Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Konor]

29 minutes ago, mellors said:

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. 

 

If they can adjust away from being the voice of shooting to the peddler of courses with an ever increasing range then should compulsory training become necessary or even advisable that would secure quite an income with all the benefits that would bring for the organisation.

[mellors]

7 minutes ago, Konor said:

If they can adjust away from being the voice of shooting to the peddler of courses with an ever increasing range then should compulsory training become necessary or even advisable that would secure quite an income with all the benefits that would bring for the organisation.

Well you've done a sterling job i don't have the time or knowledge you have. 

But now they've seen there mistake and can't justify it i assume another path is opening as the gravy train could come to an abrupt stop soon. 

I for one (and thousands of others will) feel really let down by there misguided actions and the repercussions that are going to follow. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

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?

HSE final background document (December 2024)

https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/restrictions/rr-aavj-0822.pdf 

Page 94

There is also evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead over wetlands is low. Cromie et al. (2010) were commissioned by Defra to assess the compliance with the legislation in England by identifying the shot types used to kill ducks purchased from game suppliers in 2008/09 and 2009/10. Their study found that non-compliance with the Regulations was widespread, with 344 of 492 (70 %) of the ducks analysed having been killed with lead shot. Updated studies indicate that breaches of the Regulations are still high, with the proportion of ducks killed illegally with lead shot increasing from 68 to 77 % over surveys carried out from 2001 to 2013 and 87 % in the 2018/19 shooting season, (Cromie et al., 2022)). Based on the Cromie et al. (2015) dataset, (Stroud et al., 2021) estimate that 12.9 million ducks were killed illegally with lead shot between 1999 and 2020. The results of these investigations suggest that shooting of wetland birds with lead shot is still widespread, even though it is illegal.Therefore, this exposure pathway is still considered relevant for GB.

Page 128

Table 1.2 2. The number of deaths was estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 each winter, which represents 1.5 to 3 % of the wintering population. Data on the levels of compliance with the ban on the use of lead shot to kill ducks in England indicates that compliance is low, with between 68 and 87 % of ducks sampled killed with lead shot between 2008 and 2019 (Cromie et al., 2022, 2015, 2010). If it were assumed that the current regulations are 25 % effective for wetland species, then the estimate made by Pain et al. (2014) could be revised down to between 37,500 and 75,000 waterbird deaths each winter. This estimate does not include birds that die outside the winter shooting season or birds that die as an indirect result on lead poisoning, and does not include birds that may suffer sub-lethal effects as a result of lead exposure.

Page 177

It is known that compliance with the existing ban on the use of lead shot over wetlands in GB is low, and wetland birds that feed on terrestrial areas are also considered to be at risk. An estimate of 37,500 to 75,000 annual waterbird deaths due to lead shot ingestion is made. Higher numbers of birds would be expected to suffer sub-lethal or welfare effects.

Page 180

There is evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead shot over wetlands is low. Two studies were undertaken which both estimated a non-compliance rate of approximately 70% (Cromie et al. (2010) and (2015)). Stroud (2021) suggested that the low compliance may ‘relate to the restriction being only partial, in that they cover only the shooting of certain species (largely ducks and geese) and/or in certain places (listed wetlands and the foreshore)’. A wider restriction where the sale and use of lead shot was banned would ensure that compliance over wetlands was also increased.

Some legally binding risk management measures are already in place at a devolved administration level to mitigate the risks from the use of lead shot over wetlands in order to meet our commitments under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA, 1999). The wetland restrictions across GB vary between the administrations and do not uniformly apply to all wetland habitats or protect wetland birds that feed in terrestrial habitats (such as grazing swans, geese and ducks) from ingestion. There is also evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead over wetlands is low.

References:

• Cromie, R.L., Loram, A., Hurst, L., O’Brien, M., Newth, J., Brown, M.J., Harradine, J.P., 2010. Compliance with the environmental protection (restrictions on use of lead shot)(England) Regulations 1999. CR0411. Report to Defra. Bristol.
   
• Cromie, R.L., Newth, J., Reeves, J., O’Brien, M., Beckmann, K., Brown, M., 2015. The sociological and political aspects of reducing lead poisoning from ammunition in the UK: why the transition to non-toxic ammunition is so difficult. Pages 104-124, Lead Ammunition: understanding and minimising the risks to human and environmental health. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Edward Grey Institute.
   
• Stroud, D.A., Pain, D.J., Green, R.E., 2021. Evidence of widespread illegal hunting of waterfowl in England despite partial regulation of the use of lead shotgun ammunition. Conservation Evidence Journal 18, 18–24.
   
• Cromie, R., Strong, E., Newth, J., 2022. Time to get shot of lead ammunition. Veterinary Record 191, 344–345. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 19:10 by Conor O'Gorman

[Weihrauch17]

18 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

HSE final background document (December 2024)

https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/restrictions/rr-aavj-0822.pdf 

Page 94

There is also evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead over wetlands is low. Cromie et al. (2010) were commissioned by Defra to assess the compliance with the legislation in England by identifying the shot types used to kill ducks purchased from game suppliers in 2008/09 and 2009/10. Their study found that non-compliance with the Regulations was widespread, with 344 of 492 (70 %) of the ducks analysed having been killed with lead shot. Updated studies indicate that breaches of the Regulations are still high, with the proportion of ducks killed illegally with lead shot increasing from 68 to 77 % over surveys carried out from 2001 to 2013 and 87 % in the 2018/19 shooting season, (Cromie et al., 2022)). Based on the Cromie et al. (2015) dataset, (Stroud et al., 2021) estimate that 12.9 million ducks were killed illegally with lead shot between 1999 and 2020. The results of these investigations suggest that shooting of wetland birds with lead shot is still widespread, even though it is illegal.Therefore, this exposure pathway is still considered relevant for GB.

Page 128

Table 1.2 2. The number of deaths was estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 each winter, which represents 1.5 to 3 % of the wintering population. Data on the levels of compliance with the ban on the use of lead shot to kill ducks in England indicates that compliance is low, with between 68 and 87 % of ducks sampled killed with lead shot between 2008 and 2019 (Cromie et al., 2022, 2015, 2010). If it were assumed that the current regulations are 25 % effective for wetland species, then the estimate made by Pain et al. (2014) could be revised down to between 37,500 and 75,000 waterbird deaths each winter. This estimate does not include birds that die outside the winter shooting season or birds that die as an indirect result on lead poisoning, and does not include birds that may suffer sub-lethal effects as a result of lead exposure.

Page 177

It is known that compliance with the existing ban on the use of lead shot over wetlands in GB is low, and wetland birds that feed on terrestrial areas are also considered to be at risk. An estimate of 37,500 to 75,000 annual waterbird deaths due to lead shot ingestion is made. Higher numbers of birds would be expected to suffer sub-lethal or welfare effects.

Page 180

There is evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead shot over wetlands is low. Two studies were undertaken which both estimated a non-compliance rate of approximately 70% (Cromie et al. (2010) and (2015)). Stroud (2021) suggested that the low compliance may ‘relate to the restriction being only partial, in that they cover only the shooting of certain species (largely ducks and geese) and/or in certain places (listed wetlands and the foreshore)’. A wider restriction where the sale and use of lead shot was banned would ensure that compliance over wetlands was also increased.

Some legally binding risk management measures are already in place at a devolved administration level to mitigate the risks from the use of lead shot over wetlands in order to meet our commitments under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA, 1999). The wetland restrictions across GB vary between the administrations and do not uniformly apply to all wetland habitats or protect wetland birds that feed in terrestrial habitats (such as grazing swans, geese and ducks) from ingestion. There is also evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead over wetlands is low.

References:

• Cromie, R.L., Loram, A., Hurst, L., O’Brien, M., Newth, J., Brown, M.J., Harradine, J.P., 2010. Compliance with the environmental protection (restrictions on use of lead shot)(England) Regulations 1999. CR0411. Report to Defra. Bristol.
   
• Cromie, R.L., Newth, J., Reeves, J., O’Brien, M., Beckmann, K., Brown, M., 2015. The sociological and political aspects of reducing lead poisoning from ammunition in the UK: why the transition to non-toxic ammunition is so difficult. Pages 104-124, Lead Ammunition: understanding and minimising the risks to human and environmental health. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Edward Grey Institute.
   
• Stroud, D.A., Pain, D.J., Green, R.E., 2021. Evidence of widespread illegal hunting of waterfowl in England despite partial regulation of the use of lead shotgun ammunition. Conservation Evidence Journal 18, 18–24.
   
• Cromie, R., Strong, E., Newth, J., 2022. Time to get shot of lead ammunition. Veterinary Record 191, 344–345. 

 

None compliance probably because the law is a total ***.  Being able to shoot Pheasant on a drive with Lead but on the same Peg having to use Steel or Bismuth to shoot a Duck is utterly farcical.  Most people with any sense will ignore rules that are beyond stupid and serve no purpose.

Edited Wednesday at 19:27 by Weihrauch17

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

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? 

It's science. I promised to look at this in another thread when questions were asked, and I am making good on that. Plenty more to come.

[Scully]

12 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

None compliance probably because the law is a total ***.  Being able to shoot Pheasant on a drive with Lead but on the same Peg having to use Steel or Bismuth to shoot a Duck is utterly farcical.  Most people with any sense will ignore rules that are beyond stupid and serve no purpose.

This. I’ve yet to meet the gun who when shooting pheasant where duck were present, change to non toxic. 
Who was responsible for making that half ***** muddled thinking legislation? 
There are two ponds on our rough shoot, and a river, all occupied by duck. Lead shot falls everywhere on a day out, some even from an adjoining shoot. 
As an aside, when lead is eventually banned and it by is discovered or claimed that lead ingestion isn’t decreasing due to decades and decades ( if not centuries ) of accumulated lead fall out, what happens then? 

[Scully]

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

It's science. I promised to look at this in another thread when questions were asked, and I am making good on that. Plenty more to come.

From everything I’ve read it would seem that’s debatable. 
When are our shooting organisations going to stand up and say enough is enough? I can start another thread if you’d rather. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in gamebirds, who typically reside in terrestrial habitats as follows:

• UK - grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 
• Spain - woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .
• Bulgaria - pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
• USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion in chukar partridge and common pheasant in Canada:

Lead pellet ingestion and liver-lead concentrations in upland game birds from southern Ontario, Canada (2007)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17763885/

123 gizzards from chukar partridge and common pheasant harvested by hunters in southern Ontario, Canada, were examined for lead pellet ingestion by manual examination of gizzard contents and by radiography. Lead pellets were found to be ingested by chukars (6/76; 8%) and the common pheasant (16/47; 34%). 

[Old farrier]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

HSE final background document (December 2024)

https://www.hse.gov.uk/reach/restrictions/rr-aavj-0822.pdf 

Page 94

There is also evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead over wetlands is low. Cromie et al. (2010) were commissioned by Defra to assess the compliance with the legislation in England by identifying the shot types used to kill ducks purchased from game suppliers in 2008/09 and 2009/10. Their study found that non-compliance with the Regulations was widespread, with 344 of 492 (70 %) of the ducks analysed having been killed with lead shot. Updated studies indicate that breaches of the Regulations are still high, with the proportion of ducks killed illegally with lead shot increasing from 68 to 77 % over surveys carried out from 2001 to 2013 and 87 % in the 2018/19 shooting season, (Cromie et al., 2022)). Based on the Cromie et al. (2015) dataset, (Stroud et al., 2021) estimate that 12.9 million ducks were killed illegally with lead shot between 1999 and 2020. The results of these investigations suggest that shooting of wetland birds with lead shot is still widespread, even though it is illegal.Therefore, this exposure pathway is still considered relevant for GB.

Page 128

Table 1.2 2. The number of deaths was estimated to be 50,000 to 100,000 each winter, which represents 1.5 to 3 % of the wintering population. Data on the levels of compliance with the ban on the use of lead shot to kill ducks in England indicates that compliance is low, with between 68 and 87 % of ducks sampled killed with lead shot between 2008 and 2019 (Cromie et al., 2022, 2015, 2010). If it were assumed that the current regulations are 25 % effective for wetland species, then the estimate made by Pain et al. (2014) could be revised down to between 37,500 and 75,000 waterbird deaths each winter. This estimate does not include birds that die outside the winter shooting season or birds that die as an indirect result on lead poisoning, and does not include birds that may suffer sub-lethal effects as a result of lead exposure.

Page 177

It is known that compliance with the existing ban on the use of lead shot over wetlands in GB is low, and wetland birds that feed on terrestrial areas are also considered to be at risk. An estimate of 37,500 to 75,000 annual waterbird deaths due to lead shot ingestion is made. Higher numbers of birds would be expected to suffer sub-lethal or welfare effects.

Page 180

There is evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead shot over wetlands is low. Two studies were undertaken which both estimated a non-compliance rate of approximately 70% (Cromie et al. (2010) and (2015)). Stroud (2021) suggested that the low compliance may ‘relate to the restriction being only partial, in that they cover only the shooting of certain species (largely ducks and geese) and/or in certain places (listed wetlands and the foreshore)’. A wider restriction where the sale and use of lead shot was banned would ensure that compliance over wetlands was also increased.

Some legally binding risk management measures are already in place at a devolved administration level to mitigate the risks from the use of lead shot over wetlands in order to meet our commitments under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA, 1999). The wetland restrictions across GB vary between the administrations and do not uniformly apply to all wetland habitats or protect wetland birds that feed in terrestrial habitats (such as grazing swans, geese and ducks) from ingestion. There is also evidence that compliance with the current restrictions on the use of lead over wetlands is low.

References:

• Cromie, R.L., Loram, A., Hurst, L., O’Brien, M., Newth, J., Brown, M.J., Harradine, J.P., 2010. Compliance with the environmental protection (restrictions on use of lead shot)(England) Regulations 1999. CR0411. Report to Defra. Bristol.
   
• Cromie, R.L., Newth, J., Reeves, J., O’Brien, M., Beckmann, K., Brown, M., 2015. The sociological and political aspects of reducing lead poisoning from ammunition in the UK: why the transition to non-toxic ammunition is so difficult. Pages 104-124, Lead Ammunition: understanding and minimising the risks to human and environmental health. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Edward Grey Institute.
   
• Stroud, D.A., Pain, D.J., Green, R.E., 2021. Evidence of widespread illegal hunting of waterfowl in England despite partial regulation of the use of lead shotgun ammunition. Conservation Evidence Journal 18, 18–24.
   
• Cromie, R., Strong, E., Newth, J., 2022. Time to get shot of lead ammunition. Veterinary Record 191, 344–345. 

 

12.9 million killed illegally 🤔

And not one prosecution? 
 

can’t help wondering where they got that number 

[Konor]

24 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in gamebirds, who typically reside in terrestrial habitats as follows:

• UK - grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 
• Spain - woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .
• Bulgaria - pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
• USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion in chukar partridge and common pheasant in Canada:

Lead pellet ingestion and liver-lead concentrations in upland game birds from southern Ontario, Canada (2007)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17763885/

123 gizzards from chukar partridge and common pheasant harvested by hunters in southern Ontario, Canada, were examined for lead pellet ingestion by manual examination of gizzard contents and by radiography. Lead pellets were found to be ingested by chukars (6/76; 8%) and the common pheasant (16/47; 34%). 

Seriously Conor what is the purpose of this thread ? Is it some form of juvenile attention seeking because the information is contributing little to the quantification of the impact of lead shot ingestion. It appears this whole exercise constitutes supplying information that absolutely no one is interested in and has no critical interpretation to put it in any context. It seems that you are preoccupying yourself playing ,while working from home no doubt, with figures when there’s real work to be done on our behalf. Perhaps give your head a good wobble and start directing your efforts to issues that are badly in need of attention as you are giving the impression that your productivity in protecting our sport could do with a much needed boost.

 Bureaucracy and office workers where would we be without them 🤔

Edited Wednesday at 20:44 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in gamebirds, who typically reside in terrestrial habitats as follows:

• UK - grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 
• Spain - woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .
• Bulgaria - pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
• USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.
• Canada - chukar partridge and pheasant.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion in ruffed grouse in Canada:

Lead concentrations in ruffed grouse, rock ptarmigan, and willow ptarmigan in Québec (2005)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15959706/ 

Between 1996 and 1998, ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, willow ptarmigan, and rock ptarmigan harvested by hunters in Québec were examined for lead contamination. On examination of the gizzards of these birds, lead shot was found only in ruffed grouse (1.2%). The probability of ingestion of lead shot by grouse and ptarmigans is low. Analyses of the lead concentrations in the wing bones of grouse and ptarmigans and in the muscle tissue of ptarmigans were conducted. Although differences were observed between individuals based on age and sex, the mean concentrations measured were in the range of those that occur naturally at background levels (<6 microg/g dw). Lead concentrations in muscle tissue were low, often at the limit of detection. However, the few high concentrations detected were probably related to a lead pellet or bullet fragment. Based on an analysis of the health risk associated with consumption of ptarmigan muscle, we conclude that the use of lead ammunition for hunting gallinaceous birds may pose an unnecessary risk of lead poisoning because of the possible ingestion of lead shot, bullets, fragments or embedded shot.

[rbrowning2]

So conor if we accept that illegal use of lead shot over wetlands is happing do you think it makes for good law to ban lead shot for all purpose where the risk of its use is minimal like a clay ground?

Thats like saying due to the plymouth tragedy where a legal gun was used illegally then all guns should be banned, despite 99.99% of them being used legally.

[Conor O'Gorman]

7 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

12.9 million killed illegally 🤔

And not one prosecution? 
 

can’t help wondering where they got that number 

That is based on modelling based on the data, as has been done for Value of Shooting reports the latest being below. Would you question those results? The antis have.

https://valueofshooting.co.uk/

There has been one prosecution, a man who shot a swan thinking it was goose, using lead shot. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-13408867

 

 

[Konor]

7 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in gamebirds, who typically reside in terrestrial habitats as follows:

• UK - grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 
• Spain - woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .
• Bulgaria - pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
• USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.
• Canada - chukar partridge and pheasant.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion in ruffed grouse in Canada:

Lead concentrations in ruffed grouse, rock ptarmigan, and willow ptarmigan in Québec (2005)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15959706/ 

Between 1996 and 1998, ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, willow ptarmigan, and rock ptarmigan harvested by hunters in Québec were examined for lead contamination. On examination of the gizzards of these birds, lead shot was found only in ruffed grouse (1.2%). The probability of ingestion of lead shot by grouse and ptarmigans is low. Analyses of the lead concentrations in the wing bones of grouse and ptarmigans and in the muscle tissue of ptarmigans were conducted. Although differences were observed between individuals based on age and sex, the mean concentrations measured were in the range of those that occur naturally at background levels (<6 microg/g dw). Lead concentrations in muscle tissue were low, often at the limit of detection. However, the few high concentrations detected were probably related to a lead pellet or bullet fragment. Based on an analysis of the health risk associated with consumption of ptarmigan muscle, we conclude that the use of lead ammunition for hunting gallinaceous birds may pose an unnecessary risk of lead poisoning because of the possible ingestion of lead shot, bullets, fragments or embedded shot.

“May pose “no figures just conjecture  yet another set of irrelevant data to add to the rest.

[Conor O'Gorman]

6 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

So conor if we accept that illegal use of lead shot over wetlands is happing do you think it makes for good law to ban lead shot for all purpose where the risk of its use is minimal like a clay ground?

Thats like saying due to the plymouth tragedy where a legal gun was used illegally then all guns should be banned, despite 99.99% of them being used legally.

No. Perhaps best to read BASC's response to the 2023 HSE consultation rather than leaping forward with more questions.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Weihrauch17 said:

None compliance probably because the law is a total ***.  Being able to shoot Pheasant on a drive with Lead but on the same Peg having to use Steel or Bismuth to shoot a Duck is utterly farcical.  Most people with any sense will ignore rules that are beyond stupid and serve no purpose.

Thankfully we avoided that up here in Scotland and it’s just in practice no shooting over wetlands or rather where your shot would land on wetland. As the English interpretation makes no sense at all it’s not surprising that there is little compliance.

1 hour ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

It's science

And should be critically evaluated.

[Konor]

19 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in gamebirds, who typically reside in terrestrial habitats as follows:

• UK - grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. 
• Spain - woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail .
• Bulgaria - pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
• USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.
• Canada - chukar partridge and pheasant.

Still on the theme of gamebirds, here is some evidence of lead shot ingestion in ruffed grouse in Canada:

Lead concentrations in ruffed grouse, rock ptarmigan, and willow ptarmigan in Québec (2005)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15959706/ 

Between 1996 and 1998, ruffed grouse, spruce grouse, willow ptarmigan, and rock ptarmigan harvested by hunters in Québec were examined for lead contamination. On examination of the gizzards of these birds, lead shot was found only in ruffed grouse (1.2%). The probability of ingestion of lead shot by grouse and ptarmigans is low. Analyses of the lead concentrations in the wing bones of grouse and ptarmigans and in the muscle tissue of ptarmigans were conducted. Although differences were observed between individuals based on age and sex, the mean concentrations measured were in the range of those that occur naturally at background levels (<6 microg/g dw). Lead concentrations in muscle tissue were low, often at the limit of detection. However, the few high concentrations detected were probably related to a lead pellet or bullet fragment. Based on an analysis of the health risk associated with consumption of ptarmigan muscle, we conclude that the use of lead ammunition for hunting gallinaceous birds may pose an unnecessary risk of lead poisoning because of the possible ingestion of lead shot, bullets, fragments or embedded shot.

I’m actually laughing at the apparent intensity of your posts while very much aware that the figures might as well have been pulled out of a sack. They all say the same thing ,low rates of ingestion based on a low numbers of samples and with no context or critical evaluation. Where are the conclusions that indicate relevance and figures that quantify population impact ? As there are no available figures to indicate mortality rate then it would follow there is no indication whether the mortality figures would be additive or compensatory. In short a complete waste of time that we as members are paying for through our subscriptions as I can’t imagine this posting is carried out solely on your own time.

[Konor]

11 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

It's science. I promised to look at this in another thread when questions were asked, and I am making good on that. Plenty more to come

You promised yourself so hardly an obligation to continue.  This thread is more a political rant to somehow show that everyone is wrong and CO has the insight to unveil truths that would justify further lead restrictions. An attempt to manipulate those undecided but trusting by nature ,naive if you will, in an effort to save face. The reality unfortunately is that you are peddling data that merely states that on a single figure percentage of an invariably low number of samples lead ingestion was observed in various bird species. There is no scientific basis for stating ,in any of the data presented , that there was a definable reduction in the bird population being investigated. You disingenuously state that the reason for your posting all this information is because you believe that some individuals disbelieve that ingestion takes place. You fail however to critically assess any of the data presented in the studies and are unable to give the figures context by showing any measure of environmental or population impact. In short the whole thread is flawed and leaves you open to accusations of not working in the best interests of shooters or following BASC policy of no further lead restrictions. Rather by creating confusion it gives ammunition to our opponents and indicates to them incorrectly that there maybe widespread acceptance of further lead shot restrictions in the shooting community. The whole sorry escapade seems to be a glorified ego trip and has contributed nothing in the way of clarity to a subject you stress is so complicated but is in fact actually straightforward if you take out the political manipulation you seem so in favour of. All of the information you have presented was available prior to 2016 and was rejected as being insufficient to justify any further restrictions . What could be more straightforward but here we are having to plough through pointless data as you struggle to influence anyone to join your crusade. If this thread is representative of how BASC intends promoting its voluntary transition despite supposedly being against any further lead restrictions then it strikes me that their is a move afoot to change that stance to in favour and if this were to be the case our national organisation would be turning its back on the majority of its members and the larger shooting community and would have no right to call itself the “voice of shooting “

Hang your head in shame Conor O’Gorman you’re a disappointment to those you claim to represent.

 

Edited Thursday at 07:17 by Konor

[Old farrier]

11 hours ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

That is based on modelling based on the data, as has been done for Value of Shooting reports the latest being below. Would you question those results? The antis have.

https://valueofshooting.co.uk/

There has been one prosecution, a man who shot a swan thinking it was goose, using lead shot. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-13408867

 

 

One conviction out of a modelling that gives 12.9 million 

im thinking the figure is so far from the truth it’s laughable 

given that the 

total number of crimes in the uk last year was a mere 6.7 million 

[rbrowning2]

And coming to every ground near you soon

 

[Konor]

32 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

One conviction out of a modelling that gives 12.9 million 

im thinking the figure is so far from the truth it’s laughable 

given that the 

total number of crimes in the uk last year was a mere 6.7 million 

I would guess that the purpose of the figures generated are to make a solid case for the benefit of the gullible in order to sway public opinion. In reality it’s probably a few people that critically analyse data provided ,it’s far easier to skip to the conclusions section and have your bias confirmed.

5 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

And coming to every ground near you soon

 

That’s a real problem 

Edited Thursday at 08:32 by Konor

[Gordon R]

Konor - your summary of the sad situation, that BASC have created, makes unpleasant reading. That said, I can think of very, very few who would disagree.

[Konor]

55 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - your summary of the sad situation, that BASC have created, makes unpleasant reading. That said, I can think of very, very few who would disagree.

Thanks Gordon I’m pleased to hear that as I sometimes feel that the interpretation of my posts is that it is rooted in personal conflict (or ad hominem remarks as Conor would put it) when it’s solely disagreement with either a version of events or the evidence being used to substantiate opinion that prompts my posts. I’d far rather be posting on guns, equipment or days in the field than manipulative politics.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Konor a lot of us appreciate the good work you are doing.  

[Konor]

19 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Konor a lot of us appreciate the good work you are doing.  

Thanks TC. Fortunately ,being retired , I have the time to spend replying to posts and can fit it in around decorating and all the other stuff. Many forum members won’t have that time or have a range of commitments that prevent them from posting. I feel obliged to comment and represent those that feel the same about the situation we are in to balance the case away from what I perceive as the opposition, despite their claims.