What have the Romans ever done for us?

[clangerman]

3 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

No, not at all, what the good Doctor needs to do is answer the questions posted of him.

he couldn’t give straight answers with a level we should rename general shooting matters the basc lead pr section a voluntary move of coarse lol 

[Konor]

12 minutes ago, clangerman said:

yet another round of argument and division the solution is simple connor Gorman has to GO! 

Definitely not.
It would help if instead of posting cut and paste articles Conor could in a few sentences

1 state the figures being used as evidence for his contention that lead shot used inland is having a significant detrimental effect on wildlife and the environment  and

2 why he considers that the continuation of a voluntary ban is feasible

and

3 why hotspot areas aren’t the focus of any restrictions to then gauge the impact of the cessation of lead shot use. 

Here’s the opportunity to confront some of the questions ,surely easily answered specifically ,without referring to articles of arguably doubtful relevance 
 

The crux of the matter is that we have all invested hours of effort on this thread and others and that could have been more profitably spent yet we still have no clarity on the evidence pushing us towards a lead ban ,just the relentless there is no ban nonsense ,really  can we revisit that later because there is a vocal opposition that are calling for a ban and the halting of all quarry shooting and BASC stance is fuelling it.

[Zoli 12 guage]

28 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

No, not at all, what the good Doctor needs to do is answer the questions posted of him.

easier said than done when it appears easier to get a straight answer from an MP

[Konor]

22 minutes ago, ditchman said:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I have to take the occasional nap in between posting ,it’s tiring work trying to wring answers out of some posters. Yet they choose to debate their position on an open forum so they can’t have it all their own way. Plenty BASC PR but little in the way of accountability. 😴 Wake me up in an hour.

[mellors]

2 minutes ago, Zoli 12 guage said:

easier said than done when it appears easier to get a straight answer from an MP

Really. 

I'd love to hear one say yes or no just once. 

[wymberley]

Somebody had a clear out or re-inventing the wheel:

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Hopefully the strength of feeling is becoming apparent.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 hours ago, scolopax said:

gives an overall impression of a rather unhealthy obsession with David 

We used to have a BASC representative called David some years ago....................................

[Konor]

25 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Hopefully the strength of feeling is becoming apparent.

And it’s that strength of feeling that should be recognised instead of being constantly ignored and having the debate manipulated to infer that it’s a disaffected minority hell bent on personal attack . I can’t make myself any clearer in my posts and have taken time to avoid as much misinterpretation as possible but not even an acknowledgement, just a complete focus on the side comments and the avoidance of the main points of my posts. It’s eye opening (verging on eye watering at times).

10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

We used to have a BASC representative called David some years ago....................................

So not Conor with multiple accounts I heard there were rumours of such shenanigans earlier.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

No, not Conor, he was speculating that Rewulf had multiple accounts on here.  

Edited April 25 by TIGHTCHOKE
Syntax

[Konor]

42 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

No, not Conor, he was speculating that Rewulf had multiple accounts on here.  

I see I must have got that muddled up, so much information to plough through searching for answers it’s no wonder 😀

. Wouldn’t it be beneficial to have just a few concise sentences stating the figures to justify the proposed lead bans, voluntary or not, and perhaps another to shed light on why there has been little negotiation to minimise the impact on shooters whose activities probably have negligible environmental impact .
The result of some clear thinking might see a move to a more proportionate reaction to the impact of lead shot on the environment and a compromise that would see the end of any major environmental impact and also the continuation of low impact lead shot use. Or are we hanging our collective hats on the assurances by BASC that this voluntary move away from lead shot is sufficient to ensure no legislation being introduced to enforce a near total ban ?

[ditchman]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

I have to take the occasional nap in between posting ,it’s tiring work trying to wring answers out of some posters. Yet they choose to debate their position on an open forum so they can’t have it all their own way. Plenty BASC PR but little in the way of accountability. 😴 Wake me up in an hour.

i think this conversation would be far better held in a pub....

[Zoli 12 guage]

13 minutes ago, ditchman said:

i think this conversation would be far better held in a pub....

i agree👍

I'll have Timothy Taylor's 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

Definitely not.
It would help if instead of posting cut and paste articles Conor could in a few sentences

1 state the figures being used as evidence for his contention that lead shot used inland is having a significant detrimental effect on wildlife and the environment  and

2 why he considers that the continuation of a voluntary ban is feasible

and

3 why hotspot areas aren’t the focus of any restrictions to then gauge the impact of the cessation of lead shot use. 

Here’s the opportunity to confront some of the questions ,surely easily answered specifically ,without referring to articles of arguably doubtful relevance 
 

The crux of the matter is that we have all invested hours of effort on this thread and others and that could have been more profitably spent yet we still have no clarity on the evidence pushing us towards a lead ban ,just the relentless there is no ban nonsense ,really  can we revisit that later because there is a vocal opposition that are calling for a ban and the halting of all quarry shooting and BASC stance is fuelling it.

I have answered hundreds of questions on this topic on PW and SD for 4 years. Many more with BASC members. The vast majority of people get it. A handful of people on PW do not get it and probably never will, not least when the handful refuse to discuss on the phone or face to face. 

For the very last time Konor, and despite all your unwarranted and unwelcome personal remarks that you continue to make about me, I will make an exception just this once to answer these your final 3 questions. Then, perhaps be more open minded and phone me or Terry. Or attend a BASC event this summer and talk to staff on the stand. 

1 state the figures being used as evidence for his contention that lead shot used inland is having a significant detrimental effect on wildlife and the environment 

Lead shot is having an impact on birds that eat lead shot as grit. This is evidenced in various research papers. The 2023 HSE background doc contains references to most of the research. Here are some figures as outlined on the GWCT website:

Scientists estimate that millions of birds suffer from sub-lethal effects of lead shot every year throughout Europe³⁴. Research estimates suggest that between 30-60,000²² and 50-100,000¹ birds are likely to perish in the UK each winter as a direct result of lead shot poisoning. Long-term monitoring found that 8.1% of birds found dead between 2000-2010 had died from ingesting lead pellets^12,23. Some animals had ingested hundreds of pellets³⁴.

Records of autopsied birds from 1971-2010 showed that 1 in 4 migratory swans and 1 in 10 wildfowl exhibited lead shot poisoning as the cause of death^12,22. A total of 42% of whooper swans that underwent blood tests in winters between 2010 and 2014 also showed high levels of lead in their blood^12,20.

Scientists estimate that 1.5-3.0% of wildfowl overwintering in the UK each year die of lead shot poisoning¹.

Lead shot poisoning is difficult to quantify primarily due to the likelihood of under-estimation, although some over-estimation is possible. Lead ingestion could be more common than thought because pellets are only present for a short time before they absorb into the body. Lead shot poisoning can also present subtle, sub-lethal effects that are hard to notice⁴³ and result in wildfowl deaths being attributed to other factors¹². Birds may also consume lead pellets from other countries when they travel to and from their overwintering sites²³. However, research has shown that migratory wildfowl have high blood lead levels in mid-late winter when they are most likely to have been in the UK for several weeks. Given that blood lead concentrations tend to reflect exposures within 35–40 days of testing, it is therefore probable that most will have ingested lead shot in the UK¹².

It is important to remember that regardless of the number of wildfowl or other wildlife affected, lead is a harmful toxin that can cause great suffering and death. Any lack of studies providing hard data on lead shot poisoning does not mean that lead is not a serious and noteworthy issue for wildlife²².

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

 

2 why he considers that the continuation of a voluntary ban is feasible

Firstly, there is no voluntary ban. BASC, CA, GWCT, NGO and others are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. It is feasible because more and more non-lead products are coming onto market and individuals and shoots are moving away from lead shot for live quarry shooting and attitudes are changing - key is growing recognition about the evidence on the impacts of lead shot on birds.

3 why hotspot areas aren’t the focus of any restrictions to then gauge the impact of the cessation of lead shot use. 

There are no restrictions. Only proposed restrictions. The HSE has considered UK research on the density of lead shot in and around shooting grounds and wetlands. Also ECHA has done same for mainland Europe. The HSE and ECHA background reports can be reviewed online. The HSE has yet to report on its 2023 consultation and perhaps your submission on hotspots will be taken up in the HSE final proposals for the government to consider. Meanwhile, perhaps you could produce an outline or more detailed report, from your consultation response on how your hot spot proposal would work in practice and be enforced and PW members can debate its pros and cons. 

15 minutes ago, ditchman said:

i think this conversation would be far better held in a pub....

Yep. Give that man a pint! 

[Penelope]

6 hours ago, Konor said:

I think my last post explains my position. Your claim of an unhealthy obsession with David is a rather strange deduction. In your experience are unhealthy obsessions with other men common. And who is this David you refer to.

You should notice that the content of my posts focus on “David’s “inadequate responses to the points I have raised. As he is the one responsible for that then obviously he is the cause of my complaints. Do you consider that my postings are somehow more sinister in nature and could you instead of speed reading just read them then quote to justify your allegation.

The sheer length of each of my posts is in the interests of clarity and the avoidance of misinterpretation. The quantity is a reflection of the fact that I have a few days off work as part of a pre retiral programme. I consider that my views expressed are representative of many grass shooters and I am fortunate enough to have the time to express those views on behalf of those grass roots shooters.

That you should see it as some unhealthy vendetta against “ David “whom I assume you to mean Conor O’Gorman is your personal opinion and doesn’t take into account the majority of my post content that you have ,as you say.briefly speed read over.

'David' was the previous BASC incarnation on here.

[Konor]

4 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Long-term monitoring found that 8.1% of birds found dead between 2000-2010 had died from ingesting lead pellets¹²

 

5 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

1 in 10 wildfowl exhibited lead shot poisoning as the cause of death^12,22.

 

6 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Scientists estimate that 1.5-3.0% of wildfowl overwintering in the UK each year die of lead shot poisoning¹.

 

7 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Any lack of studies providing hard data on lead shot poisoning does not mean that lead is not a serious and noteworthy issue for wildlife²².

I was requesting only figures relevant to inland habitat other than wetlands to justify any move away from lead shot. The last quote above seems to indicate that there is none

11 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Firstly, there is no voluntary ban. BASC, CA, GWCT, NGO and others are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting

The voluntary move away from lead is a voluntary lead ban in all but name and my question is why do you consider the continuation of that voluntary initiative is feasible when you have spent so long advertising the toxicity of lead in inland habitats excluding wetlands.

[Konor]

34 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

why hotspot areas aren’t the focus of any restrictions to then gauge the impact of the cessation of lead shot use. 

There are no restrictions. Only proposed restrictions. The HSE has considered UK research on the density of lead shot in and around shooting grounds and wetlands. Also ECHA has done same for mainland Europe. The HSE and ECHA background reports can be reviewed online. The HSE has yet to report on its 2023 consultation and perhaps your submission on hotspots will be taken up in the HSE final proposals for the government to consider. Meanwhile, perhaps you could produce an outline or more detailed report, from your consultation response on how your hot spot proposal would work in practice and be enforced and PW members can debate its pros and cons. 

The question should then have been proposed restrictions. 
I acknowledge the potential of birds within a wetland environment having the potential to be poisoned by lead shot especially in locations such as flight ponds which are heavily shot over. I am not convinced that lead shot is a problem on non wetland areas and have seen no figures to convince me that it is.

If BASC et al are convinced that lead shot use is a significant threat to wildlife inland then I propose that threat should be greatest on ground that is heavily shot over. The ground most likely for this to be the case is commercial shoots and I am sure there are bag records and rearing statistics that would confirm this. I think that if your assertion is that lead deposition is creating a significant impact on inland habitat then all commercial shoots as described should cease to have the use of lead shot as an option. GWCT should then study whether this cessation of lead shot use has resulted in any measurable benefit and whether that benefit justifies the restrictions. That there seems to be no base line figures to allow this to be carried out is a problem that may be resolved by not restricting some commercial shoots and carrying out a comparison to illustrate any differences resulting from use/non use of lead shot. Perhaps this should have been carried out 4 years ago even if it meant the organisations footing the bill for steel cartridges as an incentive it may have been worth the investment if meaningful data could have been obtained.

Edited April 25 by Konor

[Konor]

30 minutes ago, Penelope said:

'David' was the previous BASC incarnation on here.

I remember BASC David posting. It was my attempt at humour which I should have followed up with an emoji to indicate. On reflection I hope the poster involved ,Scolopax I think ,was not not offended by my remarks.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 minutes ago, Konor said:

I remember BASC David posting. It was my attempt at humour which I should have followed up with an emoji to indicate. On reflection I hope the poster involved ,Scolopax I think ,was not not offended by my remarks.

Careful with that humour thing, you'll be foxing a lot of these guys.   

[Konor]

55 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I have answered hundreds of questions on this topic on PW and SD for 4 years. Many more with BASC members. The vast majority of people get it. A handful of people on PW do not get it and probably never will, not least when the handful refuse to discuss on the phone or face to face. 

For the very last time Konor, and despite all your unwarranted and unwelcome personal remarks that you continue to make about me, I will make an exception just this once to answer these your final 3 questions. Then, perhaps be more open minded and phone me or Terry. Or attend a BASC event this summer and talk to staff on the stand. 

1 state the figures being used as evidence for his contention that lead shot used inland is having a significant detrimental effect on wildlife and the environment 

Lead shot is having an impact on birds that eat lead shot as grit. This is evidenced in various research papers. The 2023 HSE background doc contains references to most of the research. Here are some figures as outlined on the GWCT website:

Scientists estimate that millions of birds suffer from sub-lethal effects of lead shot every year throughout Europe³⁴. Research estimates suggest that between 30-60,000²² and 50-100,000¹ birds are likely to perish in the UK each winter as a direct result of lead shot poisoning. Long-term monitoring found that 8.1% of birds found dead between 2000-2010 had died from ingesting lead pellets^12,23. Some animals had ingested hundreds of pellets³⁴.

Records of autopsied birds from 1971-2010 showed that 1 in 4 migratory swans and 1 in 10 wildfowl exhibited lead shot poisoning as the cause of death^12,22. A total of 42% of whooper swans that underwent blood tests in winters between 2010 and 2014 also showed high levels of lead in their blood^12,20.

Scientists estimate that 1.5-3.0% of wildfowl overwintering in the UK each year die of lead shot poisoning¹.

Lead shot poisoning is difficult to quantify primarily due to the likelihood of under-estimation, although some over-estimation is possible. Lead ingestion could be more common than thought because pellets are only present for a short time before they absorb into the body. Lead shot poisoning can also present subtle, sub-lethal effects that are hard to notice⁴³ and result in wildfowl deaths being attributed to other factors¹². Birds may also consume lead pellets from other countries when they travel to and from their overwintering sites²³. However, research has shown that migratory wildfowl have high blood lead levels in mid-late winter when they are most likely to have been in the UK for several weeks. Given that blood lead concentrations tend to reflect exposures within 35–40 days of testing, it is therefore probable that most will have ingested lead shot in the UK¹².

It is important to remember that regardless of the number of wildfowl or other wildlife affected, lead is a harmful toxin that can cause great suffering and death. Any lack of studies providing hard data on lead shot poisoning does not mean that lead is not a serious and noteworthy issue for wildlife²².

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

 

2 why he considers that the continuation of a voluntary ban is feasible

Firstly, there is no voluntary ban. BASC, CA, GWCT, NGO and others are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. It is feasible because more and more non-lead products are coming onto market and individuals and shoots are moving away from lead shot for live quarry shooting and attitudes are changing - key is growing recognition about the evidence on the impacts of lead shot on birds.

3 why hotspot areas aren’t the focus of any restrictions to then gauge the impact of the cessation of lead shot use. 

There are no restrictions. Only proposed restrictions. The HSE has considered UK research on the density of lead shot in and around shooting grounds and wetlands. Also ECHA has done same for mainland Europe. The HSE and ECHA background reports can be reviewed online. The HSE has yet to report on its 2023 consultation and perhaps your submission on hotspots will be taken up in the HSE final proposals for the government to consider. Meanwhile, perhaps you could produce an outline or more detailed report, from your consultation response on how your hot spot proposal would work in practice and be enforced and PW members can debate its pros and cons. 

In summation I don’t think my questions have been answered

1 The data provided was reliant on wildfowl and wetlands and GWCT seemed to confirm that they had no data relevant to inland habitat.

2. While I am aware that there are a growing number of products on the market to increase the feasibility of a voluntary move away from lead shoots are not moving away from the use of lead shot in any appreciable way (93% estimated non compliance) and you failed to answer why the voluntary move etc should continue to be permitted when you appear to have made such a strong case for the toxicity of lead in an inland non wetland environment.

3. Hopefully common sense will prevail where science has failed and we will have a more proportionate response to the perceived problem of lead shot deposition inland

Edited April 25 by Konor

[Rewulf]

40 minutes ago, Konor said:

1 The data provided was reliant on wildfowl and wetlands and GWCT seemed to confirm that they had no data relevant to inland habitat.

Not only that , but some datasets that they used, go back to the 70s , long before the lead ban on waterfowl.

Also by their own admission, newer datasets, post ban , are tainted by their own conclusion that some lead shot could remain a hazard for 10-100 years.

What does this mean in practice ?
That even if lead shot for live quarry voluntary 'transition' or ban came about tomorrow, they would still be able to produce 'evidence' that birds were still being poisoned by lead (whether they are or not) leading to further criticism and restrictions.
The likes of pacman/WJ ect , arent interested in lead poisonings, their primary target is ALL hunting sports, lead is just a useful tool to make that aim a reality.
You only need to look at the fowlers, who are constantly targeted, decades later, because a tiny proportion of them still use lead (allegedly)

[Konor]

I concur with that Rewulf. Once one objective is reached then it’s on to the next. It’s a fight that I’m sure many activists would state is only over when sporting shooting ceases to exist. If that were to happen another goal will be set. Any concessions play into their hands and should be minimised as a matter of course. Hopefully  they will be tied up with obstacles that can be put in their path to restrict them but that is more easily achieved with the full support of our national organisations.

Anti fieldsports activism is a hobby, more than a hobby to many. People don’t want to give up their hobbies. It’s like Hunt sabs hunting hunts ,great fun for the weekend. Add in a shovel  full of self righteousness and you’re away.

Edited April 25 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

In summation I don’t think my questions have been answered

1 The data provided was reliant on wildfowl and wetlands and GWCT seemed to confirm that they had no data relevant to inland habitat.

2. While I am aware that there are a growing number of products on the market to increase the feasibility of a voluntary move away from lead shoots are not moving away from the use of lead shot in any appreciable way (93% estimated non compliance) and you failed to answer why the voluntary move etc should continue to be permitted when you appear to have made such a strong case for the toxicity of lead in an inland non wetland environment.

3. Hopefully common sense will prevail where science has failed and we will have a more proportionate response to the perceived problem of lead shot deposition inland

Fair enough. I have answered to the best of my knowledge and I would urge you to take up your concerns with GWCT on the science, with BASC on the voluntary transition (as you are a member), and with PW members on your hotspot proposal.

As regards the 93% figure you quoted - I think that methodology is flawed (but I might be biased...) and it could be anything from 62% upwards. A certain irony to rely on stats provided by what some might call antis on here - whilst refuting stats produced by some of the same scientists estimating up to 100,000 birds a year dying of lead poisoning. The following may be of interest.

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

[TIGHTCHOKE]

From your link

"The only valid conclusion that could be drawn from the study is that out of 356 pheasants sampled 62% were shot with lead ammunition, 4% were shot with non-lead ammunition, and 34% were shot with either lead or non-lead ammunition or something else"

[Konor]

30 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Fair enough. I have answered to the best of my knowledge and I would urge you to take up your concerns with GWCT on the science, with BASC on the voluntary transition (as you are a member), and with PW members on your hotspot proposal.

As regards the 93% figure you quoted - I think that methodology is flawed (but I might be biased...) and it could be anything from 62% upwards. A certain irony to rely on stats provided by what some might call antis on here - whilst refuting stats produced by some of the same scientists estimating up to 100,000 birds a year dying of lead poisoning. The following may be of interest.

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

I agree with you regarding the interpretation of the statistics and feel that, as is widely acknowledged , statistics can be manipulated to promote a pre determined conclusion. I’m just not on board overall with the evidence that claims to support the justification for the extent of the proposed changes . I fear the far reaching consequences that those changes will bring about I acknowledge to a younger generation of shooters starting out those fears may not be so great.

Edited April 25 by Konor
Addition