Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Konor]

17 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Common pheasant

Lead exposure in ring-necked pheasants on shooting estates in Great Britain.

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[583:LEIRPO]2.0.CO;2

The scientists examined 437 ring-necked pheasant gizzards collected from birds shot on 32 shooting estates in Great Britain during spring 1996 and 1997 and during the shooting seasons of 1999-2000 and 2001-2002. They determined wing-bone-lead concentrations in 98 female birds collected in 1997. Gizzard examinations showed an overall ingestion incidence rate of 3.0%. The birds that had lead in their gizzards in 1997 also had high concentrations of lead in their bones. They suggested that game managers on shooting estates should be aware that pheasants are vulnerable to shot ingestion and may need to consider measures to reduce this problem in areas where prevalence is high.

Would you consider an overall ingestion incidence rate of 3.0%, on I’m assuming heavily shot over shooting estates, sufficient evidence to support any restriction on lead shot use outwith a commercialised shoot setting ?

 Could you extrapolate from the figures given what impact that would have on game bird numbers on the shooting estates where the studies were carried out ? For example of the birds shown to have ingested lead shot what percentage of those would not recover and succumb to lead shot poisoning and how many would survive.

[Conor O'Gorman]

46 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The word 'typical' is mine. The exact text in the paper:

"The weights of individual lead shot in the chick gizzards showed a rapid rate of erosion, indicating a short retention time in the gizzard, as also reported for adult waterfowl and game birds" 

and:

"It is remarkable that between 1968 and 1978, two chicks sampled from separate broods on the Sussex Downs had, within 3 weeks of hatching, ingested 13 and 14 lead shot. Moreover, the erosion of the individual shot suggests that they were ingested within a short discrete period of time. Somewhat similarly, a grey partridge in Denmark in 1976 had ingested 34 lead shot (Clausen and Wolstrup 1979), a grey partridge in Wiltshire in 1966, 26 (this study) and a pheasant on the Sussex Downs in 1970, 87 (Beer 1988). All these cases occurred in a predominantly arable environment where cultivation removes most of the shot from the soil surface (Esslinger and Klimstra 1983). The measured incidence of lead shot in gizzards considerably underestimates the annual exposure because the shot is retained in the gizzard only for a relatively short period of time. The average erosion of lead in the grey partridge chicks, 55%, is remarkable given that the chicks were aged only 2–3 weeks (18 days) and had presumably not ingested the lead on their first day. The erosion in the chick gizzards is consistent with lead shot loss in adult mallard (Bellrose 1959); mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) (McConnel 1968) and willow grouse (Lagopus lagopus) (Gjerstad and Hanssen (1984). It follows that the gizzards of some living partridges that contain no lead shot at the time of sampling will probably have contained shot previously."

Also there have been previous records of grey partridge ingesting lead shot referenced here: 

KEYMER, I. F. (1958) A survey and review of the causes of mortality in British birds and the significance of wild birds as disseminators of disease.Veterinary
Record 70, 713

KEYMER, I. F. & STEBBINGS, R. S. (1987) Lead poisoning in a partridge (Perdix perdix) after ingestion of gunshot. Veterinary Record 120, 276-277

[Konor]

27 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Also there have been previous records of grey partridge ingesting lead shot referenced here: 

KEYMER, I. F. (1958) A survey and review of the causes of mortality in British birds and the significance of wild birds as disseminators of disease.Veterinary
Record 70, 713

KEYMER, I. F. & STEBBINGS, R. S. (1987) Lead poisoning in a partridge (Perdix perdix) after ingestion of gunshot. Veterinary Record 120, 276-277

This information would have been available prior to 2016 when it was decided by DEFRA that the evidence put forward for restriction of lead shot inland was insufficient. Do you have any links for research work carried out post 2016 that would make a strong case for the reversal of the decision made in 2016.
The onus should be on those seeking change to provide evidence to support their case and should also take into consideration the global environmental impact of switching from lead to steel. The examples given ,some using limited data and isolated examples of lead ingestion as representative to support the extent of harm others using arguably heavily shot over ground to provide the statistics, seem to make a weak argument to support any wide scale restrictions.

Do you have any further data that would convince the forum that further restrictions on the use of lead shot particularly outwith a commercialised scale is proportionate to the extent of harm caused by lead shot use inland outwith wetland areas ?

[Old farrier]

It should be noted that the heavily shot areas ie the bigger commercial shoots are also they are the most likely to release incredibly large quantities of birds so it would seem obvious that this would affect any data gathered as would the time of year in the shooting season or the breeding season I haven’t noticed any significant data on the season of data collected I assume June and July as it’s chicks that keep being used in the report (possibly emotively)

I would think that time and money would be better spent on predator control if anyone genuinely thought they could help the population of the grey partridge along with changing farming practices 

 

[Scully]

52 minutes ago, Konor said:

This information would have been available prior to 2016 when it was decided by DEFRA that the evidence put forward for restriction of lead shot inland was insufficient. Do you have any links for research work carried out post 2016 that would make a strong case for the reversal of the decision made in 2016.
The onus should be on those seeking change to provide evidence to support their case and should also take into consideration the global environmental impact of switching from lead to steel. The examples given ,some using limited data and isolated examples of lead ingestion as representative to support the extent of harm others using arguably heavily shot over ground to provide the statistics, seem to make a weak argument to support any wide scale restrictions.

Do you have any further data that would convince the forum that further restrictions on the use of lead shot particularly outwith a commercialised scale is proportionate to the extent of harm caused by lead shot use inland outwith wetland areas ?

Good points well made. 

[Konor]

9 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

I would think that time and money would be better spent on predator control if anyone genuinely thought they could help the population of the grey partridge along with changing farming practices 

Pushing through ill thought out legislation seems to take precedence 

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Good points well made. 

Unfortunately it seems any questioning of the provided  “evidence” is met with silence. 🤫 

[Old farrier]

1 minute ago, Konor said:

Pushing through ill thought out legislation seems to take precedence 

I think there’s a fair bit of tunnel vision in the research/science they don’t seem to want to see the whole picture it’s geared towards the results that they want to achieve 

most problems are caused by academics and scientists

very few by country bumpkins 

[Konor]

35 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

I think there’s a fair bit of tunnel vision in the research/science they don’t seem to want to see the whole picture it’s geared towards the results that they want to achieve 

most problems are caused by academics and scientists

very few by country bumpkins 

And bureaucracy is a big employer often with little accountability to those it supposedly serves.

[Gas seal]

Hi Conor , if commercial and small shoots could agree to a small group of (impartial)volunteers collecting fresh shot birds during the shooting season to be tested it would be something positive. If I had anything to do with game shooting l would have done it to decide one way or another.

Old farrier yes commercial shoots will have a lot more game birds, and fire more cartridges. Not many fields are turned in for spring drillings , it’s a simple test to see how long it takes for the pellets disperse into different types of soil. 
If fifteen million game birds are shot in a season and three shots fired at each bird that’s forty five million cartridges, three hundred pellets per cartridge , thirteen billion five hundred million pellets falling to earth. Less six pellets for each bird shot.

Millions of birds die each year without trace, millions of birds are shot each year and could be tested 

 

[jall25]

12 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Hi Conor , if commercial and small shoots could agree to a small group of (impartial)volunteers collecting fresh shot birds during the shooting season to be tested it would be something positive. If I had anything to do with game shooting l would have done it to decide one way or another.

Old farrier yes commercial shoots will have a lot more game birds, and fire more cartridges. Not many fields are turned in for spring drillings , it’s a simple test to see how long it takes for the pellets disperse into different types of soil. 
If fifteen million game birds are shot in a season and three shots fired at each bird that’s forty five million cartridges, three hundred pellets per cartridge , thirteen billion five hundred million pellets falling to earth. Less six pellets for each bird shot.

Millions of birds die each year without trace, millions of birds are shot each year and could be tested 

 

 

I said exactly the same Gas seal

BASC ask us to submit wings of fowl and woodcock - why cant we do something with game ?

[jall25]

Just now, jall25 said:

 

I said exactly the same Gas seal

BASC ask us to submit wings of fowl and woodcock - why cant we do something with game ?

Its also very strange that with all the lead all over the fields anything ever grows 

[Conor O'Gorman]

33 minutes ago, Gas seal said:

Hi Conor , if commercial and small shoots could agree to a small group of (impartial)volunteers collecting fresh shot birds during the shooting season to be tested it would be something positive. If I had anything to do with game shooting l would have done it to decide one way or another.

Old farrier yes commercial shoots will have a lot more game birds, and fire more cartridges. Not many fields are turned in for spring drillings , it’s a simple test to see how long it takes for the pellets disperse into different types of soil. 
If fifteen million game birds are shot in a season and three shots fired at each bird that’s forty five million cartridges, three hundred pellets per cartridge , thirteen billion five hundred million pellets falling to earth. Less six pellets for each bird shot.

Millions of birds die each year without trace, millions of birds are shot each year and could be tested 

 

Thanks. Yes, that could be done and largely the same results likely I guess - a few percent of pheasant, grey partridge and red-legs at any one time with lead shot in their gizzards. And if these are all released birds rather than wild breeding birds some might say 'so what'?

I started this thread to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot. Remember, there are some that deny that this happens. And a thread like this in say 2019 would not have lasted long. So the feedback is interesting and it does not have to be just me posting up research. Anyone is free to do so and we can examine each in turn.

I have started with grey partridge, red grouse and pheasant and will keep going through all quarry species and then onto others.

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, Konor said:

This information would have been available prior to 2016 when it was decided by DEFRA that the evidence put forward for restriction of lead shot inland was insufficient. Do you have any links for research work carried out post 2016 that would make a strong case for the reversal of the decision made in 2016.
The onus should be on those seeking change to provide evidence to support their case and should also take into consideration the global environmental impact of switching from lead to steel. The examples given ,some using limited data and isolated examples of lead ingestion as representative to support the extent of harm others using arguably heavily shot over ground to provide the statistics, seem to make a weak argument to support any wide scale restrictions.

Do you have any further data that would convince the forum that further restrictions on the use of lead shot particularly outwith a commercialised scale is proportionate to the extent of harm caused by lead shot use inland outwith wetland areas ?

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread which is to to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot. Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

[enfieldspares]

11 hours ago, Konor said:

It seems the argument in favour of restricting the use of lead shot is flawed and that any proposed restrictions are agenda driven. If the reasoning behind further restriction is saving the game meat market then the solution is simple ,all shoots supplying that market should supply the ammunition to be used on the day of the shoot and birds supplied to market should be tested to ensure compliance. 

If those shooting for the table are happy to do so with lead shot then that should continue ,their shot count is minuscule compared to that of commercial shooting so should have equally minuscule impact. The idea that any animal welfare organisation is concerned about the risk to health of shooters supplying their own table with fresh meat doesn’t hold water I would contend that the scale of sports shooting carried out by commercial shoots is the source of their concern. 

The impact on human health of lead shot consumption cannot be compared to the impact of smoking or alcohol consumption,I’ll take the concerns of any government on the use of lead shot on human heath more seriously when alcohol and cigarettes are banned and the anti lead shot lobby when they can provide evidence that justifies lead shot abolition on the grounds of environmental impact.

+1

16 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread which is to to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot. Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

I would assume that the more a ground is shot over that the more there is lead shot in the environment? Then in that case whereas clay grounds shoot with a known "arc of fire" and large commercial game shoots do not perhaps we should ban the use of lead shot from the latter and not the former? 

Edited Wednesday at 19:57 by enfieldspares

[Konor]

16 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread which is to to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot. Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

I don’t think I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread Conor. When you choose to address the points I have made regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to support further legislation and whether any evidence has appeared since the DEFRA ruling on 2016 to justify the complete ban on the use of lead shot (that from your previous posts you seem to favour ,contrary to the stance taken by BASC) then I will reply to your question. That seems fair and in the spirit of forum debate.

[Stonepark]

33 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread which is to to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot. Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

Conor,

The main problem is you have not established that lead pellets are a greater issue than iron, zinc, tungsten, copper and bismuth, all heavy metals and toxic when ingested by birds.

As a result you and BASC are not being scientific, merely raising niche studies but with no comparable data to draw any conclusions from, but still moving forward in support of phasing lead out but with no proof any of the replacements would fare any better.

So you need a study done where say chickens are individually fed on a grit diet of 1 oxidised iron pellet, 1 oxidised zinc coated iron pellet, 1 broken oxidised bismuth pellet, 1 oxidised copper pellet, 1 oxidised lead pellet and 1 oxidised tungsten pellet a day along with their normal grit, along with hard food which requires grit to break it up and then study the effects for at least 3 to 6 months to determine metal uptake, health effects etc. for each type of pellet and then come back and show us the results.

Edited Wednesday at 20:16 by Stonepark

[Konor]

37 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

4 hours ago, Konor said:

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread which is to to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot

Surely putting that evidence in a context is paramount in the best interests of transparency or are we intent on muddying the water rather than seeking clarification that could lead to an evidence based approach to the issue.

[Konor]

12 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Conor,

The main problem is you have not established that lead pellets are a greater issue than iron, zinc, tungsten, copper and bismuth, all heavy metals and toxic when ingested by birds.

As a result you and BASC are not being scientific, merely raising niche studies but with no comparable data to draw any conclusions from, but still moving forward in support of phasing lead out but with no proof any of the replacements would fare any better.

So you need a study done where say chickens are individually fed on a grit diet of 1 oxidised iron pellet, 1 oxidised zinc coated iron pellet, 1 broken oxidised bismuth pellet, 1 oxidised copper pellet, 1 oxidised lead pellet and 1 oxidised tungsten pellet a day along with their normal grit, along with hard food which requires grit to break it up and then study the effects for at least 3 to 6 months to determine metal uptake, health effects etc. for each type of pellet and then come back and show us the results.

iron oxide (rust)

Well put Stonepark I’ve no problem following evidence based change but resent being railroaded into it when there is no science to support those changes. I also mildly resent having information posted that purports to support a case for the abolition of lead shot when brief examination shows that it fails to make a justifiable case for that change. BASC used to state No Science , No Change has that changed ? Perhaps Conor can explain the present BASC policy ,in the interests of clarity.

[Old farrier]

58 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread which is to to explore the evidence that birds of various species ingest lead shot. Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

There’s a strong likelihood that new research will show there is a significant reduction in the number of birds that ingest lead shot and  is insignificant to affect the overall population 

lead shot has been banned for shooting wildfowl for over 20 years has the population of them increased?

although if that’s the case it probably wouldn’t be published as it wouldn’t suit the agenda 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

47 minutes ago, Konor said:

I don’t think I have misunderstood the purpose of the thread Conor. When you choose to address the points I have made regarding whether there is sufficient evidence to support further legislation and whether any evidence has appeared since the DEFRA ruling on 2016 to justify the complete ban on the use of lead shot (that from your previous posts you seem to favour ,contrary to the stance taken by BASC) then I will reply to your question. That seems fair and in the spirit of forum debate.

 Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

[Conor O'Gorman]

43 minutes ago, Stonepark said:

Conor,

The main problem is you have not established that lead pellets are a greater issue than iron, zinc, tungsten, copper and bismuth, all heavy metals and toxic when ingested by birds.

As a result you and BASC are not being scientific, merely raising niche studies but with no comparable data to draw any conclusions from, but still moving forward in support of phasing lead out but with no proof any of the replacements would fare any better.

So you need a study done where say chickens are individually fed on a grit diet of 1 oxidised iron pellet, 1 oxidised zinc coated iron pellet, 1 broken oxidised bismuth pellet, 1 oxidised copper pellet, 1 oxidised lead pellet and 1 oxidised tungsten pellet a day along with their normal grit, along with hard food which requires grit to break it up and then study the effects for at least 3 to 6 months to determine metal uptake, health effects etc. for each type of pellet and then come back and show us the results.

That comparative research has been done. Moreover, studies worldwide evidence that lead shot causes lead poisoning in birds that ingest lead shot. Have a search online. And as I have asked username 'Konor' do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

[Konor]

25 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 Do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

Sorry did you not read my reply ,you quoted it in your reply to me above.
Conor do you accept that there has been no further research carried out since 2016 that would justify a change in Defra’s decision that there was insufficient evidence to support further restrictions on the use of lead shot ?

If you briefly look through my posts you will find multiple questions and points all of which you fail to address as I stated earlier I will gladly reply to your question after you do me the courtesy of addressing the points I have made. By refusing to answer you contribute to a continuation of confusion over the lead shot issue when there is much needed clarity. Providing context to the figures you have provided would either substantiate or refute your case for the discontinuation of the use of lead shot inland. Perhaps confusion is the goal when the science to support your views is in short supply.

Edited Wednesday at 21:34 by Konor

[jall25]

2 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

+1

I would assume that the more a ground is shot over that the more there is lead shot in the environment? Then in that case whereas clay grounds shoot with a known "arc of fire" and large commercial game shoots do not perhaps we should ban the use of lead shot from the latter and not the former? 

Thinking about the big shoots - i do wonder if some of the smaller one would actually pollute more

Big commercial shoots have many drives - and may only do one or two of them a month - whereas the small medium shoot are shooting the same ground all the time 

Just a thought really based on our own small sized shoot 

[Stonepark]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That comparative research has been done. Moreover, studies worldwide evidence that lead shot causes lead poisoning in birds that ingest lead shot. Have a search online. And as I have asked username 'Konor' do you accept that a wide range of bird species ingest lead shot and that a few percentage of their populations die as a result? 

If that research has been done on comparative scientific studies, why aren't BASC quoting it? 

 

Why isn't the headline switch over to "this" shot which does not cause birds deaths and here is the proof....... because all heavy metals used are toxic when ingested, especially in their oxide form.

 

More birds are killed by bacterial contamination of water source causing poisoning caused by fetiliser and sewage pollution than lead poisoning and yet that one is completely ignored and is a larger threat to animal and human health than all the lead mined and shot in history.

More birds are killed by cats annually than lead poisoning

More birds are killed by cars annually than lead poisoning

 

The truth is BASC has not performed it's function to protect shooting and to provide the evidence required to do so and with over 100,000 members and an annual income of over £12,000,000 per annum cannot somehow carry out or commission a study which would provide the definative answer for a few thousand pounds.

 

[Weihrauch17]

19 minutes ago, jall25 said:

Thinking about the big shoots - i do wonder if some of the smaller one would actually pollute more

Big commercial shoots have many drives - and may only do one or two of them a month - whereas the small medium shoot are shooting the same ground all the time 

Just a thought really based on our own small sized shoot 

Having listened to one drive this season I would say a resounding no, the number of shots fired was staggering .  Not sport in my book but each to their own.