EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles

[25 Sharps]

Just out of interest, any of you that shoot a fox or rat with a lead bullet rimfire. How may of you eat or put the carcass into the human food chain?

What does that matter it plays right into the hands of the conservationists as raptors and other animals will eat the corpses.

You may say corpses should ‘be disposed of properly’ but there are occasions where the corpse can’t be retrieved.

 

[CarlW]

I think the main problem I have with this repeated capitulation is that it frees up the antis to move their energies and resources on to a new topic.

We have to assume that anti-shooting campaigning will continue ad infinitum at a constant intensity (plus or minus a few points, from time to time, depending on how many dentists are out shooting collared lions).

If we roll over easily (while congratulating ourselves for 'doing a deal', 'negotiating a peace', 'avoiding more draconian sanctions' or whatever sh1te the shooting organisations claim in order to manipulate their membership), then we make the antis more efficient. Quite simply, they get more done. I don't want to help them with that.

 

[25 Sharps]

Just out of interest, any of you that shoot a fox or rat with a lead bullet rimfire. How may of you eat or put the carcass into the human food chain?

What does that matter it plays right into the hands of the conservationists as raptors and other animals will eat the corpses.

You may say corpses should ‘be disposed of properly’ but there are occasions where the corpse can’t be retrieved.

Just out of interest, any of you that shoot a fox or rat with a lead bullet rimfire. How may of you eat or put the carcass into the human food chain?

Just out of interest why did you choose to exclude rabbits and hares from your question?

 

[andyk]

Where did I say anything about Zambezi pulling the drawbridge on other disciplines to protect shooting.

I took, and maybe I have misunderstood, your use of Zambezi's post to illustrate the point that 'factions' within shooting are happy with an 'I'm alright Jack' approach to be saying that Zambezi (and anyone else making similar arguments, such as myself) was willing to let other shooting factions suffer to preserve his/our own.

You might think he/we are wrong for the points you make, and I can't deny there is some truth to fact that an analogy can be drawn between lead in the food chain for humans and for scavengers. I just considered it unwarranted to suggest that either of us are looking to ignore other shooting groups to preserve our own disciplines.

I think the main problem I have with this repeated capitulation is that it frees up the antis to move their energies and resources on to a new topic.

We have to assume that anti-shooting campaigning will continue ad infinitum at a constant intensity (plus or minus a few points, from time to time, depending on how many dentists are out shooting collared lions).

If we roll over easily (while congratulating ourselves for 'doing a deal', 'negotiating a peace', 'avoiding more draconian sanctions' or whatever sh1te the shooting organisations claim in order to manipulate their membership), then we make the antis more efficient. Quite simply, they get more done. I don't want to help them with that.

I completely agree that we should do all we can to slow them down, my fear is that when it comes to lead, unfailing resistance actually plays into their hands.

One of the main current shooter vs anti 'battles' is lead. Ultimately, I have no doubt that the antis will win this battle. There is an unstoppable march amongst legislators throughout the world to make things 'safer' and remove the use of chemicals seen as 'dangerous' to people of the environment. Quite commonly, it seems that dangerousness ifs determined by whether there is a theoretical rather than proven risk. I don't like it but that's the way things are. Increasingly, there is also a determination to remove the ultimate decision on who takes the risk from the individual. Generally. I am also opposed to this.

With that as the background, I simply cannot see that the commonplace use of lead will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

So, my view is that shooting needs to consider how it can use lead for as long as possible. My fear is that we are trying to hold back the tide on lead and if we keep on with that, we will be overwhelmed and slapped with the kind of prohibition that the EU is now proposing. As things stand, that could be soon and the antis will then be free to move onto the next battle. My thinking, which may be wrong, is that a 'phased retreat' will put off the eventual total ban, tie up the antis for longer and give those disciplines which currently have no viable alternatives a chance to get something in place.

 

[Rory]

Indeed. Keep giving up inches and soon you'll have ceded a mile.
Neverending hoops to jump through.

Let's play the speculation game.
Equipment, ammunition, training courses (not yet mandatory, but you can see it becoming a prerequisite to do DSC 1 before being approved for an FAC...) becoming more expensive. Ranges will become few and far between to shoot at once they have to change construction to absorb the deeper penetrating homogenous bullets. What about the increase of a danger area for homogenous bullets? Might force some ranges to close where the capture distance won't conform to available area.
The consequences will definitely make it very difficult for the average person to start shooting or stalking, unless they have connections or are financially well off. Reluctance to spend money on expensive ammunition on practising at ranges will almost certainly translate to less competent/confident shooting in the field as well, more wounded animals.

Nothing is 'perfect' - I can understand risk assessments to make ingestion of lead as low as praticable - but it's the unintended consequences which have far reaching and deliterious effects.
'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

 

[25 Sharps]

I took, and maybe I have misunderstood, your use of Zambezi's post to illustrate the point that 'factions' within shooting are happy with an 'I'm alright Jack' approach to be saying that Zambezi (and anyone else making similar arguments, such as myself) was willing to let other shooting factions suffer to preserve his/our own.

You might think he/we are wrong for the points you make, and I can't deny there is some truth to fact that an analogy can be drawn between lead in the food chain for humans and for scavengers. I just considered it unwarranted to suggest that either of us are looking to ignore other shooting groups to preserve our own disciplines.

No, you have misunderstood (possibly because of the way I wrote it) and I even qualified the post that it was not a personal point made against Zambezi.

My point was, people don’t look past their nose, outside of their own shooting discipline. Often because they don’t carry out or understand other types of shooting they don’t contemplate that accepting something because it won’t impact their discipline will impact others.

Lead free, because of the types of cartridges and rifles used, will have far less impact than it will for pests and predators. So plenty of stalkers will say, lead free is fine, without even giving a thought to the rest of us.

make sense?

 

[Rory]

One of the main current shooter vs anti 'battles' is lead. Ultimately, I have no doubt that the antis will win this battle. There is an unstoppable march amongst legislators throughout the world to make things 'safer' and remove the use of chemicals seen as 'dangerous' to people of the environment.

I think this is part of the problem - we allow ourselves to think that it is unstoppable - it is the opinions of a very vocal few, not a majority view. We allow them to campaign and present their opinions unopposed. And our Orgs do little to confront them early.

. My thinking, which may be wrong, is that a 'phased retreat' will put off the eventual total ban, tie up the antis for longer and give those disciplines which currently have no viable alternatives a chance to get something in place.

And this is what we do, give up inches at a time, then act surprised when it changes irreversibly and catastrophically.

 

[timbrayford]

What does that matter it plays right into the hands of the conservationists as raptors and other animals will eat the corpses.

You may say corpses should ‘be disposed of properly’ but there are occasions where the corpse can’t be retrieved.
Just out of interest why did you choose to exclude rabbits and hares from your question?

Because it would be quite normal for rabbits & hares to enter the food chain

 

[timbrayford]

Incidentally, lead shot and bullets have been in use for hundreds of years, what did for the raptors was the use of widespread use of persistent organo-chlorines in the mid 20th century. Nothing to do with lead bullets at all.

 

[CarlW]

I took, and maybe I have misunderstood, your use of Zambezi's post to illustrate the point that 'factions' within shooting are happy with an 'I'm alright Jack' approach to be saying that Zambezi (and anyone else making similar arguments, such as myself) was willing to let other shooting factions suffer to preserve his/our own.

You might think he/we are wrong for the points you make, and I can't deny there is some truth to fact that an analogy can be drawn between lead in the food chain for humans and for scavengers. I just considered it unwarranted to suggest that either of us are looking to ignore other shooting groups to preserve our own disciplines.



I completely agree that we should do all we can to slow them down, my fear is that when it comes to lead, unfailing resistance actually plays into their hands.

One of the main current shooter vs anti 'battles' is lead. Ultimately, I have no doubt that the antis will win this battle. There is an unstoppable march amongst legislators throughout the world to make things 'safer' and remove the use of chemicals seen as 'dangerous' to people of the environment. Quite commonly, it seems that dangerousness ifs determined by whether there is a theoretical rather than proven risk. I don't like it but that's the way things are. Increasingly, there is also a determination to remove the ultimate decision on who takes the risk from the individual. Generally. I am also opposed to this.

With that as the background, I simply cannot see that the commonplace use of lead will be allowed to continue indefinitely.

So, my view is that shooting needs to consider how it can use lead for as long as possible. My fear is that we are trying to hold back the tide on lead and if we keep on with that, we will be overwhelmed and slapped with the kind of prohibition that the EU is now proposing. As things stand, that could be soon and the antis will then be free to move onto the next battle. My thinking, which may be wrong, is that a 'phased retreat' will put off the eventual total ban, tie up the antis for longer and give those disciplines which currently have no viable alternatives a chance to get something in place.

98% of people don't give a toss about shooting and don't give a toss about lead. Only 2% care (made-up number, but you get the point): us and the antis. This is a battle we could have won; however, BASC and John Swift surrendered on our behalf. Let's be completely clear: this is self-harm. I ain't joining that party.

Look what happened when various police forces abandoned HOG. It started when a few brave anti-shooting FLOs took their first tentative steps. We did not react. A few more tried it: no noise. So a load more piled in as well. Yet more erosion of our position due to cowardice, an underestimation of our own strength, and a dash of Stockholm syndrome. The same is happening with lead.

 

[25 Sharps]

Incidentally, lead shot and bullets have been in use for hundreds of years, what did for the raptors was the use of widespread use of persistent organo-chlorines in the mid 20th century. Nothing to do with lead bullets at all.

I appreciate that, but lead bullets are already banned in California to protect condors the same reasoning can be (has even been on here) applied to leaving lead in a carcass, what about the lead in the gralloch that gets consumed by red kites?

Obviously it is not a huge issue with the rapid climb in buzzard, raven and kite numbers but someone will make the argument and if we concede on lead free for deer then we will have to concede elsewhere.

I am wholeheartedly against being forced legally to switch to lead free bullets or shot for shooting over land by the way!!

 

[25 Sharps]

Because it would be quite normal for rabbits & hares to enter the food chain

But then to follow that line of questioning through what would be your suggestion, lead free for anything that goes into the food chain and carry on as before for the few quarry items that don't get eaten?

May as well go the whole hog!

 

[CarlW]

I appreciate that, but lead bullets are already banned in California to protect condors the same reasoning can be (has even been on here) applied to leaving lead in a carcass, what about the lead in the gralloch that gets consumed by red kites?

Obviously it is not a huge issue with the rapid climb in buzzard, raven and kite numbers but someone will make the argument and if we concede on lead free for deer then we will have to concede elsewhere.

I've always wondered about the 'lead in the gralloch' point. There must be a lot of people gut-shooting deer, if that is the case. Or, they are doing more than a green-gralloch, which is my practice.

 

[andyk]

I've always wondered about the 'lead in the gralloch' point. There must be a lot of people gut-shooting deer, if that is the case. Or, they are doing more than a green-gralloch, which is my practice.

I may be wrong but is some of the problem with Condors a US specific (or non-UK) issue? I believe that the Americans commonly butcher the carcass in the field, leaving all innards and even pelt where the animal fell (I assume because of the size of some of their quarry and the vast land areas involved). Of course, this will mean that more bullet is available for scavengers than here where most of the carcass is taken back to the larder.

Maybe one of our US members can add to this?

@25 Sharps, fair enough and that does make more sense. In my defence though, my logic (even if you don't agree with it) is to compromise in areas where the alternatives are more viable to protect those areas which are not. You may think I am wrong but I would hope you could acknowledge that I am not ignoring the needs of other disciplines.

98% of people don't give a toss about shooting and don't give a toss about lead. Only 2% care (made-up number, but you get the point): us and the antis. This is a battle we could have won; however, BASC and John Swift surrendered on our behalf. Let's be completely clear: this is self-harm. I ain't joining that party.

Look what happened when various police forces abandoned HOG. It started when a few brave anti-shooting FLOs took their first tentative steps. We did not react. A few more tried it: no noise. So a load more piled in as well. Yet more erosion of our position due to cowardice, an underestimation of our own strength, and a dash of Stockholm syndrome. The same is happening with lead.

I would agree with you in other areas. With the HOG I don't think we should be backing down, same for this latest firearms law review.

I'd also agree that most people don't care but some people in powerful positions do, which is the problem.

When it comes to lead there is an international push to stop using it. I just can't see that UK shooting organisations could ever hope to hold regulation at bay indefinitely. Hell, the oil industry couldn't hold back the removal of lead from petrol, if they couldn't stop the H&S lot then I don't think I'm underestimating our strength in thinking we cannot.

 

[CarlW]

I may be wrong but is some of the problem with Condors a US specific (or non-UK) issue? I believe that the Americans commonly butcher the carcass in the field, leaving all innards and even pelt where the animal fell (I assume because of the size of some of their quarry and the vast land areas involved). Of course, this will mean that more bullet is available for scavengers than here where most of the carcass is taken back to the larder.

Precisely. I'm not talking about Condors; I'm talking about the argument that one hears from UK agitators (and a lot of UK stalkers) that the Condor experience is relevant here.

 

[CarlW]

When it comes to lead there is an international push to stop using it. I just can't see that UK shooting organisations could ever hope to hold regulation at bay indefinitely. Hell, the oil industry couldn't hold back the removal of lead from petrol, if they couldn't stop the H&S lot then I don't think I'm underestimating our strength in thinking we cannot.

There was strong science to show that lead in petrol was harming children. There is no science to show that lead in game is harming anybody, and - even if there were - eating game is a choice; breathing is not.

 

[BEAR1]

Wouldn't be surprised if this has all been instigated by a hidden agender , ban the ammunition, stop people shooting. How come past people , birds and animals survived in their millions.

 

[Heym SR20]

So are you suggesting that a total ban on lead ammunition is desirable?

I seem to remember your thread about the 300 year old muzzle loading rifle in which you are regretting the fact that it can’t be used legally for shooting deer in Scotland land......

of course a lead ban would prevent it being shot anywhere for anything as non-lead projectiles just won’t work in such a rifle

What I am saying is that I don’t think we should be putting game into the human food chain that contains lead, nor do I think we should be leaving lead remains left in the wilds for other critters to eat.

And yes I have a real interest in old and vintage guns so yes there is somewhat of a quandry.

I think for mainstream rifle hunting, especially anything that is going to game dealers should be shot with lead free ammunition. Modern day non- toxic ammo works well, and plenty of evidence to support this.

The same should apply to high volume game shooting. Ten years steel cartridges were crap. But for Wildfowling i now use high speed steel through a modern semi auto. This kills ducks and geese well.

Game shooting, again in the last 18 months there are now plenty of new eco shotshells on the market, and they are suitable for older guns. Happily use then in my AyA. Would I use them in my 100 year old Alex Martin sidelock - not sure - I would probably use Bismuth. Yes they are expensive but its a gun I use on special occasions.

And if I was shooting lots of driven game, chances are I would be using a modern over and under that will be steel shot proofed.

But I think there can be room for lead in older historic guns, but any game shot would have to be for personal consumption, and not to be sold into the general market.

I would draw a parallel with leaded petrol that is still available to run old vintage cars and aeroplanes.

 

[Heym SR20]

Precisely. I'm not talking about Condors; I'm talking about the argument that one hears from UK agitators (and a lot of UK stalkers) that the Condor experience is relevant here.

What about eagles consuming grallochs on Scottish hills. And a lot do a full heart and lung as well as green gralloch.

And lead in soil is then carried into plant material. Not much an issue in the wilds, but could well be in heavily shot over arable land that is then used to grow vegetables.

 

[Apthorpe]

Wouldn't be surprised if this has all been instigated by a hidden agender , ban the ammunition, stop people shooting. How come past people , birds and animals survived in their millions.

Surely not!?!