Nickb
Well-Known Member
Estimates arent fact though are they.
HSE Lead restriction extension
- Thread starter Dixie Dean
- Start date
Cumbrian 1
Well-Known Member
Surely the loss of most of our wetlands for agricultural purposes has had the biggest impact on wildfowl numbers. Let’s block drains and start flooding valley floors before we try and ban lead.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Correct, they are estimates but they are not opinions.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
What lead ban?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
There are many impacts on wildfowl numbers and providing better habitats for resident breeding and overwintering wildfowl is a helpful conservation measure. That is ongoing. There are already laws in place restricting use of lead shot for wildfowl and/or wetlands in the UK since 1999. Moving away voluntarily from lead shot for live quarry shooting in terrestrial habitats used by wildfowl and other bird species is another conservation measure. These are not mutually exclusive choices.
Nickb
Well-Known Member
The impending one that you initiated.
Cumbrian 1
Well-Known Member
Conor are you saying that the drainage and loss of wetlands since the agricultural revolution hasn’t been a major factor in the decline of wildfowl? The conservation projects today are simply a PR stunt with no real changes being effected.
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Proverbs 26:11 good old WWT! I think it stands for "Weird, Whacky Tosh" doesn't it?
Yet they find them when they die of bird flu.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Putting Bible quotes and views on the WWT to one side, we were discussing your assertion that "lead from shot is not metabolised by humans, waterfowl or any other species following ingestion" and you felt that this study:
Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards - PubMed
Sixteen-bird groups (sexes equal) of adult mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were orally dosed with eight #4 steel short, eight #4 lead shot, eight BB-size tungsten-iron shot, eight BB-size tungsten-polymer shot, or were sham-dosed and maintained for 30 days (16 January 1996 to 15 February 1996)...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
on mallard was a "clinically unproven test" as regards proof that lead shot ingestion causes death in birds due to the lead shot being eroded in the gizzard, after which toxic lead salts are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc.
Fair enough, perhaps it was a coincidence that it was only the ducks that were given the lead shot that died or suffered ill effects.
As posted earlier (you may have missed it) here is another study on mallard
Pathogenesis of lead shot poisoning in the mallard duck
Pathogenesis of lead shot poisoning in the mallard duck - PubMed
Adult mallard ducks were administered steel pellets to determine the rate of excretion from the gastrointestinal tract. In separate studies the ducks were administered 5 number 6 lead pellets. Birds were examined for clinical signs and sacrificed at given intervals over a 20 day period to assess...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
It could not have been said better.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I’m going to stand my ground on this one my friend, you can disagree with the methodology and findings of individual studies all you like, but the fundamental finding that lead is poisonous and that it does affect wildlife has not been challenged.
Those findings have also not changed over the last 60 years.
@ Conor O’ Gorman has provided you, and all the other Whatabouters? with numerous studies and examples of experiments and findings, you and your fellow travellers just as constantly reject every single piece of evidence that is presented.
You gentlemen are a cult, you know what you know and you stand firm in your beliefs. Science has nothing to teach you.
You have much in common with with the transgender movement.
God bless Conor’s patience, he’s a prime candidate for canonisation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
The base-point Conor, is that the WWT position is founded on guess work and is, by their own admission, deliberately and purposefully incomplete. Therefore, in my book, it is invalid and must be represented as such by those in opposition. BASC and others have used this unscientific and incomplete information for the basis of their own utterly disgraceful positions advocating a ban on lead shot.Putting Bible quotes and views on the WWT to one side, we were discussing your assertion that "lead from shot is not metabolised by humans, waterfowl or any other species following ingestion" and you felt that this study:
Acute effects of lead, steel, tungsten-iron, and tungsten-polymer shot administered to game-farm mallards - PubMed
Sixteen-bird groups (sexes equal) of adult mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) were orally dosed with eight #4 steel short, eight #4 lead shot, eight BB-size tungsten-iron shot, eight BB-size tungsten-polymer shot, or were sham-dosed and maintained for 30 days (16 January 1996 to 15 February 1996)...
on mallard was a "clinically unproven test" as regards proof that lead shot ingestion causes death in birds due to the lead shot being eroded in the gizzard, after which toxic lead salts are absorbed into blood and later deposited in the kidneys, liver, bones etc.
Fair enough, perhaps it was a coincidence that it was only the ducks that were given the lead shot that died or suffered ill effects.
As posted earlier (you may have missed it) here is another study on mallard
Pathogenesis of lead shot poisoning in the mallard duck
Pathogenesis of lead shot poisoning in the mallard duck - PubMed
Adult mallard ducks were administered steel pellets to determine the rate of excretion from the gastrointestinal tract. In separate studies the ducks were administered 5 number 6 lead pellets. Birds were examined for clinical signs and sacrificed at given intervals over a 20 day period to assess...
That you continue to cite the WWT position as "truth" and "evidence" and justification for your own actions, tells me clearly that your position is deeply entrenched to a degree that proper reason will have no effect on your standpoint. Regardless of the views of so many of the shooting community, you and your masters still have your fingers in your ears and are trying to shout us down and pretend we are not here. I am sorry old bean...we really are here and we are not happy with what you are doing in the name of those of us you claim to represent.
This is most disappointing and gives the lie to the assertion that BASC is a democratic organisation that is listening to it's members. In fairness I would imagine that if one takes the proportion of BASC members who are genuinely on board with your narrative (let's guess at 50%), and the proportion of shooters who are BASC members (probably somewhere between one third to 50%) it is fair to say you are hardly speaking for a majority of shooting enthusiasts. One must then wonder whether BASC have a mandate at all.
Don't get me wrong, I would hate to see the end of BASC. Elsewhere there is a lot of really good work done, although the register of competent stalkers is clearly the brainchild of someone who has had the void left by their recent lobotomy filled with haribos.
In the interests of continuing the game of Scientific paper ping-pong, try the following. It is genuinely very interesting. While trying to pin the blame on "hunters" the ultimate conclusion in the study of lead poisoning in the Christianso eider population is that it is just as likely to be from shellfish and other environmental factors and that no link clearly pinning the blame on solid lead shot exists.
This sounds like a fair conclusion and it then states that further study is required before conclusions of any accuracy an be made either way. How reasonable and how very different from WWT and GCWT/BASC who are just "topping and tailing" the horse manure that WWT have spewed forth.
Lead concentrations in blood from incubating common eiders (Somateria mollissima) in the Baltic Sea - ScienceDirect
Do remember also that you are -in continually aligning the BASC position with that of the WWT- willingly holding hands with an organisation referred to as "friends" by Mr Packham, Wild Justice etc. I just don't see that as a good look for anyone purporting to be a friend of shooting.
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
Yep...there you go...in that one reply you have reduced the discussion to an unseemly and personal hand bagging session. It speaks of intelligence and wisdom.
The delay on this is incredible. Bin the lead, move to other products.
Spear Chucker
Well-Known Member
They do not work as well and some of us do not see why we have to follow the crowd off a cliff.
Then find the ones that do. It's a toxic material and if shooting is to continue as a pastime, the shooting industry has to adapt.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
How exactly have I done that?
I’ve been polite, avoided name calling and confined myself to pointing out a common factor between some pro lead proponents and other groups who tend to favour their own personal beliefs over science.
There are constant demands for scientific evidence, yet every single scientific paper, study or finding which does not support the personal beliefs of the pro lead lobby is rejected out of hand without a scintilla of evidence to back up the claims that lead
( often just their own personal lead) is harmless.
Its not harmless, its a toxic heavy metal with no safe limit.
I have personally given my dogs a dose of lead poisoning by feeding them contaminated venison. I don’t use lead ammo for deer any more.
A falconer friend won’t take game taken with lead ammo for his birds, no responsible falconer will.
The studies demonstrating the toxicity of lead shot when consumed by a variety of game birds and wildfowl go back for over half a century and are consistent in their findings.
You may pick flaws in the methodology and analysis of each and every one( if you have the time) but the overall body of evidence is irrefutable.
(1). Lead in commonly used types of ammunition is toxic when consumed by wild birds.
(2). Some of them are pretty good at finding it and eating it, especially in the forms of lead shot and small fragments of full bore rifle bullets in large game carcasses and gut piles.
Take it or leave it yourself, but that, plus the WHO finding that there is no safe level of lead ingestion in humans, is the basis of the proposed lead ammunition ban.
So far no organisation or individual has managed to successfully dispute the science.
Many have tried.
Ok let’s get things into perspective.
How many people have suffered from lead poisoning or died from it, or likely to die from it?
How many people have been maimed or died from car accidents?
To me the big worry is how much wildlife and how many people will be affected by the micro plastics in the environment?
So which is the greater threat to our lives?
Lead, vehicles or plastics?
Anyone have figures to show the risks, or am I more likely to win the SD monthly draw?
How many people have suffered from lead poisoning or died from it, or likely to die from it?
How many people have been maimed or died from car accidents?
To me the big worry is how much wildlife and how many people will be affected by the micro plastics in the environment?
So which is the greater threat to our lives?
Lead, vehicles or plastics?
Anyone have figures to show the risks, or am I more likely to win the SD monthly draw?
Similar threads
