Lead shot ingestion in birds

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

All starting to fall apart now isn't it.

Shame it is too late to close the stable door.

Every bit of evidence small and large is part of the bigger jigsaw that birds of many species ingest lead shot. The emotional response to the evidence by some is understandable, given the doubts expressed previously that that does not happen and changes in attitudes are gradual and challenging. As previously mentioned I intend to produce a briefing on the evidence in due course. It will hopefully be more helpful than what has been done so far which is producing lists of papers without much detail. There are more species to come.

[Conor O'Gorman]

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in the UK in grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. Also, evidence of lead shot ingestion by American woodcock in USA, and in Spain for common woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail.

Here is a study across several game birds in Bulgaria (2018)

Epidemiological data on lead tissue concentration in game birds induced by lead pellets. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327595464_Epidemiological_Data_on_Lead_Tissue_Concentration_in_Game_Birds_Induced_by_Lead_Pellets 

The paper presents the level of lead in the liver, gizzard, breast muscles and humerus of game birds, shot during the hunting season of 2016 – 2017 in Bulgaria.  

Based on the results in the studies conducted in wildfowl, we could summarize that: Lead content in wildfowl is highest in humerus bones of the pheasants and the partridges inhabiting areas with intensive hunting activities and landfilling of lead ammunition which suggests chronic oral exposure. The presence of a lead pellet in the gizzard of quail and the high lead level in the liver of turtle doves are indicative of the possibility of oral exposure for these two migratory species.

[Old farrier]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Every bit of evidence small and large is part of the bigger jigsaw that birds of many species ingest lead shot. The emotional response to the evidence by some is understandable, given the doubts expressed previously that that does not happen and changes in attitudes are gradual and challenging. As previously mentioned I intend to produce a briefing on the evidence in due course. It will hopefully be more helpful than what has been done so far which is producing lists of papers without much detail. There are more species to come.

Personally think any research that is possible going to be published that would either support or disprove the need for a transition from lead to alternative shot in the uk should only use modelling from the uk and uk birds just my thoughts 

 

[Gas seal]

Hi Conor, l have no doubt birds will pick up shotgun pellets if they come across them. How many found dead or alive is the difficulty. 

 I’ve looked at reports on lead shot years ago, it would take a month of Sundays to read every word of the papers on lead pellets in birds.

I have come across a lot of different deformity in birds I have shot from the beak to the feet but I have never looked for ingested shot, I doubt if any shooters have. 
 Ingested lead shot could be looked for by the people who shot the birds. If they are interested. Members of this website write of hundreds of pigeons shot in a day from the same position on a field firing more or less in the same direction possibly three or five hundred cartridges in a day. A lot more pigeon shooters who never talk about pigeons they shoot. Including shooters who cull large numbers. Do pigeon shooters have any input or concerns on any lead pellets that could ingested from the spent shot left over the field.

 If any birds are suffering from lead ingested from spent shotgun pellets it goes against  respect for your quarry. Even if it’s just for a few years.

I took a guess at how many pellets were fired at game birds but I have no

idea how many woodpigeon are shot in a year so impossible to guess the  

number of pellets fired.

 

 

 

Hi jall yes the numbers are for breeding populations the b t o give woodpigeon populations . The numbers of pheasants released are estimated at thirty to fifty million. 
  The key to wildlife is the environment most shooters don’t own the environment they shoot over, most will rent the environment for sporting shooting.

 You look after your environment as an individual and individuals do make a difference.  You will be limited as to your involvement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Personally think any research that is possible going to be published that would either support or disprove the need for a transition from lead to alternative shot in the uk should only use modelling from the uk and uk birds just my thoughts 

 

That modelling has been done but I am exploring the very basics - what wild birds have been found to actually ingest lead shot. Because people deny it even happens.  The evidence spans decades and many countries and its hard to deny that evidence on the basis of accusations of hidden agendas and conspiracies etc.

As for modelling just for UK, it's been done, see below. I don't have a problem with the modelling, its only as good as the data available, but I do have a problem with scientists lobbying for complete lead bans on the basis of their research because that crosses a line, and I have gone on record on that several times, including submitting evidence to a government inquiry. But I don't question the scientific validity of the research and the fact that we have a problem with lead shot being ingested by a wide range of bird species,  and it's our problem to deal with that - as per the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting - and not changes in law.

Poisoning of birds and other wildlife from ammunition-derived lead in the UK (2015)

https://www.oxfordleadsymposium.info/wp-content/uploads/OLS_proceedings/papers/OLS_proceedings_pain_cromie_green.pdf

Broad estimates indicate that in the UK in the order of 50,000-100,000 wildfowl (c. 1.5-3.0% of the wintering population) are likely to die each winter (i.e. during the shooting season) as a direct result of lead poisoning. For migratory swans, this represents a quarter of all recorded deaths. Wildfowl that die outside of the shooting season will be additional, as will those that die of causes exacerbated by lead poisoning. Several hundred thousand wildfowl a year may suffer welfare effects. Estimates of mortality for terrestrial gamebirds in the UK are less accurate and precise, but indicate that in the order of hundreds of thousands of birds may die from lead poisoning annually.

 

[Konor]

57 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That modelling has been done but I am exploring the very basics - what wild birds have been found to actually ingest lead shot. Because people deny it even happens.  The evidence spans decades and many countries and it’s hard to deny that evidence on the basis of accusations of hidden agendas and conspiracies etc.

I’m sure the majority of concern arises from the fact that the impact of ingestion has so far been unable to be quantified rather than being attributed to undisclosed conspiracy theories

From the studies so far presented the incidence of ingestion is low , it would be a fair assumption that following on from that the death rate in percentage terms would also be low. In the pie chart previously presented the estimated percentage attributed to lead shot was 1%. Am I correct in stating that that is not attributing a decrease in population of 1% but indicates that of all the birds that died ,let’s say annually, the cause of death due to lead amounted to 1% ,in 99% of cases mortality was due to other causes eg predation, pesticides etc.

From what I can remember of population dynamics mortality factors can be either additive in that they contribute to the decline in population or compensatory which has no effect on the population , ie in compensatory mortality factors the death of say 1 partridge by lead shot ingestion may allow another to survive. 
 Perhaps the concerns regarding hidden agendas and conspiracy theories if any exist are fuelled by the reliance on figures generated from academic study that seem to be self serving ie of more benefit to the academics tasked with carrying out research than they are to sportsmen who are unable to muster much scientific data to support their own opinions formed from experience ,common sense and an ability not to be overwhelmed by masses of statistics that are able to show only minimal if any impact at all.

Furthermore that minimal impact may easily be overcome by the practical strategies already mentioned eg predator control , herbicide and insecticide reduction etc.

  I understand that academics take much pleasure in generating data to make their reputation as experts in their field but unless that data can be shown to have real world relevance then in practical terms it is of little use. If that data is used to further the aims of an agenda for example to contribute to the attack on legitimate field sports ,despite having not shown to prove any detrimental impact then it is only of use to those who would oppose our sport and should be challenged at every opportunity. That a representative of our national organisation “The voice of shooting “ should choose to find a niche in support of the evidence despite its minimal indications of detriment is bizarre.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 16:07 by Konor
Clarification and expansion

[Konor]

59 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Estimates of mortality for terrestrial gamebirds in the UK are less accurate and precise, but indicate that in the order of hundreds of thousands of birds may die from lead poisoning annually.

The less accurate and precise statement followed by the may die casts significant doubt on the hundreds of thousands figure . I accept that you are determined to state a strong case for the abolition of lead shot but I wouldn’t let that blinkered thinking stop you from being a bit more critical in your interpretation.

Conor, Perhaps a new career at WWT would fit in more with your present opinions. Failing that are there any BASC representatives willing to muster a better defence of our shooting sports ? We certainly are in need of it.

[Gordon R]

Konor - if this was a boxing match, the referee would have called time, as Conor is taking  a real beating.

I no longer read his posts, as I blocked him, due to unwelcome and repeated personal messages, which I found offensive. However, I still get quotes cited by others.

[Konor]

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - if this was a boxing match, the referee would have called time, as Conor is taking  a real beating.

I no longer read his posts, as I blocked him, due to unwelcome and repeated personal messages, which I found offensive. However, I still get quotes cited by others.

Personally I think I’d rather spend time in support of my sport challenging the intentions of those I consider less inclined to put up a strong defence in our best interests than pen a letter to my labour MP concerning certificate fees when her concerns probably justifiably lie elsewhere. Likewise personal phone calls in lieu of using the open forum to discuss our concerns is of little interest and probably less use.

[Konor]

18 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I no longer read his posts, as I blocked him, due to unwelcome and repeated personal messages, which I found offensive. However, I still get quotes cited by others

I have had a similar experience on more than one occasion some of which was quite bizarre but thankfully received a bit of advice from a fellow forum member who put it in perspective so all good.

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, Gas seal said:

Hi Conor, l have no doubt birds will pick up shotgun pellets if they come across them. How many found dead or alive is the difficulty. 

 I’ve looked at reports on lead shot years ago, it would take a month of Sundays to read every word of the papers on lead pellets in birds.

I have come across a lot of different deformity in birds I have shot from the beak to the feet but I have never looked for ingested shot, I doubt if any shooters have. 
 Ingested lead shot could be looked for by the people who shot the birds. If they are interested. Members of this website write of hundreds of pigeons shot in a day from the same position on a field firing more or less in the same direction possibly three or five hundred cartridges in a day. A lot more pigeon shooters who never talk about pigeons they shoot. Including shooters who cull large numbers. Do pigeon shooters have any input or concerns on any lead pellets that could ingested from the spent shot left over the field.

 If any birds are suffering from lead ingested from spent shotgun pellets it goes against  respect for your quarry. Even if it’s just for a few years.

I took a guess at how many pellets were fired at game birds but I have no

idea how many woodpigeon are shot in a year so impossible to guess the  

number of pellets fired.

 

 

What I have seen from many discussions with members and non-members, on the forums and other social media, what colleagues at BASC and the other shooting organisations tell me about the feedback they have had, and the various articles in the sporting press, is a real change in attitudes around lead shot and its evidenced impact on various bird species. This was a taboo subject for far too long to even consider that lead shot was being ingested by various bird species with ill effect, (that stifled any consideration of UK shooting organisations doing their own research, the last was a study on grey partridge published in 2005 and that still elicits anger) and as per some of the comments in this thread attempting to shut this sharing of science down, are an indication of just how toxic the topic has been and unfortunately continues to be in the minds of some.

[Conor O'Gorman]

So far we have covered evidence of lead shot ingestion in the UK in grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant and red-legged partridge. Also, evidence of lead shot ingestion by American woodcock in USA, and in Spain for woodpigeon, rock dove, stock dove, turtle-dove, Barbary partridge and common quail, and in Bulgaria for pheasant, partridge, quail and turtle dove.

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

Bobwhite quail

Northern bobwhite and lead shot deposition in an upland habitat (2002)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12202928/ 

We estimated total lead shotshell pellets expended, resultant pellet availability near soil surface, and the frequency of pellet ingestion by northern bobwhites ( Colinus virginianus) attributable to nearly a quarter century of bobwhite hunting on a 202-ha upland habitat at Tall Timbers Research Station, Leon County, Florida. A total of 7776 shots were fired, resulting in the expenditure of approximately 4.5 million pellets (approximately 22519/ha). Sixteen of 235 (6.8%) soil samples collected in 1989 and 1992 contained one or two pellets. Soil samples indicated that approximately 7800 pellets/ha (about 35% of the projected 24-year deposition) were within 2.54 cm of the soil surface. Pellet ingestion by bobwhites was evaluated by examining 241 gizzards collected from 1989-92. Three bobwhites (1.3%) had ingested pellets ( x = 1.3 pellets). No instances of suspected lead poisoning were noted in bobwhites over the 24-year period. Sport hunting of wild bobwhite populations on upland habitats appears to produce a low potential for lead poisoning compared to lead deposition in association with waterfowl and dove hunting.

Apparent lead poisoning in a wild Bobwhite (1967)

https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/wilson/v078n04/p0471-p0472.pdf 

There were four lead shot in the gizzard of the quail found dead. The emaciated condition, enlarged gizzard, and discolored (dark redlavender) flesh of the bird with the lead shot, which weighed only 130 grams, was in sharp contrast to the normal bird, which weighed 171 grams (Fig. 1). The shot were eroded to a diameter of about 1.5 mm or about the size of No. 11 shot.

[Scully]

35 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

What I have seen from many discussions with members and non-members, on the forums and other social media, what colleagues at BASC and the other shooting organisations tell me about the feedback they have had, and the various articles in the sporting press, is a real change in attitudes around lead shot and its evidenced impact on various bird species. This was a taboo subject for far too long to even consider that lead shot was being ingested by various bird species with ill effect, (that stifled any consideration of UK shooting organisations doing their own research, the last was a study on grey partridge published in 2005 and that still elicits anger) and as per some of the comments in this thread attempting to shut this sharing of science down, are an indication of just how toxic the topic has been and unfortunately continues to be in the minds of some.

The point though Conor is that you’re not really selling it as a convincing argument for a voluntary phase out. There was a time not too long ago when the science and our shooting organisations ( and legislators ) felt the science wasn’t there to justify the points you are now so intent on making.
I’m sure many of us seasoned shooters have had many conversations with many shooters over the years and speaking personally I don’t know of anyone who is convinced of the arguments against lead, even those who don’t mind using steel. 

Another point nobody seems to want to address, is where does all this apparent responsibility, compassion and respect towards and for our flora and fauna sit with our passion for killing living creatures for entertainment? Do our shooting organisations really believe that if we decide to turn ‘green’ our enemies will forgive what we do in the name of recreation? 

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

What I have seen from many discussions with members and non-members, on the forums and other social media, what colleagues at BASC and the other shooting organisations tell me about the feedback they have had, and the various articles in the sporting press, is a real change in attitudes around lead shot and its evidenced impact on various bird species. This was a taboo subject for far too long to even consider that lead shot was being ingested by various bird species with ill effect, (that stifled any consideration of UK shooting organisations doing their own research, the last was a study on grey partridge published in 2005 and that still elicits anger) and as per some of the comments in this thread attempting to shut this sharing of science down, are an indication of just how toxic the topic has been and unfortunately continues to be in the minds of some.

You must be the only person in the shooting world who is experiencing this change in attitudes around lead shot and it’s evidenced impact, strange you should say evidenced impact when over the full course of this thread that is the one thing you have been unable to do and that is provide evidenced impact of lead ingestion. I’ll say again the one thing you have been unable to do is provide evidenced impact of lead shot. You seem to write anything in your posts to influence or manipulate regardless of the absence of evidence to support your opinions. There is no attempt to shut this sharing of science down in fact the opposite is true the whole thread has witnessed you failing to engage when asked to expand on the information that you are posting. You actively avoid debating the context of the studies listed and refuse point blank to counter any points made or questions answered.

 The topic has not become toxic , it is your misinterpretation of data, your refusal to put the data in any context and your failure to represent the best interests of British sportsmen that has been the root of much frustration. Unfortunately while you continue to promote your case in your bid to become the next Chris Packham or closer to home the next John Swift we are lacking a BASC representative that represents shooters instead of himself.

25 minutes ago, Scully said:

The point though Conor is that you’re not really selling it as a convincing argument for a voluntary phase out. There was a time not too long ago when the science and our shooting organisations ( and legislators ) felt the science wasn’t there to justify the points you are now so intent on making.
I’m sure many of us seasoned shooters have had many conversations with many shooters over the years and speaking personally I don’t know of anyone who is convinced of the arguments against lead, even those who don’t mind using steel. 

Another point nobody seems to want to address, is where does all this apparent responsibility, compassion and respect towards and for our flora and fauna sit with our passion for killing living creatures for entertainment? Do our shooting organisations really believe that if we decide to turn ‘green’ our enemies will forgive what we do in the name of recreation? 

He’s selling something Scully and I’m not buying. The whole thread is unbelievable almost surreal in its content. Despite Conor’s experience of the toxic environment that reigned over BASC a few years back he is still incapable of defining toxic in relation to this non debate,

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

The point though Conor is that you’re not really selling it as a convincing argument for a voluntary phase out. There was a time not too long ago when the science and our shooting organisations ( and legislators ) felt the science wasn’t there to justify the points you are now so intent on making.
I’m sure many of us seasoned shooters have had many conversations with many shooters over the years and speaking personally I don’t know of anyone who is convinced of the arguments against lead, even those who don’t mind using steel. 

Another point nobody seems to want to address, is where does all this apparent responsibility, compassion and respect towards and for our flora and fauna sit with our passion for killing living creatures for entertainment? Do our shooting organisations really believe that if we decide to turn ‘green’ our enemies will forgive what we do in the name of recreation? 

Yes, it's a voluntary initiative being encouraged by the shooting organisations since 2020 for the reasons that they all collectively explained and continue to do so.

https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/moving-away-from-lead/

I agree, it will take time for attitudes to change after the 'no evidence no change' strategy previously and currently we have had 5 years and hopefully more years ahead for more alternatives to come on market for all shotguns and in required volumes, and a key aspect is the underpinning evidence of the impact of lead shot ingestion on various bird species, as reviewed and summarised by the GWCT here:

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

I agree, voluntarily moving away from lead shot for live quarry shooting will not convince the antis of anything - its about us taking ownership of an evidenced environmental issue as conservationists - for the right reasons.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by Conor O'Gorman

[Gas seal]

Hi Conor, there has been a change of attitude regarding lead shot for over twenty five years. Shooters should be concerned about birds ingesting lead pellets including clay pigeon shooters. Clay pigeon ground also has wildlife. I have shot live quarry over four clay grounds and next to one ground.

if birds are dying or suffering from what we do it shouldn’t be it’s only x or y %. Or Because they only live a short time. It sounds to business like. 
l have returned rings from woodpigeon I shot ,the oldest birds were two at just over four years old. I don’t know if they ingest lead pellets because I never looked for any. I know the exact location that they were ringed in the nest, the ringer’s know the exact location they were shot. Birds like this would be ideal to test. 
 

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

a key aspect is the underpinning evidence of the impact of lead shot ingestion on various bird species, as reviewed and summarised by the GWCT here:

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

As you will be aware if you have read the above link it contains no underpinning of the evidence of the impact of lead shot ingestion .  Continuing to make such claims will no doubt undermine your credibility and logically should have forum members and readers questioning whether any of your information or opinions are valid.

In order to emphasise this I think for the second time now I will write out the relevant quote from the link.

” Is there any evidence that lead shot exposure is having an impact on game birds”

”A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time . Other UK studies report similar findings in pheasants and red legged partridge BUT DO NOT RECORD IMPACTS ON BIRD HEALTH AND WELFARE”

(my emphasis )

[Konor]

I’m aware that repitition is commonly used to manipulate opinion and in the absence of challenge may be a successful gambit but unfortunately your evidence has been challenged and shown to state the opposite of your claims.

Is it not time that you refrained from attempting to influence opinion in your favour by using data that you knowingly fails to support your position.

Perhaps devote your time more productively by supporting BASC’s opposition to further lead shot restrictions or should you continue down the road of effectively working against opposition to further lead shot restrictions maybe find an organisation more in tune with your sympathies.

I cannot help but feel from the tenacity of your posts that it would not surprise me if there was political manoeuvring within BASC to accept further lead shot restrictions. At this time we need a strong voice to defend our best interests and unfortunately there seems to be a shortage of strong voices in The Voice of Shooting. My hope is that you are not representative of BASC Conor despite being its representative ,we have enough opposition without having it within. 

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Gas seal said:

if birds are dying or suffering from what we do it shouldn’t be it’s only x or y %. Or Because they only live a short time. It sounds to business like. 

If your concern is genuine concerning the approximate 1% estimated lead shot mortality rate ie estimated 1 in 100 fatalities being linked to lead poisoning then how do you justify to yourself killing the pigeons that you shoot. Do you not think your concern would be viewed as hypocritical by all those that oppose your sport ?

[Gordon R]

I despair of BASC, sweeping generalisations about how attitudes have changed and no-one can challenge the science etc. There is a parallel universe somewhere where the BASC line, as peddled by one member, makes sense and will stand scrutiny.

Sadly it isn't this universe.

[Konor]

11 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I despair of BASC, sweeping generalisations about how attitudes have changed and no-one can challenge the science etc. There is a parallel universe somewhere where the BASC line, as peddled by one member, makes sense and will stand scrutiny.

Sadly it isn't this universe.

The mentality of head down ignore what’s going around you and charge full steam ahead might on the odd occasion work in your favour in a minefield but invariably you’ll step on a mine and that’s that. There’s a parallel with Conor’s approach which is head down typing, ignore questions or points made keep repeating the same line and hope a combination of volume of data and repetition wins through. That’s ok until someone  challenges the conclusions drawn from the data supplied then 💥 BANG💥 the argument collapses. That’s what we’re seeing here but just like the guy in the minefield who can’t comprehend his time is up Conor is unable to see that the data he is relying on fails to support his opinions. Whether he is aware that the data does not support his opinion that’s another question.

[harkom]

20 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Broad estimates indicate that in the UK in the order of 50,000-100,000 wildfowl (c. 1.5-3.0% of the wintering population) are likely to die each winter (i.e. during the shooting season) as a direct result

If this is supposed to be scientific factual data and I were acting as scrutiniser for submission to peer reviewed publication  - 

1 - I would ask who sponsored and funded this particular "research"

2 - I would look for other published work by the same author & co-authors and note the source of funding

3 - I would consign it to the waste paper basket

4 - I would notify the proposed publisher of the article that it had been lodged in the appropriate receptacle   

I did 1 and 2 and noted the usual funding bodies primarily RSPB & WWT et al.

 

[Konor]

29 minutes ago, harkom said:

If this is supposed to be scientific factual data and I were acting as scrutiniser for submission to peer reviewed publication  - 

1 - I would ask who sponsored and funded this particular "research"

2 - I would look for other published work by the same author & co-authors and note the source of funding

3 - I would consign it to the waste paper basket

4 - I would notify the proposed publisher of the article that it had been lodged in the appropriate receptacle   

I did 1 and 2 and noted the usual funding bodies primarily RSPB & WWT et al.

 

The above seems to confirm the suspicions that practical shooting men have had since this whole debacle commenced . The odd fact is that our own shooting organisations are happy to use such evidence . My immediate thought is is this laziness or incompetence on the part of our representative shooting organisations or an indication of an uncomfortable closeness to the conservation bodies involved.I’ve noticed over my posting regarding lead shot restrictions the complete absence of accountability especially concerning statements later shown to have no basis in fact. I feel we are being massively let down and those responsible are busy shuffling their feet and staring at the ground rather than putting together a package that establishes the extent of the problem , where the problem occurs and proposing proportionate recommendations that deal with the problem. On the other hand if it is found that the cessation of the use of lead shot would have no or no measurable impact then there should be a well constructed campaign launched to discredit the biased science that sought to justify further restrictions. Surely such an approach is necessary rather than the continual appeasement to the anti fieldsports lobby and the manipulation of shooters opinion that is the present state of affairs. For the benefit of those saying it’s all too late now this issue should be fought on principle not politics and if BASC’s et al response has shown to be based on poor scientific study then their position should be reversed even at this late date.

Edited 6 hours ago by Konor
Addition

[Gordon R]

Konor - that is too much like commonsense. The hole that BASC has dug is almost too deep for them to get out.

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - that is too much like commonsense. The hole that BASC has dug is almost too deep for them to get out.

Its not a hole Gordon, its a bunker where they can weather the coming storm, and its only available to those that can afford a place.
The rest of us can burn.