MarkH said:
Here is a link from a medline search put into laymans terms
The enviromental data was based on deaths in sea-eagle and californian condor populations which feed on the gralloch left by hunters.
The link establishes that lead poisoning is possible, I can't see any clear evidence of a link to lead in venison or a treatment of how much lead, if any, can be absorbed from bullet fragments.
The research certainly on condors was a highly politicised PR and media management stunt funded and supported by a range of green nutter organisations as part of their attempts to restrict the activities of others. While there may, or may not, be solid evidence to support lead poisoning in condors, for example, the research was so directed and polarized as to make it impossible to draw any definite conclusions from it other than that cash buys you the answer you want, no matter which side you are on.
I must also take exception to the idea that there is something wrong with being defensive. We are defending a sport we love and which has taken place in Europe for many hundreds of years in various forms. Our traditional hill stalking has its roots in Victorian times and is a truly unique experience that ensures the conservation of large tracts of the UK and, especially, Scotland and which gives many people pleasure and the freedom to head outdoors and enjoy themselves in a responsible and legal manner. To be defensive of this way of life is something to be proud of and a position that should be supported by all right thinking people who respect the freedoms of others to enjoy their sport as they please as long as it doesn't endanger others. The green nutters have absolutely nothing to give, their life is based on a pseudo-religious system of belief akin to a cult, so when it comes to any "give and take" type of horse trading it is only us, the stalkers, who have something to give away. In this manner the green nutters are intent on slowly eroding our freedoms one tiny bit at a time until, in the end, stalking is to all intents and purposes illegal. Today it might be lead but I think we all know that tomorrow the green nutters will be spinning "science" about copper bullets in an attempt to ensure they are banned. We are lucky, at present, that to some extent their eye is off the ball and focused on the cult of man made global warming but as the science becomes more and more clear that there is no basis for claims of a human signature in the behaviour of our climate they will soon be walking away from the man made warming story and looking for something else to attract media attention. In my experience nothing attracts media attention better than guns in the hands of private citizens.
So, show me the figures for people known to have died from lead poisoninig from eating venison, or game of any type. Compare those figures to the number of people who die from sitting on their fat backsides when they could be out keeping fit walking the hill after a deer and thereby reducing the chances of a stroke or heart attack and then attempt to convince me that lead bullets are more dangerous than engineering a risk adverse population into a lifestyle of sitting in front of the TV because it is safe.
As an amusing aside to this, but a useful illustration of how effective media management can spin a risk into the political forum, an associate was involved in some research into a "high risk" activity that the press, driven at least in part by the same green nutters who are anti-shooting, were reporting was killing loads of people every year and so must be stopped. There was much fuss about the dangers involved and there were calls, even, for various types of cameras which could be used to detect people engaging in this activity and suggestions that physical measures should be put in place to make it impossible to carry the activity out. The chap I know, an engineer who specialised in the area, did some research and established that the chances of dying from this awful activity were, actually, about equal to you chances of dying from an accident when putting on your clothes. So, lets not see shooting banned on the basis of the "danger" sold to a media driven risk adverse urban population when a more unbiased and detailed examination may support the position that the benefits outweigh the risks. Perspective is something that seems to have been lost in this country and much of this is down to single issue groups driving the agenda of a media gasping for the next, biggest, doom story. The green nutters, using some of my money, pour literally billions of pounds into this media feeding frenzy to keep the pot boiling and we are one of their targets.