Conor O'Gorman Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Eat Wild is calling for lead-free shoots to sign up to the lead-free register so dealers, processors and stockists can source game to service this growing market. https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/eat-wild-calls-for-shoots-to-plan-for-the-plate-now-147813/ https://backbritishgame.co.uk/pages/lead-free-register Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruno22rf Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 I will not support any shoot that agrees to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8 shot Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 Will be interesting to see what they're paying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggy74 Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 another nail in the coffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8 shot Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 (edited) Just looked at Waitrose....ONLY selling Farmed Venison and no game at all it's some one looking for a quick buck Edited May 5 by 8 shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, 8 shot said: Just looked at Waitrose....ONLY selling Farmed Venison and no game at all Not in season at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8 shot Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: Not in season at the moment. I've got plenty in the freezer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 I'm sure you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted May 5 Report Share Posted May 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, bruno22rf said: I will not support any shoot that agrees to this. +1. Apparently according to Back British Game this is what we must do. Quote Put simply, game shooting cannot thrive without a market for the birds and deer we shoot.We need to invest in British game by raising the awareness of its benefits. If we want our grandchildren to enjoy eating, shooting, producing, selling or working with game… we need to pay today or there will be no game tomorrow! And "pay today" is a donation of 50p per bird shot, Well the game shooting I do thrives already "without a market for the birds we shoot" as it ALL gets shared between beaters, pickers-up and, finally, the guns. And has always been so. Not a bird is surplus so not a birds has needed to be sold. So what the "puff" above is really saying is that "put simply BIG BAG COMMERCIAL game shooting cannot JUSTIFY ITSELF AGAINST CRITICISM FROM WILD JUSTICE ET AL without THE FICTION OF THE ACTIVITY BEING ABOUT WILD MEAT BEING "HARVESTED" FOR THE FOOD CHAIN." Well good for Back British Game but please don't claim that the game shooting of the sort I have enjoyed cannot thrive without a market. Never did when I started in the late 1980s and never did when my son started in the 2020s. This whole scheme is merely another "divert brickbat" exercise to protect the big bag commercial shoots. I am not fooled and indeed the only ones being fooled are those that want to fool themselves. Edited May 5 by enfieldspares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamch Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 (edited) Eat Wild???? Some one is having a laugh! Surely the title of this organisation is a complete or partial con? Anyone with a modicum of common sense must know that the majority of game meat marketed/promoted by this organisation is reared - with the exception of venison, hares, woodies etc. I know once game birds are released the are legally classified as wild but its stretching a point me thinks. We all know there is no mass market for most of the millions of reared birds shot every year, perhaps looking at reducing the volumes available would stimulate some sort of market? Am sure this is a smoke screen of sorts to give credence to the big commercial operators. Edited May 6 by grahamch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 3 hours ago, grahamch said: We all know there is no mass market for most of the millions of reared birds shot every year, perhaps looking at reducing the volumes available would stimulate some sort of market? Hang on a minute, BASC say there is a market, as long as they arent shot with lead, thats why we need to 'phase out' lead ? Are you disagreeing with BASC ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudger687 Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 Yet another initiative that serves the wealthy estates running the big shoots, the same estates that will go out of their way to stop the plebs from ever getting any shooting. Hard no from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 Rewulf - I await the reply to your question with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
8 shot Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 3 hours ago, grahamch said: Am sure this is a smoke screen of sorts to give credence to the big commercial operators. It's definitely the start off regulations on ALL Game Shoots big and small, we've see it with Deer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamch Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 48 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Hang on a minute, BASC say there is a market, as long as they arent shot with lead, thats why we need to 'phase out' lead ? Are you disagreeing with BASC ? Am expressing my views of the way I see things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 Just now, grahamch said: Am expressing my views of the way I see things. Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 20 hours ago, enfieldspares said: +1. Apparently according to Back British Game this is what we must do. And "pay today" is a donation of 50p per bird shot, Well the game shooting I do thrives already "without a market for the birds we shoot" as it ALL gets shared between beaters, pickers-up and, finally, the guns. And has always been so. Not a bird is surplus so not a birds has needed to be sold. So what the "puff" above is really saying is that "put simply BIG BAG COMMERCIAL game shooting cannot JUSTIFY ITSELF AGAINST CRITICISM FROM WILD JUSTICE ET AL without THE FICTION OF THE ACTIVITY BEING ABOUT WILD MEAT BEING "HARVESTED" FOR THE FOOD CHAIN." Well good for Back British Game but please don't claim that the game shooting of the sort I have enjoyed cannot thrive without a market. Never did when I started in the late 1980s and never did when my son started in the 2020s. This whole scheme is merely another "divert brickbat" exercise to protect the big bag commercial shoots. I am not fooled and indeed the only ones being fooled are those that want to fool themselves. Very well put 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 6 Author Report Share Posted May 6 (edited) Whilst we each have our personal views on various live quarry shooting disciplines, my experience is that it's all the same to the public, and I have never understood the motivations for people on social media publicly putting down other shooting disciplines, especially this notion that 'commercial' shooting will be the end of it all. I think greed and excess can damage shooting and that can be found in game shooting and many other places. Shooting estates have been supplying game to the market for over a century and for an insight on the current game market and opportunities in the future and how that is interlinked with public acceptance for live quarry shooting perhaps give the following podcast a listen. https://theshoothubpodcast.podbean.com/e/the-game-meat-market-dylan-williams/ Edited May 6 by Conor O'Gorman Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enfieldspares Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 (edited) 12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Whilst we each have our personal views on various live quarry shooting disciplines, my experience is that it's all the same to the public How true. To the end consumer who is obtaining it to cook and eat my observations are indeed that it is all the same whether it has been shot with lead, with steel, with bismuth or whatever. People that eat game as it is a family thing or eat game as they want to try it and all that have asked me for a brace of pheasant or a couple of duck really do not care if it has been shot with this, or that, or whatever save in truth that if it's been shot with steel they DO NOT want it as they fear it is a risk of broken teeth. So my experience (and can other PW members perhaps relate their interaction) are that you'll be asked these almost exact questions. "You are shooting this week can you get me a pheasant please?" "You are shooting this week can you get me a pigeon please?" NEVER is either question thus: "You are shooting this week can you get me a pheasant please but only if it is not shot with lead." "You are shooting this week can you get me a pigeon please but only if it is not shot with lead." But what I also get is this: "You are shooting this week can you get me some duck please?" "Yes I can. With pleasure. You know it will been shot with steel shot? "Oh. In that case I don't want one. Can you get me something else that's not then been shot with steel shot please?" So in my transactions the person is concerned not in the least about the supposed risks in long term of the effects of ingesting lead (as they don't know anybody that has ever died for eating lead shot game) but only worried about the immediate risk of possible expansive damage to their teeth from steel shot. That's my input to this that it is indeed ALL THE SAME and that lead shot makes no difference to those members of the public who do not shoot but are wanting to obtain game to cook and eat. Risk of possible presence of lead makes no difference. Risk of possible presence of steel does and in fact it does so by scaring them off and discouraging them. For folk associate steel pellets as being...which is in fact what they are...a dosing of small, hard, iron ball bearings mixed into their food. Edited May 7 by enfieldspares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham M Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 I can imagine Conor going to work for the AA or the RAC and telling us that we should all be driving electric cars. He would then find a way of informing the media that everyone he knew wanted an electric vehicle and that anyone who didn't want one was somehow misinformed and that they really did want one even thought they didn't..... He would then inform the government that we should all be driving EV's because we all wanted them...........even those that didn't. He would then introduce a "Voluntary" 5 year phasing out period for us all to get rid of our nasty polluting petrol and diesel cars so that we could all change over to very expensive EV's because that's really what we all want............because him and his friends drive them. And when we all told him that we didn't want an EV................he would then tell us that we did because he had evidence that everyone else did. And round and round it all went............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 Graham M - A little harsh. I'm sure Conor O'Gorman would provide yet another useless link / podcast, which would answer absolutely nothing. 🙂 Having unwisely listened to the last truly amateurish podcast, I am reluctant to to suffer another ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 10 minutes ago, Graham M said: I can imagine Conor going to work for the AA or the RAC and telling us that we should all be driving electric cars. He would then find a way of informing the media that everyone he knew wanted an electric vehicle and that anyone who didn't want one was somehow misinformed and that they really did want one even thought they didn't..... He would then inform the government that we should all be driving EV's because we all wanted them...........even those that didn't. He would then introduce a "Voluntary" 5 year phasing out period for us all to get rid of our nasty polluting petrol and diesel cars so that we could all change over to very expensive EV's because that's really what we all want............because him and his friends drive them. And when we all told him that we didn't want an EV................he would then tell us that we did because he had evidence that everyone else did. And round and round it all went............................ And then find out as we will very likely with steel shot not enough electricity capacity produced to charge all the EV’s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted May 6 Report Share Posted May 6 2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said: I have never understood the motivations for people on social media publicly putting down other shooting disciplines, especially this notion that 'commercial' shooting will be the end of it all. I think greed and excess can damage shooting and that can be found in game shooting and many other places. I think the motivation might largely be to do to the perception that BASC is protecting the interests of commercial shooting over grass roots/ rough shooters by placing the marketing of excessive amounts of game, the by product of what might be argued as unsustainable shooting, above the interests of small non commercial shoots who have little problem in placing their game into the food chain. That the use of steel shot is being forced upon average small bag shooters as a result of protecting commercial shoots and their ability to justify their excesses by claiming the main reason for their existence is to supply a market for game meat is unacceptable. If large commercial shoots wish to remain in business and require to make their by product saleable then only they should be required to forgo the use of lead shot. Your own emotive argument of minefields of lead shot for poor wee partridges and your reluctance to accept that the greatest risk lies in those areas where the deposition of lead is greatest, ie commercial shoots ,hints at a reluctance to allocate blame , if blame is justified, where logic dictates it belongs. It may be argued that the driver of a lead ban is the UK’s Health and Safety Executive and outwith BASC’s control but BASC has by its insistence on calling for a voluntary move away from lead shot and its well publicised stance that lead’s toxicity makes it unsafe for its continued use inland has rendered a negotiated defence of lead shot use ,where negligible harm to the environment is a probability, impossible. All the above must be considered within the context of there being no data to support any degree of harm existing from the use of lead shot in inland non wetland environments . BASC’s stance was previously No Science No Change. If no figures can be produced to support a scientific basis for the cessation of lead shot use inland then what has changed to cause BASC to fail to support this previous stance ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 7 Author Report Share Posted May 7 12 hours ago, enfieldspares said: How true. To the end consumer who is obtaining it to cook and eat my observations are indeed that it is all the same whether it has been shot with lead, with steel, with bismuth or whatever. People that eat game as it is a family thing or eat game as they want to try it and all that have asked me for a brace of pheasant or a couple of duck really do not care if it has been shot with this, or that, or whatever save in truth that if it's been shot with steel they DO NOT want it as they fear it is a risk of broken teeth. So my experience (and can other PW members perhaps relate their interaction) are that you'll be asked these almost exact questions. "You are shooting this week can you get me a pheasant please?" "You are shooting this week can you get me a pigeon please?" NEVER is either question thus: "You are shooting this week can you get me a pheasant please but only if it is not shot with lead." "You are shooting this week can you get me a pigeon please but only if it is not shot with lead." But what I also get is this: "You are shooting this week can you get me some duck please?" "Yes I can. With pleasure. You know it will been shot with steel shot? "Oh. In that case I don't want one. Can you get me something else that's not then been shot with steel shot please?" So in my transactions the person is concerned not in the least about the supposed risks in long term of the effects of ingesting lead (as they don't know anybody that has ever died for eating lead shot game) but only worried about the immediate risk of possible expansive damage to their teeth from steel shot. That's my input to this that it is indeed ALL THE SAME and that lead shot makes no difference to those members of the public who do not shoot but are wanting to obtain game to cook and eat. Risk of possible presence of lead makes no difference. Risk of possible presence of steel does and in fact it does so by scaring them off and discouraging them. For folk associate steel pellets as being...which is in fact what they are...a dosing of small, hard, iron ball bearings mixed into their food. I agree. It may not matter to most what type of shot was used to shoot the bird nor what shot might be present in the meat. It's more a case of what game dealers, supermarkets, butchers, restaurants etc will take, based on what their clientele require or what the perceived requirement is. It's market forces. If shoots want to go lead-free that is their choice and if they wish to join the Eat Wild register that is their choice also. And if you chomp down on any type of shot you might dislodge a filling. Steel shot is more malleable than you may realise - its actually soft iron - calling it steel ball bearings is misinformation. If you are telling your guests that the game meat you are serving them might contain steel ball bearings its no wonder they would be worried - however, I think you presented a theoretical scenario there and not perhaps one borne of your own experience. Also, bear in mind that in Denmark where they have been using steel shot for decades my understanding is that there has been no associated increase in broken teeth etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted May 7 Author Report Share Posted May 7 (edited) 10 hours ago, Konor said: I think the motivation might largely be to do to the perception that BASC is protecting the interests of commercial shooting over grass roots/ rough shooters by placing the marketing of excessive amounts of game, the by product of what might be argued as unsustainable shooting, above the interests of small non commercial shoots who have little problem in placing their game into the food chain. That the use of steel shot is being forced upon average small bag shooters as a result of protecting commercial shoots and their ability to justify their excesses by claiming the main reason for their existence is to supply a market for game meat is unacceptable. If large commercial shoots wish to remain in business and require to make their by product saleable then only they should be required to forgo the use of lead shot. Your own emotive argument of minefields of lead shot for poor wee partridges and your reluctance to accept that the greatest risk lies in those areas where the deposition of lead is greatest, ie commercial shoots ,hints at a reluctance to allocate blame , if blame is justified, where logic dictates it belongs. It may be argued that the driver of a lead ban is the UK’s Health and Safety Executive and outwith BASC’s control but BASC has by its insistence on calling for a voluntary move away from lead shot and its well publicised stance that lead’s toxicity makes it unsafe for its continued use inland has rendered a negotiated defence of lead shot use ,where negligible harm to the environment is a probability, impossible. All the above must be considered within the context of there being no data to support any degree of harm existing from the use of lead shot in inland non wetland environments . BASC’s stance was previously No Science No Change. If no figures can be produced to support a scientific basis for the cessation of lead shot use inland then what has changed to cause BASC to fail to support this previous stance ? Please stop spreading misinformation on this forum. There is a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting with shotguns being encouraged by many shooting organisations and it underpinned by GWCT advice. The key issue is lead shot being picked up by birds as grit. You are free to do what you want and there is no conspiracy. You must by now understand the situation having had it explained to you many times unless you are completely tunnel visioned. PW members and visitors can therefore conclude that you are using this forum to deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is unacceptable. Edited May 7 by Conor O'Gorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts