8 shot Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 6 hours ago, holloway said: I have always wondered just what percentage of commercial shot game is fit for sale ,what with the average consumer looking for packaged perfection in their purchases. I have in the past been lucky enough to shoot at an estate in Wales renowned for Pheasants on the higher side, and there birds all go through there own shop, the guns are allowed one brace. But they do use the bigger breeds of pheasant and the longer ranges they shoot at mean very very little is wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, London Best said: I thought you were against the larger bag shoots? My main issue is that I believe the perceived problem of lead shot deposition is caused mainly by large commercial shoots operating throughout the week where the ammunition count is very high. Bags on the shoot I referred to are around 100 to 150 to the end of the season and occur once fortnightly. All local syndicate members, it is keepered and pickers up look after retrieval of the birds. I was invited to join on a couple of occasions but declined. I was invited a few times each season pre covid and the company is great but I prefer the 30 bag shoot I attend so stick to that. If commercial shoots were to all opt to go non toxic and as a result the pressure for a complete lead ban ended leaving vintage guns free to be used on smaller shoot days I would be happy. If shooting voluntarily moved away from pegged shooting where the enjoyment is predominantly gained from downing ever more birds I would be even happier. Edited April 18 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigteddy1954 Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 Hi I'm with you there konor a good realistic post 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 12 minutes ago, Bigteddy1954 said: Hi I'm with you there konor a good realistic post 👍 Thank you 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellside Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 4 hours ago, Konor said: If shooting voluntarily moved away from pegged shooting where the enjoyment is predominantly gained from downing ever more birds I would be even happier. I would hate to see the end of driven shooting completely (which I think is what you’re suggesting). This would be a great shame for those who enjoy the exhilaration of connecting with a high and fast pheasant rocketing over them. I think all things in moderation - we just don’t need to shoot 500 in a day. About a tenth of that figure is enough to ensure all the guns have had some shooting and the birds are taken away by those involved. For me it’s all about achieving a healthy balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Fellside said: I would hate to see the end of driven shooting completely (which I think is what you’re suggesting). This would be a great shame for those who enjoy the exhilaration of connecting with a high and fast pheasant rocketing over them. I think all things in moderation - we just don’t need to shoot 500 in a day. About a tenth of that figure is enough to ensure all the guns have had some shooting and the birds are taken away by those involved. For me it’s all about achieving a healthy balance. Sorry if you have got the impression from what I have written that I am calling for the end of driven shooting , I thought I was being careful in what I wrote to avoid that conclusion being drawn. In the quote from your last post you can see I stated “voluntarily”and “downing ever more birds “which I intended to suggest that moderation in the numbers of birds shot (so that lead deposition was minimised) was the main goal and voluntarily to indicate that the people involved in excessive bags would hopefully ponder on whether the focus of their day in the field being the dropping of ever larger numbers of pheasants is appropriate when there is such a furore about the dangers of lead shot poisoning and that they could enjoy their sport just as much if not more if they decided to be a bit more imaginative. Also if you look back a bit you will see when I was asked by PeterHenry if I would enforce my ideal if I had the influence to ban driven shooting I stated ” I would not be minded to enforce any restrictions on game shooting and would rather the environment existed where people would choose to cut back on excess voluntarily” ” 1 hour ago, Fellside said: For me it’s all about achieving a healthy balance. And me too Edited April 18 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellside Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 Thanks for explaining Konor. Perhaps I should have read your previous post for context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 14 hours ago, 8 shot said: I have in the past been lucky enough to shoot at an estate in Wales renowned for Pheasants on the higher side, and there birds all go through there own shop, the guns are allowed one brace. But they do use the bigger breeds of pheasant and the longer ranges they shoot at mean very very little is wasted. Genuine high birds falling on hard ground can split or have the skin torn. So there may well be more wastage than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 7 hours ago, Fellside said: Thanks for explaining Konor. Perhaps I should have read your previous post for context. 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 19 hours ago, Konor said: leaving vintage guns free to be used on smaller shoot days I would be happy. What about the people (very much myself included) who like to use their vintage guns to shoot driven days of 100/150? I like to do 8 to 10 such days per season. I only use my good quality guns for driven days, and on the walked up, rougher stuff I will take a cheap Spaniard. Most of the parties with which I shoot are made up of like minded people using quality old British made guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 56 minutes ago, London Best said: What about the people (very much myself included) who like to use their vintage guns to shoot driven days of 100/150? I like to do 8 to 10 such days per season. I only use my good quality guns for driven days, and on the walked up, rougher stuff I will take a cheap Spaniard. Most of the parties with which I shoot are made up of like minded people using quality old British made guns. Approximately how many cartridges do you think your team of 8/10 fire on a day Id guess 5/600 on a morning clay shooting the same team would shoot 800/1000 where does the most damage to flora and fauna occur the area you shoot game 8 times a year or the area you shoot clay’s just a thought 😊 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, London Best said: What about the people (very much myself included) who like to use their vintage guns to shoot driven days of 100/150? I like to do 8 to 10 such days per season. I only use my good quality guns for driven days, and on the walked up, rougher stuff I will take a cheap Spaniard. Most of the parties with which I shoot are made up of like minded people using quality old British made guns. I think you'll find my answer within my previous posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 (edited) If you were using your gun over heavily shot ground I would expect you to be using non lead shot if you wished to minimise the previously stated risk to game birds gritting. The definition of heavily shot over ground would be open to interpretation by legislators should a partial ban be enforced The important factor in my eyes is that you would still be able to use a variety of vintage guns with the ammunition they were regulated or designed to be shot with albeit under limited circumstances. You would of course be allowed to shoot those guns under any circumstances if you chose to fire steel shot or any other alternative to lead through them. It appears unlikely that the status quo is an option so a favourable compromise may be in our best interests rather than a blanket ban. Edited April 19 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 48 minutes ago, Old farrier said: Approximately how many cartridges do you think your team of 8/10 fire on a day Id guess 5/600 on a morning clay shooting the same team would shoot 800/1000 where does the most damage to flora and fauna occur the area you shoot game 8 times a year or the area you shoot clay’s just a thought 😊 I can actually answer that one O.F. The team generally averages about 320 shots for the day, depending of course on which members draw the pound seats! In my most long-standing team (25 years plus) none of the guns shoot clays with any regularity. I think only one chap even owns an OU gun. My own cartridge expenditure at clays maybe averages fifty per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 2 hours ago, Old farrier said: where does the most damage to flora and fauna occur the area you shoot game 8 times a year or the area you shoot clay’s In respect of gritting birds I'd expect little if any detriment to game birds on ground used regularly for clay pigeon shooting. I rarely see any on the clay grounds I visit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8 shot Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 10 hours ago, scolopax said: Genuine high birds falling on hard ground can split or have the skin torn. So there may well be more wastage than you think. Your absolutely correct there were a few specially on the granite rocks most though fell through trees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted April 19 Author Report Share Posted April 19 On 17/04/2024 at 21:21, Old farrier said: No problem getting rid of it then without wasting it how much more has been sold by the shoots that opted for voluntary transition away from lead and has it affected the market price? Some game dealers will accept lead shot game and some won’t. It depends on who they are selling the game to. Shoots have two considerations. Do they want to move away from lead shot to reduce the risk to birds eating the lead shot as grit? Do they need to move away from lead shot because their game dealer won’t accept lead shot game anymore? Of course in the latter scenario the shoot could try to find another game dealer that will accept lead shot game. It’s a voluntary transition so it’s up to shoots what to decide but BASC would always encourage the move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. Non-lead shot game does not carry a premium. In terms of marketing game meat and reaching new markets it certainly helps not to have to explain about it containing lead. There have been recent projects where hospitals and nurseries are procuring game meat for their menus. That game meat is lead free. Some supermarkets are now selling lead-free game meat that were not previously. It’s not about marketing game meat as ‘lead-free’ its about marketing it as an alternative to other meats and about its nutritional values and sustainability - game as food is after all a key argument against those that seek to restrict or ban live quarry shooting. It’s all inter-linked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 20 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: game as food is after all a key argument against those that seek to restrict or ban live quarry shooting. It’s all inter-linked. Eating meat , period, is a key argument from those that seek to ban live quarry shooting, and I really dont think they care what its shot with. The same people will use the same argument against steel shot getting stuck in the gizzards of birds eventually.... Agreeing with the antis on ANYTHING is not a sound strategy, because they will never agree with us that shooting is 'sustainable' or humane. We are evil murderers according to them, and it doesnt matter whether we use lead, steel, copper, or just throw rocks at animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 5 hours ago, London Best said: I can actually answer that one O.F. The team generally averages about 320 shots for the day, depending of course on which members draw the pound seats! In my most long-standing team (25 years plus) none of the guns shoot clays with any regularity. I think only one chap even owns an OU gun. My own cartridge expenditure at clays maybe averages fifty per year. so using 1 1/8 loads as a good average chucking nearly 20 lbs of lead shot over the ground every shoot day .multiply that by days shooting year after year 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted April 19 Author Report Share Posted April 19 24 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Eating meat , period, is a key argument from those that seek to ban live quarry shooting, and I really dont think they care what its shot with. I agree. Nobody that eats meat has any moral high ground to argue against harvesting of quarry species for food. The same people will use the same argument against steel shot getting stuck in the gizzards of birds eventually.... I disagree. These are not the same people, they are different people to the general antis you have in mind. These people are some academics and organisations who seek a complete ban on lead ammunition because they believe that is the best solution to eliminating the risks to birds and mammals regardless of the consequences for shooting and conservation. If there was research showing adverse impacts of steel shot, bismuth shot, or copper bullets etc for birds or mammals they would also be after a ban on those ammunition options also. Agreeing with the antis on ANYTHING is not a sound strategy, because they will never agree with us that shooting is 'sustainable' or humane. We are evil murderers according to them, and it doesnt matter whether we use lead, steel, copper, or just throw rocks at animals. Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Some game dealers will accept lead shot game and some won’t. It depends on who they are selling the game to. Shoots have two considerations. Do they want to move away from lead shot to reduce the risk to birds eating the lead shot as grit? Do they need to move away from lead shot because their game dealer won’t accept lead shot game anymore? Of course in the latter scenario the shoot could try to find another game dealer that will accept lead shot game. It’s a voluntary transition so it’s up to shoots what to decide but BASC would always encourage the move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. Non-lead shot game does not carry a premium. In terms of marketing game meat and reaching new markets it certainly helps not to have to explain about it containing lead. There have been recent projects where hospitals and nurseries are procuring game meat for their menus. That game meat is lead free. Some supermarkets are now selling lead-free game meat that were not previously. It’s not about marketing game meat as ‘lead-free’ its about marketing it as an alternative to other meats and about its nutritional values and sustainability - game as food is after all a key argument against those that seek to restrict or ban live quarry shooting. It’s all inter-linked. Of course it’s sustainable the biggest shoots buy in millions of birds eggs chicks poults very few rear there own there hatched in incubator reared under lamps until there big enough to go outside then when they have feathered up ( poults there taken out to the shoots and put in the release pens I would say it’s highly unlikely that they will have even been on ground that has been shot over until that point most driven shooting is feed out and drive the birds back so realistically you shouldn’t be shooting into the pen at the end of the season the game covers that you have shot towards are usually ploughed and re planted in the spring so that shot will be out of reach the big shoots are a commercial entity and this fiasco about selling game meat is really about making it justifiable for the big corporate shoots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 24 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: I disagree. These are not the same people, they are different people to the general antis you have in mind. These people are some academics and organisations who seek a complete ban on lead ammunition because they believe that is the best solution to eliminating the risks to birds and mammals regardless of the consequences for shooting and conservation. If there was research showing adverse impacts of steel shot, bismuth shot, or copper bullets etc for birds or mammals they would also be after a ban on those ammunition options also. I agree that generally they are not the same people, the average anti likely never considered that lead shot would poison a bird, they were more concerned with the vast numbers of deaths occurring during them getting shot , by anything ! Yet now we have given them another axe to throw at us, not only are we shooting 'innocent animals' we are poisoning them too, and if we dont give lead up willingly, we are doing it as 'deliberately' as shooting them. The issue I have is that before the voluntary transition, this probably never occurred to them.... The handful of academics and naturalists that noticed the tiny possibility of secondary lead poisoning were also a small voice, but by getting behind them and AGREEING with them , you have also given them ammunition, and a bigger voice. Can you not see the problem ? 1 minute ago, Old farrier said: the big shoots are a commercial entity and this fiasco about selling game meat is really about making it justifiable for the big corporate shoots Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted April 19 Author Report Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Old farrier said: Of course it’s sustainable the biggest shoots buy in millions of birds eggs chicks poults very few rear there own there hatched in incubator reared under lamps until there big enough to go outside then when they have feathered up ( poults there taken out to the shoots and put in the release pens I would say it’s highly unlikely that they will have even been on ground that has been shot over until that point most driven shooting is feed out and drive the birds back so realistically you shouldn’t be shooting into the pen at the end of the season the game covers that you have shot towards are usually ploughed and re planted in the spring so that shot will be out of reach the big shoots are a commercial entity and this fiasco about selling game meat is really about making it justifiable for the big corporate shoots I think its a matter for all game shooting regardless of the size of the shoot. Game as food is indisputably one of the key justifications for game shooting. Therefore, promoting the benefits of eating more game as a sustainable and healthy alternative to farmed meat is important. We can all play our part in that and many PW members do just that introducing shot game to family and friends. Two campaigns are playing a role in this: Eat Gamehttps://eatgame.co.uk/ Eat Wildhttps://www.eatwild.co/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted April 19 Author Report Share Posted April 19 1 hour ago, Rewulf said: I agree that generally they are not the same people, the average anti likely never considered that lead shot would poison a bird, they were more concerned with the vast numbers of deaths occurring during them getting shot , by anything ! Yet now we have given them another axe to throw at us, not only are we shooting 'innocent animals' we are poisoning them too, and if we dont give lead up willingly, we are doing it as 'deliberately' as shooting them. The issue I have is that before the voluntary transition, this probably never occurred to them.... The handful of academics and naturalists that noticed the tiny possibility of secondary lead poisoning were also a small voice, but by getting behind them and AGREEING with them , you have also given them ammunition, and a bigger voice. Can you not see the problem ? Exactly. I do see where you are coming from in theory but in my experience working on this topic for around 15 years I do not see the evidence of it in practice. What I have witnessed happening is that the weight of research on primary poisoning of birds (ie some bird species eating some sizes of lead shot as grit and dying or suffering sub-lethal impacts) in a range of bird species outside wetlands growing significantly enough to trigger policy reviews across Europe and wider afield seeking to mitigate those risks. The voluntary transition away from lead shot in the UK announced in 2020 by nine organisations did not trigger any of that nor give anyone more ammunition or a bigger voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 9 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: I think its a matter for all game shooting regardless of the size of the shoot. Game as food is indisputably one of the key justifications for game shooting. Therefore, promoting the benefits of eating more game as a sustainable and healthy alternative to farmed meat is important. We can all play our part in that and many PW members do just that introducing shot game to family and friends. Two campaigns are playing a role in this: Eat Gamehttps://eatgame.co.uk/ Eat Wildhttps://www.eatwild.co/ Sadly we’re a world apart on this any game I shoot I eat what it’s shot with isn’t a issue to me along with a lot of others most of us don’t need to find a outlet for hundreds of pheasants or partridge at the end of the day it’s pretty obvious that the problem is the big shoots don’t have the infrastructure in place to handle process and sell on the quantity that they shoot this occurs because they make the money from the shooting not from the shot game ( a by product of the day) now in the last four years I haven’t noticed any increase in the advertising of game meat or anyone advertising to buy it in any quantity perhaps it’s the area I’m located maybe other members will say different 🤔 now I’m not sure about this but if you hatch a chick rear it and grow it on then kill it for the table it’s farmed not wild doesn't matter if it is a chicken or a pheasant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts