BBC lead- ing the way.

Highseat

Well-Known Member
It seems the BBC are stepping up their campaign to have lead banned for hunting and for shooting clays. I've just watched a report on BBC breakfast. Thousands of dead birds every year, has anyone ever seen a bird suffering from lead poisoning, I haven't, not even on the BBC.
 
Biased Bunch of Communists ,totally and utterly infiltrated by antis <not auntys>.Abuse their position to push bile n carp at the public .trouble is as the divided shooting groups dont provide a response as one ,joe public believe the BBC.cos why would they LIE :fib:
 
I am glad they are not getting my license fee. The Germans get it before anyone asks.
Get hunting articles on German tv during the seasons and the antis seem to be low on the ground over here.
Martin
 
Well maybe the likes of BASC should step up and create a fuss about the beeb, probably the right time to do it as the media already have their eye on them. About time there was a concerted effort put in to stopping this biased nonsense.
 
Well maybe the likes of BASC should step up and create a fuss about the beeb, probably the right time to do it as the media already have their eye on them. About time there was a concerted effort put in to stopping this biased nonsense.


Don't hold your breath.
 
I'm afraid that we've brought this down on ourselves. There has been the ban on shooting duck with lead in England for 15 years or so. The report cited by the BBC describes how >75% of duck sold as shot in England had been shot with lead, rather than steel etc. (I have to admit that I can't find a reference to this figure - the one that I am aware of is 69% from a study published in 2010, but in either case, it is a lot of ducks). That means that this law is being broken and broken on a pretty major scale. I don't dispute this - I've seen plenty of inland duck drives where no-one bothers to swap cartridges.

The RSPB/WWT etc are getting involved because there are still lead pellets being shot into areas where waterfowl live, and they are ingesting them as 'grit' and consequently absorbing high levels of lead into their bodies. This can (but does not always) kill the ducks, and a single pellet ingested leads to a 12x rise of circulating lead levels (Mautino & Bell 1986). It's not even affecting ALL waterfowl - wigeon seems to be completely free of ingested lead. To a large extent, RSPB/WWT would not have been too worried about effects of shot game on human health - it's not their remit, and terrestrial birds do not ingest lead/gravel to nearly the same extent as waterfowl, so the effects of residual shot outside of wetlands on birds is negligible. It's the fact that shooting is incidentally responsible for putting toxins in the food chain of wild waterfowl that has provoked this report and the involvement of the various biologists.

If there had been good compliance with the original ban on shooting duck with lead then we could have made a coherent argument that original spent shot is slowly sinking, none more is being added, risks are decreasing etc. As it is, the report can be used to project shooters as lawbreaking, inconsiderate, nature hating, not to be trusted, unable to police themselves etc etc. The inevitable conclusion is that if shooters cannot restrict themselves to not using lead shot when shooting particular game, then the simplest solution is to ban all lead shot.

If the argument had simply been about lead in shot pheasants etc and the attendant risks to human health, then it could have been rebuffed either by explaining that we can be careful when preparing/eating food, or framing it as one of the many food choices that we make - how much alcohol to drink/red meat to eat/bacon to fry, offsetting risks with benefits including pleasure. We could even have legitimately demanded a discussion on bird welfare casting doubts on the efficacy of steel shot in humane killing. As it is, it's become one of bird conservation, biodiversity and criminality, which are much harder to counter in any rational way.

I don't dispute that some people want to see shooting banned or heavily restricted come what may (Avery waddles into my mind) and are using the lead ammunition to fuel their broader campaigns. By a refusal to comply with the original resolution, banning lead shot for duck, we've made their task easier. I'm afraid that by burying our heads in the sand, as seems to be the case on this and other similar threads, we're also digging our own grave.

Mautino, M., & Bell, J. U. (1986). Experimental lead toxicity in the ring-necked duck. Environmental research, 41(2), 538-545
 
That is an excellent well put reply, clearly all the duck purchased were shot from inland duck shoots and the evidence is that they were shot with lead. I doubt very many if any wildfowl shot from the foreshore ever enters the retail ffod chain.

There is a certain irony that as a coarse angler I remeber lead shot for fishing being banned I doubt if i have ever lost as much as 1 oz of no 6's whilst fishing in decades yet I have expended many pounds of n 6's when flighting ducks over the very river I fished in. pre lead banned please note.

In relation to lead shot in pheasants cannot think of when I last actually swallowed a piece of lead, normally pretty carefull and am fussy which ones I roast. I probably get more lead from my water service pipe than I get from eating game.

BASC et all do need to get their act together and clearly there is an issue with the continuing use of lead shot on inland ? commercial duck shoots.

D
 
what has it got to do with the BBC in the first place?

i have no television set in my house so don't pay a licence fee, if i did pay the fee i would be completely outraged.
 
Ok so let's assume lead ammo is gone in a couple of years, what will become the minimum calibre needed to shoot deer? I'm pretty sure it will kill the .243 for deer won't it.
 
It seems that the people at fault, are the people with most to lose ie game shooters. I heard of a flight on the Somerset levels a few years ago when 152 duck were picked up. One of the shooters was a prominent clay shooter. Not sure if all the ammo was non-toxic. What do you think?
 
TAMAR has it on the nail. The fact is that lead for duck and over wetlands is banned. That is the law.

Now if individuals wish to break the law that is at their peril.

But it seems that as this disobedience is at a universal and widespread level then the next response up is to go after the item used in commissioning the offence. lead shot cartridges.

Ignorant, stupid and selfish shooters have brought this upon us. I don't like the law, I think that more harm is done by wounding than by ingesting lead and that, as others say, there is a desire for this measure not as an animal welfare measure but as an anti gun measure. But it is the law.

FWIW I still wonder why some shoots still offer a duck drive at all and wouldn't it actually be easier just to prohibit the sale of duck eggs or live duck for such purposes? If you don't want to use bismuth in your gun then don't shoot at duck is an easier answer.
 
Last edited:
Can I just point out this BBC film to balance out the conversation a bit? It shows a Danish hunter explaining why he opposes lead shot, but also coming out strongly and effectively in favour of hunting. I think he may have a point about how if we wish to be perceived as conservationists (because we are), then we continue to use a toxic heavy metal to our own detriment. In effect, the removal of lead from the conversation detoxifies the image of hunting, and that's a deliberate pun.

The hunters who campaign against lead shot - BBC News
 
The largest problem that I can see is the old favourite .22 Rimfire. What will they use?
Good point!
Whilst I have never thought about how one could check the figures I suspect that there are more .22LR rounds sold to all the rifler shooters throughout the UK that all the other rounds put together!
 
The largest problem that I can see is the old favourite .22 Rimfire. What will they use?

Today I was asked if I would clear rabbits on an enclosed, no public access area.
The land is adjacent to a river/marsh and has backstops in the form of earth bank flood defences.
So, is spent, lead, rimfire ammunition a hazard to the birds living on the river/riverbank/wetlands?
 
No. It is lead shot that just lies about that is the danger. If you've ever walked in the danger area on an established clay pigeon range you'll see immediately that the spent pellets when they fall to earth don't bury themselves into the groynd but just lay on the top it.

The "classic" I recall was "Shorts" Range at Bisley Camp. Bisley is sandy heathland and the danger area for the clay pigeon range there was literally carpeted with a layer of spent lead shot. Had you wanted to and had a sieve you could have scooped the stuff up by hand, riddled it to keep the pebbles and large grit out, and then be left with a lead shot and sand mix.

Essentially doing what birds do to ingest grit. Over a certain weight and they don't retain the stuff. So, as I recall, the fishing lead shot ban only applied to shot below a certain weight. So I am confident that .22RF would not be banned.

Lead in high velocity jacketed bullets for quarry that is to be eaten such as where the bullet fragments is a different issue...human ingestion....from lead shot in shot gun cartridges. And as most, I'd say all in fact, .22RF passes through any small edible quarry that it is not an issue f it being ingested.

Your 22Rf bullets will either IMHO:

1) Bury themselevs deep enough into the arth as to never been likely to be eaten by birds

2) If they don't bury themselves in fact be too big that a bird would either choose to ingest it or, if it did, in fact not retain it in its gizzard.
 
Last edited:
[Your 22Rf bullets will either IMHO:

1) Bury themselevs deep enough into the arth as to never been likely to be eaten by birds

2) If they don't bury themselves in fact be too big that a bird would either choose to ingest it or, if it did, in fact not retain it in its gizzard.]


Thanks for your thoughts, they are pretty much what I was thinking
 
I started using Lead free bullets a year ago as I needed to buy in bulk for an obscure calibre and what I bought will last me out.
I had heard the FC were starting to use them and thought it would become law in the not too distant future.
I must admit using a tin ballastic tip worried me a little but no problems to date, in fact I get better groups and the deer don't seem to notice the difference and I am starting to believe they are marginally better.
As regards wildfowl,the law is the law,right or wrong and steel does seem to work for me although I find them slower than lead.
 
No. It is lead shot that just lies about that is the danger. If you've ever walked in the danger area on an established clay pigeon range you'll see immediately that the spent pellets when they fall to earth don't bury themselves into the groynd but just lay on the top it.

The "classic" I recall was "Shorts" Range at Bisley Camp. Bisley is sandy heathland and the danger area for the clay pigeon range there was literally carpeted with a layer of spent lead shot. Had you wanted to and had a sieve you could have scooped the stuff up by hand, riddled it to keep the pebbles and large grit out, and then be left with a lead shot and sand mix.

Hiya, I'm in California visiting friends and family once a year, so, joined the Lemon Grove Gun and Rod Club up in the mountains outside San Diego. Every year, they close the range for approx 3 weeks, and bring in heavy equipment to scrape the earth to about 12" deep, they sift out the lead from the dirt, be it Shotgun or CF rifle and pistols....last year, AFTER covering their costs, they made $30,000 for the club...:) They also "re landscape" the range a little bit too while they have the earth moving gear there...:)


 
Last edited:
Back
Top