BASC update on voluntary transition away from lead shot and and single-use plastics for live quarry

[Bigteddy1954]

Hi conor i have been shooting over 50+ years and never came across dead or dying birds which have been lead poisoned . I can across an article from 2015 in which it said that an estimated 100 thousand swans geese and ducks died a year  through eating lead shot I find that hard to believe.it was on a site i googled to find out how many birds died threw digesting lead shot .

[clangerman]

14 minutes ago, Bigteddy1954 said:

Hi conor i have been shooting over 50+ years and never came across dead or dying birds which have been lead poisoned . I can across an article from 2015 in which it said that an estimated 100 thousand swans geese and ducks died a year  through eating lead shot I find that hard to believe.it was on a site i googled to find out how many birds died threw digesting lead shot .

thats because it’s a load of false cobblers or lead no longer has the property of weight which makes it quickly sink out of birds reach a fact connor ignores to support his toxic chant of coarse as for dead birds it’s been mths and he’s failed to pony up a SINGLE body which speaks for itself! 

[Old farrier]

31 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

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. 

Could you be kind enough to enlighten us 

to 

what specific birds are ingesting it 

who conducted the research and a baseline on it would be useful information 

what size shot ?

sub lethal impact? If you mean wounded or pricked birds that happens with any medium if you mean lead poisoning say so 

I appreciate no data can be accurate or useful in the last few years since the onset of bird flu and the number of deaths caused by it 

[Conor O'Gorman]

24 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

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 

 

Shooting estates have been supplying small game to market for around 150 years. It's nothing new. Just because someone else enjoys a different shooting experience to your own does not perhaps give you the moral high ground. Perhaps consider that some people in your local community believe that you are part of the problem going out there shooting birds to eat them when you could have just popped into your local Tesco to feed yourself. 

[Bigteddy1954]

This is the post i was on about https://www.wwt.org.uk/our-work/projects/tackling-lead-ammunition-poisoning/#:~:text=Up to 100%2C000 waterbirds in,through ingesting poisonous lead shot.

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

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.

Could you name these academics and organisations and the evidence that leads them to call for a complete ban on the use of lead shot and if their evidence of harm is so great why are BASC not supporting an immediate ban on the use of lead shot ?

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Expand  

I think its a matter for all game shooting regardless of the size of the shoot

Or alternatively it’s a matter for all the commercial shoots that are responsible for the vast majority of lead shot pollution in the environment and can’t dispose of their birds into the food chain. Or would you have us believe that the size of shoot that can distribute its shot game amongst the shooters responsible for adding it to the bag are equally responsible for the problem that the academics ensure us results in millions of unnecessary bird deaths per year.

[Conor O'Gorman]

53 minutes ago, Bigteddy1954 said:

Hi conor i have been shooting over 50+ years and never came across dead or dying birds which have been lead poisoned . I can across an article from 2015 in which it said that an estimated 100 thousand swans geese and ducks died a year  through eating lead shot I find that hard to believe.it was on a site i googled to find out how many birds died threw digesting lead shot .

Good evening. Neither have I to the best of my knowledge but it's perhaps more subtle to you or I to detect. My local pond was full of mallard ducks before the recent avian flu outbreak. Literally hundreds of ducks swarming around you if you were feeding them. Now its only a few dozen remain. I have only found one body - a roadkill. Where did the rest go?

GWCT advice is that sick birds die a few at a time, may hide themselves away and are more vulnerable to predation (so their dead body may look like a predator kill). The body may also be scavenged or lie in an inaccessible place. I trust the GWCT assessment because they are objective scientists - and I trust their research on the need for predator control and a myriad other topics of relevance to shooting - do you trust them on the issue of poisoning due to lead shot?

https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/lead-ammunition/

There have been plenty of studies and direct observations on record of lead poisoning in birds here in the UK and overseas. I think the argument would be around what the total impact is - which is based on modelling data.

Here is some footage for a mallard duck:

Here is a video on an autopsy of a swan:

Lot's more videos out there.

[Konor]

34 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Shooting estates have been supplying small game to market for around 150 years. It's nothing new. Just because someone else enjoys a different shooting experience to your own does not perhaps give you the moral high ground. Perhaps consider that some people in your local community believe that you are part of the problem going out there shooting birds to eat them when you could have just popped into your local Tesco to feed yourself. 

What is new however is that lead is perceived to be a threat to wildlife. The scale of that threat is greater on commercial shooting estates which rely on their financial survival on large bags of game birds (£60 per bird )If commercial shoots are responsible for the vast majority of lead shot pollution then surely they should be responsible for rectifying the matter. Why are BASC et al not holding them to account for the degree of lead pollution they are responsible for?

If rough shooters are responsible for negligible deposition of lead in comparison then why are they not entitled to hold the moral high ground.

Some people would not agree that you should be eating any meat from Tesco or any other source , at what point do you decide not to be dictated to by others and defend your own point of view.

[Conor O'Gorman]

27 minutes ago, Konor said:

Could you name these academics and organisations and the evidence that leads them to call for a complete ban on the use of lead shot and if their evidence of harm is so great why are BASC not supporting an immediate ban on the use of lead shot ?

RSPB:

https://community.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/b/nature-s-advocates/posts/the-fight-against-lead-poisoning-the-latest

WWT:

https://www.wwt.org.uk/news-and-stories/news/government-admits-delay-on-toxic-lead-shot-ban-despite-its-presence-in-93-of-pheasants-destined-for-dinner-tables/#:~:text=Reacting to the news%2C WWT,risk to wildlife and people.

The academics that have been most active lobbying for a ban are Rhys Green and Debbie Pain. Google them.

Some context:

https://basc.org.uk/poor-methodology-undermines-validity-of-game-meat-research/

The evidence does not warrant a ban on the use of lead shot. Here is BASC's position in response to last year's HSE lead ban proposals consultation:

• 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. 

[Konor]

19 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Now its only a few dozen remain. I have only found one body - a roadkill. Where did the rest go?

Perhaps they are paddling around in another pond.

Do the annual bird counts of quarry species reflect the massive decline in numbers that are estimated to be occurring due to the use of lead shot. Surely the scale of the problem must be reflected in those figures.and be quantifiable. Incidently have dabbling duck numbers increased substantially to reflect the improvement brought about by the banning of lead shot over wetlands ?

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

academics that have been most active lobbying for a ban are Rhys Green and Debbie Pain.

Aware of Rhys Green and his work to show the extent of lead shot use on the foreshore. He maintained that empty shell cases could be used to determine the extent of lead shot being used while discounting the possibility that the cases could have been reloaded with non lead shot.

I would expect RSPB and WWT ,as they are now ,to be politically driven to bring about a decline in the best interests of shooting sports by any means possible, the ends justify the means.

 

[Konor]

14 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

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.

Can that clear evidence be shown so that there is no doubt about the scale of the problem .

As you must be aware the voluntary move away from lead  shot for live quarry shooting has resulted in minimal movement and so cannot be said to be reducing risks by any measurable amount would you dispute that and if so on what grounds.

[Conor O'Gorman]

16 minutes ago, Konor said:

Perhaps they are paddling around in another pond.

Do the annual bird counts of quarry species reflect the massive decline in numbers that are estimated to be occurring due to the use of lead shot. Surely the scale of the problem must be reflected in those figures.and be quantifiable. Incidently have dabbling duck numbers increased substantially to reflect the improvement brought about by the banning of lead shot over wetlands ?

Perhaps they are happily all padding around in another pond that is free of AI.  As for bird counts I don't know what the data is saying. I just trust the GWCT advice. Do you trust the GWCT advice?

[Konor]

20 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead in game meat is potentially a risk to human health via secondary exposure

Smoking associated deaths in the U.K. around 75000 per year and no tobacco ban.

Lead shot consumption associated deaths per year 0.  Why is the government so keen to resolve the lead shot problem with a ban yet has no interest in banning tobacco.  Could it be tax revenue that dictates policy. Maybe we could resolve the lead shot issue by increasing the taxation on lead shot cartridges.

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Could you be kind enough to enlighten us 

to 

what specific birds are ingesting it 

who conducted the research and a baseline on it would be useful information 

what size shot ?

sub lethal impact? If you mean wounded or pricked birds that happens with any medium if you mean lead poisoning say so 

I appreciate no data can be accurate or useful in the last few years since the onset of bird flu and the number of deaths caused by it 

A full background from last year's HSE consultation is here:

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/lead-in-ammunition/user_uploads/lead-in-ammunition-background-document---draft-sea.pdf

But be mindful that there are some inaccuracies in this (and a related HSE document) and these were picked up by BASC in its main response here:

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

thats because it’s a load of false cobblers or lead no longer has the property of weight which makes it quickly sink out of birds reach a fact connor ignores to support his toxic chant of coarse as for dead birds it’s been mths and he’s failed to pony up a SINGLE body which speaks for itself! 

If you wish to continue using lead shot for your live quarry shooting that is your choice. There is no need to make it personal. Thank you.

22 minutes ago, Konor said:

I would expect RSPB and WWT ,as they are now ,to be politically driven to bring about a decline in the best interests of shooting sports by any means possible, the ends justify the means.

 

In fairness, they just want to protect birds from lead poisoning from lead shot. We have perhaps two extremes in play. Those that want a total lead ban regardless of the consequences. Those that are in denial of any issues with lead shot that want to preserve the status quo.

[Conor O'Gorman]

11 minutes ago, Konor said:

Smoking associated deaths in the U.K. around 75000 per year and no tobacco ban.

Lead shot consumption associated deaths per year 0.  Why is the government so keen to resolve the lead shot problem with a ban yet has no interest in banning tobacco.  Could it be tax revenue that dictates policy. Maybe we could resolve the lead shot issue by increasing the taxation on lead shot cartridges.

I think I have explained this already in this thread. It's because of Brexit. Did you vote Brexit?

[Konor]

31 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The evidence does not warrant a ban on the use of lead shot.

If the evidence does not warrant a ban on the use of lead shot I can only conclude that the evidence has been greatly exaggerated by those who seek to bring about a lead shot ban or the same organisations/academics consider that a lesser degree of harm justifies a total lead shot ban. When will BASC et al start to counter these exaggerated claims and if necessary highlight where the risks of harm to the environment is greatest and accept that volunteering to tackle the problem where it’s affects are greatest is the responsible way forward to tackle the problem. Or has GWCT not established a link between the amount of lead deposited over an area and the degree of harm occurring due to that increased load.

Frankly I am confused by the assertions already made regarding the extent of the toxicity of lead shot ,no matter how little is deposited on the ground ,on the welfare of gamebirds and the claims of extreme numbers of birds crawling off to die then being hoovered up by predators ,yet BASC claim that the evidence does not warrant a ban on the use of lead shot. Something doesn’t add up here.
 

 

[Konor]

22 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We have perhaps two extremes in play. Those that want a total lead ban regardless of the consequences. Those that are in denial of any issues with lead shot that want to preserve the status quo

You omit a third . Those that concede that if there is a problem with lead shot use it should be dealt with by minimising its impact by restricting its use where it is used the most. By doing so the effect of curtailing lead shot use could be assessed. Thus a complete lead ban on commercial shoots and a study to quantify the benefits of doing so. 

[Konor]

39 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

1 hour ago, Konor said:

 

In fairness, they just want to protect birds from lead poisoning from lead shot

I think that the naivety of that assertion very nearly left me speechless.
I’m sure we can agree that politics dictates that you use every opportunity to further your objectives and that achieving your  goals overrides any qualms surrounding the method that achieves that ,to a great extent.

Edited April 19 by Konor

[Konor]

58 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

As for bird counts I don't know what the data is saying. I just trust the GWCT advice. Do you trust the GWCT advice?

I’m sure if the data available reflected the enormous amount of birds dying from lead shot exposure then that would be irrefutable evidence of the extent of the problem yet I am unaware of any academics or organisations using quarry bird decline in numbers as evidence to substantiate the need for a lead shot ban.

[Old farrier]

19 minutes ago, Konor said:

You omit a third . Those that concede that if there is a problem with lead shot use it should be dealt with by minimising its impact by restricting its use where it is used the most. By doing so the effect of curtailing lead shot use could be assessed. Thus a complete lead ban on commercial shoots and a study to quantify the benefits of doing so. 

It’s used the most on a clay ground and no proposals to minimise the impact on anything there 

im beginning to think that a secret deal has already been negotiated with the cpsa as they have yet to comment on the matter 

 

[Konor]

1 minute ago, Old farrier said:

It’s used the most on a clay ground and no proposals to minimise the impact on anything there 

im beginning to think that a secret deal has already been negotiated with the cpsa as they have yet to comment on the matter 

 

I was under the impression that clay shooting was not exempt and that the HSE report had recommended clay shooting should not continue using lead shot

[Konor]

6 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

33 minutes ago, Konor said:

 

It’s used the most on a clay ground and no proposals to minimise the impact on anything there

I think in fairness the opportunity to impact on game on clay grounds compared to estates whose purpose is to provide vast amounts of game to service the demand is minimal by comparison.I wouldn’t opt to join a walk one stand one syndicate on ground whose main purpose was a clay shooting range 😀