!

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

A good question from Scully.

I know of nobody that has made the change yet.

Most use only fibre wads and I take some steel (soft iron) with me if we are to search for ducks.

If you don’t mind me asking what particular brand /size load of steel( sort iron) are you using 

many thanks 

of 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I useddd

13 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

If you don’t mind me asking what particular brand /size load of steel( sort iron) are you using 

many thanks 

of 

Evening OF, they are Hull Steel Game 32 gramme FE4's,  so 3.25mm shot.

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

A few comments in another thread by various people and one by @Old farrierstating which cartridges he used for high driven birds, primarily because I use the same cartridges, had me thinking. 
Part of my job on a big local commercial shoot is to collect empty cases from pegs after each drive. Last season I came across a few Eley non toxic loads and what was left of their eco wads, but the vast vast majority were lead shot loads, and this season I haven’t collected any non toxic cases at all. It’s worth mentioning that guns on this shoot travel from all over the country. 
In total I’m involved in around four local shoots either as a beater or a shooter, and I know countless shooters, none of whom are using non toxic shot.

I’m aware Warter Priory have apparently made the move to non toxic shot, and BASC have stated they have received commitments from various sections of the shooting community to make the transition, but am unaware if any have of those have actually done so. 
This seasons almost over and it won’t be long until the Wetlands Trust and other anti shooting organisations will be buying shot game to test for lead shot to bolster their agenda. They will undoubtedly find it as there is no reason why it shouldn’t be there. 
Do any live quarry shooters ( except wildfowlers ) and in particular driven game shooters on PW, know of anyone who has foregone lead shot for non toxic? 

My question to you @Conor O'Gormanis BASC ready to respond to antis when they attempt to make hay with the fact that the dead birds they have bought and tested, contain lead shot? If so what will that response consist of?

Given that manufacturers are still making and indeed continue to develop lead loads and some gun manufacturers are still designing guns to specifically handle those lead high bird loads, will BASC inform those people that there is absolutely no reason why those birds shouldn’t contain lead shot, given that it is perfectly legal to use lead shot? 
 

Below is an article from outside our sector reacting to BASC's response last year to the annual review of lead in game meat research. 

https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2023/04/24/basc-slurs-expert-study-on-amount-of-toxic-lead-ammunition-in-pheasants-as-pseudoscience/

The annual review is called ShotSwitch and is here:

https://eri.ac.uk/research/major-projects/shot-switch/

Considering your question my thoughts are as follows.

There are those outside the shooting sector that want to see a total ban on lead ammunition - these are organisations and academics that do not care about the consequences for shooting - they think we can just flick a switch and get the job done if forced to do so legally. Their primary concern is to stop the poisoning of a wide range of bird species from our continued use of lead shot in the open countryside where its availability to bird to pick up cannot be controlled, and their concerns about evidence of widespread non-compliance by shoots with existing lead shot restrictions in place for 20 years. A total lead ban of course does not target the risk - which is the use lead shot for live quarry shooting - but from an enforcement point of view and a lobbying point of view - is a simple solution to a complex issue.

Then there are those within the sector that want to see the status quo continue forever. They argue against the evidence that has been reviewed and accepted by our own scientists at GWCT - and anyone with a different opinion is dismissed as an anti.

The middle ground is about finding a solution and that is where the shooting organisations come in.

The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting needs continued support if we are to avoid the cliff edge of legislation and that has been the core of communications on this issue for almost 4 years now and I would urge you @Scully and others with local connections to shoots up and down the country to encourage that change in practice rather than principle.

Those knocking BASC and other organisations for encouraging a voluntary transition do the future of shooting no favours, albeit resistance to change is understandable and indeed the pathway to change has been documented in detail for Denmark here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30506141/ 

Also there are moves worldwide with hunters supporting and advocating a change in approach and accepting the evidence justifying that change. 

[Old farrier]

3 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I useddd

Evening OF, they are Hull Steel Game 32 gramme FE4's,  so 3.25mm shot.

Thank you 😊

perhaps you and scully will run with my calculations on this I’m no mathematical genius 🤔

aprox1000 shots a day over 4 drives with the guns spread out approx 30..40 yards apart and probably pegged slightly different from the last day depending upon how the wind/ birds are behaving for the eight guns I would assume they would have some other drives to use so the shooting would not always be on the same drives

32 days shooting plus beaters and sundry days ? October to January 
equals 32000 shots 

 

a normal clay shoot 100 clays to each person 80 to 100 competitors once a fortnight equals 

250000 shots over 10 maybe 12 stands 

now can anyone else see where this is going 

[Gordon R]

Old farrier - yes.

I seem to recall, in the BASC video, that lead was being phased out not just for game shooting, but also target shooting. No-one seems to be dealing with that aspect.

[Old farrier]

2 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Old farrier - yes.

I seem to recall, in the BASC video, that lead was being phased out not just for game shooting, but also target shooting. No-one seems to be dealing with that aspect.

Well as I see it it’s either bad for the environment or not

or maybe it’s just bad for some environments 

appreciate try to sell the game but from the people that I have spoken to about it it’s a society change thing people aren’t hungry enough for food that requires a little bit of work 

[ShootingEgg]

Has anyone thought of the reaction steel has with stomach acid and what the potential health issues are to humans and wildlife?

I genuinely don't know if this has been researched, so if it has links would be appreciated 👍🏻

[Smudger687]

23 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

Has anyone thought of the reaction steel has with stomach acid and what the potential health issues are to humans and wildlife?

I genuinely don't know if this has been researched, so if it has links would be appreciated 👍🏻

Complete non-issue. Stomach acid isn't actually that concentrated, it's mostly there to make life difficult for pathogens and provide the correct pH for optimal protease activity. Iron powder (with a massively higher surface area) is added to some breakfast cereals as a form of iron supplementation. So swallowing an errant pellet isn't going to cause an issue (unless you're about to have an MRI scan). 

@Conor O'Gorman It may be worth having discussions with our price-gouging cartridge manufacturers, for if bio-steel cartridges were offered at competetive rates or cheaper than existing lead cartridges, takeup would be greater, but when you're paying more money for a product which:

1. Has inferior ballistic performance; 

2. Has a risk (perceived or real) of causing damage to your gun; and, 

3. Has an unknown shelf-life,

then it's not difficult to see why people just don't bother.

[Scully]

10 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Thank you 😊

perhaps you and scully will run with my calculations on this I’m no mathematical genius 🤔

aprox1000 shots a day over 4 drives with the guns spread out approx 30..40 yards apart and probably pegged slightly different from the last day depending upon how the wind/ birds are behaving for the eight guns I would assume they would have some other drives to use so the shooting would not always be on the same drives

32 days shooting plus beaters and sundry days ? October to January 
equals 32000 shots 

 

a normal clay shoot 100 clays to each person 80 to 100 competitors once a fortnight equals 

250000 shots over 10 maybe 12 stands 

now can anyone else see where this is going 

My maths is atrocious, but I can’t see anything wrong with your figures, and yes, I can certainly see what point you’re making. 

[Old farrier]

8 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Complete non-issue. Stomach acid isn't actually that concentrated, it's mostly there to make life difficult for pathogens and provide the correct pH for optimal protease activity. Iron powder (with a massively higher surface area) is added to some breakfast cereals as a form of iron supplementation. So swallowing an errant pellet isn't going to cause an issue (unless you're about to have an MRI scan). 

@Conor O'Gorman It may be worth having discussions with our price-gouging cartridge manufacturers, for if bio-steel cartridges were offered at competetive rates or cheaper than existing lead cartridges, takeup would be greater, but when you're paying more money for a product which:

1. Has inferior ballistic performance; 

2. Has a risk (perceived or real) of causing damage to your gun; and, 

3. Has an unknown shelf-life,

then it's not difficult to see why people just don't bother.

Three very good points 😊👍

 

[Scully]

12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Below is an article from outside our sector reacting to BASC's response last year to the annual review of lead in game meat research. 

https://raptorpersecutionuk.org/2023/04/24/basc-slurs-expert-study-on-amount-of-toxic-lead-ammunition-in-pheasants-as-pseudoscience/

The annual review is called ShotSwitch and is here:

https://eri.ac.uk/research/major-projects/shot-switch/

Considering your question my thoughts are as follows.

There are those outside the shooting sector that want to see a total ban on lead ammunition - these are organisations and academics that do not care about the consequences for shooting - they think we can just flick a switch and get the job done if forced to do so legally. Their primary concern is to stop the poisoning of a wide range of bird species from our continued use of lead shot in the open countryside where its availability to bird to pick up cannot be controlled, and their concerns about evidence of widespread non-compliance by shoots with existing lead shot restrictions in place for 20 years. A total lead ban of course does not target the risk - which is the use lead shot for live quarry shooting - but from an enforcement point of view and a lobbying point of view - is a simple solution to a complex issue.

Then there are those within the sector that want to see the status quo continue forever. They argue against the evidence that has been reviewed and accepted by our own scientists at GWCT - and anyone with a different opinion is dismissed as an anti.

The middle ground is about finding a solution and that is where the shooting organisations come in.

The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting needs continued support if we are to avoid the cliff edge of legislation and that has been the core of communications on this issue for almost 4 years now and I would urge you @Scully and others with local connections to shoots up and down the country to encourage that change in practice rather than principle.

Those knocking BASC and other organisations for encouraging a voluntary transition do the future of shooting no favours, albeit resistance to change is understandable and indeed the pathway to change has been documented in detail for Denmark here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30506141/ 

Also there are moves worldwide with hunters supporting and advocating a change in approach and accepting the evidence justifying that change. 

Thanks for that. 
So as far as I can tell, lead shot content found in those pheasant tested were: 

Season 20/21: 99.99% lead. 
Season 21/22: 99.99% lead. 
Season 22/23: 94.04% lead. 
So the voluntary transition from lead to non toxic not going too well then. 
So have our shooting organisations got a response ready to those against us if results are found to be similar following testing after this current season, and what will that response be  given that it is obvious the vast vast majority of shooters aren’t willing to forego lead given a choice? 

[islandgun]

I may well have missed it, but could it be that the real opposition to lead shot is to do with potential risk to BOP after ingesting lead by dining on game birds that have been lost

[Conor O'Gorman]

9 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Complete non-issue. Stomach acid isn't actually that concentrated, it's mostly there to make life difficult for pathogens and provide the correct pH for optimal protease activity. Iron powder (with a massively higher surface area) is added to some breakfast cereals as a form of iron supplementation. So swallowing an errant pellet isn't going to cause an issue (unless you're about to have an MRI scan). 

@Conor O'Gorman It may be worth having discussions with our price-gouging cartridge manufacturers, for if bio-steel cartridges were offered at competetive rates or cheaper than existing lead cartridges, takeup would be greater, but when you're paying more money for a product which:

1. Has inferior ballistic performance; 

2. Has a risk (perceived or real) of causing damage to your gun; and, 

3. Has an unknown shelf-life,

then it's not difficult to see why people just don't bother.

Thanks, I will pass your suggestion onto colleagues that work with the cartridge manufacturers.

[Konor]

Conor

1) Could you cite the specific evidence that addresses the scale of the problem of lead shot poisoning of birds outwith wetlands. 

2)Could you cite the specific evidence of lead shot poisoning of birds outwith wetlands that prompted BASC to call for a voluntary lead ban

3) Why does BASC not consider that that evidence is sufficient for them to support a legally enforced ban on the use of lead shot ammunition

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Thanks for that. 
So as far as I can tell, lead shot content found in those pheasant tested were: 

Season 20/21: 99.99% lead. 
Season 21/22: 99.99% lead. 
Season 22/23: 94.04% lead. 
So the voluntary transition from lead to non toxic not going too well then. 
So have our shooting organisations got a response ready to those against us if results are found to be similar following testing after this current season, and what will that response be  given that it is obvious the vast vast majority of shooters aren’t willing to forego lead given a choice? 

I think any response will depend on the methodology, results and recommendations they make - and several other factors. I am sure there will be lots of updates to come on lead and non-lead ammunition in the coming weeks and months given all that is going on.

[Poor Shot]

I started this season with the aim of making the switch to completely non-toxic for all of my game shooting this year. I already used HP steel for wildfowling so why not make the switch full time? 

A few observations I have made: (Warning, anecdotal evidence ahead) 

1. It's incredibly expensive, a slab of 32g Gamebore Dark Storm Steel running at £145 when purchased at the end of last season. I don't buy the 'You're spending £1000's on a days shooting so a few extra £'s for a box of cartridges isn't the end of the world' **** pushed on us. The most I've ever paid for a days shooting is £250. I do not and cannot frequent 400 bird days at £5k+ per peg. I'm shooting on a small syndicate shoot with the total cost for the entire season being less than £1000. The additional and upfront cost of really expensive cartridges does add on. Near enough an extra £6 per box compared to a 30g lead 6 cartridge which is more than adequate for our shooting. The 3" Dark Storm alternative are near £190 for 250 or £0.75 per shot. 

2. The 2 3/4" standard rated steel as mentioned above are nowhere near as effective as the lead alternative. I've had quite a few birds hit fairly hard (puff of feathers and all that on impact) with a steel cartridge only for it to continue to fly on and be a pain to retrieve as its still a fairly strong runner. I've opened up the birds after the pellets just don't seem to be very far into the bird. I've breasted a few Mallard out to find the steel pellets sat up against the breast bone just under the breast meat. Similarly with pheasants with very little penetration. Those ducks tend to come down onto a pond and require a team of dogs to retrieve it while it submarines about the place. A complete pain in the *** and not fair on the bird. Very little of what we shot is more than 40 yards away as the terrain on the ground doesn't produce 'high birds'. 

I know steel can be effective on wildfowl when in HP 3" or 3.5" format but the standard steel isn't cutting it. I used some 3" HP steel on the last syndicate day duck drive and spent half hour picking up the plastic wads when the drive was done. 

Until such a time that our proof specs are changed in line with the higher speed requirements for steel shot to be effective and the manufacturers and retailers start letting them out at a reasonable cost then I'll return to lead until such a time that it is no longer lawfully permitted. I'm not particularly happy with the current offerings and we need an alternate solution. Paying £1.50 - £2+ a shot for bismuth or ITX isn't a valid solution for the vast majority of users. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

19 minutes ago, Konor said:

Conor

1) Could you cite the specific evidence that addresses the scale of the problem of lead shot poisoning of birds outwith wetlands. 

2)Could you cite the specific evidence of lead shot poisoning of birds outwith wetlands that prompted BASC to call for a voluntary lead ban

3) Why does BASC not consider that that evidence is sufficient for them to support a legally enforced ban on the use of lead shot ammunition

1. Could you cite the specific evidence that addresses the scale of the problem of lead shot poisoning of birds outwith wetlands. 

The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust has reviewed the evidence and produced and overview with some of the key research cited here:

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

Research is ongoing worldwide and if you go onto Google scholar and search using key words such as "lead shot" "poisoning" "birds" you will get results covering hundreds of research papers - you can whittle that down by year of publication also.

2. Could you cite the specific evidence of lead shot poisoning of birds outwith wetlands that prompted BASC to call for a voluntary lead ban.

The announcement by 9 organisations about a voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was based on lots of factors including the evidence. A statement on this was published by the organisations in February 2020 here: https://www.gwct.org.uk/news/news/2020/february/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/ together with GWCT advice on the topic here: https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/lead-ammunition/

3. Why does BASC not consider that that evidence is sufficient for them to support a legally enforced ban on the use of lead shot ammunition

This is explained in detail in our consultation response to last year's HSE consultation - you can download the docs from the following webpage:

https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-hse-lead-ammunition-consultation/ 

BASC's position is outlined in that response as follows:

• BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK.
• Regulations are already in place to mitigate risks to wildfowl from the use of lead shot in wetlands.
• There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks.
• The shooting sector must be allowed time to develop non-lead shotgun ammunition due to a world shortage of components and the need for manufacturers and assemblers to source new machinery to produce lead shot alternatives and biodegradable wads for all shotgun calibers.
• Lead in game meat is potentially a risk to human health via secondary exposure and government guidance and market forces are managing risks via best practice.
• Lead exposure pathways are not conclusive for livestock, soil, soil organisms, plants, and surface waters; and current legal and regulatory frameworks are in place to manage risks.