Surely the content of the post has more relevance than time spent as a member of the forum. Perhaps what is more relevant is my over 50 years shooting experience and my complete absence of an agenda other than a desire to question the rhetoric aimed at influencing my sport to its detriment. You may be of the opinion that your approach to lead shot signals that game shooters are great conservationists but in reality that statement is almost a joke to those who would see quarry shooting consigned to history. Giving ground to our opponents is a huge mistake and conceding that a lead shot ban is sought by UK hunting organisations ( voluntary or involuntary is irrelevant), as quoted in the press ,only serves to embolden those that would see quarry shooting legislated out of existence.
An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
- Status
Looking at the report, is there proof that by going to steel shot the number of greys will increase?
I was walking from my mum’s house in the county of Angus and counted 5 fields where greys were calling all within an hour.
I’m sure that those that stalk in the county and the Mearns will testify there are still plenty of greys about in those areas.
Is it perhaps those that look for large bags, and hence import red legs to meet those needs, require the change more than those that do some rough shooting and actually do the conservation work keeping the greys going.
I do some rough shooting, 2 maybe 3 brace of pheasants if I get lucky. I release none and I’m not aware of the adjacent landowners doing so.
So if the eggs are laid and hatched in Europe then yes.
Aye good one - marked as “confidential”BASC Council minutes are published on the BASC website and policy discussions/decisions are mentioned in these minutes. Have a look at the minutes for 13 February 2020 as regards mentions of 'lead' and 'lead ammunition.
The other item of interest is changing from “big bags” to “sustainable bags”.
Sorry but if you cannot replace what you take in this country then to me it is not sustainable!
My goodness how I envy you having that many greys about. It was like that when I took my first keeper's job. Now on a walk round to look at my few pairs I can count more buzzards and double the number of kites..Thirty years ago you wouldn't have seen a buzzard anywhere through middle England. Now they fly above Birmingham.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Back in the 1960s when research started on the potential environmental impacts of the various 'wonder chemicals' there was sceptiscm and even anger at the idea - it was anti farming, it was communists and so on. Remember the book Silent Spring and the backlash against the author? The Game Conservancy for its part was looking at the impacts on grey partridge, that came in the 1970s I think. Now we take it as fact there is an impact on grey partridge chick survival rates from herbicides and insecticide use. All the research on nesting cover, stubbles, the innovations of beetle banks and so on, all thanks to Game Conservancy research and now embedded in agri-environmental schemes. Lots of things help and hinder grey partridge. Lead shot is on the hinder side and the GWCT has reviewed that evidence. I agree there are bigger impacts on grey partridge. But that's not to say lead shot should be ignored. Every wild bird counts.
As regards sparrowhawks, an intensive study of sparrowhawk and buzzard diet in the breeding season in England found the remains of a grey partridge only once in 73 prey items from five buzzard nests and 295 prey items from five sparrowhawk nests. GWCT did some research also and computer modelling of all data suggested that, at low densities, losses to raptors would result in a 39% reduction in average spring pair density over the long term. Because shooting losses occurred before the peak time for losses to raptors, the two causes of loss were largely additive. Shooting alone at 40% resulted in a 23% reduction over the long term in spring stocks, and shooting and raptors combined reduced spring stocks by 52%. Crucially, the impact of raptor predation was greatest at low partridge density; above approximately five pairs per 100 hectares the impact was much less.
Partridges and raptors - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
www.gwct.org.uk
I imagine you would not fundamentally disagree with the above findings, and similarly perhaps we should trust in the GWCT as regards lead shot also being an issue, and maybe considering that computer modelling was used in above, it was also used in the below.
Can Ingestion of Lead Shot and Poisons Change Population Trends of Three European Birds: Grey Partridge, Common Buzzard, and Red Kite?
Can Ingestion of Lead Shot and Poisons Change Population Trends of Three European Birds: Grey Partridge, Common Buzzard, and Red Kite?
This research modelled lead shot ingestion and pesticide poisons combined in grey partridge, and asserted that this may have decreased the equilibrium size of the already declining grey partridge population by almost 20% (not including possible hatching effects).
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Just when u think u've heard it all.
Yes everyone switch to non toxic and Grey Partridges will recover!!!
Is their anything switching to non toxic wont improve??
How about climate change?
Really clinging to straws there, 1.2% living with lead is the reason they are red listed bird.
Wot were the victorians using to shot with??
U know when the countryside was full off greys.
Off the Gwct grey partridge recovery days etc i have attended I've never once heard lead shot was a reason for the decline.
Lead was never mentuoned ever!!
Or that the switch would affect grey numbers.
Also while i can appreciate in lowland arable agri landscapes i can understand why pesticides or herbicides and more modern intensive agri practices can and will have a big effect on them.
But wot has happened to hill partridge numbers??
Used to be perfectly normal to have enough greys to shoot in many upland areas all over the uk.
Sadly now none left for decades in most areas.
Why??
No change to agri practices, little or more often no pesticides sprayed.
Yet on the moorland fringe around grouse moors u still have good numbers of greys.
Ironically where far more lead is shot and so available to the greys ( and quite a few grouse moors are in lead mining areas too)
Lets be honest after the truely massive increase in vermin both legally controlable and protected, is the no1 reason.
No2 is likely the number of released phesants and red legged partridges.
Which does greys no favours.
If u want to increase grey numbers u be far better trying to take badgers of the protected list or atleast controlable under licence.
And the same with certain BoP under specific criteria, like the law does actually allow.
Did the Ngo not take EN/NE tp court for not applying the law legally regarding issuing lucences to control problem buzzards and won there case.
Yes everyone switch to non toxic and Grey Partridges will recover!!!
Is their anything switching to non toxic wont improve??
How about climate change?
Really clinging to straws there, 1.2% living with lead is the reason they are red listed bird.
Wot were the victorians using to shot with??
U know when the countryside was full off greys.
Off the Gwct grey partridge recovery days etc i have attended I've never once heard lead shot was a reason for the decline.
Lead was never mentuoned ever!!
Or that the switch would affect grey numbers.
Also while i can appreciate in lowland arable agri landscapes i can understand why pesticides or herbicides and more modern intensive agri practices can and will have a big effect on them.
But wot has happened to hill partridge numbers??
Used to be perfectly normal to have enough greys to shoot in many upland areas all over the uk.
Sadly now none left for decades in most areas.
Why??
No change to agri practices, little or more often no pesticides sprayed.
Yet on the moorland fringe around grouse moors u still have good numbers of greys.
Ironically where far more lead is shot and so available to the greys ( and quite a few grouse moors are in lead mining areas too)
Lets be honest after the truely massive increase in vermin both legally controlable and protected, is the no1 reason.
No2 is likely the number of released phesants and red legged partridges.
Which does greys no favours.
If u want to increase grey numbers u be far better trying to take badgers of the protected list or atleast controlable under licence.
And the same with certain BoP under specific criteria, like the law does actually allow.
Did the Ngo not take EN/NE tp court for not applying the law legally regarding issuing lucences to control problem buzzards and won there case.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The shooting organisations have already accepted the evidence as regards impact of lead shot on birds 5 years ago and that was and is a key reason for the voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting - the audience being the shooting community rather than the public. Whilst it is interesting to discuss the science and disagreements about some of it, the situation is that the HSE has recommended a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting with a 5 year transition period and we await a government decision to be announced on the basis. Also, the European Commission has recently published draft regulations for ban on lead shot with a 3 year transition for hunting. I don't envisage any organisations here or across Europe arguing against the science as a matter of principle on this - they will likely be arguing for sufficient time for shooters to make the change and time for manufacturers to meet demand for alternatives to lead shot for live quarry shooting.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
No there is no proof the number of greys will increase - there are many things causing mortality in greys, including lead shot. The transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting is currently a voluntary thing. However, as explained above policy developments may change that soon.
I didn't think it was legal to check raptor nests at that sort of level. Obviously these nests were in areas where Grey's were not. Buzzards tend to decimate Covey's in September, Kites take chicks earlier. Sparrowhawks account for (usually the hen) splitting pairs as soon as the Covey's break up and the birds pair. They then tend to only take small birds or part grown grey chicks, these being taken by the musket whilst the hen concentrated on adult Grey's and pheasant poults. Where you have low density it's catastrophic and with everything else after them Grey's won't return in numbers. It was different when you could deal with problems and wild Grey's could get on with breeding. This is just my own opinion and experience but probably the view of one or two more. I'm just glad I saw the best of shooting and hunting.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
As already discussed there are lots of factors that can impact on grey partridge mortality and that includes lead shot ingestion by adults and chicks as per evidence from several decades of Game Conservancy grey partridge post mortems. I think we are now all aware of the science for grey partridge on this thread. Not everyone is as well informed but in time that will change, as we have seen over the last 25 years with greater awareness and understanding of the impact of lead shot use over wetlands on wildfowl ingesting lead shot as seeds or grit. Whether anyone wishes to move away from lead shot use in areas containing wild greys is currently a personal choice.
Quick Conor, tell the government you have away to save British Steel at no cost to the tax payer all they have to do is make steel shot
oh wait it’s all imported from China.
Estimate and suggest, why isn't there a massive campaign by anti shooting groups? They plaster breasted out pheasant pictures all over the internet, with the numbers given it would be a massive win for them
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
I don't think all steel is imported from China to the UK, I think most of it comes from Germany, followed by Spain and Netherlands. Its not the source of steel that will be the issue if there is the cliff edge of restrictions on lead shot, there is a shortage in the supply of components such as powder. Military ammunition uses the same double based powders as some steel shot cartridges and the military have a priority over supplies, leaving domestic ammunition to utilise what is left. Also the production of steel shot cartridges is slower than that of lead, therefore manufacturers will need to invest heavily, acquiring new machinery to meet the demand of cartridges. There is also an issue with acquiring such machines that are produced in Europe at a rate of roughly 1 per year, and due to demand the time has risen to 3 years. These are all points BASC has been making to the HSE and the HSE recommendations to the government are for a 5 year transition time before lead shot restrictions take effect.Quick Conor, tell the government you have away to save British Steel at no cost to the tax payer all they have to do is make steel shot
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
There have been various campaigns for a UK lead ammo ban going back decades. The most recent one was led by WWT and apparently resulted in 14,000 emails to Defra secretary of state demanding a full lead ammo ban within 18 months. I think this included a letter from WJ lawyers giving Defra notice that a reply was required by 13 March. It's all gone quiet on that front for now.
Help make lead history
The UK government has passed a historic law to ban lead ammunition â throwing a vital lifeline to our most precious wildlife. Following the conclusion of a crucial Health and Safety Executive (HSE) review and a decades-long campaign to ban lead ammunition, last year Environment Secretary Steve...
www.wwt.org.uk
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
It appears you did not get the memo. Please do not try to instruct me on what I can post, not least with less than a month under your belt and two dozen comments (mostly on BASC, which is why you joined IMHO after hundreds of comments on PW across everything I posted on there bordering on the obsessive as remarked by others). To offer a mirror to your own advice above, please stick to addressing points raised on the forum rather than this tedious child-like whining and moaning. Your future shooting is safe, you will be fine, and I think you know that very well.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
You asked for evidence of lead shot ingestion by birds. We looked at evidence for only 3 species and that is your reaction. Disappointing, but not surprising. The next generation of shooters will read the recorded history in threads like this incredulously.
Why don’t you ask the cartridge manufactures, I have visited several of them, the only bulk steel shot I have seen has been in 50gallon drums had Chinese writing on them. The supplier in Germany when contacted all be it a few years back told me they imported it from China. Steve Dales of the steel shot company again stated it’s imported from China.
Not sure about Netherlands or Spain.
You need cheap labour and cheap energy to make steel shot and it uses a lot more energy and time to make than lead so produces a lot more CO2 hardly environmentally friendly is it.
Not all steel shot cartridges need double based powder, just depends on the performance required. But then all types of powder are no longer freely available apparently.
Again if the personal remarks and opening condescension are subtracted from your post there is little left and predictably no response to the points I have raised which I thought was the purpose of the forum. This thread was addressing the idea that the shooting organisations had scored an own goal in their handling of the lead shot issue I fail to see how anyone could think otherwise and the overwhelming criticism from members of the forum with combined vast experience and no political agenda would seem testament to that. What also seems obvious is that little has been learned from the mistakes made so inevitably they are likely to be repeated. What has also been demonstrated is the complete lack of transparency involved in BASC’s decision making processes as demonstrated by the level of secrecy surrounding minutes of meetings held having been labelled confidential rather than open to member’s scrutiny. Where is the accountability?Perhaps going forward decisions being made on members behalf should involve more membership input in order to reflect the fact that BASC exists to represent their wishes rather than being left to the unknown quantity that is the committee.
I would have thought that rather than whine and moan about obsessive questioning you would welcome the chance to respond to relevant points raised in disagreement as it would give you the opportunity to counter and state your case but you prefer to consistently ignore or fail to address the points I raise hence the necessity to repeat the point in the hope that it will be answered . Rather than being bordering on the obsessive perhaps if you answered a straightforward question with a straightforward reply you would have less reason to whine and moan about my repeated posts.
Obsessive much?!?
- Status
Similar threads
