Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Konor]

7 hours ago, Scully said:

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


 

Rather than buy into the picture painted by Conor the suggestion that someone managed to bag the two prize pintail in error when attempting to shoot the jackdaw seems a more credible explanation than the resulting deaths occurring so close to the jackdaw shooting that a link could be made. Surely the pintail would have succumbed to lead shot poisoning long after the shot at the jackdaw was forgotten. A tall tail methinks obviously passed on to reinforce Conor’s bias against lead shot and possibly fabricated to avoid blame for the demise of the two prize pintail. Almost Disneyesque  and shades of a “poor wee partridges in lead shot minefields”scenario springs to mind.

[clangerman]

the pintails were hilarious connors toxic tales have the makings of a best seller! 

[Konor]

49 minutes ago, clangerman said:

the pintails were hilarious connors toxic tales have the makings of a best seller! 

The next Watership Down with feathers, he wishes !

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, clangerman said:

the pintails were hilarious connors toxic tales have the makings of a best seller! 

Indeed, case studies concentrate the mind - especially in the context of the science, of which there is plenty for pintail, and we will perhaps explore that more in due course. For now, let's look at another case study - on some greylag geese shot on the Tay.

Greylag geese 

A snippet from Colin Shedden's insights in "Lead Shot: A Historical Reflection" - well worth a read on BASC's longstanding fight against lead bans.

https://basc.org.uk/lead-shot-a-historical-reflection/

For those who say that lead has never poisoned a duck or goose, I would just say that our wildfowling officers were on holiday on the Tay Estuary in January and saw some greylag geese behaving abnormally. They shot one and their dogs retrieved two. They dropped them in at WWT Slimbridge and the analysis showed that their symptoms were consistent with lead poisoning. Blood and tissue analyse also confirmed this. They had ingested lead pellets and were destined to die on the Tay. 

Here is some more science for greylags (and some other wildfowl species):

The incidence and significance of ingested lead pellet poisoning in British Wildfowl (1983)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0006320783900903 

The objective of this study was to assess the extent of lead pellet ingestion by British wildfowl, particularly ducks and geese, and to examine regional variations.

The gizzard contents of 2445 shot and 238 found-dead birds were examined, and lead concentrations were determined for 1620 liver and 1841 wing bone samples. In addition, X-ray photographs and blood samples were taken from live-caught birds. Ingested lead pellets were found in 3·2% of the birds examined.

For a range of species, including pink-footed goose, white-fronted goose, barnacle goose, wigeon, teal, pintail, shoveler, scaup and moorhen, recorded incidences were either very low or zero.

Relatively high incidences were noted for swans, greylag goose (7·1% of shot birds), gadwall (11·8%), mallard (4·2%), pochard (10·9%), tufted duck (11·7%) and goldeneye (6·7%). Most ingested pellets originated from shotguns, though anglers' split shot were found in one pochard and four mute swans. A marked seasonal variation in the extent of pellet ingestion was noted for mallard, with a peak in September, and evidence of high levels immediately before and after the shooting season. Pellet ingestion by mallard was found to be of widespread occurrence, though with considerable variation in recorded incidence from place to place. Inland areas tended to be worse, with the highest incidences recorded for birds shot at flight ponds and other freshwater bodies.

Six per cent of mallard shot at inland sites contained ingested pellets, compared with 2·6% of those collected from coastal areas. The observed extent of pellet ingestion in British mallard is calculated directly to cause the death of at least 8000 each winter.

Some measures that could be taken to alleviate the lead-poisoning problem in Britain are discussed, and progress of the USA's non-toxic pellet programme is examined.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Six per cent of mallard shot at inland sites contained ingested pellets, compared with 2·6% of those collected from coastal areas. The observed extent of pellet ingestion in British mallard is calculated directly to cause the death of at least 8000 each winter

Which begs the question, why are they using a study from 1983, 16 years before the ban on lead shot over wetlands ?

Your quoted 'evidence' is irrelevant. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Which begs the question, why are they using a study from 1983, 16 years before the ban on lead shot over wetlands ?

Your quoted 'evidence' is irrelevant. 

Exactly, we are talking about some research in 1983 - there has been decades of research into poisoning in wildfowl due to lead shot ingestion and here we are 40 years later with people seemingly denying that lead shot ingestion has lethal and sub-lethal effects on a wide range of bird species. What do you think?

[Konor]

18 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

people seemingly denying that lead shot ingestion has lethal and sub-lethal effects on a wide range of bird species. What do you think?

I think that you have a problem interpreting the nature of the disagreement to your opinions Conor. Either that or perhaps you are guilty of deliberately misconstruing the nature of the disagreement to avoid responding. You have failed to demonstrate a quantifiable impact on game bird population due to lead ingestion despite all your links ,comical anecdotes and case studies. 
Could you also perhaps explain how the link between a shot at a jackdaw was linked to the demise of the prized pintail. I’m assuming that there would be a significant gap between the shot and the eventual demise of the pintail. It seems odd that that single shot should be implicated. Are you sure someone wasn’t pulling your leg ?

Edited Saturday at 19:34 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

22 minutes ago, Konor said:

I think that you have a problem interpreting the nature of the disagreement to your opinions Conor. Either that or perhaps you are guilty of deliberately misconstruing the nature of the disagreement to avoid responding. You have failed to demonstrate a quantifiable impact on game bird population due to lead ingestion despite all your links ,comical anecdotes and case studies. 
Could you also perhaps explain how the link between a shot at a jackdaw was linked to the demise of the prized pintail. I’m assuming that there would be a significant gap between the shot and the eventual demise of the pintail. It seems odd that that single shot should be implicated. Are you sure someone wasn’t pulling your leg ?

Do you agree that if pintail ingest lead shot from a pond that they will likely suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts?

[Konor]

28 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

people seemingly denying that lead shot ingestion has lethal and sub-lethal effects on a wide range of bird species

If you can remember back to your pie chart evidence that you posted . The percentage mortality rate due to lead poisoning. was estimated at 1% . It was then highlighted by a few other posters that that figure was by far the smallest of the mortality factors acting on partridge numbers and that any small impact on partridge numbers could be compensated for by predator control and changes in farming practice, drilling with beetle banks etc. It was even asked if the 1% estimated mortality rate would be compensatory and hence no impact on partridge numbers would result as a consequence of lead shot poisoning

The problem is that you refuse to accept that any deaths due to lead poisoning may have little if any impact on game bird numbers. You certainly have shown no data to demonstrate that lead poisoning mortality is having a measurable effect on game bird numbers hence the overwhelming majority see no need for further lead shot restrictions. You yourself state how much you and BASC contribute to the opposition of further mandatory lead shot restrictions then undermine that stance by printing these links and maintaining the need for the cessation of lead shot use based on absolutely no evidence. Of course you would far rather paint this disagreement with your opinion as a simplistic denial of the evidence of lead shot mortality but you have failed in all your link listing to show any evidence of any population impact on game birds due to the ingestion of lead shot.

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 minutes ago, Konor said:

If you can remember back to your pie chart evidence that you posted . The percentage mortality rate due to lead poisoning. was estimated at 1% . It was then highlighted by a few other posters that that figure was by far the smallest of the mortality factors acting on partridge numbers and that any small impact on partridge numbers could be compensated for by predator control and changes in farming practice, drilling with beetle banks etc. It was even asked if the 1% estimated mortality rate would be compensatory and hence no impact on partridge numbers would result as a consequence of lead shot poisoning

The problem is that you refuse to accept that any deaths due to lead poisoning may have little if any impact on game bird numbers. You certainly have shown no data to demonstrate that lead poisoning mortality is having a measurable effect on game bird numbers hence the overwhelming majority see no need for further lead shot restrictions. You yourself state how much you and BASC contribute to the opposition of further mandatory lead shot restrictions then undermine that stance by printing these links and maintaining the need for the cessation of lead shot use based on absolutely no evidence. Of course you would far rather paint this disagreement with your opinion as a simplistic denial of the evidence of lead shot mortality but you have failed in all your link listing to show any evidence of any population impact on game birds due to the ingestion of lead shot.

Do you agree that if pintail ingest lead shot from a pond that they will likely suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts?

[Konor]

17 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Do you agree that if pintail ingest lead shot from a pond that they will likely suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts?

Again Conor you completely avoid addressing the points made concerning the validity of your story . Can I remind you of my earlier post stating that I will now only reply to your direct questions when you address the points I have made and questions asked throughout this thread .

 Incidentally can you also belatedly apologise  for your earlier false accusation made in the buy or sell thread which you conveniently ignore.

 See also my last post re the lethal affects of lead ingestion.

Do you deny that you have failed to demonstrate any link between lead shot ingestion and any measurable impact on game bird populations ?
 

Edited Saturday at 20:22 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 minutes ago, Konor said:

Again Conor you completely avoid addressing the points made concerning the validity of your story . Can I remind you of my earlier post stating that I will now only reply to your direct questions when you address the points I have made and questions asked throughout this thread and incidentally also apologise  for your earlier false accusation made in the buy or sell thread which you conveniently ignore.

I don't understand, what story are you referring to? It's a fairly simple question, do you agree that if pintail ingest lead shot from a pond that they will likely suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts?

[Konor]

7 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I don't understand, what story are you referring to? It's a fairly simple question, do you agree that if pintail ingest lead shot from a pond that they will likely suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts?

I suggest you read back slowly ,yet again , to remember what you posted earlier. Oh and please read my previous posts it might save you from posting unnecessarily.

Did you have difficulty in understanding my last post,the one you quoted. 
Wasting time questioning is a typical political trick to avoid answering usually used by incompetent politicians who either have no answers ,find the answers uncomfortable or wish to draw attention away from points made.

Edited Saturday at 20:31 by Konor

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

Could you also perhaps explain how the link between a shot at a jackdaw was linked to the demise of the prized pintail. I’m assuming that there would be a significant gap between the shot and the eventual demise of the pintail. It seems odd that that single shot should be implicated. Are you sure someone wasn’t pulling your leg ?

Your unlikely story referred to earlier.

19 minutes ago, Konor said:

Incidentally can you also belatedly apologise  for your earlier false accusation made in the buy or sell thread which you conveniently ignore

Another conveniently forgotten issue

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Konor you might wish to take your own advice and 'read back slowly, yet again' at the previous comments for the full story and science on pintails that you appear to have missed, and to confirm to this forum whether you believe that lead shot ingestion by birds results in lethal and sub-lethal effects for those birds, as proven by the science which goes back decades. Your view is your choice of course, and you do not need to stop using lead shot for live quarry shooting, but after 128 posts I think we would all appreciate some honesty from you at this point.

Edited Saturday at 21:39 by Conor O'Gorman

[Konor]

17 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Konor you might wish to take your own advice and 'read back slowly, yet again' at the previous comments for the full story and science on pintails that you appear to have missed, and to confirm to this forum whether you believe that lead shot ingestion by birds results in lethal and sub-lethal effects for those birds, as proven by the science which goes back decades. Your view is your choice of course, and you do not need to stop using lead shot for live quarry shooting, but after 128 posts I think we would all appreciate some honesty from you at this point.

As usual Conor you are short on specifics and long on generalisations.  I think if you took the time to read over the posts on this thread you will see ,as will all those reading it ,who has been guilty of being economical with the truth or at best far from transparent. Fortunately the evidence in the posts cannot be deleted so your failure to produce any evidence to link lead ingestion to population decline in game birds is clear for all to see. Your refusal to engage in debate throughout this thread speaks volumes.

The honesty you would appreciate from me concerns which point. If it is your pointless request for my views on lead shot ingestion and mortality you will find many of my posts have stated correctly that you have failed to show any link between lead shot ingestion and population decline in game birds. That is my point .As their is no evidence to link lead shot ingestion to a decline in game bird populations then why would you think that I would consider the individual deaths estimated at 1% significant enough to merit any further restrictions on the use of lead shot inland. 
 Now on the subject of honesty instead of diverting attention from your avoidance of debate please look through all my posts note the points and questions and rather than continue to post pointless data that fails to support your opinion try responding to those points and questions in your own words rather than resorting to posting links which fail to substantiate the point you wish to make.

On the subject of manners please acknowledge your false accusation posted in the sell or buy thread and offer your apologies otherwise accept the damage to your reputation that such lack of manners accompanies.

[Konor]

46 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

the full story and science on pintails that you appear to have missed,

You appeared to have missed ,though obviously in reality ignored , my referral to the veracity of your anecdotal story regarding a shot taken at a jackdaw over water that you claim resulted in the death of two prized pintail. My point ,which you yet again ignored , was that the time delay between the shot being taken and the pintail dying would be of such duration that linking the shot to the eventual demise of the pintail did not seem plausible. A view shared by at least two other posters on the thread. Do you think perhaps the teller of this tall tale might have been pulling your leg or was the tale perhaps used to illustrate a point rather than being an honest account ?

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Konor

You are free to disagree with the GWCT scientists' assessment of the science on lead shot ingestion by various bird species in wetlands and in terrestrial habitats in the UK and worldwide spanning decades. That includes population impact models.

Read it again please:

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

The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry is underpinned by that science and is ongoing and it's your choice whether to act on that or not.

The latest update is here - read it again please:

https://basc.org.uk/five-years-on-sustaining-the-transition-away-from-lead/

As for evidence of lead shot ingestion by various bird species I have shared some examples in this thread, I started with game birds and have now also touched on direct observations for pintail and greylag geese. Again you are free to believe that no pintail or greylags ingested lead shot or suffered any ill effects as a result. I have an interesting case study on woodpeckers for later today.

Edited yesterday at 12:42 by Conor O'Gorman

[Konor]

10 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Konor

You are free to disagree with the GWCT scientists' assessment of the science on lead shot ingestion by various bird species in wetlands and in terrestrial habitats in the UK and worldwide spanning decades. That includes population impact models.

Read it again please:

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

The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry is underpinned by that science and is ongoing and it's your choice whether to act on that or not.

The latest update is here - read it again please:

https://basc.org.uk/five-years-on-sustaining-the-transition-away-from-lead/

As for evidence of lead shot ingestion by various bird species I have shared some examples in this thread, I started with game birds and have now also touched on direct observations for pintail and greylag geese. Again you are free to believe that no pintail or greylags ingested lead shot or suffered any ill effects as a result. I have an interesting case study on woodpeckers for later today.

You seem very keen to put words in my mouth Conor. I am more than capable of expressing myself without your interference. I have read your posts and links you obviously fail to read mine. Your objective seems unclear but what is not in dispute is that you have failed to show any link between lead shot ingestion and population impact and no amount of deflection will change that. In the process your unfounded accusations that you have refused to apologize for have painted you in a poor light.

[Conor O'Gorman]

15 minutes ago, Konor said:

You seem very keen to put words in my mouth Conor. I am more than capable of expressing myself without your interference. I have read your posts and links you obviously fail to read mine. Your objective seems unclear but what is not in dispute is that you have failed to show any link between lead shot ingestion and population impact and no amount of deflection will change that. In the process your unfounded accusations that you have refused to apologize for have painted you in a poor light.

Perhaps then post one or two examples of studies that show that birds ingest lead shot and suffer ill effects and why you agree with those findings. You could choose from some of those I have posted about, or some others. 

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Perhaps then post one or two examples of studies that show that birds ingest lead shot and suffer ill effects and why you agree with those findings. You could choose from some of those I have posted about, or some others. 

It may have escaped you Conor but the reason for me posting on this thread is to draw attention to the fact that you are unable to show a link between the low level of lead shot ingestion and the population levels of game birds and that your call for any restriction on the use of lead shot inland is based on opinions unsubstantiated by scientific study. As you have continually ignored the points I have made and questions asked I do not feel obliged obviously to do your bidding re the nature of my posts.

You still have not explained how the jackdaw shot over water and the subsequent death of the prized pintails link was made to verify your earlier tale neither have you apologised for your wrongful accusation .

[Old farrier]

20 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Do you agree that if pintail ingest lead shot from a pond that they will likely suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts?

Pheasant and partridge don’t live on ponds they also have totally different eating habits 

 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Pheasant and partridge don’t live on ponds they also have totally different eating habits 

Thanks, yes, indeed pheasants and partridges have totally different eating habitats to pintail, and pheasants and partridges (including chicks) also ingest lead shot mistaking it as grit or seed, as do wildfowl in terrestrial habitats and wetlands.

There are many bird species ingesting lead shot for various reasons in various habitats and the science and our understanding continues to grow.

And that evidence, as analysed by scientists at the GWCT, underpins the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. And this voluntary transition is our argument against statutory restrictions on the sale and use of lead shot for live quarry shooting. 

And for pintail the following research from 40 years ago (!) was posted earlier and yet to be commented on:

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

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5813867 

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

 

[Konor]

5 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

And for pintail the following research from 40 years ago (!) was posted earlier and yet to be commented on:

Lack of comment is possibly due to the indifference of those reading and acknowledgement that the circumstances surrounding the ingestion are not typical of conditions found surrounding inland habitat and gamebirds. Perhaps as I stated earlier you have lost your audience and in light of the lack of supportive posts compared to those criticising it is time to reevaluate the point in continuing your lack of evidence evidence thread. It would be refreshing to see some BASC posts that look at the lead issue in a more imaginative way but perhaps that is not possible.

[Konor]

14 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

And this voluntary transition is our argument against statutory restrictions on the sale and use of lead shot for live quarry shooting. 

And what a poor argument it has turned out to be. An argument that focused on control in the areas most likely to cause harm and the control of game meat entering the market from commercial shoots ensuring its lead free status might have been more successful and gained backing but the one size fits all voluntary ban hasn’t quite cut it , unsurprisingly and as foreseen by many.