Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Rewulf]

31 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Rewulf - I wasn't really quoting you. I was quoting someone who once made an impassioned plea on behalf of the "wee chicks". We are both aware of who posted the immortal "wee chicks". 

I worded my last post clumsily. When I read the original (not yours) posting, I felt slightly sick and reached for my special bucket. Even now - weeks / months later, it still makes me laugh.

No worries, I know what you mean about the sick bucket 

[Penelope]

On 26/02/2025 at 15:01, 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.

Because it's not about lead ingestion by birds or humans. This is just the justification being used to impose severe restrictions on shooting/hunting and one of the many 'cuts' that will add up to 1,000.

[Pukka Bundook]

10 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Because it's not about lead ingestion by birds or humans. This is just the justification being used to impose severe restrictions on shooting/hunting and one of the many 'cuts' that will add up to 1,000.

Of course, you are absolutely right, Penelope.

 

It's the willful suspension of logic that  gets my goat!

[Penelope]

1 minute ago, Pukka Bundook said:

It's the willful suspension of logic that  gets my goat!

Oh, that's been happening with many of the Left's pet projects, and you've had a front row seat over there.

[Pukka Bundook]

I 

9 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Oh, that's been happening with many of the Left's pet projects, and you've had a front row seat over there.

Oh Yes I know that, Penelope!

That's why I take  a blood pressure pill every morning!

I was always going to write a book;

"The world's Full of daft ****!"

 

Daft **** should be "grass with roots on!"

Edited Friday at 15:12 by Pukka Bundook
clarity.

[Penelope]

13 minutes ago, Pukka Bundook said:

I 

Oh Yes I know that, Penelope!

That's why I take  a blood pressure pill every morning!

I was always going to write a book;

"The world's Full of daft ****!"

 

Daft **** should be "grass with roots on!"

Ha ha!!! First warning inbound!!

[Pukka Bundook]

It was me own fault Penelope!!

4 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Ha ha!!! First warning inbound!!

It's me own fault Penelope!

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Penelope said:

There's no bloody risk, never has been.

There is a risk of lead shot ingestion by various species of ducks, geese and other wildfowl in wetlands and terrestrial habitats, and a risk of lead shot ingestion by various other bird species in terrestrial habitats. So far we have looked at evidence of lead shot ingestion 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 - grey pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.
Canada - pheasant, chukar partridge, ruffed grouse.

[Konor]

5 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

you don't agree with the science and don't support the voluntary transition away from live quarry shooting based on that science

If that is the science that has consistently shown single figure ingestion rates in relatively small sample sizes and that cannot determine any impact on population then of course there is disagreement with accepting further restrictions based on that flawed evidence. That you should consider the evidence sufficient is more an indication of your own bias than the veracity of the figures presented.The figures just don’t stand up to scrutiny ,are insufficient evidence to call for a ban on lead shot use voluntary or not and the reasons for suggesting otherwise are a mystery.

[Konor]

4 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The problem is that many bird species ingest lead shot as we have seen in the evidence shared so far in this thread, ie.

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

The science is clear and if you want to blame a few scientists here in the UK for their research into what is widely accepted as a scientific fact going back decades across the world that is your choice. If you want to mock me for sharing some science and knock BASC for supporting a voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting that is your choice. You can keep using lead shot, that is your choice. But your views won't change the science.

The problem is that you do not critically evaluate the evidence , the science is not clear . If it is so clear then within a couple of sentences state the data that convinced you that the case for lead shot restrictions is justified then let the forum decide whether that evidence is considered sufficient to justify any further restrictions.

 It’s easy to throw data around then surround it with generalisations but it takes more than that to make a convincing case. You’re obviously convinced so justify that by stating that convincing case without relying on information bombardment or unsubstantiated biased information.

[Konor]

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

I believe Conors heart is more inclined towards saving the tiny amount of birds that may or may not die from ingesting lead shot, using dubious science that makes assumptions from cherry picked data.
He cites naturalists that are clearly anti shooting sports, I dont believe that is compatible with an organisation that promotes shooting sports ?

Got it in one Rewulf .

[Newbie to this]

5 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Your 'voluntary transition' may soon become an outright ban, and if YOU are leading the fight against this, its a certainty, because your heart tells you that lead should be banned completely to save the wee chicks.
This makes you, and BASC for that matter, totally unsuitable to represent people who shoot in the UK, because you are in bed with those that would have it totally banned.

I've got to agree, BASC had nothing to lose by fighting the coming ban, because by not fighting it, we stand to lose Lead anyway.

It makes no sense to me.

Wasn't there someone within BASC before that was an anti in disguise.

From reading recent posts, it comes across that BASC is against using Lead ammunition, or at the very least against fighting for it.

Edited Friday at 18:59 by Newbie to this

[Weihrauch17]

16 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I've got to agree, BASC had nothing to lose by fighting the coming ban, because by not fighting it, we stand to lose Lead anyway.

It makes no sense to me.

Wasn't there someone within BASC before that was an anti in disguise.

From reading recent posts, it comes across that BASC is against using Lead ammunition, or at the very least fighting for it.

John Swift and BASC honoured him with a life time award, says all you need to know about the organisation.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Weihrauch17 said:

John Swift and BASC honoured him with a life time award, says all you need to know about the organisation

This.

He worked for, and still works toward banning lead in shooting.

[Docleo]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

There is a risk of lead shot ingestion by various species of ducks, geese and other wildfowl in wetlands and terrestrial habitats, and a risk of lead shot ingestion by various other bird species in terrestrial habitats. So far we have looked at evidence of lead shot ingestion 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 - grey pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove. 
USA - American woodcock, bobwhite quail, chukar partridge and mourning doves.
Canada - pheasant, chukar partridge, ruffed grouse.

Despite some of the papers are less robust than others, you convinced me. Birds do eat lead shots.

Now, instead of continuing with this pointless exercise, could you please provide scientific evidence of lead toxicity (LD50 would be nice) in all the species you reported so far, and how many pellets (in a certain amount of time) those birds have to ingest to reach the lead LD50? This is toxicology - quite relevant to lead toxicity. 

Edited Friday at 19:25 by Docleo

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

If that is the science that has consistently shown single figure ingestion rates in relatively small sample sizes and that cannot determine any impact on population then of course there is disagreement with accepting further restrictions based on that flawed evidence. That you should consider the evidence sufficient is more an indication of your own bias than the veracity of the figures presented.The figures just don’t stand up to scrutiny ,are insufficient evidence to call for a ban on lead shot use voluntary or not and the reasons for suggesting otherwise are a mystery.

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. I think you are overthinking this and my track record challenging ban proposals for many years is clear and in the public domain. That includes my public challenges on the HSE proposals. 

As I have explained a few times in this thread the GWCT has reviewed all the science and they are the experts in their field - do you trust the GWCT? It would be a sad day if you did not trust our very own scientists working for us all on so many topics for so many decades.

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/

I think I have been very clear in the OP and first page of this thread, that I am providing information on some of the science demonstrating that various bird species ingest lead shot, I am still on gamebirds, and the feedback has certainly been interesting and I have taken it all into account and hopefully that will be reflected in any articles I subsequently write on this topic.

The comments from yourself and others about my character and that I have some hidden agenda bemuse me because they provide useful quotes that I will draw on. 

We in the UK are not unique in what is happening and the resulting misinformed blame culture, and the following video from the Victoria hunters in Australia is a good example exploring this in an honest straightforward manner:

Also, have a look at the papers below, which look at attitudes from different perspectives on this topic.

Perspectives from natural resource professionals: Attitudes on lead ammunition risks and use of nonlead ammunition

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2213078020300657

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.30

 

Edited Friday at 20:07 by Conor O'Gorman

[Scully]

8 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That's fine if you don't agree with the science and don't support the voluntary transition away from live quarry shooting based on that science - it is your choice.  As regards studies worldwide so far we have looked at proof that the following gamebird species residing in terrestrial habitats in the following countries ingest lead shot.

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

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. 🤷‍♂️

 

Edited Friday at 20:32 by Scully

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

The problem is that you do not critically evaluate the evidence , the science is not clear . If it is so clear then within a couple of sentences state the data that convinced you that the case for lead shot restrictions is justified then let the forum decide whether that evidence is considered sufficient to justify any further restrictions.

 It’s easy to throw data around then surround it with generalisations but it takes more than that to make a convincing case. You’re obviously convinced so justify that by stating that convincing case without relying on information bombardment or unsubstantiated biased information.

It is not my objective to 'critically evaluate the evidence' as you assert, but you are free to do so and indeed to post evidence yourself. So far, much of your comments have been to focus on me personally, as usual. I have been providing studies one by one, not 'bombardment' and I am treating fellow PW members with the respect that they can each decide for themselves from those studies and I am discussing that with them and taking into account that feedback for anything I might write on the topic. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

I've got to agree, BASC had nothing to lose by fighting the coming ban, because by not fighting it, we stand to lose Lead anyway.

It makes no sense to me.

Wasn't there someone within BASC before that was an anti in disguise.

From reading recent posts, it comes across that BASC is against using Lead ammunition, or at the very least against fighting for it.

BASC has been challenging ban proposals since the 1980s and more recently since 2021, when the HSE was tasked by the government to review lead ammunition, due to post-Brexit regulations to ensure continued trade deals with the EU, and several thousand shooters have responded to a call for evidence and 2 consultations. Were you amongst those few amongst the 600,000 of us? Your assertion that BASC is 'against using lead ammunition' is incorrect.

[Conor O'Gorman]

30 minutes 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 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. 🤷‍♂️

 

To answer your question, do you find it 'palatable' to know that some of the lead shot you use to 'kill birds for fun' (as you frequently like to call it), subsequently risks poisoning a whole range of bird species directly and secondary poisoning for others, as per the science we are all in this thread now becoming aware of, so perhaps no excuses at your end? In other words you are well informed and aware of all this. So, I might present a mirror to your assertions and say "what is the matter Scully, afraid to tell it how it is?"

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Docleo said:

Despite some of the papers are less robust than others, you convinced me. Birds do eat lead shots.

Now, instead of continuing with this pointless exercise, could you please provide scientific evidence of lead toxicity (LD50 would be nice) in all the species you reported so far, and how many pellets (in a certain amount of time) those birds have to ingest to reach the lead LD50? This is toxicology - quite relevant to lead toxicity. 

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.

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.

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.

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

To answer your question, do you find it 'palatable' to know that some of the lead shot you use to 'kill birds for fun' (as you frequently like to call it), subsequently risks poisoning a whole range of bird species directly and secondary poisoning for others, as per the science we are all in this thread now becoming aware of, so perhaps no excuses at your end? In other words you are well informed and aware of all this. So, I might present a mirror to your assertions and say "what is the matter Scully, afraid to tell it how it is?"

😂Seriously? You’ve totally disregarded ( ignored) all I’ve written up to and including the last two paragraphs?  Par for the course. 
Ok. Yes, to answer your question, as unpalatable as it may be, I’m fine with the ‘mirror’ as you wish to call it, primarily because while we’re killing birds for entertainment, we’re trapping and killing all manner of indigenous predator species while we’re at it, simply to increase the survival chances of a non-indigenous species so we have more to kill…..ie bigger bags,  returns or whichever you wish to call it. 
I’m quite comfortable with it Conor; how does all this sit with you and your ‘harvesting’ on your scale of morals? 

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

4 hours ago, Konor said:

 

It is not my objective to 'critically evaluate the evidence' as you assert, but you are free to do so and indeed to post evidence yourself. So far, much of your comments have been to focus on me personally, as usual

So you have no intention of explaining why the data you are putting on the forum has convinced you that a lead shot ban is desirable but you expect the forum to accept that the case for a ban is sound based on your generalisations. If you were to use your ability to critically evaluate the posts I have made you will find that they all contest your contention that the single figure ingestion of lead and that the lack of environmental and population impact arising from that ingestion indicate that there is insufficient reason to call for further restrictions on the use of lead shot. That you take that criticism as personal is of no interest to me and the fact that you wish to portray my posts as a personal attack rather than questioning the validity of the information you choose to post is clearly an attempt to steer the focus away from the incorrect link that you are attempting to create between lead ingestion and mortality , a link that you can provide absolutely no evidence to support.The fact remains you have made no valid case for further lead shot restrictions through the links given concerning the incidence of lead shot ingestion and you spend more time avoiding answering relevant concerns than contributing any clarity to the issue.  The whole thread is a complete waste of time and if it reflects the standard of critical evaluation that you are capable of then BASC members are being massively undersold. 
As a matter of interest how do you rate your own performance on this thread, do you think that you have garnered much support for your opinions and has the feedback from the forum caused you question the degree of support for your opinions within the shooting community.

Edited Friday at 23:02 by Konor

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I am discussing that with them

I see little evidence of discussion ,you are referring to this thread aren’t you ? All I read is a catalogue of criticism for your opinions and a refusal to accept your conclusions from the bombardment of links listed ad nauseum.

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

lead shot you use to 'kill birds for fun' (as you frequently like to call it), subsequently risks poisoning a whole range of bird species directly and secondary poisoning for others, as per the science we are all in this thread now becoming aware of,

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. 

1 hour 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.

Have you the data that confirms this assertion ?

Edited Friday at 23:03 by Konor