Say good bye to lead shot, HSE report.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The idea that the org’s voluntary transition, as poorly communicated as it was, somehow begat the HSE’s and the EU’s push to ban lead is a laughable

You have it the wrong way round my friend.

And things are a lot different than 5 years ago, because many of us 'conspiracy theorists' are now being proven right.

[Konor]

27 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The idea that the org’s voluntary transition, as poorly communicated as it was, somehow begat the HSE’s and the EU’s push to ban lead is a laughable.

 

That’s not my argument. It’s the acceptance of restrictions on the sport with no attempt to put into context the level of risk that would justify those restrictions.
While at the same time pedalling emotive unjustifiable statements such as the “ minefields of lead shot for the poor wee partridge chicks” , that I consider laughable.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Konor

[Konor]

Is the scientific data so far supplied to justify the cessation of the use of lead shot completely adequate enough to dictate that all clay pigeon shooting on recognised clay grounds should no longer be carried out using lead shot? 

Edited December 28, 2024 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

6 hours ago, Robden said:

Will the birds know the difference between lead and steel shot then?  And what does rusting steel metabolise into once/if it is broken down in the bird's/animal's gut? 

I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. All the evidence is on the ill effects of ingested lead shot on birds.

[Sweet11-87]

9 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I'm sorry, but you're just parroting the basc line of 5 years ago.

The one where we could all 'choose' 😂 to not use lead shot for live quarry ? If we all transitioned away from lead shot, we could save everything else... We were told there was no imminent ban, it was voluntary... Within a year the consultations started, yet basc still assured us that they would fight for us, and make sure there would be no sweeping bans on lead.

Well, here we are now, and basc are STILL saying it might not happen 🤣 Of course it's going to happen ! 

We've moved from a voluntary transition of lead shot for live quarry, to a ban on lead shot for ALL shooting disciplines, AND lead bullets .243 and above, and once we're into the transition periods for this, they WILL come after the rest.

To say there isn't an agenda, is painfully naive.

fair enough i can see why youd say that i suppose when you feel as strongly that foul play is involved as you seem to. But not in those exact words ive been told more or less the same thing from the bloke who worked the eley stand at the NSS and 2 fellas tied to BASC. granted they dont know  all the goings on but id imagine they're more clued up than you or me on why. Obviously they can and wont just come out and say its financially a daft choice to fight a lead ban because its coming we're trying to coral it into a direction that causes the least harm to the sport and industry.

but that aside what would be your game plan? how would you play this against a ban that we all know real is coming and has been coming a while? were in the stages of staling it not stopping it now and have been for about 20 years.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[Stonepark]

14 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. All the evidence is on the ill effects of ingested lead shot on birds.

And that is exactly the point, all heavy metals (including iron) are toxic. Iron III Oxide (rust) on UN coated pellets or zinc II oxide on coated pellets are both toxic when ingested.

 

https://www.petmd.com/bird/emergency/poisoning-toxicity/c_bd_Heavy_Metal_Poisoning

Edited December 28, 2024 by Stonepark

[Konor]

25 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

say its financially a daft choice to fight a lead ban because its coming

Where is the financial cost in requesting data to support the perceived ill effects of lead shot/ammunition that justifies a wholesale ban on its use by rough shooters and stalkers ?
It appears BASC put most of their effort into convincing shooters of its toxicity rather than advocating a science based assessment of the risks inherent in its use so that we could muster an opposition that would have limited the ban to those areas that are arguably most liable to have a detrimental impact on the environment.

 

34 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

All the evidence is on the ill effects of ingested lead shot on birds.

Perhaps as the season closes when birds have had ample opportunity to pick up lead shot it would be beneficial to analyse the crops and digestive system to determine the extent of lead shot ingestion.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Konor

[Sweet11-87]

27 minutes ago, Konor said:

Where is the financial cost in requesting data to support the perceived ill effects of lead shot/ammunition that justifies a wholesale ban on its use by rough shooters and stalkers ?
It appears BASC put most of their effort into convincing shooters of its toxicity rather than advocating a science based assessment of the risks inherent in its use so that we could muster an opposition that would have limited the ban to those areas that are arguably most liable to have a detrimental impact on the environment.

 

id imagine sending independent impartial qualified people out to collect, Annalise and report will have overheads i cant cover with whats in me wallet. cant be done half baked or the data aint worth sh......

 

i think it needs to be remembered and taken into account while this has all been going on basc funded representation against packham and wild justice countless times at 1 point the general license was in the crosshair, covid , the ongoing licensing turnaround and the rest.  i agree the voluntary transition plan was poorly executed but this isn't all happening in a vacuum where time stands still

 

Edited December 28, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[Rewulf]

55 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

id imagine sending independent impartial qualified people out to collect, Annalise and report will have overheads i cant cover with whats in me wallet. cant be done half baked or the data aint worth sh..

I think you need to stand back and look at the full picture in the historical context.

Do some research into the battle between basc and LAG 10 years ago, where basc spent money, and fought hard to refute the claims of wildlife poisoning by lead shot, then to turn about face, and decry lead as a threat to shooting sports, BACKING a ban in all but name.

We pay these peoples wages.

[Old farrier]

Just my thoughts here 

pheasant shooting and duck shooting are totally different entities 

driven pheasant shooting birds are released into the release pens usually July august so probably getting out to the game cover 3 weeks after release eating / feeding in the game cover and establishing their routine of roosting in the relative safety of the pens venture out to feed in the covers throughout the day 

feeders are moved around nearer the flushing areas to draw the birds to the best flushing point towards the start of the shooting season 

as the season is the beaters drive the bird out over the guns on pegs which are usually situated in the open areas where the birds are safe to shoot and where they are hopefully the most challenging to shoot ie over a few high trees or flushed off the highest ground 

personally think the falling shot will fall well short of the average game cover onto the edge of the high ground (ask beaters where they are when shot falls on them) 

at the end of the season most birds are caught up and go back to the game farms for egg production keepers don’t want to be feeding birds all year so the birds are on the ground for 6 months or less any that remain that are going to breed will probably choose the safety of the release Pens that they have been flying back to each day nesting in a area that is basically devoid of any fallen shot 

in the spring the cover crops are ploughed and replanted ploughing in any shot and remember pheasant shooting takes place in the wettest part of the year 

With this in mind I would suggest that the ingestion of lead shot by pheasants on a large commercial shoot is unlikely to cause any significant or adverse effects 

ducks however are different in that they feed by dabbling as opposed to scratch and peck so there is a need to consider the shot fall areas around ponds and duck feeding areas 

I don’t believe that there’s been any significant research in the uk on the large scale commercial shoots to gather enough evidence to prove or disprove the possibility of lead causing a problem 

personally think it is about trying to sell game not about anything else 

just a few areas my thoughts 

[Konor]

58 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

id imagine sending independent impartial qualified people out to collect, Annalise and report will have overheads i cant cover with whats in me wallet. cant be done half baked or the data aint worth sh......

 

i think it needs to be remembered and taken into account while this has all been going on basc funded representation against packham and wild justice countless times at 1 point the general license was in the crosshair, covid , the ongoing licensing turnaround and the rest.  i agree the voluntary transition plan was poorly executed but this isn't all happening in a vacuum where time stands still

 

All of which doesn’t address why BASC chose to convince shooters of the extent of leads toxicity with no quantifiable proof of its impact either on wild game numbers or human health all the while reassuring them ,as they are still doing ,that any change would be voluntary.

Within the 5 years it appears that little if anything was done to show the real consequences of spreading lead shot in the environment in different scenarios in an attempt to quantify the risks inherent in doing so. Of course after the ban is introduced there will be no base level to measure whether a lead shot ban has improved matters.
As the majority of pheasant shooting is on a put down and take basis I foresee little measurable improvement.

Appeasement going hand in hand with political manoeuvring with little to show for it. Perhaps a study on the impact on the environment of commercial shooting and large scale lead deposition should be promoted in an effort to provide some clarity into the scale of the problem so that restrictions may be introduced according to a measurable threat. If there is little or no impact on game numbers and health within a commercial shooting setting where lead deposition is at its maximum there would seem little benefit in restricting rough shooting where deposition is minimum.

 

[udderlyoffroad]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

And things are a lot different than 5 years ago, because many of us 'conspiracy theorists' are now being proven right.

I’d certainly agree on that; Wuhan lab leaks and all that.

But as I said in my last-but-one post, just because the science is junk, doesn’t mean senior civil servants & politicians won’t leap on it in a concerted effort to cover their backsides. Eg; lockdown.

As said, if they want to ban something (PFAS) where we’re only just beginning to understand its effects, why would they hesitate with something (lead) with “no safe levels”. The fact the science is disputed matters not.

So, again, where is the evidence the orgs’ voluntary transition begat the lead ban? There isn’t any. What begat the HSEs consultation is their wish to remain in lockstep, if not going further than, the EU.

[enfieldspares]

6 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

I wonder if putting down millions and millions of non native gamebirds each year has more effect on fauna and flora then lead shot over the little area of land used by clay grounds, one to be banned but not the other. 

Yes indeed. 

49 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Personally think it is about trying to sell game not about anything else 

Also correct.

So what's the common denominator between these two opinions?

Commercial big bag shooting.

The claim that it can be justified as "harvesting wild meat" which is sold commercially from otherwise less economically productive land and that in order to do this it needs to be shot with other than lead shot.

And because of the abuse on the long standing ban on non-toxic shot in England and Wales for fowl where many holding duck drives cannot get their house in order and insist that their clients use only non-lead shot then every other user of shotgun cartridges goes under the bus.

Finally as an aside I do not know if BASC has or is hosting further Catton Hall days for MPs but if so is non-lead shot throughout the whole day, for everything, being insisted upon? It would be interesting to know the answer.

Edited December 28, 2024 by enfieldspares

[Konor]

30 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So, again, where is the evidence the orgs’ voluntary transition begat the lead ban?

The issue is their lack of opposition to a wide lead shot ban and failure to provide evidence to show minimum impact from lead shot used in clay and sporting shooting

[Rewulf]

46 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

So, again, where is the evidence the orgs’ voluntary transition begat the lead ban? There isn’t any. What begat the HSEs consultation is their wish to remain in lockstep, if not going further than, the EU

OK, I don't think you understood my last answer to this question (it was a little cryptic) The orgs 'voluntary transition' didn't begat the ban.

The impending ban, which I believe was fully briefed to basc et al by gov.uk before 2020, caused basc to make attempts to soften the blow, but also to protect its own assets and interests. This is why no org consulted its members on direction, and explains the staggering about face on lead policy (No evidence, no change ?)

Basc are complicit with the lead ban, and have duped their members, have, and continue to pretend its not happening, when it clearly is.

We keep hearing that it's not really a UK thing, but we need to be EU compliant, even though we left them! It's just an agenda driven cop out to finish shooting.

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, Stonepark said:

And that is exactly the point, all heavy metals (including iron) are toxic. Iron III Oxide (rust) on UN coated pellets or zinc II oxide on coated pellets are both toxic when ingested.

 

https://www.petmd.com/bird/emergency/poisoning-toxicity/c_bd_Heavy_Metal_Poisoning

That article is about iron levels in bird foodstuffs and small amounts of iron and zinc are required. Your question was about steel shot ingestion and I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. Indeed on this forum there are sometimes calls for steel shot pigeons for falconers because lead shot pigeons cause ill effects. If there were issues with steel shot ingestion in birds I think we would have heard by now but I could be wrong.

[Konor]

It seems BASC’s tactic is acceptance and a bit of political manoeuvring prior to an outright ban ,hopefully their failure to adequately defend shooting sports will see a significant shift in their support and an organisation will emerge to focus on the best interests of grass roots shooters.

[Old farrier]

On 25/12/2024 at 10:48, BobbyH said:

I can see what your saying and agree 100%!

But to me, I don’t own guns that exceed a payment of £375. So my guns are not classed as expensive. 
So to that end, if I get barrel scoring, then so be it really. I will still shoot Steel.

 

What I don’t agree with, is BASC basically throwing everyone under the bus, then saying it’s a ‘Voluntary’ move away from Lead.

Just to put it in perspective for others if you’re gun cost £3750 would you still have the same view on shooting it with steel 

or would you be more concerned with your insurance/cartridge manufacturer repairing the damage if you had a dodgy wad and scored the barrel 

then jump up another level and increase the value to £37500

how would you be thinking about steel now 

 

not having a dig at you personally just using the example to emphasise steel shot should not damage any gun irrespective of value or make 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Lead in ammunition, and some hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, were the first areas to be reviewed in 2021 under post-Brexit legislation called UK REACH on the control of hazardous chemicals. These Health and Safety Executive (HSE) reviews came about following Brexit to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the post-Brexit NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations (and as such NI could be impacted by EU lead ammunition restrictions that are already in the EU legislative pipeline).

In June 2023 the HSE proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up in England, Wales and Scotland. This was the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. Nothing has happened since.

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

This is a new process in the UK and no legislative changes as yet.

Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation (noting the substances in tatoos and permanent make-up were at this stage of review in June 2023 and nothing has happened yet).

If laws on lead ammunition are proposed this could be the same for England, Wales and Scotland or we could see different laws in different countries - as happened when the lead shot regulations for wildfowl and/or wetlands came into force over 20 years ago (these were the result of UK government signing up to the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement, an intergovernmental treaty dedicated to the conservation of migratory waterbirds and their habitats across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago). The devolved governments have long had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the HSE review.

[Sweet11-87]

54 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Just to put it in perspective for others if you’re gun cost £3750 would you still have the same view on shooting it with steel 

or would you be more concerned with your insurance/cartridge manufacturer repairing the damage if you had a dodgy wad and scored the barrel 

then jump up another level and increase the value to £37500

how would you be thinking about steel now 

 

not having a dig at you personally just using the example to emphasise steel shot should not damage any gun irrespective of value or make 

 

depends what 4 grand is to the holder. to me personally its allot, and id think if i payed nearly 4 grand for a gun in the last 10 years thats not up to the task of firing steel ive been a bit short sighted. if ive had it over 10 years and ive shot it at a rate that continuing with steel will see a vast amount of damage in short order id say ive had my moneys worth.

and if id thrown nearly 40 grand at a gun then clearly the cost of shooting is an after thought and ill move to bismith

but to address your latter point ive put a fair few heavy loads  of large pellets  through my fowling gun the last few seasons blth plastic and dio degradable and ive not got any scoring  and if i do its so minimal ive not even seen it any my gun gets a pull through and held up to the light after every outing on the foreshore. is any data even available that you get excessive scoring  in modern chrome lined barrels and if so how much scoring can a barrel take before it need retiring?.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Sweet11-87

[BobbyH]

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Just to put it in perspective for others if you’re gun cost £3750 would you still have the same view on shooting it with steel 

or would you be more concerned with your insurance/cartridge manufacturer repairing the damage if you had a dodgy wad and scored the barrel 

then jump up another level and increase the value to £37500

how would you be thinking about steel now 

 

not having a dig at you personally just using the example to emphasise steel shot should not damage any gun irrespective of value or make 

 

Good reply that, 

My personal view on steel is that it has no place within the shooting community. It is going to lessen the value of old, vintage guns to paperweights which is not cool and from what I read, has very little ballistics, meaning a possible inhumane kill or shot.

I am with pretty much with every single member here, in the saying that steel should not be used.

Just curious, and not a sarcastic reply, but has steel be proven to damage barrels, has a study been conducted atall?

 

[Andy H]

21 minutes ago, BobbyH said:

Good reply that, 

My personal view on steel is that it has no place within the shooting community. It is going to lessen the value of old, vintage guns to paperweights which is not cool and from what I read, has very little ballistics, meaning a possible inhumane kill or shot.

I am with pretty much with every single member here, in the saying that steel should not be used.

Just curious, and not a sarcastic reply, but has steel be proven to damage barrels, has a study been conducted atall?

 

Here is an article from Shooting UK   https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/guns/ammunition/steel-shot-and-lead-138337/

[Good shot?]

Who put together the modelling to show that millions of birds/fowl could have died worldwide because of lead ingestion, because I am convinced no one has actually found the bodies. It seems to me that that  has become a fact and not proven.Just because it can harm a bird to ingest lead does not mean it is happening on anything like the scale being pushed via the modelling that can be easily slewed to give the result wanted.

Edited December 28, 2024 by Good shot?

[wymberley]

5 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That article is about iron levels in bird foodstuffs and small amounts of iron and zinc are required. Your question was about steel shot ingestion and I am not aware of any evidence that ingested steel shot causes ill effects on birds. Indeed on this forum there are sometimes calls for steel shot pigeons for falconers because lead shot pigeons cause ill effects. If there were issues with steel shot ingestion in birds I think we would have heard by now but I could be wrong.

Smoke and mirrors. 

Safe

Effective

Non toxic

Economic

 Some of us have not forgotten the above 4 bullet points.

Which is used for shot pellets? Steel or Iron? I hope it’s the former as it seems that that causes no ill effects when ingested whereas the latter in quantities above the low levels required for good health does.

 

[Weihrauch17]

1 hour ago, Good shot? said:

Who put together the modelling to show that millions of birds/fowl could have died worldwide because of lead ingestion, because I am convinced no one has actually found the bodies. It seems to me that that  has become a fact and not proven.Just because it can harm a bird to ingest lead does not mean it is happening on anything like the scale being pushed via the modelling that can be easily slewed to give the result wanted.

Has anyone ever found one?