Lead Ban- UK Reach 2nd Consultation

[timbrayford]

The shite that comes out on here sometimes.

Lead has been banned for wildfowl for 20 years. Steel cartridges were being used before that.

If anything is going to rust anywhere it's in a salt environment.

Guess what? This isn't an issue.

Do you ever watch the TGS YouTube channel, they had a discussion about this some time ago, and in any case if you are firing your gun out to sea on the foreshore how would you know any way? Unless of course you blew a goose apart?

 

[NullMac]

One difference that I can see is that most deer are now being shot with nonlead, and most dealers require lead free carcasses. Lead is rapidly disappearing from deer stalking and from venison, hence there is no real need for legal compulsion.

I don't see that at all. More as a counterpoint than a contradiction though. Not looking for a barney.

I am aware of several major AGHE's that are happy to take lead. Some up here, some down south that come up here to collect carcasses (their USP over dealers in South Scotland apparently is that not only do they take carcasses but actually pay for them as well).

None of the stalkers I know (other than commercial contracts where it is obligatory,) amateur or professional, use copper. What they say and what they do may not be the same...

I started to use copper and due to its bloody awful terminal ballistics I have gone back to using lead. I eat what I shoot so thats just fine. If shooting deer with FMJ was heinous then it is some miracle that shooting them with a monolith of a harder material is suddenly humane.

Legal compulsion is absolutely required if the government intends to stop us shooting deer with lead.

 

[timbrayford]

The shite that comes out on here sometimes.

Lead has been banned for wildfowl for 20 years. Steel cartridges were being used before that.

If anything is going to rust anywhere it's in a salt environment.

Guess what? This isn't an issue.

More "shite" for you m8 Shells with rust, what to do?

 

[StephenToast]

I don

Do you ever watch the TGS YouTube channel, they had a discussion about this some time ago, and in any case if you are firing your gun out to sea on the foreshore how would you know any way? Unless of course you blew a goose apart?

I really couldn't care less about youtube.

Some of the arguments against steel are totally laughable! This included. It just shows how thick people are.

As I said. Steel has been used for over 20 years here, and in much greater numbers and for longer in the states.

 

[tim@tcs]

Some of the arguments against steel are totally laughable! This included. It just shows how thick people are.

That’s a bit harsh, after all your opinions hold no more weight than his opinions

Rather than attempting to belittle someone which merely makes them take opposing views in defence perhaps explaining why you feel that your experience has value.
This isn’t the wildfowlers forum so that experience is possibly unique to you!
YouTube can provide interesting content which stimulates discussion in a positive way.
I would prefer to believe that I can persuade others of the veracity of my ideas, I may not know everything about shooting after all I’m only 58 years old and didn’t start shooting until I was 12 so I have much to learn
I do however study my shooting academically to remind me later of what worked and what didn’t! Therefore if I posit a view I will eventually find the recorded results to back that up!
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar!

 

[StephenToast]

Has anyone heard of the very real risk that steel cartridges might break into your car and take your stereo? Nobody talks about that now do they?

 

[Liveonce]

You can get copper or zinc plated steel shot which should reduce any rusting risk but obviously it costs more, however even the plain steel shot has I believe a rust inhibitor on it. If the shot is rusting due to moisture then hopefully they are not of the water soluble wad type as that may be more of a problem. Cartridges with a best before date anybody

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Has the HSE taken into account the very real risks from steel shot rusting into a solid lump under the crimp and forming a dangerous long distance projectile? It's important as they appear to believe that steel is a safe substitute for lead shot when together with the higher risk of ricochets it is no such thing?

Thanks. If you have experienced that then do please submit it to the HSE before the consultation closes on 10 December. Even if its just your view and not direct experience submit your view in any case. There are no right or wrong views in my book - just give the HSE lots of things to think about. Last year less than 3,000 people submitted their views and it delayed the next stage of the review (where we are now) by nearly 9 months.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Noting the comments on steel Bill Harriman at BASC has written a good deal about how standard steel shot cartridges are perfectly safe to use in nitro proofed guns in good condition.

He has also debunked the myth that they are not suitable for use in guns with Damascus twist barrels. In his latest article, in the current issue of BASC magazine 'Shooting and Conservation' he writes about testing steel shot in a muzzle-loading gun and after experimentation found best to get rid of the cup wad and there was no visible damage or distortion. Many shots later, again no visible issues and this was measured in detail.

Against received wisdom? Yes. And Bill intends more testing on more guns.

BASC continues to host "Try Sustainable Ammunition Days" and many thousands have already tried steel shot cartridges in their own guns at these events and had the opportunity to discuss their concerns and dispel the myths. That's an ongoing initiative regardless of what happens with the HSE lead ammunition review.

This is not about lead vs steel or being "anti-lead". Indeed many people are moving on from that. The use of lead shot and steel shot and other types of shot will continue as relevant. Innovation continues apace on alternatives to lead shot and plastic wads.

That said, change is a pain of course, and being open minded becomes more challenging over time. And I guess the next generation of shooters will look back on this era and wonder what all the fuss was about!

 

[Woodenbeam]

And I guess the next generation of shooters will look back on this era and wonder what all the fuss was about!

What ‘next generation’?
With licensing, the general anti shooting mentality, costs etc there won’t be a next generation. Lead is an affordable effective component. Non lead may temporarily appease the anti’s but is only a nail in the coffin, they’ll then find another issue for another nail. Manufacturers may have been on board at some stage but only due to innovation creating profits - don’t see them actively driving the non lead solutions.
I still don’t see why the plastic wad is a necessity over fibre?
And I see you’ve slipped that phase ‘Sustainable Ammo’ in again

 

[tim@tcs]

He has also debunked the myth that they are not suitable for use in guns with Damascus twist barrels. In his latest article, in the current issue of BASC magazine 'Shooting and Conservation' he writes about testing steel shot in a muzzle-loading gun and after experimentation found best to get rid of the cup wad and there was no visible damage or distortion. Many shots later, again no visible issues and this was measured in detail.

This is where youtube has value, it would be widely advertised and understood if put out on a medium not restricted to an associations membership!

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

What ‘next generation’?
With licensing, the general anti shooting mentality, costs etc there won’t be a next generation. Lead is an affordable effective component. Non lead may temporarily appease the anti’s but is only a nail in the coffin, they’ll then find another issue for another nail. Manufacturers may have been on board at some stage but only due to innovation creating profits - don’t see them actively driving the non lead solutions.
I still don’t see why the plastic wad is a necessity over fibre?
And I see you’ve slipped that phase ‘Sustainable Ammo’ in again

I think there will be a next generation of shooters but appreciate that you think there will not be. When I first started working for BASC 20 years ago I recall some members then saying there would not be a next generation of shooters. Will target and live quarry shooting look exactly the same as today for the next generation? Of course not. Change in ongoing - innovations on guns, ammo and accessories, clothing, attitudes, pest and quarry species, shooting interests, social/economic/environmental factors and so on.

I wonder what game shooters from 100 years ago would make of the shooting scene today - not many wild grey partridge shoots about are there. In any case the post was about steel shot - and I think the next generation of shooters will wonder what all the fuss was about.

For example below two articles from Denmark about the changing attitudes to steel shot (and sporting guns are not trashed, there has not been an increase in broken teeth, and no issues with harvesting wood for furniture-making).

https://www.scribehound.com/cartridges/s/non-toxic-shotgun-cartridges/living-with-steel-in-denmark

Life without lead - the Danish perspective

Fieldsports Press Website

sporting-gun.com

Or for a more academic overview there is the following paper:

Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark - PMC

Denmark was the first European country to completely ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting. This paper reviews the process behind this phase-out to document its history, successes, and pitfalls, and to make the Danish experiences accessible ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

As regards sustainability the following article may be of interest:

Time to reflect - How sustainable is shooting in the UK?

How sustainable is UK shooting - is it time for improvement and adapting to the changing times? There might be something we could learn from the past too.

basc.org.uk

 

[RF76]

Noting the comments on steel Bill Harriman at BASC has written a good deal about how standard steel shot cartridges are perfectly safe to use in nitro proofed guns in good condition.

He has also debunked the myth that they are not suitable for use in guns with Damascus twist barrels. In his latest article, in the current issue of BASC magazine 'Shooting and Conservation' he writes about testing steel shot in a muzzle-loading gun and after experimentation found best to get rid of the cup wad and there was no visible damage or distortion. Many shots later, again no visible issues and this was measured in detail.

Against received wisdom? Yes. And Bill intends more testing on more guns.

BASC continues to host "Try Sustainable Ammunition Days" and many thousands have already tried steel shot cartridges in their own guns at these events and had the opportunity to discuss their concerns and dispel the myths. That's an ongoing initiative regardless of what happens with the HSE lead ammunition review.

This is not about lead vs steel or being "anti-lead". Indeed many people are moving on from that. The use of lead shot and steel shot and other types of shot will continue as relevant. Innovation continues apace on alternatives to lead shot and plastic wads.

That said, change is a pain of course, and being open minded becomes more challenging over time. And I guess the next generation of shooters will look back on this era and wonder what all the fuss was about!

Conor,

If Steel was so effective, then why is it Wildfowlers are still bemoaning the lack of credible performance in Steel products some 20yrs later ?

If Steel was so effective when BASC advocated for a Lead ban for Wildfowlers in favour of Steel, why was Steel not 'voluntarily transitioned to' for Driven shooting 20yrs ago by BASC ?

To suggest that the 'sustainable' days are a success citing thousands of attendees is a bit of a stretch, especially when the BASC Membership numbers are supposedly in excess of that. Slightly ironic that BASC is charging (£15) for the privilege of attending and using the products.

Innovation does not continue apace because put simply there is very little belief from the big Manufacturers to invest in the R&D. Rifle ammunition will continue to be Lead until the US makes it's own change because much of the product made is for that market and thus it determines the future of our own market as we import and produce very little in the UK nowadays. Interestingly the US Govt has recently placed a 90 embargo on firearms and munition export.

In reference to ongoing research, Livens guns are currently running a little Lead vs Steel experiment. Sadly, Steel is NOT doing well.

Ultimately, the market decides. The need to hunt, to feed a family and to survive was borne out of a poor mans pocket and not those with an eye on commercialism and making vast amounts of money, which has proven to be the real nail in the coffin. With the 'voluntary transition' now costing participants double when purchasing factory product, it will not be fiscally viable to continue to afford to be a part of field sports from the local clay shoot, to a day's sport. The days of commercialism within field sports are now rapidly numbered, public support is fast being eradicated and I'm afraid that the 'blind nine' organisations are so inept at counter argument, or tackling the anti narrative that is easy to see how legislative change after legislative change will continue to be made because it has the public support from the anti brigade, and that means political points.

As a last point.

Any idea when BASC will be announcing its legal challenge to the recent legislative change in Scotland concerning the removal of Closed Season for Male Deer ? After all, this is surely not the sort of thing a Conservation organisation should leave unchallenged is it, especially if there is proven scientific data which supports an immediate reinstatement.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I don't know of many wildfowlers "bemoaning the lack of credible performance in Steel products some 20yrs later".

It is not true that "BASC advocated for a Lead ban for Wildfowlers in favour of Steel". The UK government signed up to the AEWA treaty and that is why restrictions on the use of lead shot were introduced by Westminster/devolved govts for wildfowl and/or wetlands in each of England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

Again this is not about "lead vs steel" it is about continuing to use lead shot and many other types of shot now and into the future.

Innovation and R&D is ongoing - the Gun Trade Association has been providing updates on this for years - and yes, sufficient time is needed for some types of ammunition - 5-10 years in some cases. That is all in the mix as we review the current HSE proposals.

If you haven't already done so advice on responding to the HSE consultation is below. Why not make all the comments you have made above, and more, to them? The more responses they get the better.

How to respond to the consultation

The survey response form contains mostly technical and confusing questions. However, there is a shortcut and it will take less than five minutes of your time.

Just skip to the last section of the survey and in ‘general comments’ tell them, in your own words, what you think about a lead ban based on your own shooting interests and experience.

Click the link below to complete the 'general comments' section of the HSE survey response form:

UK REACH - Public Consultation on Lead in Ammunition - Health and Safety Executive - Citizen Space

Find and participate in consultations run by the Health and Safety Executive

consultations.hse.gov.uk

As regards the removal of the close seasons for all male deer in Scotland, while BASC was against this proposal, we do accept that it may remove barriers to deer managers in some circumstances. Nevertheless, we continue to promote that, throughout the winter months, any deer manager’s priority should be achieving the female cull.

Edward Mountain MSP tried to prevent the removal of male seasons, a move supported by BASC. Despite robust evidence against the proposal in Parliament, the Scottish government continued with plans to remove close male deer seasons. There are no plans by any organisation to legally challenge the change in legislation as far as I know.

 

[RF76]

I don't know of many wildfowlers "bemoaning the lack of credible performance in Steel products some 20yrs later".

It is not true that "BASC advocated for a Lead ban for Wildfowlers in favour of Steel". The UK government signed up to the AEWA treaty and that is why restrictions on the use of lead shot were introduced by Westminster/devolved govts for wildfowl and/or wetlands in each of England, Wales, Scotland and NI.

Again this is not about "lead vs steel" it is about continuing to use lead shot and many other types of shot now and into the future.

Innovation and R&D is ongoing - the Gun Trade Association has been providing updates on this for years - and yes, sufficient time is needed for some types of ammunition - 5-10 years in some cases. That is all in the mix as we review the current HSE proposals.

If you haven't already done so advice on responding to the HSE consultation is below. Why not make all the comments you have made above, and more, to them? The more responses they get the better.

How to respond to the consultation

The survey response form contains mostly technical and confusing questions. However, there is a shortcut and it will take less than five minutes of your time.

Just skip to the last section of the survey and in ‘general comments’ tell them, in your own words, what you think about a lead ban based on your own shooting interests and experience.

Click the link below to complete the 'general comments' section of the HSE survey response form:

UK REACH - Public Consultation on Lead in Ammunition - Health and Safety Executive - Citizen Space

Find and participate in consultations run by the Health and Safety Executive

consultations.hse.gov.uk

As regards the removal of the close seasons for all male deer in Scotland, while BASC was against this proposal, we do accept that it may remove barriers to deer managers in some circumstances. Nevertheless, we continue to promote that, throughout the winter months, any deer manager’s priority should be achieving the female cull.

Edward Mountain MSP tried to prevent the removal of male seasons, a move supported by BASC. Despite robust evidence against the proposal in Parliament, the Scottish government continued with plans to remove close male deer seasons. There are no plans by any organisation to legally challenge the change in legislation as far as I know.

Conor,

You're right, it's not about the Lead vs Steel argument. It is about the 'blind nine' being architects of a voluntary transition no one asked for, was consulted about or given the opportunity to discuss before the announcement was made. And that, is why we have landed up in this whole debacle amounting to HSE consultations. Something that brought about a threat to the golden nugget of Driven shooting, and now as a result all of field sports is under the spotlight, and I bet the CPSA won't be sending BASC a Christmas Card this year.

The use of Lead will not continue in field sports BASC has made sure of that, because it opened the door to its own ban. The question becomes as someone else alluded to earlier and as I've thought for a long time, what will BASC do when Steel is found to be a contaminate and detrimental to human health ? I'd wager BASC and the 'blind nine' have no Plan B for that scenario.

As for Wildfowling. I was shooting on the foreshore when it was implemented and know of plenty who have been long time dissatisfied with the available product on the market and then turned to Home Loading in order to try to produce reasonable and ethical/humane results. And I'd say that many of those very same people do NOT use Steel when performing crop protection, which begs the question why ? We are all aware of how BASC were involved in the Steel imposition on Wildfowlers years ago and the role it played, after all you've given one of it's advocates an Honorary Life Membership, which is somewhat ironic given they are now publishing on the Wild Justice page calling for an overall Lead Ban. And yet it still leaves the unanswered question that if BASC had full belief in the validity of Steel choice as an ethical choice, why did it not 'voluntarily transition' at the same time as the Ban was imposed on the Wildfowlers ?

In honesty, I see BASC as weak. All I see are social media posts, a magazine and not much else. There is no real action to challenge the anti narrative and a few select articles in preferential papers does not count. On every front, and at every challenge BASC fails and loses (despite healthy accounts that could fund proper campaigns or legal challenges). It is at this point I'd be more concerned about changing the narrative, highlighting the pollution being caused by say United Utilities (RSPB endorsed) and others (Thames Water 72billion litres of pollution) into our waterways and shining a light on this in the public forum, or is BASC afraid to take its gloves off. It's time to shine the spotlight on what those directing the narrative actually get up to (employing pest controllers), and that they are not as innocent as they project themselves to be, and begin to dismantle the public image.

In regards to Edward Mountains' petition, I sent the link to BASC and the other organisations, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Up until that point BASC had NOT referenced it nor publicly supported it, and when it did to be honest it was almost a token gesture and too little too late. To not legally challenge the recent legislative change is beyond contemptible for any of the organisations that 'trade' on being a conservation body.

To suggest that the onus is now on Deer Managers to continue to voluntarily adhere to the traditional Closed Season is wholly unacceptable and puts those professionals in a position which is further pressured (mental health) to produce results. Not only that as an iconic specie it will be fast tracked to eradication through negligent legislation and by the time there is an opportunity to repair the damage it will be too little too late and that is not acceptable. As an organisation, is it really all you are worth if supporting a move proposed by another is the extent of the organisational efforts. And, sadly if it is, then you've fallen way short of anything amounting to calling yourself a Conservation Body, and as has been said before are 'unfit for purpose'. It is time to evolve, redefine and act and become something close to being seen as credible, capable and legitimate.

I am aware that no organisation plans to legally challenge it. How do I know because I've asked the organisations and no one is going to. Which speaks volumes about your organisational existence doesn't it. The fact that any organisation is NOT going to challenge it (even combining resources) is beyond contemptible. BASC put more support into garnering support against the potential Driven shooting ban in Wales, than it did with Edward Mountains' petition in Scotland, and that about sums it up.

As for the reference to the HSE Consultations, I completed the first and I've completed this one. Will it make one iota of difference, no.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor,

You're right, it's not about the Lead vs Steel argument. It is about the 'blind nine' being architects of a voluntary transition no one asked for, was consulted about or given the opportunity to discuss before the announcement was made. And that, is why we have landed up in this whole debacle amounting to HSE consultations. Something that brought about a threat to the golden nugget of Driven shooting, and now as a result all of field sports is under the spotlight, and I bet the CPSA won't be sending BASC a Christmas Card this year.

The use of Lead will not continue in field sports BASC has made sure of that, because it opened the door to its own ban. The question becomes as someone else alluded to earlier and as I've thought for a long time, what will BASC do when Steel is found to be a contaminate and detrimental to human health ? I'd wager BASC and the 'blind nine' have no Plan B for that scenario.

As for Wildfowling. I was shooting on the foreshore when it was implemented and know of plenty who have been long time dissatisfied with the available product on the market and then turned to Home Loading in order to try to produce reasonable and ethical/humane results. And I'd say that many of those very same people do NOT use Steel when performing crop protection, which begs the question why ? We are all aware of how BASC were involved in the Steel imposition on Wildfowlers years ago and the role it played, after all you've given one of it's advocates an Honorary Life Membership, which is somewhat ironic given they are now publishing on the Wild Justice page calling for an overall Lead Ban. And yet it still leaves the unanswered question that if BASC had full belief in the validity of Steel choice as an ethical choice, why did it not 'voluntarily transition' at the same time as the Ban was imposed on the Wildfowlers ?

In honesty, I see BASC as weak. All I see are social media posts, a magazine and not much else. There is no real action to challenge the anti narrative and a few select articles in preferential papers does not count. On every front, and at every challenge BASC fails and loses (despite healthy accounts that could fund proper campaigns or legal challenges). It is at this point I'd be more concerned about changing the narrative, highlighting the pollution being caused by say United Utilities (RSPB endorsed) and others (Thames Water 72billion litres of pollution) into our waterways and shining a light on this in the public forum, or is BASC afraid to take its gloves off. It's time to shine the spotlight on what those directing the narrative actually get up to (employing pest controllers), and that they are not as innocent as they project themselves to be, and begin to dismantle the public image.

In regards to Edward Mountains' petition, I sent the link to BASC and the other organisations, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Up until that point BASC had NOT referenced it nor publicly supported it, and when it did to be honest it was almost a token gesture and too little too late. To not legally challenge the recent legislative change is beyond contemptible for any of the organisations that 'trade' on being a conservation body.

To suggest that the onus is now on Deer Managers to continue to voluntarily adhere to the traditional Closed Season is wholly unacceptable and puts those professionals in a position which is further pressured (mental health) to produce results. Not only that as an iconic specie it will be fast tracked to eradication through negligent legislation and by the time there is an opportunity to repair the damage it will be too little too late and that is not acceptable. As an organisation, is it really all you are worth if supporting a move proposed by another is the extent of the organisational efforts. And, sadly if it is, then you've fallen way short of anything amounting to calling yourself a Conservation Body, and as has been said before are 'unfit for purpose'. It is time to evolve, redefine and act and become something close to being seen as credible, capable and legitimate.

I am aware that no organisation plans to legally challenge it. How do I know because I've asked the organisations and no one is going to. Which speaks volumes about your organisational existence doesn't it. The fact that any organisation is NOT going to challenge it (even combining resources) is beyond contemptible. BASC put more support into garnering support against the potential Driven shooting ban in Wales, than it did with Edward Mountains' petition in Scotland, and that about sums it up.

As for the reference to the HSE Consultations, I completed the first and I've completed this one. Will it make one iota of difference, no.

I appreciate you do not seem to have much regard for BASC.

I would be grateful if we could clarify that BASC did not advocate or impose a lead ban for wildfowlers.

The UK government signed up to the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) committing UK to a ban and the first lead shot ban came into force in 1999 in England, followed by Wales, Scotland and NI. Lead shot bans were also taking place under AEWA across the flyway involving many countries. Should we blame BASC for the decision of all those governments also?

AEWA – African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement

AEWA – African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement

www.face.eu

I hope you will agree, with that in mind, that BASC did not advocate or impose a lead ban for wildfowlers.

 

[tim@tcs]

I hope you will agree, with that in mind, that BASC did not advocate or impose a lead ban for wildfowlers.

I attended one of the regional evenings regarding the voluntary ban and at no time was I asked if I was in favour and the vet present was quite clear that all bullets and shot contain a level of toxicity which we should avoid. The lead shot on waterfowl ban was silly, if it was to prevent the fowl ingesting shot then why ban it for use of waterfowl on non wetland? No answer has ever been given.
The fact that the ducks sampled with shot in their gullet were dead doesn't prove that the lead shot killed them, its never been proven scientifically what level of shot is toxic causing death and furthermore banning it on waterfowl over non wetlands doesn't help them, they are dead when shot which is the point!
If the ban on lead in the food chain is the issue then let the market decide and let the rest of us who for generations have used lead continue to do so!

 

[enfieldspares]

What ‘next generation’?

Yes. I am of this pessimistic view also. For how does a "lad" get started as many did with a 2 1/2" chamber Webley bolt action .410" shotgun (or as I did with a bolt action Webley bolt action .22 RF shotgun) when clearly bismuth will be too costly and steel simply useless once the thick cup wad has taken up much of the space once occupied by the shot payload? And still no input from BASC asking that the .22" RF and 9mm RF shotgun cartridges be exempted from any ban.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I attended one of the regional evenings regarding the voluntary ban and at no time was I asked if I was in favour and the vet present was quite clear that all bullets and shot contain a level of toxicity which we should avoid. The lead shot on waterfowl ban was silly, if it was to prevent the fowl ingesting shot then why ban it for use of waterfowl on non wetland? No answer has ever been given.
The fact that the ducks sampled with shot in their gullet were dead doesn't prove that the lead shot killed them, its never been proven scientifically what level of shot is toxic causing death and furthermore banning it on waterfowl over non wetlands doesn't help them, they are dead when shot which is the point!
If the ban on lead in the food chain is the issue then let the market decide and let the rest of us who for generations have used lead continue to do so!

The lead shot ban in England in 1999 was for certain species, foreshore and certain named wetlands. Wales followed the same approach. in-between and after Scotland and NI went for a general wetlands approach (not defined areas). Very messy and that is the vagaries of politics for you. If the HSE lead ban proposals were taken up by government I think we would likely see random and different laws coming into effect across UK. Again that's politics for you.

As regards evidence ducks, geese and other bird species getting lead poisoning from ingesting lead shot there are hundreds of studies covering many different bird species. A quick search on google scholar will give you plenty to read. If you don't accept the science fair enough, it is not for me to convince you.

Lead in food chain - yes market forces are impacting on that.

 

[enfieldspares]

And still no input from BASC asking that the .22" RF and 9mm RF shotgun cartridges be exempted from any ban.