Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Konor]

53 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

As I understand it from the the research so far the 'toxic dose' varies from bird species to bird species depending on how the gizzard works -  for some it is a single pellet, for others they can tolerate a dozen pellets. 

That is for lethal doses, sub-lethal doses is another research area.

Regardless of the theoretical toxic dose “depending on how the gizzards works” would it not be more relevant to state figures that link lead shot ingestion to population impact rather than focus on theoretical toxicity affecting individual birds.

Apparently not.

[Konor]

18 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Here are the GWCT findings as regards the effects of lead ammunition on wildlife and wildfowl and that is the basis of the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting supported and encouraged by the shooting organisations, many of their members and many shoots.

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

That’s the third time you have posted this link and as you are well aware, if not please read it ,it states that there are no records of the impact on bird heath and welfare of lead shot ingestion. Repetitive posting will not change that fact so please read for yourself to avoid repetitive misquoting. If you are going to post “evidence “then the posted link needs to contain information that substantiates your opinion. 

Edited Saturday at 15:00 by Konor

[Gordon R]

Quote

Have you the data that confirms this assertion ?

Konor - your post was in answer to this an anecdote, which you cited. I did not see it originally as I have blocked the BASC person's posts.  

Quote

Case studies are another aspect and just today I heard of a shooter whose prize pintail pair died on the shooting pond due to a shot at a jackdaw some weeks earlier over said pond.

I found this as a bit of a quantum leap in logic. Did the pintail pair die from a shot, aimed at a jackdaw or did the pintail pair ingest some of the lead and perished rather rapidly? Is there any evidence that it was lead shot, as after all that is what the thread is about. It is hearsay and hardly substantiated.

I have to admit the "pintail pair" is right up there with "wee chicks". 🙂

[Konor]

21 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - your post was in answer to this an anecdote, which you cited. I did not see it originally as I have blocked the BASC person's posts.  

I found this as a bit of a quantum leap in logic. Did the pintail pair die from a shot, aimed at a jackdaw or did the pintail pair ingest some of the lead and perished rather rapidly? Is there any evidence that it was lead shot, as after all that is what the thread is about. It is hearsay and hardly substantiated.

I have to admit the "pintail pair" is right up there with "wee chicks". 🙂

In light of the multiple so far unsubstantiated claims and the track record of biased opinion based on links that fail to support those opinions I understandably view the latest evidence with a degree of cynicism. It all seems a bit convenient and anecdotal in nature. It appears a shot was taken at a jackdaw over a pond and consequently a pair of pintail died and apparently the cause of death for both birds was due to lead shot ingestion that lead to lead shot poisoning that proved fatal. As it stands the claim that lead shot poisoning caused the fatalities lacks any corroborating evidence. I would have thought for this “evidence” to be considered credible some quantitive analysis would have been carried out on the birds and the supporting data presented. As it stands I agree it is hearsay and unacceptable as evidence to substantiate this latest claim made.

[Konor]

4 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

6 hours ago, Konor said:

I don't think I have given any opinions on the science in this thread, merely to source and provide links with summaries on that science.

For what exact purpose are you sourcing and providing these links ? Are you finally highlighting the fact that no link has been produced between lead shot ingestion and population decrease in a variety of gamebirds because that is what your links demonstrate. Surely you should be able to deduce that fact from the evidence presented , aren’t you educated to PhD level in zoology ?

[Scully]

10 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 

Case studies are another aspect and just today I heard of a shooter whose prize pintail pair died on the shooting pond due to a shot at a jackdaw some weeks earlier over said pond.

 

I had to do a double take and read that again! 
Did you read it back to yourself Conor? 
That has to be up there with one of the most hilariously ridiculous claims I’ve read on PW! Surreal! Are we supposed to take that seriously? 
For that to be taken as a serious conclusion of events I can only assume the gun missed the Jackdaw and pricked the two Pintail! 


 

[Konor]

10 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We have the power to change things, it's not about the 'antis' it's in our role as conservationists to move voluntarily away from lead shot for live quarry shooting.

Possibly the most naive statement on this thread due to your reliance on figures sourced from Green and Pain’s simplistic analysis of figures. Their linking of the estimated annual bag of wildfowl to a percentage of lead shot wildfowl sourced at a game dealer from commercial shoots then assuming that the figures they have generated are representative of the extent of use of lead shot by wildfowlers is manipulation on a scale that only the most ardent anti would find reasonable.

 Your pathetic justification for flooding the forum with information you choose not to put in context and instead hide behind further irrelevant links in an attempt to mask your purpose for posting, and let’s not pretend it’s all in an effort to convince the shooting community that voluntary restraint is possible as your whole argument hinges on a need for a lead shot ban, defines you as one only too happy to rely on inference and anecdote rather than fact to support your politically motivated opinion.

 I repeat my challenge ,in a few sentences state the evidence that justifies your opinion. No links just the scientific data that shows that the loss of birds due to lead shot poisoning is so significant that we cannot afford to ignore it. 
 That is the only information that is relevant. As the rambling links posted all contain single percentage ingestion figures which are considered statistically irrelevant and all fail to quantify any population impact could you also explain in one sentence why you thought it necessary to present them as proof of a need for any lead shot ban.
 If you are unable to do this then it seems only fair that you cease using the forum for spreading your unsubstantiated claims on what is a shooting forum not  the LACS,WWT or Raptor Persecution web sites.

 Your blinkered opinions have no place on the forum and until you choose to put them in context by critical analysis they are just propaganda to support an unjustified goal.

 

 

10 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We have the power to change things, it's not about the 'antis' it's in our role as conservationists to move voluntarily away from lead shot for live quarry shooting.

Possibly the most naive statement on this thread due to your reliance on figures sourced from Green and Pain’s simplistic analysis of figures. Their linking of the estimated annual bag of wildfowl to a percentage of lead shot wildfowl sourced at a game dealer from commercial shoots then assuming that the figures they have generated are representative of the extent of use of lead shot by wildfowlers is manipulation on a scale that only the most ardent anti would find reasonable.

 Your pathetic justification for flooding the forum with information you choose not to put in context and instead hide behind further irrelevant links in an attempt to mask your purpose for posting, and let’s not pretend it’s all in an effort to convince the shooting community that voluntary restraint is possible as your whole argument hinges on a need for a lead shot ban, defines you as one only too happy to rely on inference and anecdote rather than fact to support your politically motivated opinion.

 I repeat my challenge ,in a few sentences state the evidence that justifies your opinion. No links just the scientific data that shows that the loss of birds due to lead shot poisoning is so significant that we cannot afford to ignore it. 
 That is the only information that is relevant. As the rambling links posted all contain single percentage ingestion figures which are considered statistically irrelevant and all fail to quantify any population impact could you also explain in one sentence why you thought it necessary to present them as proof of a need for any lead shot ban.
 If you are unable to do this then it seems only fair that you cease using the forum for spreading your unsubstantiated claims on what is a shooting forum not  the LACS,WWT or Raptor Persecution web sites.

 Your blinkered opinions have no place on the forum and until you choose to put them in context by critical analysis they are just propaganda to support an unjustified goal.

 

 

[Newbie to this]

12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Were you amongst those few amongst the 600,000 of us?

Yes, and I bring it to attention of my club members. Whether they get involved or not, I cannot say. But I do urge them to.

12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Your assertion that BASC is 'against using lead ammunition' is incorrect.

I say it how I see it. I have not seen any posts in defence of Lead. Only ones against.

Can you explain why BASC is not fighting tooth and nail, in the defence of Lead, rather than calling for a voluntary BAN?

It just doesn't make sense to me. Fight and we may retain it's use, don't fight and call for a voluntary BAN and lose it's use anyway........

[Konor]

12 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

It just doesn't make sense to me. Fight and we may retain it's use, don't fight and call for a voluntary BAN and lose it's use anyway

It defies logic perhaps Conor will explain 😂

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 hours ago, Scully said:

The thing is @Conor O'Gorman I was ( as I’ve no doubt bored everyone to death with by now….but its worth repeating! 🙂) once at a meeting with Shifty, where he was advocating the banning of lead shot for the shooting of wildfowl on the premise that many were dying from the ingestion of lead shot. When some old boys asked him where these dead fowl were, he stated that dead birds were notoriously difficuilt to find….’ nobody finds dead birds, they have an uncanny knack of not being seen.’ Then one of the old boys asked ‘ well if no one can find them how do you know they’re dying from ingested lead?’ which was followed by a few stifled laughs and an embarrassed silence from Shifty. I’d love it to have been recorded, but I doubt it was as there were no mobile phones back then. 
Anyhow, while we’re on the subject of dead birds, what’s all this ‘harvesting’ bullpoop you keep referring to? Do you mean ‘canned hunting’, where a group of guns are placed at set places ( or pegs) awaiting paid beaters to drive said birds over them so they can shoot them for entertainment? They even pay to do it!
What’s the matter Conor, afraid to tell it how it is? If you find ‘harvesting’ the more palatable ( yet deceiving ) description of what we do then perhaps you’re in the wrong job. 🤷‍♂️

 

As regards your comments about dead birds being found, this is what the GWCT explains on that.

If mortality estimates are relatively high, why are so few dead birds found?
Birds suffering from lead shot poisoning tend to die few at a time and will crawl away, hiding in vegetation away from their flock before they die. This results in less-conspicuous deaths rather than larger die-off events^12,52. There is also likely to be a bias towards finding larger birds such as geese or swans, due to their more obvious size and colour³³.

Scientists have observed that predators and scavengers often remove poisoned birds before people find them. Trials show that predators remove dead birds in 24-72 hours on average, and 48% of carcasses are completely scavenged within 24 hours⁵².

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

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

12 hours ago, Konor said:

But you are unable to quantify that risk and continually avoid accepting that the “evidence” you have presented fails to quantify any environmental or population impact of lead shot ingestion. 
 We are all in this thread now aware of the fact that you have failed to supply any evidence to support your views rather it confirms that there is no scientific basis for further lead shot restrictions. Your refusal to accept this effectively puts you firmly in the anti fieldsports sympathiser camp. 

Have you the data that confirms this assertion ?

It seems that you are denying that lead shot ingestion by birds leads to lethal or sub-lethal impacts on those birds - this has been studied in many bird species, and per the science provided in this thread. The science is accepted by the shooting organisations on the basis of GWCT advice. The argument against further restrictions on lead shot for live quarry is because there is a voluntary transition away from lead shot - and that voluntary transition is on the basis of the science.  

Edited Saturday at 10:59 by Conor O'Gorman

[Conor O'Gorman]

12 hours ago, Konor said:

That’s the third time you have posted this link and as you are well aware, if not please read it ,it states that there is no records of the impact on bird heath and welfare of lead shot ingestion. Repetitive posting will not change that fact so please read for yourself to avoid repetitive misquoting. If you are going to post “evidence “then the posted link needs to contain information that substantiates your opinion. 

That is not true. Clearly you have yet to take the time to click on the link and read it. Here is what the GWCT state:

Effects of lead on wildlife and wildfowl

 

Lead is toxic to all life with no safe threshold for exposure. It is a general toxin that affects virtually all systems in the body such as the nervous and reproductive systems¹.

Can lead be dangerous to wildlife?
Yes. When any bird or mammal ingests spent lead ammunition by mistaking it for grit or foodstuffs, or by scavenging unretrieved shot quarry, it can result in lead poisoning and death². In addition, animals that are shot but not killed may carry lead shot in their bodies and this adversely affects their wellbeing³.

Are there also sub-lethal effects?
Yes. Although these are difficult to measure there is increasing evidence of welfare impacts and behavioural change, including in reproduction, predator avoidance, foraging ability and in avian flight^4-8.

What species are susceptible to lead poisoning?
Effects of lead poisoning have been documented extensively in wildfowl^9-14, and also in terrestrial birds including game and predatory species^15-18. In some species present in the UK – namely mallards, whooper swans and golden eagles – recent studies elsewhere have shown effects at lower blood concentrations than previously reported^19-21.

Does lead shot have an impact on the wider environment?
Lead is recognised as a highly toxic substance to both humans and wildlife. Because of this, it is near-inevitable that it will have a negative impact where it occurs²².

Shooting sports in the UK release 5,000-6,000 tonnes of lead ammunition into the environment every year. Some 2,040 tonnes of this ammunition is released into the rural environment^22,23. There are no precise estimates of exactly where this lead shot is dispersed, this is because there are no official estimates of the number of animals shot, cartridges fired, or shoot participants²³.

In addition to wildfowl, other animal groups are affected by lead shot poisoning. Raptors and scavengers can become poisoned when they consume carcasses or live prey that contain lead shot, and lead shot may also present a risk to foraging game birds^1,22.

There is as yet little evidence of the impact of lead on other species of wildlife²². There is also not much knowledge about how lead shot interacts with the environment as it degrades. But it is widely accepted that the effect of lead increases with the dose. Some research shows that lead can have varying effects on over 60 non-wildfowl species, including passerine birds, mammals, and amphibians. There is also some evidence that lead can be absorbed by plants and soil micro-organisms²².

There are several routes in which lead can reach wildlife and cause poisoning, including²²:

• Direct ingestion of spent lead shot from the environment
• Indirect ingestion of spent lead shot by predators/scavengers in the bodies of their prey
• Movement of spent lead shot via plants
• Movement of spent lead shot via soil organisms/invertebrates
• Movement of spent lead shot from embedded shot/bullets into body tissues

Is there any evidence that lead shot exposure is having an impact on game birds?
A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time¹⁶. Other UK studies report similar findings in pheasants¹⁵ and red-legged partridge²⁴ but do not record impacts on bird health and welfare. A Canadian study found elevated levels of lead in American woodcock that were traced back to lead shot ingestion²⁵.

Is there any evidence that lead shot exposure is having an impact on other terrestrial wildlife?
Yes. Although little evidence is available from the UK, an increasing number of studies worldwide have shown that predatory birds suffer from lead poisoning through ingestion of spent lead ammunition while scavenging carcasses of unretrieved quarry or discarded offal (“grallochs”)^26-29. There is also some evidence that suggests passerine birds, mammals, and amphibians may be affected²².

The most famous example is that of the California Condor, which was driven to the brink of extinction by lead shot poisoning. It was saved by captive breeding and reintroduction to the wild combined with a ban on the use of lead ammunition, initially across the reintroduction zone and since 2019 throughout California³⁰.

How big is the problem?
At present, there are only formal estimates of the impact of lead ammunition on wildfowl, some birds of prey, and gamebirds such as grey partridge^22,31.

Is this likely to result in population-level effects in any species?
Computer modelling of bird populations and correlative studies suggest that lead poisoning may be affecting population growth rates and sizes in a number of bird species including grey partridges³¹, red kites³¹ and both dabbling and diving ducks³² in the UK, and common buzzards in Germany³¹.

How long does lead remain available in the environment for ingestion by wildlife?
Lead is a stable metal and degrades very slowly, so can persist in the environment for a long time. It can take 10s or 100s of years to fully break down depending on the conditions^12,33. Lead pellets can sink into water bodies, soils, and sediments as well as remaining available in bird carcasses, which can have a knock-on effect for animals higher up the food chain³⁴.

What about ‘legacy’ gunshot?
Legacy gunshot is ammunition that has been spent or used. There is always a chance of wildlife consuming old lead pellets, but it is much more likely for an animal to consume recently spent pellets¹². That said, historical pellets can accumulate in the environment. Spent lead pellets pose a persistent and significant threat to wildlife³⁵.

Is lead shot the only remaining source of lead exposure for wildlife?
No. Lead occurs naturally in the environment and as a result, some areas of the UK have high levels of naturally occurring lead minerals on the ground, but these are localised^17,36, whereas throughout Europe exposure to lead ammunition ground sources is much more widespread.

Other sources of lead include pollution from industry and agriculture into water and soils³⁷. Illegal disposal of items like lead fishing weights under 1oz also add to this but have been banned since 1987^12,33,38

Effects of lead on wildfowl

Lead ammunition and wildfowl
First reported in the 1870s³³, lead ammunition – or lead shot – poisoning has been widely recognised as a threat since the mid-1900s following wildfowl deaths in the USA, France, Italy, Britain and some Scandinavian countries³⁹. Lead poisoning is now a well-known issue for humans, domestic animals, and wildlife alike, with lead shot posing a particular threat to wildfowl¹². Wildfowl are birds such as ducks, geese, swans, moorhens, and coots.

Why is lead dangerous to wildfowl?
Lead is a widely used material in shooting sports. Despite restrictions, spent lead pellets can become available in habitats used by wildfowl¹². These birds accidentally ingest spent lead pellets when feeding by mistaking the pellets for items of food or grit, which they use to grind down food⁴⁰. Lead pellets are then directly ingested or are slowly ground down in the gizzard of the bird. This leads to varying degrees of acute or chronic lead poisoning⁴¹.

What is the effect of lead on wildfowl?
Lead has significant harmful impacts on wildfowl. Symptoms of lead shot poisoning vary because lead is a ‘non-specific’ toxin, meaning it can affect the whole body¹. Characteristic symptoms include^1,33,42:

• Weight loss and muscle wastage
• Anaemia, weakness, and lethargy
• Loss of vision and depth perception
• Seizures, convulsions, and paralysis of limbs
• Green diarrhoea
• Wing drooping
• Lack of coordination, balance, and mobility

Two of the main symptoms are muscle wastage and paralysis, which can affect the throat, gizzard, and digestive system of poisoned birds. This means that eating becomes very difficult, leading to extreme weight loss and starvation²⁰. Research in laboratories and on wild birds has shown that poisoned birds have problems with growth, development, and reproduction⁴³. Poisoned birds often exhibit changes in their behaviour, having more accidents²²and failing to avoid predators^22,34,41. They also become more vulnerable to disease and parasites^1,43.

Birds suffering from lead shot poisoning often die. This could either be directly because of levels of lead in their body, or because of related issues caused by increased lead levels such as starvation, predation, or accidents¹². Trials in mallard ducks show that the chance of a duck surviving the month decreases by 19% after ingestion of a single lead pellet³. In cases of high exposure, birds might not display any symptoms before dying^1,20.

Where birds repeatedly consume lead pellets, levels of lead have the potential to build up in the body³³. Consumed pellets erode in the stomach and gizzard, after which toxic lead salts enter the bloodstream and can be deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones, and feathers^1,44. Stored lead can also leach out of bone in female birds during egg production when the bird requires more calcium than normal^1,45. Levels of lead can remain high in the blood and tissues for months at a time, persisting in bone for much longer⁴⁶.

How quickly does lead poisoning happen in wildfowl?
When wildfowl ingest lead pellets, they fully erode and absorb into the body within 2-3 weeks^22,33. Blood lead levels generally peak 2 days after ingestion and take up to 36 days to return to normal⁴⁷. This means that in a single year, a bird can consume multiple loads of lead pellets and experience several episodes of poisoning. This results in prolonged sub-lethal effects, suffering, and potential death^22,47.

Why are wildfowl susceptible to the harmful effects of lead?
Wildfowl find food by diving or dabbling in water - looking for insects, molluscs, seeds, vegetation, roots, and other food⁴⁸. Because of this wildfowl are likely to ingest pellets - by accident - that have fallen in and around bodies of water. Lead pellets are mistaken for food or grit, which birds use to grind up food in the gizzard⁴⁹. This means that pellets are directly consumed or eroded in the gizzard³⁴.

Are some species more at risk?
Any duck, goose, swan, coot or moorhen that feeds in an area where lead shot is used is at risk of lead poisoning^43,47.

Studies suggest that swans (particularly Bewick’s and whooper swans) and geese are more susceptible to lead shot poisoning. Swans and geese commonly forage on agricultural land over which it is often legal to shoot with lead shot (depending on UK country specific legislation)¹². Swans may also require particularly large quantities of grit when consuming more indigestible foods such as potatoes, corn, and barley and so are more likely to ingest spent shot¹².

Diving ducks – such as tufted ducks, pochard, and goldeneye – are very likely to ingest lead pellets instead of grit, because they eat larger seeds⁴⁰. They are exposed to lead shot when they gather food from the bottom of ponds and lakes, where the sediment is too compact for lead shot to sink out of reach¹². Dabbling ducks – such as mallards, wigeon and gadwall – mainly eat plant leaves and so are generally thought to be less at risk⁴³.

In recent years scientists have found that ducks and swans can suffer lead shot poisoning at lower levels than previously realised⁴⁶.

How big is the problem?
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.

Where dead birds are found, what signs of lead poisoning are found in a post-mortem?
When scientists discover dead birds, they will often carry out an autopsy to try to determine the cause of death. Scientists look for specific signs that ingestion of lead pellets was the cause of death, including^12,23,40,42:

• Lead pellets in the crop, gizzard, stomach, or intestines
• High levels of lead in the blood
• High levels of lead in the liver, kidneys, bones, or feathers
• Low body weight
• Wastage of the gizzard and liver
• Reduced levels of d-ALAD protein (needed to make blood)

It can sometimes be difficult to find the source of lead in the body. If birds have lead in their blood or organs, as well as in their gizzards or stomachs, it is safe to assume the lead was ingested⁴⁷. Scientists can also carry out tests for elevated blood levels or lead shot ingestion on live birds through x-rays and blood samples⁴⁰.

How are the estimates for the number of wildfowl that die from lead poisoning generated?
Scientists can use published, long-term research on live and deceased birds to estimate the number of birds poisoned by lead ammunition. Lead shot poisoning in birds can be confirmed through post-mortem analysis, and in live birds, through taking blood samples whereby elevated blood lead levels are indicative of poisoning^12,44. The most recent estimates look at the use of lead shot and the scale of lead poisoning in ducks between 1999 and 2020. These estimates compare data from the GWCT National Gamebag Census⁵⁰ to shoot surveys and poisoning data^1,51.

Various sources of information are needed to estimate annual mortality from lead shot poisoning. This includes (i) the average proportion of wildfowl with ingested shot, derived from UK studies of hunter-shot birds and birds found dead and autopsied and (ii) the estimated British wintering population of wildfowl¹. Adjustments can be made to account for the turnover of lead in the ecosystem and for hunting bias, as birds that have ingested lead shot are more likely to be shot by hunters because of their weakened state¹.

If mortality estimates are relatively high, why are so few dead birds found?
Birds suffering from lead shot poisoning tend to die few at a time and will crawl away, hiding in vegetation away from their flock before they die. This results in less-conspicuous deaths rather than larger die-off events^12,52. There is also likely to be a bias towards finding larger birds such as geese or swans, due to their more obvious size and colour³³.

Scientists have observed that predators and scavengers often remove poisoned birds before people find them. Trials show that predators remove dead birds in 24-72 hours on average, and 48% of carcasses are completely scavenged within 24 hours⁵².

Is this likely to result in population-level effects in any species?
Scientists know that lead shot poisoning can affect birth, death, and survival rates in wildfowl. Because of that, lead shot poisoning is capable of changing population sizes, growth rates, and demographics^22,33,43.

Lead ammunition has been used in the UK for so long that before and after data is not available for scientists to study. There is also a lack of UK-based studies providing data to determine if population-level impacts are occurring^22,33. However, more recent research on eight duck populations has shown correlations between population growth rates and lead ingestion rates, suggesting that lead shot poisoning has the potential to limit duck populations⁴³.

Population-level impacts are near inevitable for both common and threatened species³⁴. This is because many wildfowl species are migratory and so face many pressures throughout their range¹.

Is this why lead ammunition was banned over wetlands across Europe?
In January 2021, European Union (EU) Member States voted to introduce a ban on the use of lead shot in wetlands across the EU. The ban will apply from February 2023 in all EU states, harmonising and extending existing wetland-related legislation of 22 EU states⁵³. It will introduce a ban on lead shot over wetlands for the first time in Poland, Ireland, Romania, Slovenia and Malta⁵⁴.

The ban was introduced under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) framework. This followed an investigation by the European Chemicals Agency into the risks of lead to human and environmental health⁵³.

References

Pain, D.J., Cromie, R.L. & Green, R.E. (2015). Poisoning of UK birds and other wildlife from ammunition-derived lead. In: The Oxford Lead Symposium. Lead Ammunition: understanding and minimising the risks to human and environmental health.: 58–84. (eds. Delahay, R.J. & Spray, C.J.) Edward Grey Institute, University of Oxford. Oxford.

Ganz, K., Jenni, L., Madry, M.M., Kraemer, T., Jenny, H. & Jenny, D. (2018). Acute and Chronic Lead Exposure in Four Avian Scavenger Species in Switzerland. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 75:566–575.

Tavecchia, G., Pradel, R., Lebreton, J.-D., Johnson, A.R. & Mondain-Monval, J.-Y. (2001). The effect of lead exposure on survival of adult mallards in the Camargue, southern France. Journal of Applied Ecology, 38:1197–1207.

Burger, J. & Gochfeld, M. (2000). Effects of lead on birds (Laridae): a review of laboratory and field studies. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 3:59–78.

Burger, J. & Gochfeld, M. (2005). Effects of lead on learning in herring gulls: an avian wildlife model for neurobehavioral deficits. Neurotoxicology, 26:615–624.

Kelly, A. & Kelly, S. (2005). Are mute swans with elevated blood lead levels more likely to collide with overhead power lines? Waterbirds, 28:331–334.

Pain, D.J., Cromie, R.L., Newth, J.L., Brown, M.J., Crutcher, E., Hardman, P., Hurst, L., Mateo, R., Meharg, A.A., Oran, A.C., Raab, A., Taggart, M.A. & Green, R.E. (2010). Potential hazard to human health from exposure to fragments of lead bullets and shot in the tissues of game animals. PLoS ONE, 5:e10315.

Sainsbury, A., Bennett, P. & Kirkwood, J. (1995). The welfare of free-living wild animals in Europe: harm caused by human activities. Animal Welfare, 4:183–206.

Pain, D.J., Bavoux, C. & Burneleau, G. (1997). Seasonal blood lead concentrations in marsh harriers Circus aeruginosus from Charente-Maritime, France: Relationship with the hunting season. Biological Conservation, 81:1–7.

Beintema, N.H. (2001). Lead poisoning in waterbirds: International Update Report 2000. Wageningen.

Martinez-Haro, M., Taggart, M.A., Martín-Doimeadiós, R.R.C., Green, A.J. & Mateo, R. (2011). Identifying sources of Pb exposure in waterbirds and effects on porphyrin metabolism using noninvasive fecal sampling. Environmental Science and Technology, 45:6153–6159.

Newth, J.L., Cromie, R.L., Brown, M.J., Delahay, R.J., Meharg, A.A., Deacon, C., Norton, G.J., O’Brien, M.F. & Pain, D.J. (2012). Poisoning from lead gunshot: Still a threat to wild waterbirds in Britain. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59:195–204.

Pain, D.J., Amiard-Triquet, C. & Sylvestre, C. (1992). Tissue lead concentrations and shot ingestion in nine species of waterbirds from the camargue (France). Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 24:217–233.

AEWA. (2011). Literature review: effects of the use of lead fishing weights on waterbirds and wetlands. Doc StC Inf. 7.6, 1-20. Bergen.

Butler, D.A., Sage, R.B., Draycott, R.A.H., Carroll, J.P. & Potts, G.R. (2005). Lead exposure in ring-necked pheasants on shooting estates in Great Britain. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33:583–589.

Potts, G.R. (2005). Incidence of ingested lead gunshot in wild grey partridges (Perdix perdix) from the UK. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 51:31–34.

Thomas, V.G., Scheuhammer, A.M. & Bond, D.E. (2009). Bone lead levels and lead isotope ratios in red grouse from Scottish and Yorkshire moors. Science of the Total Environment, 407:3494–3502.

Walker, L.A., Chaplow, J.S., Lawlor, A.J., Pereira, M.G., Potter, E.D., Sainsbury, A.W. & Shore, R.F. (2013). Lead (Pb) concentrations in predatory bird livers 2010 and 2011: a Predatory Bird Monitoring Scheme (PBMS) report. Lancaster, UK.

Vallverdú-Coll, N., López-Antia, A., Martinez-Haro, M., Ortiz-Santaliestra, M.E. & Mateo, R. (2015). Altered immune response in mallard ducklings exposed to lead through maternal transfer in the wild. Environmental Pollution, 205:350–356.

Newth, J.L., Rees, E.C., Cromie, R.L., McDonald, R.A., Bearhop, S., Pain, D.J., Norton, G.J., Deacon, C. & Hilton, G.M. (2016). Widespread exposure to lead affects the body condition of free-living whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in Britain. Environmental Pollution, 209:60–67.

Ecke, F., Singh, N.J., Arnemo, J.M., Bignert, A., Helander, B., Berglund, Å.M.M., Borg, H., Bröjer, C., Holm, K., Lanzone, M., Miller, T., Nordström, Å., Räikkönen, J., Rodushkin, I., Ågren, E. & Hörnfeldt, B. (2017). Sublethal Lead Exposure Alters Movement Behavior in Free-Ranging Golden Eagles. Environmental Science and Technology, 51:5729–5736.

Lead Ammunition Group. (2015). Lead Ammunition, Wildlife and Human Health.

Harradine, J. & Leake, A. (2013). Lead Ammunition and Wildlife in England (UK). Lead Ammunition, Wildlife and Human Health: Appendix 3:

Butler, D. (2005). Incidence of lead shot ingestion in red-legged partridges (Alectoris rufa) in Great Britain. Veterinary Record, 157:661.

Scheuhammer, A.M., Bond, D.E., Burgess, N.M. & Rodrigue, J. (2003). Lead and stable lead isotope ratios in soil, earthworms, and bones of American woodcock (Scolopax minor) from eastern Canada. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 22:2585–2591.

Russell, R.E. & Franson, J.C. (2014). Causes of mortality in eagles submitted to the National Wildlife Health Center 1975-2013. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 38:697–704.

Hunt, W.G., Burnham, W., Parish, C.N., Burnham, K.K., Mutch, B. & Oaks, J.L. (2006). Bullet Fragments in Deer Remains: Implications for Lead Exposure in Avian Scavengers. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 34:167–170.

Mateo, R. (2008). Lead poisoning in wild birds in Europe and the regulations adopted by different countries. In: Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans: 71–98. (eds. Watson, R.T., Fuller, M., Pokras, M. & Hunt, G.) The Peregrine Fund, Boise, USA.

Kurosawa, N. (2000). Lead poisoning in Steller’s Sea Eagles and White-tailed Sea Eagles. In: First Symposium on Steller’s and White-tailed Sea Eagles in East Asia: 107–109. (eds. Ueta, M. & McGrady, M.J.) Wild Bird Society of Japan, Tokyo. 

Finkelstein, M.E., Doak, D.F., George, D., Burnett, J., Brandt, J., Church, M., Grantham, J. & Smith, D.R. (2012). Lead poisoning and the deceptive recovery of the critically endangered California condor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109:11449–11454.

Meyer, C.B., Meyer, J.S., Francisco, A.B., Holder, J. & Verdonck, F. (2016). Can ingestion of lead shot and poisons change population trends of three European birds: Grey partridge, common buzzard, and red kite? PLoS ONE, 11:e0147189.

Green, R.E. & Pain, D.J. (2016). Possible effects of ingested lead gunshot on populations of ducks wintering in the UK. Ibis, 158:699–710.

Pain, D.J. & Green, R.E. (2014). An evaluation of the risks to wildlife in the UK from lead derived from ammunition. Lead Ammunition, Wildlife and Human Health: Appendix 4: UK.

Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust. Tackling lead ammunition poisoning | WWT. Available at: https://www.wwt.org.uk/our-work/projects/tackling-lead-ammunition-poisoning/#. (Accessed: 7 July 2021)

Kanstrup, N. (2019). Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark. Ambio, 48:999–1008.

Envirochem Analytical Laboratories. Where is Lead Found? Available at: https://envirochem.co.uk/news/where-is-lead-found.html. (Accessed: 25 August 2021)

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2009). Code of Good Agricultural Practice for farmers, growers and land managers.

Tukker, A., Buist, H., van Oers, L. & van der Voet, E. (2006). Risks to health and environment of the use of lead in products in the EU. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 49:89–109.

Mateo, R. (2009). Lead Poisoning in Wild Birds in Europe and the Regulations Adopted by Different Countries. In: Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans: 71–98. (eds. Watson, R.T., Fuller, M., Pokras, M. & Hunt, G.) The Peregrine Fund. Boise. doi:10.4080/ilsa.2009.0107

Mudge, G.P. (1983). The Incidence and Significance of Ingested Lead Pellet Poisoning in British Wildfowl. Biological Conservation, 27:333–372.

Edwards, J.R., Fossum, T.W., Nichols, K.J., Noah, D.L., Tarpley, R.J. & Prozialeck, W.C. (2017). One health: Children, waterfowl, and lead exposure in Northwestern Nigeria. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, 117:370–376.

Friend, M. (1999). Lead. In: Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases: General Field Procedures and Diseases of Birds: 317–334. (eds. Friend, M., Franson, J.C. & Ciganovich, E.A.) U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, D.C.

Green, R.E. & Pain, D.J. (2016). Possible effects of ingested lead gunshot on populations of ducks wintering in the UK. International Journal of Avian Science, 158:699–710.

Franson, J.C. & Pain, D.J. (2011). Lead in Birds. In: Environmental Contaminants in Biota: Interpreting Tissue Concentrations: 563–593. (eds. Beyer, W.N. & Meador, J.P.) Taylor and Francis. Boca Raton.

Finley, M.T. & Dieter, M.P. (1978). Influence of laying on lead accumulation in bone of mallard ducks. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 4:123–129.

Pain, D.J., Dickie, I., Green, R.E., Kanstrup, N. & Cromie, R.L. (2019). Wildlife, human and environmental costs of using lead ammunition: An economic review and analysis. Ambio, 48:969–988.

Quy, R. (2010). Review of evidence concerning the contamination of wildlife and the environment arising from the use of lead ammunition: A report to DEFRA. York, UK.

Pecsics, T., Laczi, M., Nagy, G. & Csörgő, T. (2017). The cranial morphometrics of the wildfowl (Anatidae). Ornis Hungarica, 25:44–57.

Pain, D.J. (1990). Lead shot ingestion by waterbirds in the Camargue, France: An investigation of levels and interspecific differences. Environmental Pollution, 66:273–285.

Aebischer, N.J. (2019). Fifty-year trends in UK hunting bags of birds and mammals, and calibrated estimation of national bag size, using GWCT’s National Gamebag Census. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 65:

Cromie, R.L., Loram, A., Hurst, L., O’Brien, M.F., Newth, J.L., Brown, M.J. & Harradine, J. (2010). Compliance With the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot)(England) Regulations 1999. Bristol.

Pain, D.J. (1991). Why are lead-poisoned waterfowl rarely seen?: the disappearance of waterfowl carcasses in the Camargue, France. Wildfowl, 42:118–122.

European Chemicals Agency. Lead in shot, bullets and fishing weights. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/lead-in-shot-bullets-and-fishing-weights. (Accessed: 24 August 2021)

European Federation for Hunting and Conservation. (2020). What does the new regulation on banning lead shot over wetlands mean for Europe’s hunters? Available at: https://www.face.eu/2020/12/what-does-the-new-regulation-on-banning-lead-shot-over-wetlands-mean-for-europes-hunters/. (Accessed: 24 August 2021)

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

 

[Konor]

13 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

It seems that you are denying that lead shot ingestion by birds leads to lethal or sub-lethal impacts on those birds - this has been studied in many bird species, and per the science provided in this thread. The science is accepted by the shooting organisations on the basis of GWCT advice. The argument against further restrictions on lead shot for live quarry is because there is a voluntary transition away from lead shot - and that voluntary transition is on the basis of the science.  

Less waffle and more data as requested please without ,as I stated earlier ,resorting to links that fail to evidence the impact of lead shot ingestion. If you are unable to do so please just say so. The validity of your whole argument hinges on their existence. Also please try to avoid repetition of information I have already read and responded to.

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

I had to do a double take and read that again! 
Did you read it back to yourself Conor? 
That has to be up there with one of the most hilariously ridiculous claims I’ve read on PW! Surreal! Are we supposed to take that seriously? 
For that to be taken as a serious conclusion of events I can only assume the gun missed the Jackdaw and pricked the two Pintail! 


 

Sure. Here is the second part of the story. After the shot was taken at the jackdaw, the landowner saw various splashes in the pond as the lead shot came down over part of the pintails' pond. There was a momentary thought about this and then forgotten. In the weeks that followed the pintails became ill, staggering about, the vet was called and antibiotics given as a possible remedy. They died days later. The birds were opened up and guess what was in gizzards? Lots of that lead shot. True story.

I have been sharing science on lead shot ingestion by various species of gamebirds. I have yet to complete that, before moving onto other terrestrial birds, and then wildfowl. However, here is a relevant case study on pintail.

Lead poisoning of northern pintail ducks feeding in a tidal meadow contaminated with shot from a trap and skeet range (1989)

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5813867 

Lead poisoning of waterfowl from the ingestion of lead shot is well documented and widespread throughout the United States. Research and remedial regulations have focused on waterfowl hunting as the major source of this lead shot. Mortalities of cattle from ingestion of silage contaminated with lead shot from trap shooting have been documented in the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Although ingestion of lead shot by cattle grazing on silage from a trap range was documented in Denmark, no mortalities were reported. This paper describes lead poisoning of northern pintail ducks (Anas acuta) from ingestion of lead shot deposited on a tidal meadow as the result of trap and skeet shooting. This is the first published report linking trap and skeet shooting with lead poisoning of waterfowl. It also describes and evaluates the management procedures taken to prevent the poisonings.

 

[Konor]

13 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

•  

Is there any evidence that lead shot exposure is having an impact on game birds?
A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time¹⁶. Other UK studies report similar findings in pheasants¹⁵ and red-legged partridge²⁴ but do not record impacts on bird health and welfare. A Canadian study found elevated levels of lead in American woodcock that were traced back to lead shot ingestion²⁵.

I’d draw your attention to the lack of evidence regarding the impact on game bird health and welfare of lead shot ingestion. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

Yes, and I bring it to attention of my club members. Whether they get involved or not, I cannot say. But I do urge them to.

I say it how I see it. I have not seen any posts in defence of Lead. Only ones against.

Can you explain why BASC is not fighting tooth and nail, in the defence of Lead, rather than calling for a voluntary BAN?

It just doesn't make sense to me. Fight and we may retain it's use, don't fight and call for a voluntary BAN and lose it's use anyway........

Thanks for getting involved in the HSE consultations and encouraging others in your club to do the same. We have been challenging all the HSE proposals to restrict lead ammunition since the review started. That includes arguments against a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting on the basis that a voluntary transition is already happening - self regulation is better than changes in law. This is outlined in detail in our final response here:

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

I think you will find all the answers in there but happy to address any queries as a result of reading this.

 In the next week or two we may see a government response to the recommendations. That will be a time to decide the battles ahead.

4 minutes ago, Konor said:

I’d draw your attention to the lack of evidence regarding the impact on game bird health and welfare of lead shot ingestion. 

Correct, they found evidence of lead shot ingestion in red-legs and pheasants. Other studies have looked in detail at lethal and sub-lethal impacts. I think you continue to be in denial of the primary exposure pathway involving lead shot ingestion. And that is your choice.

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Sure. Here is the second part of the story. After the shot was taken at the jackdaw, the landowner saw various splashes in the pond as the lead shot came down over part of the pintails' pond. There was a momentary thought about this and then forgotten. In the weeks that followed the pintails became ill, staggering about, the vet was called and antibiotics given as a possible remedy. They died days later. The birds were opened up and guess what was in gizzards? Lots of that lead shot. True story.

I have been sharing science on lead shot ingestion by various species of gamebirds. I have yet to complete that, before moving onto other terrestrial birds, and then wildfowl. However, here is a relevant case study on pintail.

Lead poisoning of northern pintail ducks feeding in a tidal meadow contaminated with shot from a trap and skeet range (1989)

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5813867 

Lead poisoning of waterfowl from the ingestion of lead shot is well documented and widespread throughout the United States. Research and remedial regulations have focused on waterfowl hunting as the major source of this lead shot. Mortalities of cattle from ingestion of silage contaminated with lead shot from trap shooting have been documented in the United States, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Although ingestion of lead shot by cattle grazing on silage from a trap range was documented in Denmark, no mortalities were reported. This paper describes lead poisoning of northern pintail ducks (Anas acuta) from ingestion of lead shot deposited on a tidal meadow as the result of trap and skeet shooting. This is the first published report linking trap and skeet shooting with lead poisoning of waterfowl. It also describes and evaluates the management procedures taken to prevent the poisonings.

 

You seem obsessed with posting copious amounts of information , so the pintail duck died from the ingestion of lead shot which does not dispute the data already submitted that lead shot ingestion occurs and that as a consequence some birds may die as a result. However what you conveniently ignore is quantifying the impact of lead shot ingestion on the population of inland game birds and yet again you are unable to come up with any figures to support a case for any impact on population numbers.
2 pintail killed on wetland where legislation already prohibits lead shot use are irrelevant to justify further lead restrictions for the shooting inland of rabbit pheasant and partridge etc. I fail to see how you consider such anecdotal evidence grounds for your opinion on cessation of lead shot use away from wetlands.

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Konor said:

 I repeat my challenge ,in a few sentences state the evidence that justifies your opinion. No links just the scientific data that shows that the loss of birds due to lead shot poisoning is so significant that we cannot afford to ignore it. 
 That is the only information that is relevant

Obviously you have difficulty in complying with a simple request to the detriment of your credibility. Rather than relying on yet more irrelevance to mask the weakness of your case why not just concede that there is no measurable impact on game bird numbers due to lead shot ingestion and any impact if measurable is accepted as infinitely smaller than other mortality causes, for example 1% projected but not substantiated from your own pie chart figures.

23 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Correct, they found evidence of lead shot ingestion in red-legs and pheasants. Other studies have looked in detail at lethal and sub-lethal impacts. I think you continue to be in denial of the primary exposure pathway involving lead shot ingestion. And that is your choice.

Again you conveniently ignore the fact that no impact on the health and welfare of pheasant and partridge was observed.

[Gordon R]

Konor - I admire your persistence. I have never come across anyone who evades any question, but merely posts so many links, few, if any, which are relevant or conclusive. It seems like a rather childish game, whereby no direct answer is ever given, but questions are posed, links pasted or phone calls offered. Questions are asked about BASC membership, whether posters have contacted their MPs or what shows they attend. None of which are relevant, just merely batting the ball back over the net.

I wonder if the hierarchy at BASC have read the diatribes and wonder if they support them. It seems very unprofessional and doesn't portray them in a good light. Numerous posters on here have ridiculed the lack of engagement, but it continues.

I have no idea why. 

 

[Konor]

58 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We have been challenging all the HSE proposals to restrict lead ammunition since the review started. That includes arguments against a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting

Then why undermine that work by posting information that shows no observable impact on game bird populations due to lead shot ingestion ? It seems that you are allowing your unsubstantiated opinions to affect the work being carried out to retain voluntary lead shot use as an option the uptake of which will be decided by shooters according to the scientific data available. To justify change ,voluntary or not ,clear evidence should be available to make that decision and you do not have that evidence ,but your posting creates the illusion that you do have. Instead of resorting to posting irrelevant links try instead to attempt to explain the reasons you have for your opinions and attempt to convince the forum in your own words that they have any validity. I think you will have a hard job to do so.

Edited Saturday at 12:22 by Konor
Clarification

[Konor]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - I admire your persistence. I have never come across anyone who evades any question, but merely posts so many links, few, if any, which are relevant or conclusive. It seems like a rather childish game, whereby no direct answer is ever given, but questions are posed, links pasted or phone calls offered. Questions are asked about BASC membership, whether posters have contacted their MPs or what shows they attend. None of which are relevant, just merely batting the ball back over the net.

I wonder if the hierarchy at BASC have read the diatribes and wonder if they support them. It seems very unprofessional and doesn't portray them in a good light. Numerous posters on here have ridiculed the lack of engagement, but it continues.

I have no idea why. 

 

Thanks Gordon, I’m not backing off on this. Numerous valid points and questions have been raised by several forum members all of which have  been ignored. The doublespeak involved in advertising the opposition to further lead shot legislation and posting an avalanche of data that purports to support the case for restriction with no evidence in that data of any measurable impact on game bird populations is bizarre.

Conor has refused to put a case forward for his own opinions seemingly unable to put into his own words ,and share ,the data that has convinced him of the validity of his opinions. I expect that he thinks that if he refuses to engage and therefore publicise the weakness of his case in debate it will all quickly blow over. As witnessed by the almost unanimous rejection of both his posts and unsubstantiated opinion it seems any hope that he is able to convince many ,if any , people of the validity of his opinions is unlikely .
 

[Conor O'Gorman]

30 minutes ago, Konor said:

Then why undermine that work by posting information that shows no observable impact on game bird populations due to lead shot ingestion ? It seems that you are allowing your unsubstantiated opinions to affect the work being carried out to retain voluntary lead shot use as an option the uptake of which will be decided by shooters according to the scientific data available. To justify change voluntary or not clear evidence should be available to make that decision and you do not have that evidence bur your posting creates the illusion that you do have. Instead of resorting to posting irrelevant links attempt to explain the reasons you have for your opinions and attempt to convince the forum in your own words that they have any validity. I think you will have a hard job to do so.

As per my advice to Newbie I would suggest you read BASC's response and you will see for yourself.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

For example some snippets from BASC's 2023 response to HSE as follows:

There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks.

The shooting sector must be allowed time to develop non-lead shotgun ammunition due to a world shortage of components and the need for manufacturers and assemblers to source new machinery to produce lead shot alternatives and biodegradable wads for all shotgun calibers.

BASC is opposed to the HSE’s proposed restrictions for lead shot for live quarry shooting because the shooting sector voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting addresses the evidenced exposure risks identified by the HSE for food and the environment.

If there is a restriction recommended for lead shot for live quarry shooting it must be evidence based and proportionate to the evidenced risk. We encourage the regulator to work closely with the sector to secure realistic transition periods that account for global supply chain issues.

BASC's response to the HSE recommendations to government as follows:

https://basc.org.uk/hse-recommendations-on-lead-restriction-proposals-explained/

Shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting

A restriction on the sale and use of lead shotgun ammunition has been proposed, with a transition timeline of five years. 

There will be a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting. This will be subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use. That cap is 1.25 million, which equates to 0.7 per cent of the cartridges previously used for target shooting with shotguns.

BASC’s position: The HSE recommended a timeline of three years. Extensive lobbying from BASC extended this deadline to five years.

It was clear there was a determination to impose a ban on lead for shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting. By proposing a voluntary transition and self-regulation, we have bought the shooting sector time to get ready.

We are now better prepared as a sector for change. It gave us time to inform the shooting community of the changes coming and provide educational sustainable ammunition shooting days to introduce those who shoot to lead-free shotgun cartridges.

It gave the ammunition manufacturers time to make significant progress and deliver a range of viable alternatives to lead. Many shoots are now lead-free, and their game is being sold in supermarkets across the UK. The transition period has enabled the shooting community to innovate and adapt.

On target shooting, the derogation for athletes means they will still be able to train for competitions and major tournaments and won’t be disadvantaged. There are a range of non-lead clay loads available, and with further progress being made on alternatives to lead ammunition, alongside another five years to continue to develop these alternatives, the clay shooting community will have time to adapt.

 

Edited Saturday at 12:29 by Conor O'Gorman

[Rewulf]

22 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

As per my advice to Newbie I would suggest you read BASC's response and you will see for yourself.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

For example some snippets from BASC's 2023 response to HSE as follows:

There is clear evidence *snip

Why are you posting this again ?
Its old news, we know BASC dont like lead shot, YOU dont like lead shot, lead shot is going to be banned, end of.
BASC and other shooting orgs have dragged shooting, ALL shooting into the abyss.
FAC and SGC holders, will have to contemplate hard on whether to continue their sport.
Doctor pro formas - No opposition from BASC, just bad advice.
Lead ban- no real opposition from BASC.
Licence charges doubled- No opposition from BASC.

You talk about fights and battles, Ive yet to see one.

[Konor]

37 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

As per my advice to Newbie I would suggest you read BASC's response and you will see for yourself.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/BASC-review-of-HSE-Annex-15-opinion.pdf

For example some snippets from BASC's 2023 response to HSE as follows:

There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks.

The shooting sector must be allowed time to develop non-lead shotgun ammunition due to a world shortage of components and the need for manufacturers and assemblers to source new machinery to produce lead shot alternatives and biodegradable wads for all shotgun calibers.

BASC is opposed to the HSE’s proposed restrictions for lead shot for live quarry shooting because the shooting sector voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting addresses the evidenced exposure risks identified by the HSE for food and the environment.

If there is a restriction recommended for lead shot for live quarry shooting it must be evidence based and proportionate to the evidenced risk. We encourage the regulator to work closely with the sector to secure realistic transition periods that account for global supply chain issues.

BASC's response to the HSE recommendations to government as follows:

https://basc.org.uk/hse-recommendations-on-lead-restriction-proposals-explained/

Shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting

A restriction on the sale and use of lead shotgun ammunition has been proposed, with a transition timeline of five years. 

There will be a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting. This will be subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use. That cap is 1.25 million, which equates to 0.7 per cent of the cartridges previously used for target shooting with shotguns.

BASC’s position: The HSE recommended a timeline of three years. Extensive lobbying from BASC extended this deadline to five years.

It was clear there was a determination to impose a ban on lead for shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting. By proposing a voluntary transition and self-regulation, we have bought the shooting sector time to get ready.

We are now better prepared as a sector for change. It gave us time to inform the shooting community of the changes coming and provide educational sustainable ammunition shooting days to introduce those who shoot to lead-free shotgun cartridges.

It gave the ammunition manufacturers time to make significant progress and deliver a range of viable alternatives to lead. Many shoots are now lead-free, and their game is being sold in supermarkets across the UK. The transition period has enabled the shooting community to innovate and adapt.

On target shooting, the derogation for athletes means they will still be able to train for competitions and major tournaments and won’t be disadvantaged. There are a range of non-lead clay loads available, and with further progress being made on alternatives to lead ammunition, alongside another five years to continue to develop these alternatives, the clay shooting community will have time to adapt.

 

Sorry Conor but your regurgitation of already posted information in reply to my last few posts makes it obvious that you are incapable of a straight answer in your own words to a straightforward question. 

[Konor]

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Why are you posting this again ?
Its old news, we know BASC dont like lead shot, YOU dont like lead shot, lead shot is going to be banned, end of.
BASC and other shooting orgs have dragged shooting, ALL shooting into the abyss.
FAC and SGC holders, will have to contemplate hard on whether to continue their sport.
Doctor pro formas - No opposition from BASC, just bad advice.
Lead ban- no real opposition from BASC.
Licence charges doubled- No opposition from BASC.

You talk about fights and battles, Ive yet to see one.

He is fighting hard Rewulf ,fighting hard to retain any credibility.
In light of the standard of replies in this thread I doubt that Conor will hold on to much support ,if any support existed due to his continual avoidance of the point. In future I foresee forum members skimming over or completely ignoring his future posts. On the basis of the replies on this thread he fails to instil any confidence or convince any one of his integrity. Accepted that that is a personal comment Conor but unfortunately well deserved and relevant to the lack of transparency in respect to this thread.