Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Old farrier]

14 minutes ago, Konor said:

It’s that kind of common sense that’s apparently not so common nowadays OF. 

Got to be easier to tackle the biggest problem as a small gain is going to help far more here 

locally we have no mow may this has been going for approximately 3 years hopefully it will prevent accidental mowing of ground nesting birds another potential gain that won’t be included in the statistics 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Looking at the various outdated historical studies I feel that there would be a far greater impact on increasing the number of partridge by tackling the biggest killer of them not the smallest if you halved predation that would give you a 20% increase instead of a possible 4%  by banning lead  

Here is the nub of it, what evidence are you relying on for that assertion and when were the studies carried out? Also, who is calling for banning lead? Certainly not BASC or myself.

Edited 15 hours ago by Conor O'Gorman

[Old farrier]

2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Here is the nub of it, what evidence are you relying on for that assertion and when were the studies carried out? Also, who is calling for banning lead? Certainly not BASC or myself.

Err I got it from the information you provided see attached pie chart 

don’t think I mentioned lead ban maybe transition to non toxic 

another common sense approach would be to ban the sale of game meat  if you shoot it you eat it 

[Conor O'Gorman]

24 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Exactly right, academics have to produce research papers to progress their careers. Nobody is ever going to publish a research paper that find there is no problem, nothing to worry about here. 

Besides, the person doing the research is not likely to be impartial to start with

With that in mind may I ask if you agree or disagree with the latest Value of Shooting research results? And may I enquire after the reason for your answer if you do give one?

https://basc.org.uk/the-value-of-shooting-report-2024/

 

 

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Nobody is forcing you to change your ways or beliefs. There is an ongoing voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting based on the evidence. It is your choice if you wish to continue shooting with shotgun cartridges containing lead shot for your live quarry shooting. I think we all get it on the forum that you disagree with the voluntary transition and that is fine, and I will continue to share updates on the evidence of lead shot ingestion in various species on this thread.

That’s just as well Conor because there has been no evidence shown so far to support such change . Following on from that the “ongoing voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting based on the evidence” 

What is that evidence ?
Is it the same evidence you have been pedalling here that fails to quantify any impact of the ingestion of lead shot ?

Repetition does not turn opinion into fact.

 If you read over my posts you will note that the purpose of my posting is not to reiterate that I disagree with the voluntary transition if there is one constant it is that despite your post count on this thread I am drawing attention to the fact that you have yet to answer one simple question

where is the evidence that quantifies the impact of lead ingestion on game bird populations 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Err I got it from the information you provided see attached pie chart 

don’t think I mentioned lead ban maybe transition to non toxic 

another common sense approach would be to ban the sale of game meat  if you shoot it you eat it 

Yes, you did mention 'banning lead' in your earlier comment and the research paper draws on data you have already described as 'outdated historical studies'? This is the rabbit hole we go down when 'white hat bias' comes into play.

[Konor]

26 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Also, who is calling for banning lead? Certainly not BASC or myself.

I think I covered that in a previous post ,if you look back you’ll  be able to read my reasoning

19 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

another common sense approach would be to ban the sale of game meat  if you shoot it you eat it 

That would get my approval I think New Zealand and some states in America enforce such restrictions.

Edit to add      Wild game can only be shot for personal consumption in USA and cannot be offered for sale

and

Recreationally shot game birds cannot be sold in New Zealand 

Edited 15 hours ago by Konor
Spellcheck error

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 minutes ago, Konor said:

where is the evidence that quantifies the impact of lead ingestion on game bird populations 

That is where modelling of the data comes in - what does 1% look like, what does 5% look like and so on. The HSE looked at this in its final report and a table produced for 1%. See page Table 2.15.

Background document to the Agency Opinion on the Proposal for a restriction - Lead

 

 

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That is where modelling of the data comes in - what does 1% look like, what does 5% look like and so on. The HSE looked at this in its final report and a table produced for 1%. See page Table 2.15.

Background document to the Agency Opinion on the Proposal for a restriction - Lead

 

 

Sorry Conor I’m not ploughing through that. I’m guessing that your inability to provide a figure or range of figures indicates that you do not have one so my initial point that you are unable to provide a figure to show the impact of the lead ingestion quoted in the studies provided remains. 
Straight question

Do you have such a figure ?  

[jall25]

Conor

Has a study been done as to how long the lead shot remains in the ground as viable "grit" for birds to potentially pick up - I would imagine it varies 

[Gas seal]

Hi the reports are going from outdated to historical. It’s difficult to find dead birds in the countryside to test for lead contamination as they are part of the food chain. 
when purchasing lead shot for reloading it comes with a safety warnings ,

one is if it’s ingested call a doctor.

I don’t see any of the commercial shoots testing birds to prove there birds aren’t ingesting lead pellets.

 

[jall25]

Just now, Gas seal said:

Hi the reports are going from outdated to historical. It’s difficult to find dead birds in the countryside to test for lead contamination as they are part of the food chain. 
when purchasing lead shot for reloading it comes with a safety warnings ,

one is if it’s ingested call a doctor.

I don’t see any of the commercial shoots testing birds to prove there birds aren’t ingesting lead pellets.

 

 

And it would be so easy to do in the grand scheme of things 

We send wings of duck and woodcock off - why not do this ?

[Old farrier]

35 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Here is the nub of it, what evidence are you relying on for that assertion and when were the studies carried out? Also, who is calling for banning lead? Certainly not BASC or myself.

Well from the evidence you provided the biggest killer of partridge is predation what steps are you or Basc taking to reduce that element 

are you or Basc

actively promoting no mowing in may nationally to protect the nesting habitat 

[Konor]

55 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Here is the nub of it, what evidence are you relying on for that assertion and when were the studies carried out?

 

48 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Err I got it from the information you provided see attached pie chart

😂 Sorry for laughing 😆 

[Gas seal]

Hi jall I would have thought it would be the first thing done to prove birds don’t ingest pellets . Wildfowling clubs send wings to BASC . 
  A game dealer once commented some of my pigeons had garden bird seeds in their crops . I checked the crops of pigeons I shot for about six months. I found bird seed,  string , small plastic beads with a hole in them, some type of rotten bark, small slugs and the normal feed. I found pellets , must be from my gun.

[McSpredder]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That is where modelling of the data comes in - what does 1% look like, what does 5% look like and so on. The HSE looked at this in its final report and a table produced for 1%. See page Table 2.15.

Table 2.15 reveals nothing more than the estimated UK and GB breeding populations for a few bird species.  

The authors made an arbitrary assumption that 1% of the each species would be exposed to poisoning via lead shot, and added a column of figures to show what is meant by 1%.   Maybe they hoped that padding the table with an extra column would make it look more ”scientific”, or perhaps they believe readers would not comprehend the meaning of 1%.   For some reason their calculations ignore Northern Ireland, the 1% result being obtained from GB alone.

[Konor]

6 hours ago, McSpredder said:

Table 2.15 reveals nothing more than the estimated UK and GB breeding populations for a few bird species.  

The authors made an arbitrary assumption that 1% of the each species would be exposed to poisoning via lead shot, and added a column of figures to show what is meant by 1%.   Maybe they hoped that padding the table with an extra column would make it look more ”scientific”, or perhaps they believe readers would not comprehend the meaning of 1%.   For some reason their calculations ignore Northern Ireland, the 1% result being obtained from GB alone.

Shades of padding in a poor honours project .and contributes to reinforcing my view that the “science” supporting the move to abolish lead shot use has a weak case. Conversely a strong case is being made by Conor partially based on this level of scientific scrutiny.
Is the acceptance of any data to reinforce an anti lead shot stance due to blinkered academic bias or purely political convenience ? I’ve yet to see any sign of opposition to further lead shot restrictions by BASC other than the statements made that BASC does not support further restrictions . Where is the case being made by BASC that shows their reasons for opposing such restrictions. Conor himself has spent infinitely more time posting information supporting the exaggerated effects of lead shot ingestion and virtually no posts expanding on the reasoning behind BASC’s opposition to further lead shot restrictions. As a representative of BASC surely his posts should be reflecting BASC’s stated position if opposition to further lead shot restrictions is genuine. Hopefully a detailed post will emerge to attempt to explain the points just made rather than links that so far have seemed to cause diversion due to their volume and inconclusiveness.

[Old farrier]

11 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yes, you did mention 'banning lead' in your earlier comment and the research paper draws on data you have already described as 'outdated historical studies'? This is the rabbit hole we go down when 'white hat bias' comes into play.

Yes I did mention banning lead in relation to the pie chart net gain possible 4% predation 41% you don’t have to sort out much predation to gain 4%

I’ll ask again how is no mowing may being promoted nationwide?

[McSpredder]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

Shades of padding in a poor honours project .....

Padding / pointless repetition  -  you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The HSE document states that “Table 2.15Table 2.15 is derived from the data summarised in table 1.21Table 1.21”.  

Table 1.21 contained the exactly same UK breeding population figures (plus a few more species, and including their Latin names), adding up the total number for all species, and calculating what 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% and 5% would amount to.

Lots of padding, another assumption that readers would be unable to make elementary calculations, and a demonstration of abysmal proof-reading (“Table 2.15Table 2.15” etc is exactly as published).

[Fellside]

It won’t be the first time a so called ‘scientific body’ have quoted 1% as being significant. However it is clearly non significant (ns) being far less than the usual arbitrary 5% threshold. I will spare everyone a long stat’s critique but suffice to say, the HSE assertion based on these figures has no scientific basis whatsoever.…..  i.e it is phoney! Get someone in to a room with the HSE exec’ and confront them with this nonsense. It should have been looked at by our ministry of common sense before being published….! 

There are several other matters of concern. Mainly, who were the authors/sponsors of the contributing studies (I don’t have time to look) re bias motivation? How robust/repeatable were their methods? I honestly don’t know the answers to these questions - but can smell a rat somewhere. 

I would give this piece of work 3/10 for effort and neat presentation. 

 

[Konor]

1 hour ago, McSpredder said:

Padding / pointless repetition  -  you ain’t seen nothing yet.

The HSE document states that “Table 2.15Table 2.15 is derived from the data summarised in table 1.21Table 1.21”.  

Table 1.21 contained the exactly same UK breeding population figures (plus a few more species, and including their Latin names), adding up the total number for all species, and calculating what 0.1%, 0.5%, 1% and 5% would amount to.

Lots of padding, another assumption that readers would be unable to make elementary calculations, and a demonstration of abysmal proof-reading (“Table 2.15Table 2.15” etc is exactly as published).

Using assumption to generate figures is a poor substitute for making a strong case through relevant research. 
It’s about time the evidence was looked at with a more critical eye and BASC should be playing a major role in that. Instead we have countless threads started with the sole objective of convincing us of the need to cease using lead shot in the best interests of our quarry, not one of which contains any figures quantifying the impact of lead ingestion. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Konor

[Konor]

Does the BASC pension fund have a major share holding in Chinese steel manufacturing companies hence the moves to create an anti lead shot dialogue ?😂