Lead shot ingestion in birds

[harkom]

13 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

What is the point of BASC, damned if I know.

Hmmm...?????  

Well, a fair starting point would be to check the statements made by those seeking election to a BSaC appointment ...(same ol' mantras)... then think about why they would want a post?

[Konor]

7 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yes of course it is up to you. There is no lead ban. There is a voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. I promised to look at the evidence of lead shot ingestion in birds as per OP. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything - just looking at evidence. I think mourning doves might be next.

At present there is no lead ban. At present there is a called for voluntary transition away from lead shot which is being poorly supported. At present your thread showing minimal ingestion rates of lead shot and no population impact under the guise of “ just looking at evidence” is without critical interpretation and analysis. 
 The disproportionate amount of time you spend  peddling information that contributes absolutely nothing to the BASC position of opposing any further lead shot restrictions seems to be an abuse of members subscriptions that pay your wages. You continually fail to post anything that would indicate that you personally are actively opposing further lead shot restrictions.

In future should a total lead shot ban come about with its resultant far reaching consequences that will impact on every shooter you personally will be unable to say to yourself that you did anything to prevent it ,despite being in BASC employ ,and with threads like this possibly contributed towards making a case for our opponents by conceding relevance where there is none . 

26 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

P. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything - just looking at evidence.

😂🤣 Yeah right ,keep telling yourself that. I for one am not buying that line

[McSpredder]

38 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead exposure through consumption of small game harvested using lead-based ammunition and the corresponding health risks to First Nations in Alberta, Canada (2019)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329883411_Lead_exposure_through_consumption_of_small_game_harvested_using_lead-based_ammunition_and_the_corresponding_health_risks_to_First_Nations_in_Alberta_Canada

Conclusion section states: "The findings of this paper suggest that the consumption of meat impacted by lead shot should be limited and the use of non-toxic alter-natives, such as steel or copper ammunition, should be considered as substitutes, particularly when non-toxic alternatives have been demonstrated to be as effective as conventional lead ammunition in terms of ballistics and kill effectiveness".

Conor has reported the conclusion, but not mentioned the sample size, which is described in Section 2 (Methods) of that Alberta research paper:   

2. Methods

2.1. Sample collection and laboratory analysis

Grouse muscle samples were collected by First Nation harvesters trained in sample collection, documentation and storage. The samples were collected according to the sampling procedures outlined at a community capacity building workshop. Grouse were harvested from traditional hunting areas in Alberta as part of the regular hunting activity of the First Nation community. Thirteen (13) grouse were included in the assessment. Grouse were harvested between midOctober 2016 and mid-January 2017. Twelve (12) grouse were harvested using a 0.22 calibre rifle and one was harvested using a shot gun.

 

 

 

[Konor]

1 minute ago, McSpredder said:

Conor has reported the conclusion, but not mentioned the sample size, which is described in Section 2 (Methods) of that Alberta research paper:   

2. Methods

2.1. Sample collection and laboratory analysis

Grouse muscle samples were collected by First Nation harvesters trained in sample collection, documentation and storage. The samples were collected according to the sampling procedures outlined at a community capacity building workshop. Grouse were harvested from traditional hunting areas in Alberta as part of the regular hunting activity of the First Nation community. Thirteen (13) grouse were included in the assessment. Grouse were harvested between midOctober 2016 and mid-January 2017. Twelve (12) grouse were harvested using a 0.22 calibre rifle and one was harvested using a shot gun.

 

 

 

It serves to illustrate yet again the inadequacy of the information being supplied. I’m just taking it for granted now that there is no evidence sufficient to support any lead shot restrictions. I would have thought any BASC employees first instinct would be to highlight all of the inadequacies of the research. As it is apparently not perhaps a case for justification should be expected from the poster.

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

 

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.

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

 

Conor that derogation is a massive insult to every other person who clay shoots and totally illogical if lead shot is such a danger how can it still be acceptable for athletes to still deposit many tonnes of lead shot over the same ground others have to use non toxic?

There is only one justification for banning lead shot over the very tiny area of ground that clay grounds operate over and that is because you do not want the risk that lead shot will continue to be used on live quarry as a consequence of not banning it for clay shooting.

Otherwise you would be supporting the CPSA in trying to keep lead shot for clay target shooting rather than just passing the monkey on to the CPSA.

BASC want a total ban on lead shot, the rest BASC state is just smoke and dagger.

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 12:28 by rbrowning2

[Konor]

52 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Conor that derogation is a massive insult to every other person who clay shoots and totally illogical if lead shot is such a danger how can it still be acceptable for athletes to still deposit many tonnes of lead shot over the same ground others have to use non toxic?

The hypocrisy evidently is lost on them rbrowning2 It would be interesting to know to what extent BASC employees actually engage in the shooting sports. There seems little evidence of self interest in the BASC sourced posts to date. And the complete lack of debate on forum and critical evaluation off forum is staggering.

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, rbrowning2 said:

Conor that derogation is a massive insult to every other person who clay shoots and totally illogical if lead shot is such a danger how can it still be acceptable for athletes to still deposit many tonnes of lead shot over the same ground others have to use non toxic?

There is only one justification for banning lead shot over the very tiny area of ground that clay grounds operate over and that is because you do not want the risk that lead shot will continue to be used on live quarry as a consequence of not banning it for clay shooting.

Otherwise you would be supporting the CPSA in trying to keep lead shot for clay target shooting rather than just passing the monkey on to the CPSA.

BASC want a total ban on lead shot, the rest BASC state is just smoke and dagger.

 

 

That is not true and illogical when you think about it. The HSE recommended ban on lead shot for target shooting is to enforce its recommended ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting. BASC's argument against this for the final HSE consultation in 2023 was that the enforcement of restrictions on the use of lead shot was mission creep and outside the scope of the HSE review. This is all outlined in the document below which has been in public domain since December 2023 and shared numerous times on this forum.

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

As for the CPSA, they are the governing body for clay shooting and said they are setting up a working group of CPSA board members, ground operators and partners from the gun trade, to plan this potential key change for clay shooting in the coming years.

That's not the end of the matter. We await the Defra response to the HSE recommendations. Then BASC will assess that and decide what battles to pick. 

[eightlittlebits]

2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That is not true and illogical when you think about it. The HSE recommended ban on lead shot for target shooting is to enforce its recommended ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting.

How is it that for target rifle they're happy to label the boxes as "not for live quarry" and on they carry? Seemingly they don't trust those shooting game to follow the same rules for shotgun cartridges and as such the sport of clay shooting is being thrown under the bus.

If the voluntary transition was working as you hoped surely enforcing the ban for live quarry would not require the ban on lead shot for target shooting?

I've been following this thread throughout and none of the studies seem to suggest anything more than "birds consumed lead shot". I don't think anyone is doubting that birds have consumed lead shot as grit, they're questioning how widespread it is and what the impact of that is.

Few to no recent studies since the DEFRA decision that no more restrictions were required, no evidence of impact on populations, and extrapolations and assumptions from very small data sets to fit what appear to be pre-determined conclusions. These conclusions are then being regurgitated as evidence that greater restrictions are required as opposed to questioning the conclusions in the first place.

If there was more evidence actually demonstrating an impact on the population of birds, rather than demonstrating that a few birds out of a very small sample had consumed lead shot there would have been/be more uptake of the "voluntary transition".

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

8 minutes ago, eightlittlebits said:

How is it that for target rifle they're happy to label the boxes as "not for live quarry" and on they carry? Seemingly they don't trust those shooting game to follow the same rules for shotgun cartridges and as such the sport of clay shooting is being thrown under the bus.

If the voluntary transition was working as you hoped surely enforcing the ban for live quarry would not require the ban on lead shot for target shooting?

I've been following this thread throughout and none of the studies seem to suggest anything more than "birds consumed lead shot". I don't think anyone is doubting that birds have consumed lead shot as grit, they're questioning how widespread it is and what the impact of that is.

Few to no recent studies since the DEFRA decision that no more restrictions were required, no evidence of impact on populations, and extrapolations and assumptions from very small data sets to fit what appear to be pre-determined conclusions. These conclusions are then being regurgitated as evidence that greater restrictions are required as opposed to questioning the conclusions in the first place.

If there was more evidence actually demonstrating an impact on the population of birds, rather than demonstrating that a few birds out of a very small sample had consumed lead shot there would have been/be more uptake of the "voluntary transition".

 

There is a lot of confused thinking in what has been produced by the HSE at every stage. It is a multi-layered topic but even then its been overcomplicated. But yes, lack of trust on game shooting does comes into it - the evidence of widespread breach of the lead shot regulations on shoots has been referenced by the HSE. 

BASC has battled at every stage of this review. The next stage is the Defra response. As for lead shot ingestion in birds there is little understanding of the extent of this happening across so many species worldwide and denial it happens. It's never really been written about in sporting press etc, only buried in various academic papers.

The population level impact has been studied to varying degrees - some data sets are better than others. For this thread I am simply looking at the evidence it happens and for which species and where. I have not even finished game birds. And look at the vitriol and ad hominem attacks just for trying to do that. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in the UK in grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 

In Spain for woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .

In Bulgaria for pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 

In USA for American woodcock, bobwhite quail and chukar partridge.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion for mourning doves from USA:

Lead Poisoning in a Sample of Maryland Mourning Doves (1967)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3798133?origin=crossref 

A sick mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura) collected in Maryland with 2 lead shot in the gizzard showed acid-fast intranuclear inclusion bodies in the kidney tubular cells. The liver and the tibia contained 72 ppm and 187 ppm lead (wet weight) respectively. Four gizzards from 62 doves killed by hunters contained lead shot. The lead content of 43 dove livers ranged from 0.4-14.0 ppm (wet weight); 40 of these doves were collected by hunters, and the other 3 were dying of trichomoniasis.

Lead Shot Ingestion by Mourning Doves and Incidence in Soil (1968)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3798925?origin=crossref 

Biologists in Tennessee collected 1,949 gizzards from doves harvested on fields managed for public hunting. One percent of the doves had ingested between 1 and 24 lead shot. 

Availability and Ingestion of Lead Shot by Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) in Southeastern New Mexico (1992)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3671871?origin=crossref

Examination of gizzards collected from 420 mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) during 1985, 1986, and 1987 revealed that only one had ingested lead shot. Analyses of livers of 250 doves revealed that nine (3.6%) contained concentrations of lead >7 ppm wet weight (range of 8 to 257). Though large amounts of lead were available for ingestion, doves had a low incidence of lead consumption.

Ingested shot and tissue lead concentrations in mourning doves (2009)

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/Franson_et_al_2009.pdf

We provide an evaluation of lead exposure in 4,884 hunter-harvested Mourning Doves from Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Overall, the frequency of ingested lead pellets in gizzards of doves on hunting areas where the use of lead shot was permitted was 2.5%, although we found a high degree of variability among locations. On areas where nontoxic shot was required, 2.4% of Mourning Doves had ingested steel shot.

Spent-shot availability and ingestion on areas managed for Mourning Doves (2002)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288655171_Spent-shot_availability_and_ingestion_on_areas_managed_for_mourning_doves 

During 1998-99, 15 of 310 (4.8%) mourning doves collected from EBCA had ingested nontoxic shot. Of those doves, 6 (40.0%) contained ≥7 shot pellets. In comparison, only 2 of 574 (0.3%) doves collected from JARWA had ingested Pb shot.

Lead shot ingestion by mourning doves on a disked field (2011)

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.105 

Previous field studies of hunter-harvested mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) have reported the percentage of birds with ingested lead shot as 0.2–6.5%. To reduce the uncertainty concerning the number of doves that ingest shot, we conducted an experiment to test the proportion of mourning doves that ingested lead shot on the bare soil of a disked field (typical of a managed dove field) to simulate more natural feeding conditions. In each of 3 treatment groups of 80 birds, we exposed 35 birds to low-density lead shot (1.5 million shot/ha), and35 birds to high-density lead shot (29.5 million shot/ha), and 10 birds served as controls (no shot). We dosed 5 positive control birds with 2 lead shot each in trials 2 and 3. We scattered lead shot and mixed seed on the loosely packed soil of treatment cages and after 4 days of exposure, 2.9% of doves voluntarily ingested ≥1 lead shot. The proportion of birds that ingested shot when exposed to the high-density shot treatment (4.9%) was not different (P = 0.098) from that of the low-density shot treatment (1.0%).

 

[Pukka Bundook]

You know, I can't see any of this going anywhere.

I am a flat footed Yorkshire farmer, and that I now live in Alberta doesn't change that.

I must go back to ask basic questions that are not answerede by any amount of these studies;

I do not expect answers, but this is where I am at,

 How is it that that lead shot is a problem to the consumer of small game, when we have shot game with such shot since the 1500's?

Vast amounts of game were shot in the 19th and early 20th century.,

We all ate game and rabbits and spit out the shot and no-one was affected as far as we could tell,.

At Tige Digh, Osgood Mackenzie's old home at Gairlock, the big slop for skimming the milk for cream was made of pure lead, and used for generations, and no ill effects.   Same for the rest of us and lead water pipe we all grew up with. Now looking at a lead pellet is going to hurt us according to some.

We all know lead is a natural occurring element in many areas of the earth.

Technology has increased by far, yet today the average western world individual is a damned sight dafter  than his

for-fathers.

This does not fit into this thread, but this is what is on my mind..

Also, I see thirteen grouse killed by First Nations people as being pretty well meaningless. Yes, if shot in the body with a hollow point there Will be some lead, but that is a no-brainer and can only be there to fit an agenda.

 

All best,

R.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, eightlittlebits said:

How is it that for target rifle they're happy to label the boxes as "not for live quarry" and on they carry? Seemingly they don't trust those shooting game to follow the same rules for shotgun cartridges and as such the sport of clay shooting is being thrown under the bus.

If the voluntary transition was working as you hoped surely enforcing the ban for live quarry would not require the ban on lead shot for target shooting?

I've been following this thread throughout and none of the studies seem to suggest anything more than "birds consumed lead shot". I don't think anyone is doubting that birds have consumed lead shot as grit, they're questioning how widespread it is and what the impact of that is.

Few to no recent studies since the DEFRA decision that no more restrictions were required, no evidence of impact on populations, and extrapolations and assumptions from very small data sets to fit what appear to be pre-determined conclusions. These conclusions are then being regurgitated as evidence that greater restrictions are required as opposed to questioning the conclusions in the first place.

If there was more evidence actually demonstrating an impact on the population of birds, rather than demonstrating that a few birds out of a very small sample had consumed lead shot there would have been/be more uptake of the "voluntary transition".

 

The crux of the matter and to date no debate or willingness to confront those basic truths. The matter isn’t complicated and the only confusion is why BASC chose not to contest the evidence when it was so weak.

[rbrowning2]

56 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

. But yes, lack of trust on game shooting does comes into it - the evidence of widespread breach of the lead shot regulations on shoots has been referenced by the HSE. 

 

Which regulations are you referring too? 

[Conor O'Gorman]

20 minutes ago, Pukka Bundook said:

You know, I can't see any of this going anywhere.

I am a flat footed Yorkshire farmer, and that I now live in Alberta doesn't change that.

I must go back to ask basic questions that are not answerede by any amount of these studies;

I do not expect answers, but this is where I am at,

 How is it that that lead shot is a problem to the consumer of small game, when we have shot game with such shot since the 1500's?

Vast amounts of game were shot in the 19th and early 20th century.,

We all ate game and rabbits and spit out the shot and no-one was affected as far as we could tell,.

At Tige Digh, Osgood Mackenzie's old home at Gairlock, the big slop for skimming the milk for cream was made of pure lead, and used for generations, and no ill effects.   Same for the rest of us and lead water pipe we all grew up with. Now looking at a lead pellet is going to hurt us according to some.

We all know lead is a natural occurring element in many areas of the earth.

Technology has increased by far, yet today the average western world individual is a damned sight dafter  than his

for-fathers.

This does not fit into this thread, but this is what is on my mind..

Also, I see thirteen grouse killed by First Nations people as being pretty well meaningless. Yes, if shot in the body with a hollow point there Will be some lead, but that is a no-brainer and can only be there to fit an agenda.

 

All best,

R.

Thanks, yes we were discussing lead shot ingestion by birds in Alberta as you explained that is where you live and there has been no research on lead shot ingestion that I could find there, the only research on the topic of lead ammunition in Alberta being that game meat study. Here in the UK we have some restrictions on lead shot in wetlands and/or waterfowl and discussions are ongoing on wider restrictions. The common denominator is the risks from lead shot being ingested by various bird species. As I mentioned in Canada I read that it is required that non-lead shot be used in national wildlife areas since 1995, in wetlands since 1997, for hunting most migratory game birds across the nation since 1999, and for upland game birds since 2012. I presume that is because of evidenced risks to bird of various species rather than lead levels in game meat. What is unclear is where the hunting organisations in Canada stand/stood on the existing restrictions - did they oppose them and on what grounds?

[Konor]

58 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The population level impact has been studied to varying degrees - some data sets are better than others. For this thread I am simply looking at the evidence it happens and for which species and where. I have not even finished game birds. And look at the vitriol and ad hominem attacks just for trying to do that.

The kick back against your whole thread is due to the lack of context and critical interpretation of the data found in the links you have posted. At no point do you make it clear that all this supposed evidence shows absolutely no impact on population numbers. As a consequence your motives are in question and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the whole point is some belated justification of the failed voluntary move away from lead. 
 Your reluctance to debate points raised only adds to the confusion that your own posts generate.

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Which regulations are you referring too? 

The ones in England.

[Konor]

46 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in the UK in grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 

In Spain for woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .

In Bulgaria for pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 

In USA for American woodcock, bobwhite quail and chukar partridge.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion for mourning doves from USA:

Lead Poisoning in a Sample of Maryland Mourning Doves (1967)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3798133?origin=crossref 

A sick mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura) collected in Maryland with 2 lead shot in the gizzard showed acid-fast intranuclear inclusion bodies in the kidney tubular cells. The liver and the tibia contained 72 ppm and 187 ppm lead (wet weight) respectively. Four gizzards from 62 doves killed by hunters contained lead shot. The lead content of 43 dove livers ranged from 0.4-14.0 ppm (wet weight); 40 of these doves were collected by hunters, and the other 3 were dying of trichomoniasis.

Lead Shot Ingestion by Mourning Doves and Incidence in Soil (1968)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3798925?origin=crossref 

Biologists in Tennessee collected 1,949 gizzards from doves harvested on fields managed for public hunting. One percent of the doves had ingested between 1 and 24 lead shot. 

Availability and Ingestion of Lead Shot by Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) in Southeastern New Mexico (1992)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3671871?origin=crossref

Examination of gizzards collected from 420 mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) during 1985, 1986, and 1987 revealed that only one had ingested lead shot. Analyses of livers of 250 doves revealed that nine (3.6%) contained concentrations of lead >7 ppm wet weight (range of 8 to 257). Though large amounts of lead were available for ingestion, doves had a low incidence of lead consumption.

Ingested shot and tissue lead concentrations in mourning doves (2009)

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/get_the_lead_out/pdfs/Franson_et_al_2009.pdf

We provide an evaluation of lead exposure in 4,884 hunter-harvested Mourning Doves from Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Overall, the frequency of ingested lead pellets in gizzards of doves on hunting areas where the use of lead shot was permitted was 2.5%, although we found a high degree of variability among locations. On areas where nontoxic shot was required, 2.4% of Mourning Doves had ingested steel shot.

Spent-shot availability and ingestion on areas managed for Mourning Doves (2002)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288655171_Spent-shot_availability_and_ingestion_on_areas_managed_for_mourning_doves 

During 1998-99, 15 of 310 (4.8%) mourning doves collected from EBCA had ingested nontoxic shot. Of those doves, 6 (40.0%) contained ≥7 shot pellets. In comparison, only 2 of 574 (0.3%) doves collected from JARWA had ingested Pb shot.

Lead shot ingestion by mourning doves on a disked field (2011)

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.105 

Previous field studies of hunter-harvested mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) have reported the percentage of birds with ingested lead shot as 0.2–6.5%. To reduce the uncertainty concerning the number of doves that ingest shot, we conducted an experiment to test the proportion of mourning doves that ingested lead shot on the bare soil of a disked field (typical of a managed dove field) to simulate more natural feeding conditions. In each of 3 treatment groups of 80 birds, we exposed 35 birds to low-density lead shot (1.5 million shot/ha), and35 birds to high-density lead shot (29.5 million shot/ha), and 10 birds served as controls (no shot). We dosed 5 positive control birds with 2 lead shot each in trials 2 and 3. We scattered lead shot and mixed seed on the loosely packed soil of treatment cages and after 4 days of exposure, 2.9% of doves voluntarily ingested ≥1 lead shot. The proportion of birds that ingested shot when exposed to the high-density shot treatment (4.9%) was not different (P = 0.098) from that of the low-density shot treatment (1.0%).

 

I think you’ve lost your audience Conor.

For someone supposedly fighting the corner of shooting sportsmen you attract an awful lot of criticism from supporters of fieldsports. Instead of maintaining that it is confusion or lack of understanding or a host of other excuses on the part of forum members that gives rise to this rejection of your opinions it might be wise to step back and reevaluate your whole approach. Perhaps take the feedback here back to BASC so that a reassessment might be made and hopefully we can get behind refreshed policies that reflect the sportsmen you’re supposedly the voice of.

17 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks, yes we were discussing lead shot ingestion by birds in Alberta as you explained that is where you live and there has been no research on lead shot ingestion that I could find there, the only research on the topic of lead ammunition in Alberta being that game meat study. Here in the UK we have some restrictions on lead shot in wetlands and/or waterfowl and discussions are ongoing on wider restrictions. The common denominator is the risks from lead shot being ingested by various bird species. As I mentioned in Canada I read that it is required that non-lead shot be used in national wildlife areas since 1995, in wetlands since 1997, for hunting most migratory game birds across the nation since 1999, and for upland game birds since 2012. I presume that is because of evidenced risks to bird of various species rather than lead levels in game meat. What is unclear is where the hunting organisations in Canada stand/stood on the existing restrictions - did they oppose them and on what grounds?

Classic Conor ,completely ignoring the main points made and launching into an irrelevant monologue.

[Konor]

59 minutes ago, Pukka Bundook said:

You know, I can't see any of this going anywhere.

I am a flat footed Yorkshire farmer, and that I now live in Alberta doesn't change that.

I must go back to ask basic questions that are not answerede by any amount of these studies;

I do not expect answers, but this is where I am at,

 How is it that that lead shot is a problem to the consumer of small game, when we have shot game with such shot since the 1500's?

Vast amounts of game were shot in the 19th and early 20th century.,

We all ate game and rabbits and spit out the shot and no-one was affected as far as we could tell,.

At Tige Digh, Osgood Mackenzie's old home at Gairlock, the big slop for skimming the milk for cream was made of pure lead, and used for generations, and no ill effects.   Same for the rest of us and lead water pipe we all grew up with. Now looking at a lead pellet is going to hurt us according to some.

We all know lead is a natural occurring element in many areas of the earth.

Technology has increased by far, yet today the average western world individual is a damned sight dafter  than his

for-fathers.

This does not fit into this thread, but this is what is on my mind..

Also, I see thirteen grouse killed by First Nations people as being pretty well meaningless. Yes, if shot in the body with a hollow point there Will be some lead, but that is a no-brainer and can only be there to fit an agenda.

 

All best,

R.

Too much common sense in there Rich and not enough irrelevant waffle

Edited Wednesday at 16:01 by Konor

[Scully]

For whose benefit is this continuing mantra  @Conor O'Gorman? 
It is obvious it is aimed at all those who shoot live quarry, and in particular those who shoot game, but given that those same people kill things for recreation ( the hunting gene is still there even though the necessity isn’t ) it would seem there is little if any interest. 
Wouldn’t time be better spent thinking up effective or more robust opposition to the multitudes of impending encroachment into the way of life of law abiding UK shooters? When do you reach the point of saying loud and clear to those in power that enough is enough? Will BASC ever grow a pair? 

 

 

[Konor]

17 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

What is the point of BASC, damned if I know.

Rather than ,as it was founded to be “ an organisation to promote the interests of shooting sportsmen “it has morphed into a business . The game shooters certificate pricing reflects this and the job of protecting the interests of sportsmen has fallen to would be politicians who consider themselves adept at manipulation unfortunately they are not so adept at evading justifiable criticism.

 What was beautifully illustrated in Conor’s last reply to Pukka Bundook was the heads down keep charging ahead mentality when confronted with any contrary opinion akin to the minefield analogy previously mentioned. Complete lack of intention to engage. How can this approach possibly be considered as meriting being called “the voice of shooting “

 For clarification this almost humorous interpretation is not being used as a means of personal attack its aim is to highlight shortcomings in our representation and why there needs to be massive changes in approach before BASC can said to be representing shooters opinions. 

[Gordon R]

If this carries on, I suspect the offer of a phone call will be mooted - yet again. 🙂

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The ones in England.

For game shooting using non toxic shot? or are you referring to wildfowl?

as you mentioned 

“But yes, lack of trust on game shooting does comes into it - the evidence of widespread breach of the lead shot regulations on shoots has been referenced by the HSE. “

Was not aware of any regulations to use non toxic shot for game shooting, other than Duck.

What evidence do the HSE reference?

 

33 minutes ago, Scully said:

For whose benefit is this continuing mantra  @Conor O'Gorman? 
When do you reach the point of saying loud and clear to those in power that enough is enough? Will BASC ever grow a pair? 

 

Well said 

Edited Wednesday at 16:46 by rbrowning2

[Konor]

59 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

If this carries on, I suspect the offer of a phone call will be mooted - yet again. 🙂

I think he’s clocked off 😂

[Gordon R]

I can't think who you mean. 🙂

[mellors]

9 minutes ago, Konor said:

I think he’s clocked off 😂

Reckon he's run out of data. 

Why oh why did they fold instead of just say NO where's the evidence. 

But now BASC thinks it has justified there mess up. 

Makes you wonder are they thinking they are protecting shooting or seeking to control it by default. 

Time will tell.