ShootHub Podcast - lead shot latest with BASC's Terry Behan

[Konor]

14 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

I totally agree with Konor on this point.

One might have hoped that scientific reports would be free from any falsification of data, deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, wilful suppression and/or distortion of data, manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, etc.   (Just a few phrases from the BMJ's policy on scientific misconduct)

I am not convinced that publications issued by UK ornithologists, LAG members and the HSE meet those standards.

 

Professors Rhys Green and Debbie Pain told the Oxford Lead Symposium how their calculations were based on the quantities of “gamebird meat” eaten by 87 individuals during the National Diene and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), together with the numbers of consumers in different age groups.   They presented their data as though all the meat came from birds that had been shot.   They did not disclose that the NDNS definition of “gamebird meat” includes farmed duck and geese, even though they had studied and cited two papers warning that in the NDNS data “we were not able to tell if the game birds were Pb-shot or had been farmed” (Taylor et al, 2013) and “Duck accounts for 70% of this average annual consumption of 250 g but it is not specified if this duck is wild or farmed” (FSAS, 2012)

The truth is that Green & Pain did not have the slightest idea which of those 87 individuals had eaten any meat from wild-shot birds.   Their analysis is worth no more than if they had drawn numbers out of a hat.

Green & Pain estimated that the total consumption of all wild-shot birds in UK would be in the range 4,940 ‑ 9,880 tonnes per year, while DEFRA monthly statistics show that UK production of farmed duck for the period 2012-2018 averaged 29,900 tonnes per year.   ADAS (2012) reported that UK production of duck meat in 2011 was 33,000 tonnes and had remained reasonably static in the previous four years, and that UK imported an additional 6,000 tonnes of duck meat in 2009.   Wild-shot birds probably accounted for only a small proportion of all meat in the NDNS category “Game Birds”.   The quantity of farmed duck meat was probably 3.5 – 7.0 times as much as the total of all wild-shot game.   If the numbers of consumers in the NDNS data were in the same ratio, it would suggest that only 12 – 24 of those 87 individuals had eaten any wild-shot game.

Statistical analysis was based on absurdly small sample numbers.   Risks to very young children were calculated using NDNS data for only three individuals under the age of 5 years, and modellers did not know whether any of those three had actually eaten meat from wild-shot birds.  

All this should have been blindingly obvious to any competent scientist.   It s not clear whether the LAG members supported this piece of work in full knowledge of all its obvious deficiencies, or whether they gave their whole-hearted approval without even bothering to read the background documents.

 

Green & Pain (2015) asserted that their estimates of game consumption “are likely to be representative of the situation for any time of year because proportions of people eating gamebird meat have previously been found to be similar within and outside the shooting season”, taking their information from an earlier paper, also based on the NDNS data, saying “There was no effect of shooting seasonality on game bird consumption.” (Taylor et al, 2013).

Apparently none of these highly qualified academics realised that seasonal variations in wild-shot game would be masked by the steady supply of very much larger quantities of farmed birds.

 

Green & Pain artificially inflated the risk calculations by assuming that people who ate gamebird meat would consume portions more than twice the size indicated by NDNS records and by the Food Standards Agency.   They claimed “We followed EFSA CONTAM (2010) in assuming that an average meat meal for adults contained 0.2 kg of meal.” (Green & Pain, 2012) and “If it is assumed that a typical game meal includes 200 g of meat (EFSA 2010)” and “EFSA (2010) assumed that an adult portion of game meat was 200 g” (Green & Pain, 2015).   In truth, the EFSA (2010) report does not contain any suggestion that 200 g would be a typical or normal or average meat portion, as anybody who has actually read the document will know.  

The reasons why Green & Pain chose to insert all those untrue statements into their published papers is unexplained.   It would seem that LAG member Professor Levy must have supported this use of incorrect information, because the authors note “We thank Professor Len Levy for his guidance and advice during the preparation of this paper”.

 

All dietary information that conflicts with the modellers’ calculations has been suppressed, with no reason given.   Green & Pain (2012,2015) achieved their headline results by assuming that a 2.5 year old would eat more meat in a single meal than the average UK adult consumes in a whole day, and that portions for the little toddler would be four times as large as had actually been recorded in the NDNS data.   The modellers’ assumptions, endorsed by LAG members, were wildly different from the portion size information published by the National Health Service, UK Health Security Agency and British Dietetic Association.  

The consultation document states explicitly the “Data which have been assessed by ECHA and/or LAG as reliable are considered to be of a sufficient standard for inclusion without duplicative detailed review and analysis by the Agency”, so it would appear that HSE staff have now chosen to reject the information from health and nutrition professionals, and to rely instead on an unverified model compiled by ornithologists.

 

Modellers, LAG members and HSE staff, acting contrary to all normal standards of scientific behaviour, have chosen to suppress all information about actual cases of lead exposure among children in UK.   That information was readily available, having been obtained by health professionals and published in reports from the Surveillance of Elevated Blood-Lead in Children (SLiC), the Lead Poisoning in Children Surveillance System (LPIC) and the Lead Exposure in Children Surveillance System (LEICSS).    

It is notable that those surveillance studies did not report any cases of lead exposure related to game meat consumption.     Lead exposure in children was generally associated with areas of deprivation and poor quality housing, whereas high-level consumers of game meat are likely to be “people with higher income and higher position in society” (FSAS, 2012).

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the 2022 version of the HSE dossier, papers authored by either Green or Pain, or issued from the LAG (of which they were key members) were referenced a total of 151 times.   It appears that Green & Pain are also being employed by HSE to pass judgement on their own work.

My remarks here only concern what I regard as the abysmal quality of the "scientific" evidence relating to human health topics.   I cannot offer any opinion on the quaility of publications by Green, Pain or other LAG membes on wildlife or environmental topics, but hope that somebody else will be looking at them very closely indeed.

👏 That must be the best post so far on the subject and brings into focus the need to be wary of evidence presented to strengthen the case for change when practical experience doesn’t reflect scientific conclusion .I await Dr O’Gormans response with great interest.

[8 shot]

As for Cars, the two Reps I've had dealings with both had Hilux's. They really should all have EV's.......I feel

Thinking about it a bit this whole Transition thing is like the deadline for all Electric cars...Idealistic but no real thought gone into it. Toyota, Ford and many other car manufactures pulling out of the full electric market purely on it's not cost effective, and no real benefit in the long run. 

[Konor]

9 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

As for Cars, the two Reps I've had dealings with both had Hilux's. They really should all have EV's.......I feel

Thinking about it a bit this whole Transition thing is like the deadline for all Electric cars...Idealistic but no real thought gone into it. Toyota, Ford and many other car manufactures pulling out of the full electric market purely on it's not cost effective, and no real benefit in the long run. 

I don’t think there’s sufficient infrastructure to make it viable especially in the Highlands ,if one garage in the middle of nowhere is out of action you’d be stranded. Electric scooter in the boot perhaps.

[enfieldspares]

On 23/04/2024 at 20:49, Rewulf said:

Don't be ridiculous,  where was the vote on the transition ? Where was the vote on dropping legal cover ect ect

It's not a democracy , it bears no resemblance. 

Correct! 100%. No vote. Just a decision taken by BASC Council and then the lame justification that this was therefore all OK.

[rbrowning2]

7 hours ago, McSpredder said:

I totally agree with Konor on this point.

One might have hoped that scientific reports would be free from any falsification of data, deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, wilful suppression and/or distortion of data, manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, etc.   (Just a few phrases from the BMJ's policy on scientific misconduct)

I am not convinced that publications issued by UK ornithologists, LAG members and the HSE meet those standards.

 

Professors Rhys Green and Debbie Pain told the Oxford Lead Symposium how their calculations were based on the quantities of “gamebird meat” eaten by 87 individuals during the National Diene and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), together with the numbers of consumers in different age groups.   They presented their data as though all the meat came from birds that had been shot.   They did not disclose that the NDNS definition of “gamebird meat” includes farmed duck and geese, even though they had studied and cited two papers warning that in the NDNS data “we were not able to tell if the game birds were Pb-shot or had been farmed” (Taylor et al, 2013) and “Duck accounts for 70% of this average annual consumption of 250 g but it is not specified if this duck is wild or farmed” (FSAS, 2012)

The truth is that Green & Pain did not have the slightest idea which of those 87 individuals had eaten any meat from wild-shot birds.   Their analysis is worth no more than if they had drawn numbers out of a hat.

Green & Pain estimated that the total consumption of all wild-shot birds in UK would be in the range 4,940 ‑ 9,880 tonnes per year, while DEFRA monthly statistics show that UK production of farmed duck for the period 2012-2018 averaged 29,900 tonnes per year.   ADAS (2012) reported that UK production of duck meat in 2011 was 33,000 tonnes and had remained reasonably static in the previous four years, and that UK imported an additional 6,000 tonnes of duck meat in 2009.   Wild-shot birds probably accounted for only a small proportion of all meat in the NDNS category “Game Birds”.   The quantity of farmed duck meat was probably 3.5 – 7.0 times as much as the total of all wild-shot game.   If the numbers of consumers in the NDNS data were in the same ratio, it would suggest that only 12 – 24 of those 87 individuals had eaten any wild-shot game.

Statistical analysis was based on absurdly small sample numbers.   Risks to very young children were calculated using NDNS data for only three individuals under the age of 5 years, and modellers did not know whether any of those three had actually eaten meat from wild-shot birds.  

All this should have been blindingly obvious to any competent scientist.   It s not clear whether the LAG members supported this piece of work in full knowledge of all its obvious deficiencies, or whether they gave their whole-hearted approval without even bothering to read the background documents.

 

Green & Pain (2015) asserted that their estimates of game consumption “are likely to be representative of the situation for any time of year because proportions of people eating gamebird meat have previously been found to be similar within and outside the shooting season”, taking their information from an earlier paper, also based on the NDNS data, saying “There was no effect of shooting seasonality on game bird consumption.” (Taylor et al, 2013).

Apparently none of these highly qualified academics realised that seasonal variations in wild-shot game would be masked by the steady supply of very much larger quantities of farmed birds.

 

Green & Pain artificially inflated the risk calculations by assuming that people who ate gamebird meat would consume portions more than twice the size indicated by NDNS records and by the Food Standards Agency.   They claimed “We followed EFSA CONTAM (2010) in assuming that an average meat meal for adults contained 0.2 kg of meal.” (Green & Pain, 2012) and “If it is assumed that a typical game meal includes 200 g of meat (EFSA 2010)” and “EFSA (2010) assumed that an adult portion of game meat was 200 g” (Green & Pain, 2015).   In truth, the EFSA (2010) report does not contain any suggestion that 200 g would be a typical or normal or average meat portion, as anybody who has actually read the document will know.  

The reasons why Green & Pain chose to insert all those untrue statements into their published papers is unexplained.   It would seem that LAG member Professor Levy must have supported this use of incorrect information, because the authors note “We thank Professor Len Levy for his guidance and advice during the preparation of this paper”.

 

All dietary information that conflicts with the modellers’ calculations has been suppressed, with no reason given.   Green & Pain (2012,2015) achieved their headline results by assuming that a 2.5 year old would eat more meat in a single meal than the average UK adult consumes in a whole day, and that portions for the little toddler would be four times as large as had actually been recorded in the NDNS data.   The modellers’ assumptions, endorsed by LAG members, were wildly different from the portion size information published by the National Health Service, UK Health Security Agency and British Dietetic Association.  

The consultation document states explicitly the “Data which have been assessed by ECHA and/or LAG as reliable are considered to be of a sufficient standard for inclusion without duplicative detailed review and analysis by the Agency”, so it would appear that HSE staff have now chosen to reject the information from health and nutrition professionals, and to rely instead on an unverified model compiled by ornithologists.

 

Modellers, LAG members and HSE staff, acting contrary to all normal standards of scientific behaviour, have chosen to suppress all information about actual cases of lead exposure among children in UK.   That information was readily available, having been obtained by health professionals and published in reports from the Surveillance of Elevated Blood-Lead in Children (SLiC), the Lead Poisoning in Children Surveillance System (LPIC) and the Lead Exposure in Children Surveillance System (LEICSS).    

It is notable that those surveillance studies did not report any cases of lead exposure related to game meat consumption.     Lead exposure in children was generally associated with areas of deprivation and poor quality housing, whereas high-level consumers of game meat are likely to be “people with higher income and higher position in society” (FSAS, 2012).

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In the 2022 version of the HSE dossier, papers authored by either Green or Pain, or issued from the LAG (of which they were key members) were referenced a total of 151 times.   It appears that Green & Pain are also being employed by HSE to pass judgement on their own work.

My remarks here only concern what I regard as the abysmal quality of the "scientific" evidence relating to human health topics.   I cannot offer any opinion on the quaility of publications by Green, Pain or other LAG membes on wildlife or environmental topics, but hope that somebody else will be looking at them very closely indeed.

Excellent reply, exactly the response that needs to have been sent to the HSE in its consultation process. 

Green and Pain marking their own reports and being part of the HSE judgement process is totally wrong. 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

8 hours ago, Konor said:

👏 That must be the best post so far on the subject and brings into focus the need to be wary of evidence presented to strengthen the case for change when practical experience doesn’t reflect scientific conclusion .I await Dr O’Gormans response with great interest.

That review of research on lead levels in game meat is relevant to the HSE review. What is its relevance to the voluntary transition and the evidenced impact of lead shot on birds?

[PeterHenry]

20 hours ago, Rewulf said:

It does, but it caused many to give up shooting altogether, or change the way they shoot.
Heres a couple of perspectives.
https://www.scribehound.com/cartridges/s/non-toxic-shotgun-cartridges/living-with-steel-in-denmark

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/how-have-other-countries-coped-with-the-lead-shot-ban-111374/

Its interesting to note that, once a  lead ban for game shooting comes in , there invariably follows a ban on ALL lead shot (and often bullets) for target disciplines also.

You may think this is inevitable, but the evidence for the bans (wild bird poisoning) can be controversial , and even 30 years on in Denmark , birds are allegedly still being poisoned by lead shot ?

Ban the ammunition for starters, if that doesnt work, ban the gun...
'Tighten a dogs chain a link at a time, will it notice when it eventually cant move ?'

Sorry, but I think your being slightly conspiratorial in all this. Any regulations, etc that come in are no going to be about banning ammunition, they are going to be about banning lead. There was a wonderful camera system - Hasselblad XPan - that was discontinued the better part of 20 years ago because lead was a key component in some of its lenses and because of that, it fell foul of EU regulations. But no one for a moment is suggesting there is, or was, a conspricy to stop wide format photography.

19 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

It's weird isn't it, there's a vocal minority on here screaming about how BASC have screwed us all and there's no future for shooting,  are seemingly lacking completely in self-awareness.  Invariably, these people do nothing for the future of shooting.  Or when pressed, they witter on about what they did in the run up to the pistol ban*, a whole quarter of a century ago.  What have you done *this* decade?  <crickets>.

BASC's voluntary transition announcement was nearly 5 years ago.  Whilst I agree it was, to put it politely, poorly communicated, it really is high time people moved on.   But no, according to some on here, BASC should prostrate themselves declaring they were absolutely wrong, should've listened to the wise owls at the self-elected PW-council, and whilst they are at it, change the name back to WAGBI and send all of its members a proper tie.

It really will get us nowhere.

And if anyone is still labouring under the delusion that BASC's voluntary transition somehow begat the HSE's proposed ban**,  I've got news for you:  The HSE neither noticed nor cared.  They are operating on the precautionary principle and would rather be in lock-step with, or go even further than, EU REACH if at all possible.  The machinations of shooting organisations are a gross irrelevance to them.

Righto, I'm off to go put the tools in my truck for a work party tomorrow at our DIY syndicate.  Assuming their parents turn up, there'll be a couple of teenagers there, putting a shift in. 

*Funnily enough these same people apparently didn't learn the biggest lesson from the pistol ban, viz.  United we stand, divided we fall.

**Or worse,  conflate the two, whether deliberately or because they are a bit dim

Agreed. Good luck with your work party - by sheer chance I'm d9oing the same 👍

19 hours ago, clangerman said:

while I would like to disbelieve gov figures we grow less in number by the year my shotgun and those of more than one friend gathering dust say on this occasion they are true hardly rosy grounds for a next generation 

I would say that's probably got more to do with the cost of living than lead shot. I imagine something similar would be the case for other costly, non essential luxury activities - owning a horse for example.

Edited April 27 by PeterHenry

[London Best]

46 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I would say that's probably got more to do with the cost of living than lead shot. I imagine something similar would be the case for other costly, non essential luxury activities - owning a horse for example.

Don’t start about horses! 
You can’t move for them around our local villages. 
Cost of living my ****!

[Gordon R]

The post from McSpredder was illuminating and depressing. I hadn't appreciated just how poor some of the "scientific" research was. I note that Conor O'Gorman, totally ignores the content of the post and yet again moves to deflect. Ironically, he is trying to get the thread back on track, instead of resorting to such telling points as:-

Listen to the podcast, it's very good and explains everything - which sadly it doesn't..

What paper do you read?

Have you filled in the survey?

Read this link, it explains everything.

Comedy gold.

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

That review of research on lead levels in game meat is relevant to the HSE review. What is its relevance to the voluntary transition and the evidenced impact of lead shot on birds?

How easily scientific research results can be manipulated to create a false conclusion. I notice you are still unable to produce figures to substantiate your claims of the extent of the impact of lead toxicity on inland non wetland environments. Rather than continue to go round in circles Conor either produce your figures for scrutiny or accept that your case has no support from published scientific data. Then maybe accept that the accusations of appeasement and political expediency are the real roots of the move to ban lead shot, voluntary or otherwise. 

[Fellside]

My words from previous post:

“In the ideal world, no authority should proceed to impose lead shot restrictions in the absence of any good contemporary science - free from biased influence.”

Thought it worth mentioning again, at the risk of flogging a dead horse……?!

While there is some limited credible evidence re impacts to grey partridge, there appears to be little ‘clean’ evidence in other key areas - especially (ESPECIALLY….!!) in regard the HSE’s work. Their assumptive bias has been well recognised by many, yet not acknowledged nor acted upon by them. Frankly, if the HSE’s work was an undergrad’ essay it would have a lot of comments in red pen scrawled on it - and a poor mark. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

34 minutes ago, Konor said:

How easily scientific research results can be manipulated to create a false conclusion. I notice you are still unable to produce figures to substantiate your claims of the extent of the impact of lead toxicity on inland non wetland environments. Rather than continue to go round in circles Conor either produce your figures for scrutiny or accept that your case has no support from published scientific data. Then maybe accept that the accusations of appeasement and political expediency are the real roots of the move to ban lead shot, voluntary or otherwise. 

Perhaps contact the GWCT for whatever figures you are after. Or do some research. Loads of evidence on impact of lead shot on birds. I think we are going around in circles because you lack trust in GWCT which is sad and are in denial about the evidence and no matter what evidence you are presented with you will find fault. That’s something for yourself to resolve for yourself. 

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

The post from McSpredder was illuminating and depressing. I hadn't appreciated just how poor some of the "scientific" research was. I note that Conor O'Gorman, totally ignores the content of the post and yet again moves to deflect. Ironically, he is trying to get the thread back on track, instead of resorting to such telling points as:-

Listen to the podcast, it's very good and explains everything - which sadly it doesn't..

What paper do you read?

Have you filled in the survey?

Read this link, it explains everything.

Comedy gold.

To be fair you are the only person on this thread that confirmed they listened to the podcast. It’s a start I guess.

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

Sorry, but I think your being slightly conspiratorial in all this. Any regulations, etc that come in are no going to be about banning ammunition, they are going to be about banning lead.

Thats right lead ammunition, first shot , then bullets, then copper (theyll produce some studies for that at some point)
Then your guns will be useless.
Call it a conspiracy if you like, I call it the future.

 

3 hours ago, PeterHenry said:

There was a wonderful camera system - Hasselblad XPan - that was discontinued the better part of 20 years ago because lead was a key component in some of its lenses and because of that, it fell foul of EU regulations. But no one for a moment is suggesting there is, or was, a conspricy to stop wide format photography.

Lets not be silly here, and lets at least be truthful about why that particular camera was discontinued.

Press release
Hasselblad has, unfortunately, been forced to discontinue the manufacture of the XPan system with immediate effect. Hasselblad (UK) Limited has a small number of kits, but has said that it will not be able to get any more when they have run out, although there will be a supply of both 30mm and 90mm XPan lenses for a while more.

 

There are a number of reasons why the XPan cannot be continued, but the timing has been forced upon us by the European Community in the form of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste Regulations. These come into effect in mid July and prevent electronics manufacturers using lead solder in their circuit boards. The XPan is evidently manufactured using lead, and falls foul of these new rules. The cost of redesigning the circuits in a way that removes the need for lead solder is too high, given the declining worldwide sales of the camera. Consequently Hasselblad have been forced into the decision not to produce any more.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

13 hours ago, Old farrier said:

His views and experience are irrelevant

what is relevant is his experience in boring and regurgitating shotguns 

 

That’s just your opinion. Suggest listening to the interview with Terry and then contact him. The alternative is to do nothing but moan on PW about a podcast you have not listened to.

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Thats right lead ammunition, first shot , then bullets, then copper (theyll produce some studies for that at some point)
Then your guns will be useless.
Call it a conspiracy if you like, I call it the future.

 

Lets not be silly here, and lets at least be truthful about why that particular camera was discontinued.

Press release
Hasselblad has, unfortunately, been forced to discontinue the manufacture of the XPan system with immediate effect. Hasselblad (UK) Limited has a small number of kits, but has said that it will not be able to get any more when they have run out, although there will be a supply of both 30mm and 90mm XPan lenses for a while more.

 

There are a number of reasons why the XPan cannot be continued, but the timing has been forced upon us by the European Community in the form of the Disposal of Hazardous Waste Regulations. These come into effect in mid July and prevent electronics manufacturers using lead solder in their circuit boards. The XPan is evidently manufactured using lead, and falls foul of these new rules. The cost of redesigning the circuits in a way that removes the need for lead solder is too high, given the declining worldwide sales of the camera. Consequently Hasselblad have been forced into the decision not to produce any more.

 

Leadax is now being used instead of lead flashing on roofs. No anti roof builders conspiracy as far as I know. There may be a ‘save our lead flashing’ campaign out there perhaps?

[Rewulf]

40 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

Perhaps contact the GWCT for whatever figures you are after. Or do some research.

https://www.gwctknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/greypartridge.pdf

This from the GWCT , it explains the decline of the grey partridge and why.
Not once does it mention lead minefields, or lead as a reason in any way shape or form.

The problem with the GWCT and the information the 'scientists' put out about lead contamination, is, that by your own admission , they havent done the studies, theyve relied upon studies going back some 50 years, from some totally biased groups like the RSPB and affiliates or similar groups in other countries.
A favourite of all of these studies appears to be the Cali condor study, which powered the banning of lead for hunting in California, as I mentioned previously (and you completely ignored) the $45 million they spent trying to reintroduce the condor is failing miserably, and will soon be abandoned.
The birds werent dying of lead poisoning per se, they were dying due to plastics consumption, and starvation.
But we dont get told any of that , we just get told that banning lead in hunting , saved the Cali condor.

The fact that Californian officials are now trying to get hunters to go back out and shoot more animals, to give the condors more food sources, is laughable.

Its confirmation bias at its most obvious, there are certain sectors that wish to prove lead is killing so many wild birds that it must be banned, so they cherry pick 'evidence' to prove it.
Whilst completely ignoring the fact that game birds are bred to be shot, but we arent bothered about them, were bothered about the fraction of a percentage that 'might' be poisoned by the lead shot that missed them !

Incredible hypocrisy.

[Conor O'Gorman]

40 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

https://www.gwctknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/greypartridge.pdf

This from the GWCT , it explains the decline of the grey partridge and why.
Not once does it mention lead minefields, or lead as a reason in any way shape or form.

The problem with the GWCT and the information the 'scientists' put out about lead contamination, is, that by your own admission , they havent done the studies, theyve relied upon studies going back some 50 years, from some totally biased groups like the RSPB and affiliates or similar groups in other countries.
A favourite of all of these studies appears to be the Cali condor study, which powered the banning of lead for hunting in California, as I mentioned previously (and you completely ignored) the $45 million they spent trying to reintroduce the condor is failing miserably, and will soon be abandoned.
The birds werent dying of lead poisoning per se, they were dying due to plastics consumption, and starvation.
But we dont get told any of that , we just get told that banning lead in hunting , saved the Cali condor.

The fact that Californian officials are now trying to get hunters to go back out and shoot more animals, to give the condors more food sources, is laughable.

Its confirmation bias at its most obvious, there are certain sectors that wish to prove lead is killing so many wild birds that it must be banned, so they cherry pick 'evidence' to prove it.
Whilst completely ignoring the fact that game birds are bred to be shot, but we arent bothered about them, were bothered about the fraction of a percentage that 'might' be poisoned by the lead shot that missed them !

Incredible hypocrisy.

The cherry picking tends to come from your good self. Yet to see a condor in Cheshire 😂

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

The cherry picking tends to come from your good self. Yet to see a condor in Cheshire 😂

Plenty of buzzards around though , how theyre not dying from eating all this carrion shot with lead ?

But again , youve unskillfully avoided the question of where the GWCT cherry picked  got its data ?
You say you trust the scientists there, do you trust the scientists at the RSPB ect where they got the data from ?

And heres another question, why dont BASC and the other orgs finance their own field study , too scared to dip into the finances , or just happy with that confirmation bias ?

[Konor]

On 22/04/2024 at 18:54, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

Any free ranging chicks of the likes of Galliformes and Anatidae that eat even a single piece of lead shot will die whether directly or be predated on due to sub-lethal effects impacting on their survival.

You have stated that data exists to confirm statements such as the above quote. I have requested  data to substantiate your claims. You have failed to produce any published data to support your claims. You then go round in circles avoiding the issues raised on a thread that you started while claiming that you are a victim of bullying. You are merely being asked to substantiate your claims by providing plausible evidence. You have failed to do so and in failing have damaged your credibility. To maintain that your faith in the accuracy of your. statements is built on trust despite there being no data compromises your perceived ability to present an unbiased opinion. 

2 hours ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

and are in denial about the evidence and no matter what evidence you are presented with you will find fault. That’s something for yourself to resolve for yourself. 

You have presented no relevant evidence on the degree, if any, of lead toxicity inland

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

Loads of evidence on impact of lead shot on birds. I think we are going around in circles

There is no evidence at all relevant to lead shot spread over inland habitat. You have failed to produce any to substantiate your emotive claims 

. 

[Konor]

On 25/04/2024 at 10:31, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats

Can you cite the evidence that you were referring to when you made this statement so that the stated risk can be quantified? 

[Konor]

20 hours ago, Konor said:

I have listened and honestly considered it a complete waste of time. Your insistence that it is worthy of praise is surprising. Is this due to low standards, an echo chamber effect, non critical listening or just politically expedient in nature, it’s hard to determine. That’s the problem when you are trying too hard to appeal to listeners rather than basing your content on factual informative comment aimed at a critical knowledgable audience. Sorry Conor but nul points from me. Maybe start singing from a different song sheet if you aspire to a more positive review.

Have you decided yet on the form your question should take on the PW forum to measure your level of support yet ? 

That's 2 people that have listened Conor, as ever the truth evades you yet again

2 hours ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

To be fair you are the only person on this thread that confirmed they listened to the podcast. It’s a start I guess

 

[Konor]

Conor you speed read, avoid the points presented to you and fail to logically counter any post disagreeing with you. Take some time to read through the concerns expressed, acknowledge your failure to address those concerns then have a long look in a mirror and ask yourself what you see. 

Edited April 27 by Konor

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Konor said:

have a long look in a mirror and ask yourself what you see. 

[PeterHenry]

6 hours ago, London Best said:

Don’t start about horses! 
You can’t move for them around our local villages. 
Cost of living my ****!

You don't think a lot of people are feeling the pinch money wise? I don't pretend to know your circumstances, but I know pepole in good jobs that are cutting back on non essentials because of mortgage rates.

[Gordon R]

Quote

To be fair you are the only person on this thread that confirmed they listened to the podcast. It’s a start I guess.

You appear to have difficulty with the truth, because your statement is rubbish.