Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Konor said:

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.

Personally you’re stating exactly how I feel, although I don’t have the knowledge, the patience or the articulation to put across those points so logically and convincingly. 
I think BASC have severely let down not only their members but UK shooting in general. 

[Smudger687]

19 hours ago, Scully said:

Will BASC ever grow a pair? 

Don't hold your breath

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours 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 

The research paper is here:

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352361054_Evidence_of_widespread_illegal_hunting_of_waterfowl_in_England_despite_partial_regulation_of_the_use_of_lead_shotgun_ammunition

Shooting of birds using lead shotgun ammunition was legal for all quarry species in the UK until 1st September 1999, when the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 and similar regulations in other UK countries came into effect.

These regulations made it illegal to shoot ducks and geese and some other waterfowl species in England with lead shotgun ammunition and/or to use it in certain wetland habitats.

The legislation was intended to reduce the incidence of lead poisoning of wetland birds caused by ingested and embedded shotgun pellets.

We evaluate the effectiveness of this legislation by estimating the number of ducks shot in England with lead shot.

We also assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising actions about the regulations, including an advocacy campaign intended to encourage compliance, and an undertaking by the UK Government to examine ways to improve compliance and enforcement.

We estimate that about 13 million ducks have been shot illegally using lead shotgun ammunition in England since 1st September 1999 - an annual average of approximately 586,000 and representing approximately 70% of the total ducks shot.

There was no detectable decline in the number of ducks killed using lead shotgun ammunition following the awareness-raising publicity and advocacy campaign by shooting and countryside management organisations.

The government review of implementation and enforcement of the Regulations on the level of this wildlife crime was not followed by any new prosecutions.

There has been one prosecution for an offence under the Lead Shot Regulations.

We conclude that the 1999 Regulations and attempts to promote compliance with them have effected only a small reduction in the use of lead shotgun ammunition in wetlands in England.

[Rewulf]

29 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We estimate that about 13 million ducks have been shot illegally using lead shotgun ammunition in England since 1st September 1999 - an annual average of approximately 586,000 and representing approximately 70% of the total ducks shot.

First question I would be asking, is how on earth theyve managed to 'estimate' that ?
My estimate, is that theyve just plucked a number out the air 

29 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

There has been one prosecution for an offence under the Lead Shot Regulations.

We conclude that the 1999 Regulations and attempts to promote compliance with them have effected only a small reduction in the use of lead shotgun ammunition in wetlands in England.

We conclude ?
Wheres the evidence with only one conviction ?

What was that thing BASC used ? No evidence, no change....

So something clearly changed, but NO EVIDENCE.

[Conor O'Gorman]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

First question I would be asking, is how on earth theyve managed to 'estimate' that ?
My estimate, is that theyve just plucked a number out the air 

Have you clicked on the link and read the methods? If you do you will see the various data sets, including national bag data, that was drawn on. Have a look and let's see what you think?

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Have you clicked on the link and read the methods? If you do you will see the various data sets, including national bag data, that was drawn on. Have a look and let's see what you think?

A quick browse revealed this.

Elevated levels of lead (i.e., > 20.0 µg/dL) were found in the blood of 34% (n = 285) of waterbirds tested at four sites in Britain during the 2010/2011 winter, and accounted for the deaths of at least 10.6% (n = 2,365) of waterbirds recovered across Britain between 1971 and 2010 and 8.1% (n = 1,051) between 2000 and 2010, with lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning.

Why are they using data from up to 28 years BEFORE the lead ban came in ?
Surely those figures arent relevant ?

Also the sample sizes are far too small, the site spread too small, and assumptions very ambiguous on cause of death.
Again, 13 million birds shot with lead AFTER the ban ?

I will continue reading, but so far, my 'Figures plucked out the air' seems pretty accurate, and the agenda is clear to see.

BASC is basing policy on nonsense.

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

A quick browse revealed this.

Elevated levels of lead (i.e., > 20.0 µg/dL) were found in the blood of 34% (n = 285) of waterbirds tested at four sites in Britain during the 2010/2011 winter, and accounted for the deaths of at least 10.6% (n = 2,365) of waterbirds recovered across Britain between 1971 and 2010 and 8.1% (n = 1,051) between 2000 and 2010, with lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning.

Why are they using data from up to 28 years BEFORE the lead ban came in ?
Surely those figures arent relevant ?

Also the sample sizes are far too small, the site spread too small, and assumptions very ambiguous on cause of death.
Again, 13 million birds shot with lead AFTER the ban ?

I will continue reading, but so far, my 'Figures plucked out the air' seems pretty accurate, and the agenda is clear to see.

BASC is basing policy on nonsense.

But big numbers are spectacular the fact that info was gathered dubiously doesn’t seem to meaningful as long as they get the results they need 

science doesn’t seem to come into play 

this then makes me suspicious of the gathering mechanism that was used 

if there data gathering exercises are used for serious purposes there should be a clear consistent and transparent method of collection before during and after with independent unbiased analysis's. Presenting the results 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

A quick browse revealed this.

Elevated levels of lead (i.e., > 20.0 µg/dL) were found in the blood of 34% (n = 285) of waterbirds tested at four sites in Britain during the 2010/2011 winter, and accounted for the deaths of at least 10.6% (n = 2,365) of waterbirds recovered across Britain between 1971 and 2010 and 8.1% (n = 1,051) between 2000 and 2010, with lead gunshot being the most likely source of poisoning.

Why are they using data from up to 28 years BEFORE the lead ban came in ?
Surely those figures arent relevant ?

Also the sample sizes are far too small, the site spread too small, and assumptions very ambiguous on cause of death.
Again, 13 million birds shot with lead AFTER the ban ?

I will continue reading, but so far, my 'Figures plucked out the air' seems pretty accurate, and the agenda is clear to see.

BASC is basing policy on nonsense.

I think you are reading a different paper. How is BASC basing policy on whatever paper you have read? 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

But big numbers are spectacular the fact that info was gathered dubiously doesn’t seem to meaningful as long as they get the results they need 

science doesn’t seem to come into play 

this then makes me suspicious of the gathering mechanism that was used 

if there data gathering exercises are used for serious purposes there should be a clear consistent and transparent method of collection before during and after with independent unbiased analysis's. Presenting the results 

 

Are you basing your opinion based on the snippet provided by Rewulf or did you read the paper for yourself? Do you think restrictions in the UK on the use of lead shot in wetlands are evidence-based? If so, what evidence was that and how did it pass your requirements?

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The research paper is here:

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.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352361054_Evidence_of_widespread_illegal_hunting_of_waterfowl_in_England_despite_partial_regulation_of_the_use_of_lead_shotgun_ammunition

Its from this paper, the one you provided, have YOU read it ?

[Old farrier]

8 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Are you basing your opinion based on the snippet provided by Rewulf or did you read the paper for yourself? Do you think restrictions in the UK on the use of lead shot in wetlands are evidence-based? If so, what evidence was that and how did it pass your requirements?

As Ive said before the historical data is not anything to base new legislation on especially as it was carried out in wetlands on wildfowl allegedly not game birds in lowland areas 

it didn’t pass my requirements as most of it was done by force feeding captive ducks until they died 

as Ive also said before there is no impact on the population of ducks to see any benefit 

if banning lead for wildfowling was nessecary after 25 years there should be a massive increase in quantities 

there isn’t as the main mortality rate is another reason why has this other reason not been mentioned studied and addressed 

could you also explain the implications for forestry with non lead pellets embedded into trees on both environmental grounds and the potential impact on the value of the timber in the trees with a emphasis to the research done on timber going to the sawmill 

[Scully]

As her name kept popping up at the head of those constant links @Conor O'Gorman keeps posting, I had a look to see if she was still poisoning ducks in pursuit of her agenda, and at the top of the search found this from 2012…..

https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/223254-lag-and-basc-the-non-toxic-debate/

 

[Rewulf]

25 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

if banning lead for wildfowling was nessecary after 25 years there should be a massive increase in quantities 

there isn’t as the main mortality rate is another reason why has this other reason not been mentioned studied and addressed 

They are basing the numbers on around 1 million ducks per year being shot over the last 22 years = 22 million
After this they have done a study on selected birds and game dealers over a couple of those years, from this they have garnered a figure of 70 % of them were shot with lead, extrapolated that to EVERY single one of those birds, 70 % of them were shot with lead = 13 million.
This is their science.
Now I dont shoot wildfowl, or any other game bird for that matter, but I find it a little hard to believe that ergo, 70% of wildfowlers, who take their birds to game dealers, are not using lead free shot. And dont seemed too fussed about the illegality of it.
Also the ONE conviction in 20 odd years, kind of puts that into perspective, especially considering that the person involved was not arrested for using lead, he was shooting swans.
The lead aspect was a secondary charge.

Like I said, the science behind all these wild 'estimates' is nonsense.

Edited Thursday at 17:09 by Rewulf

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Scully said:

As her name kept popping up at the head of those constant links @Conor O'Gorman keeps posting, I had a look to see if she was still poisoning ducks in pursuit of her agenda, and at the top of the search found this from 2012…..

https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/223254-lag-and-basc-the-non-toxic-debate/

 

Illuminating 

[Old farrier]

37 minutes ago, Scully said:

As her name kept popping up at the head of those constant links @Conor O'Gorman keeps posting, I had a look to see if she was still poisoning ducks in pursuit of her agenda, and at the top of the search found this from 2012…..

https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/223254-lag-and-basc-the-non-toxic-debate/

 

Thank you for finding this always helpful to refresh your memory with news from the past 

😊👍

[Scully]

50 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Illuminating 

Isn’t it! 👍

[rbrowning2]

Pain, D.J., Green, R.E

Google them you will likely conclude they are anti shooting…..

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

As Ive said before the historical data is not anything to base new legislation on especially as it was carried out in wetlands on wildfowl allegedly not game birds in lowland areas 

it didn’t pass my requirements as most of it was done by force feeding captive ducks until they died 

as Ive also said before there is no impact on the population of ducks to see any benefit 

if banning lead for wildfowling was nessecary after 25 years there should be a massive increase in quantities 

there isn’t as the main mortality rate is another reason why has this other reason not been mentioned studied and addressed 

could you also explain the implications for forestry with non lead pellets embedded into trees on both environmental grounds and the potential impact on the value of the timber in the trees with a emphasis to the research done on timber going to the sawmill 

Thanks, on the basis of your view that the research on ducks has mostly been on force feeding captive ducks until they died, and your view of no impact on the duck population since the 1999 lead shot regs onwards, do you think BASC should seek the abolition of the current lead shot regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands should new legislation be tabled?

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Its from this paper, the one you provided, have YOU read it ?

No it's not, I think it's from a different paper - prove me wrong perhaps?

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

As her name kept popping up at the head of those constant links @Conor O'Gorman keeps posting, I had a look to see if she was still poisoning ducks in pursuit of her agenda, and at the top of the search found this from 2012…..

https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/223254-lag-and-basc-the-non-toxic-debate/

 

I don't recall any research in the UK since maybe the 1960s on dosing of mallard ducks with lead shot to investigate the primary exposure pathway and impacts of one, two, three... and so on lead shot pellets on lethal and sub-lethal impacts. Also, most of that research was in USA. But I could be wrong and more recent research by Professor Debbie Pain has been done? Perhaps you could put me right on these 'poisoning ducks' studies that she has been doing?

With all this in mind, do you think restrictions in the UK on the use of lead shot in wetlands are evidence-based? If so, what evidence did you agree with?

 

[Old farrier]

15 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks, on the basis of your view that the research on ducks has mostly been on force feeding captive ducks until they died, and your view of no impact on the duck population since the 1999 lead shot regs onwards, do you think BASC should seek the abolition of the current lead shot regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands should new legislation be tabled?

I’m afraid I wouldn’t trust Basc to table anything sadly they are a corporate entity that has a need for money that shows  and the bigger it gets the more it needs 

I do feel that Basc should address the decline of some of the wildfowl population probably by sorting out the predators along with nesting and roosting sites 

any research on ducks is not relevant to partridge it’s as similar as a cat and a dog they both carry things in their mouth 

could you please address the other questions that I asked 

[Conor O'Gorman]

6 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

I’m afraid I wouldn’t trust Basc to table anything sadly they are a corporate entity that has a need for money that shows  and the bigger it gets the more it needs 

I do feel that Basc should address the decline of some of the wildfowl population probably by sorting out the predators along with nesting and roosting sites 

any research on ducks is not relevant to partridge it’s as similar as a cat and a dog they both carry things in their mouth 

could you please address the other questions that I asked 

I think that is dodging the question to be fair. So I ask again, on the basis of your view that the research on ducks has mostly been on force feeding captive ducks until they died, and your view of no impact on the duck population since the 1999 lead shot regs onwards, do you think BASC should seek the abolition of the current lead shot regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands should new legislation be tabled?

[Old farrier]

20 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think that is dodging the question to be fair. So I ask again, on the basis of your view that the research on ducks has mostly been on force feeding captive ducks until they died, and your view of no impact on the duck population since the 1999 lead shot regs onwards, do you think BASC should seek the abolition of the current lead shot regulations restricting the use of lead shot in wetlands should new legislation be tabled?

As your a master at dodging the question you should know 

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

As your a master at dodging the question you should know 

Thanks, let's look at it another way then, do you think wildfowlers such as yourself should challenge the 1999 lead shot regs onwards on the basis of your view that the research on ducks has mostly been on force feeding captive ducks until they died, and your view of no impact on the duck population since those regulations?

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I don't recall any research in the UK since maybe the 1960s on dosing of mallard ducks with lead shot to investigate the primary exposure pathway and impacts of one, two, three... and so on lead shot pellets on lethal and sub-lethal impacts. Also, most of that research was in USA. But I could be wrong and more recent research by Professor Debbie Pain has been done? Perhaps you could put me right on these 'poisoning ducks' studies that she has been doing?

With all this in mind, do you think restrictions in the UK on the use of lead shot in wetlands are evidence-based? If so, what evidence did you agree with?

 

Is the deliberate poisoning of ducks with lead regarded as research? 
It was all discussed on this very forum @Conor O'Gorman if you care to do a search; around about the time Swifty and the LAG were pushing the same agenda you are now. You remember? Just before its findings were dismissed by ministers? 
In reply to your last paragraph; I suppose much depends on whether the evidence is skewed or exaggerated to meet a certain agenda, and I believe it to be so.