Neither was I
Lead Ban- UK Reach 2nd Consultation
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
There has been one prosecution according to google yet the green lobbies claim 13 million ducks shot with lead since the ban! These estimates are often from universities yet have no physical evidence to back up their claims
I’m unconvinced that it is widespread as claimed and wild goose can’t be sold was my understanding
It would be easier to ban sale of lead shot game and leave the shooter to make the decision
In fact most of the geese on my ground are on stubble so nowhere near a watercourse!
Claim what you want but without real figures backed by evidence not estimates and you will have my support
By the way the claim by bird guides.com doesn’t show the prosecution so that could be made up
Correct. It is illegal in Scotland to sell dead wild geese regardless of if shot with lead, steel, gold, diamond dust, or even shot made from rare unobtanium metal or its alloys.
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
If you want proof of lack of evidence read this. Illegal hunting of wildfowl using lead shot remains 'widespread'.
the section on prosecutions is interesting,
Prosecutions for breaches of the Lead Shot Regulations One prosecution was recorded in the RSPB database during 1999-2020 for an offence committed in North Yorkshire in 2011 in which a person was fined for two charges relating to the shooting of a mute swan Cygnus olor. In addition to being fined for causing criminal damage to a swan, the person was fined £100 for the use of lead shot, in breach of the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (RSPB 2011). No further prosecutions were brought after the government review of implementation and enforcement in 2016
So a mute swan was shot, hardly quarry species and the fine for lead shot was a whopping £100. I cant defend anyone breaking the law let alone shooting a protected species.
The reason for estimates is fairly simple, its our fault for not having a bag reporting system, apparently unique in Europe.
Some of the figures are based upon bird counts taking place at each end of migratory flight. I know that all of the shoots I have taken part in only had released ducks on their ground, this is surely a bonus to the wild stocking and if banned will further reduce migratory bird numbers.
further down the page is this revelation
The fitted regression model of the proportion of illegallyshot ducks Q in relation to year was logit(Q) = 0.5199 + 0.0421 YEAR (standard error of the slope = 0.0322). We therefore assumed that the proportion of sampled ducks killed illegally did not change over time and used pooled results from all four surveys (518 shot using lead from 731 sampled) to indicate the level of non-compliance with the regulations. This proportion was 0.709 (Clopper-Pearson exact 95% confidence in
So made up numbers with no evidence!
My comments are in bold
The numbers claimed as samples were also originally estimated. They are rehashing poor science to prove to the looney left that we are all law breakers.
the section on prosecutions is interesting,
Prosecutions for breaches of the Lead Shot Regulations One prosecution was recorded in the RSPB database during 1999-2020 for an offence committed in North Yorkshire in 2011 in which a person was fined for two charges relating to the shooting of a mute swan Cygnus olor. In addition to being fined for causing criminal damage to a swan, the person was fined £100 for the use of lead shot, in breach of the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999 (RSPB 2011). No further prosecutions were brought after the government review of implementation and enforcement in 2016
So a mute swan was shot, hardly quarry species and the fine for lead shot was a whopping £100. I cant defend anyone breaking the law let alone shooting a protected species.
The reason for estimates is fairly simple, its our fault for not having a bag reporting system, apparently unique in Europe.
Some of the figures are based upon bird counts taking place at each end of migratory flight. I know that all of the shoots I have taken part in only had released ducks on their ground, this is surely a bonus to the wild stocking and if banned will further reduce migratory bird numbers.
further down the page is this revelation
The fitted regression model of the proportion of illegallyshot ducks Q in relation to year was logit(Q) = 0.5199 + 0.0421 YEAR (standard error of the slope = 0.0322). We therefore assumed that the proportion of sampled ducks killed illegally did not change over time and used pooled results from all four surveys (518 shot using lead from 731 sampled) to indicate the level of non-compliance with the regulations. This proportion was 0.709 (Clopper-Pearson exact 95% confidence in
So made up numbers with no evidence!
My comments are in bold
The numbers claimed as samples were also originally estimated. They are rehashing poor science to prove to the looney left that we are all law breakers.
Last edited:
Correct
I have heard recently that my friend was told by a few of the older members I'm his club to not worry about taking the ducks with lead when out after pheasants. He didn't take them and instead left them as he didn't have steel but, a less experienced shooter may have taken them at their word and cracked on, so it definitely happens
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
Allegedly so, I provide a couple of boxes of non toxic for our guns and they usually take a couple each at the beginning of the season. We have bagged 1 teal in about 15 years, we shoot pheasant and the very occasional woodcock. There is a drive which takes in a stream that feeds a larger river, the guns are positioned to take the pheasants as the fly away from the willows ensuring that that shots are fired away from the watercourse!
Its not difficult to arrange properly, we used to have an evening duck flight that the old keeper used to lay on about 20 years ago. I think it stopped because the owner of the farm liked ducks which is also why I think we dont release any!
While alleged I don't think it would be something my friend would have lied about as he had no reason to bring it up other than me saying I need to get some steel to get out on the ducks soon
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
Unless you were there its legally hearsay which can only be an allegation.
StephenToast
Well-Known Member
Defra undertook a study approximately a decade after the ban and found that 70% of duck in gamedealers contained lead shot.
That's still going on. You'd be naive to think it wasn't.
Lead ammunition today - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
www.gwct.org.uk
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
Interestingly not mentioned by google. Can you find it please?
StephenToast
Well-Known Member
Apologies. Follow through the GWCT article I posted above.
These surveys found that over the winters of 2001/2, 2008/9, 2009/10, and 2013/14 over 70% of ducks sold by game suppliers were shot with lead14,15. Surveys of BASC members found at 45% of respondents admitted they ‘sometimes or never comply’ with lead shot restrictions14. Surveys of live birds in 2010-11 using blood samples also showed that 33% of birds sampled had elevated levels of lead in their blood16.
I don't agree with this SD contributor's views on lead but I can say that he is correct in that, yes, shot ducks were bought from game dealers and yes they did contain lead. And yes in the figures given.
BUT! Game is sold throughout the UK that may have been shot in Scotland (we've all seen the grouse in Borough Market on television or in the Bull Ring in Birmingham) and without tracking the origin these duck may have been shot in Scotland where lead shot was at the time and still is lawful for shooting duck.
So without that tracing the evidence may not be what it says. Like an old friend in the Metropolitan Police once told me. That the street is wet when you get up in the morning it doesn't always mean it may have rained in the night. It may have snowed in the night and that snow may have melted by the time you got up.
Last edited:
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
Without the report we cant check to see if numbers were extrapolated to produce estimates from samples. Science is fact, everything else is just supposition, assumptions and possibly lies.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
With all due respect Conor if I have the wrong information but didn't BASC support the proposed ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting in the earlier HSE consultation?
StephenToast
Well-Known Member
You are clutching at straws. You don't have to do much shooting to know that today, 20 odd years after the ban there are still people using lead to shoot wildfowl illegally. The "antis" and the government know it too.
There are even people on this site saying that if lead is banned, they intend to break the law.
The shooting community is it's own worst enemy. If there is a ban on lead it needs to be an outright ban on the sale and use of lead ammunition across the board.
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry that you feel those who seek to stop our shooting cant be held to the same scientific standards and rigorous scrutiny that they hold us to!
Individuals should in my opinion be allowed to continue to use lead for taking game for their own consumption. After all its still healthier than packed in the Eu imported Thai chicken!
tim@tcs
Well-Known Member
An interesting quote in there:Defra undertook a study approximately a decade after the ban and found that 70% of duck in gamedealers contained lead shot.
That's still going on. You'd be naive to think it wasn't.
Lead ammunition today - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Scientists at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), ADAS UK, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust (WWT), and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) carry out surveys assessing compliance. These organisations studied samples of shot wildfowl alongside member surveys14.
These surveys found that over the winters of 2001/2, 2008/9, 2009/10, and 2013/14 over 70% of ducks sold by game suppliers were shot with lead14,15. Surveys of BASC members found at 45% of respondents admitted they ‘sometimes or never comply’ with lead shot restrictions14. Surveys of live birds in 2010-11 using blood samples also showed that 33% of birds sampled had elevated levels of lead in their blood16.
Either they sampled 70% of all birds sold or they have misrepresented the facts and should have said that a sample was tested and 70% were found to be contaminated with lead. I doubt they checked every duck sold that year which is what they are inferring. This therefore has as much validity as a yougov poll, no statement of the sample source and if any bias was inferred in the question. Extrapolation is as accurate as voodoo and tarot cards. If it was one butcher sampled on one day who's to say that the birds werent all provided by one source and that source was a known lawbreaker?
Similar threads
