I always reply to posts that quote me as a courtesy and at least my posts don’t hinge on discrediting the poster rather they aim to either raise points or answer them. Have you anything pertinent to add to the thread yourself ?
An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
- Status
jimmer.13
Well-Known Member
At least you’re posts don’t keep getting removed chap.
Think I might of struck a nerve with the sycophants.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
If you are a BASC member perhaps vote in the elections and perhaps bring a resolution to the AGM if you don’t agree with the decision making process on policy. If you are a GWCT member perhaps ask them about the science if you disagree with their review of the science. Meanwhile we await a government response to the HSE recommendations.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC is in contact with ammunition manufacturers.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Why all the drama? You asked for proof of lead shot ingestion in birds and so far you have had UK studies on grey partridge, red grouse, pheasant, and red-legs to review. You may not be BASC's biggest fan but as a person I believe to be of some intellect you might give thought to the science you asked for. And we have not even started on UK wildfowl. Maybe a video from 9 years ago by WWT would be preferable to paperwork, this includes case studies in swans and ducks and interviews with Danish hunters and those in the gun/ammo trade.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Everyone involved in BASC - the 150,000 members - the elected Council members - the advisory committee members - the many other volunteers helping at shows and events - the staff doing myriad great work for us all 7 days a week - they are all looking out for the best interests of shooting and always have been in my experience, which goes back several decades. Maybe now its time to drop the axe and support BASC's fight for your shooting interests?
jimmer.13
Well-Known Member
If only the same effort had been expended in defending shooting rather than making a case for further legislation on lead shot use. The focus as usual on the ingestion of lead shot ,having failed to show any impact on game bird population by the low single figure ingestion rates the case is now being made using wildfowl courtesy of WWT. Quite embarrassing , what next ,joint statements from BASC and WWT ?
Woodenbeam
Well-Known Member
What’s this a ten year anniversary video Conor?
Continuing the merry go round of regurgitation? A fine example of emotive propaganda extrapolating the known toxic properties of lead shot.
I sincerely hope ‘McSpredder’ from the pigeon watch forum won’t object to me quoting his post from 2015 but it does a pretty good job of summing up my thoughts on the matter.
November 27, 2015comment_2948760
1. Why does the front cover of the Oxford Lead Symposium report have a diagram of shotgun pellets falling to the ground and being picked up by a swan? Scientific opinion in the report suggests shotgun pellets were never implicated in lead poisoning of swans. Did the publishers hope somebody seeing the front cover would (wrongly) assume it was supported by scientific evidence? Was this a deliberate attempt to deceive, or just an example of slipshod work by the two editors?
2. In relation to the poisoning of swans in the 1980s, Professor Newton wrote "These birds got their lead mainly from fishing-weights rather than gunshot." Professor Perrins said "...the sale and use of the most commonly used sizes of fishing leads were forbidden. The result was dramatic, nationally the mute swan population doubled in the next ten years." As he has made such an unequivocal statement, and attributed the increase in swan population solely to the banning of lead angling weights, we must assume that Professor Perrins carefully considered and ruled out all other causes, including shotgun pellets. More recently, he published a paper in the journal Avian Pathology, in which he reported levels of lead found in the blood of swans and stated categorically that "No source of this lead has been identified other than lead fishing weights."
3. BASC have already pointed out the absence of any data supporting a headline claim that 50,000-100,000 wildfowl die each winter in UK from lead poisoning, and it seems the figures were simply guesswork. There is one table (page 67) in which the authors brazenly admit that data has been fabricated - they took the number of swans found dead from all causes, and deliberately inserted those same figures into their table under a column heading "Birds shot by hunters". Another notable feature of that same table is the complete absence of any data obtained in modern times - some of the information was published 65 years ago, and even the most recent is at least 32 years out of date. A comment from me - and we can now add on another 10 years
4. What does this report say about the state of science in UK? Professors from the Universities of Exeter and Dundee, who edited the symposium report, have involved themselves in publishing claims about wildfowl deaths that were probably nothing more than guesswork, and have approved use of at least one table containing deliberately fabricated data. Should I be shocked, or is this the sort of behaviour that most senior academics (and Fellows of the Royal Society, such as Professor Perrins) would happily endorse nowadays? The report was published by the University of Oxford, which needs to attract students from around the world, and industrial partners for research; it might not be very good for university reputations if somebody made a critical assessment of the report and circulated it around the web under a title such as "Oxford University's Dodgy Dossier."
5. The standard of scientific reporting about wildlife and lead ammunition has sometimes been extraordinarily lax. In one example the authors stated that "The aim of this study was to assess whether lead ammunition could pose a risk to red kite..." but their collection of data was remarkably haphazard. Young kites in captivity were said to have been fed "a variety of prey, many of which had been shot" but the authors either did not know or else could not be bothered to indicate the numbers or the proportion that had been shot. They wrote: "We evaluated exposure to Pb in captive and wild red kites by taking blood samples from 125 captive young red kites.....The birds sampled originated predominantly from the UK and Spain." In other words, an unreported number were obtained in UK, an unreported number were brought from Spain, and an unreported number came were from other unspecified places. It was said that "Carcasses of reintroduced red kites, and a few sick birds, were collected" and obviously the authors either did not know or else could not be bothered to report how many of the birds had been sick when collected. The investigators were incapable, even with the aid of radiography, of finding out where a rifle bullet had entered a rabbit carcase. "Four rabbits shot using a .22 bullet were obtained and radiographed dorso-ventrally. The rabbits were also skinned to identify the site of entry of the bullet..... The bullet entry hole was not identified in a fourth rabbit." Some of the carcases examined were already decomposed, and three quarters of the post-mortem examinations failed to diagnose the cause of death: "Post mortem results and subsequent analyses did not establish a significant diagnosis in 66 of the 87 birds for which either liver or bone concentrations were available; some carcasses were decomposed or in poor condition. Post mortem results and subsequent analyses did not establish a significant diagnosis in 66 of the 87 birds for which either liver or bone concentrations were available; some carcasses were decomposed or in poor condition."
Does that sound like rigorous scientific reporting? Well, it was used as Primary Evidence by the Lead Ammunition Group, and the senior author was one of the two people who wrote to the Secretary of State claiming that reports from other organisations "...contain flaws and were not sufficiently rigorous." As a result of their lobbying, the LAG was established.
Some foolishly think by doing away with lead shot, game shooting will then have a long term future and the antis will move on, never to return. Really?
wildjustice.org.uk
Private Eye and unpleasant Pheasant facts. – Wild Justice
wildjustice.org.uk
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
It does make some very uncomfortable points.Some foolishly think by doing away with lead shot, game shooting will then have a long term future and the antis will move on, never to return. Really?
Private Eye and unpleasant Pheasant facts. – Wild Justice
View attachment 415662
No one ever seems to ask where the 60% of birds put down, but not appearing in the bag get to, or what impact they have on the environment.
Hopefully rather than “start on uk wildfowl” to make the case justifying further restrictions on the use of lead shot perhaps some time will be taken to address the points raised in the last 3 posts.
It seems that the concept of a voluntary move away from lead shot masked at least one organisations intention of supporting a total lead ban hence the disproportionate amount of time spent in presenting the case to promote such an outcome. I’m not aware of any other shooting organisation spending so much time on shooting forums repeatedly promoting justification for lead shot restrictions. It is here that BASC separates itself from all the other Co signatories.
Generalised comments regarding accepting the science of 135 years to justify restrictions ,when that science does not stand up to scrutiny and was found insufficient by both DEFRA and BASC in the very recent past to substantiate any further lead shot legislation , is quite simply unacceptable.
Perhaps an independent poll of BASC members and non BASC members separately to ascertain the level of support for the way BASC and its representatives have handled the lead shot issue would be in order and prove to be a reality check before shooting sports suffer any more losses to the anti shooting lobby. Our opponents will remain steadfast in their aims to eradicate our sport regardless of the severity of further restrictions on lead ammunition. Naive appeasement and what will be seen by our opponents as hypocritical virtue signalling will not contribute in any way to safeguarding our sport’s future. Wake up BASC further restrictions on lead ammunition is not the end goal of our opponents but its achievement is one less barrier to overcome in the quest to legislate our sport out of existence.
It seems that the concept of a voluntary move away from lead shot masked at least one organisations intention of supporting a total lead ban hence the disproportionate amount of time spent in presenting the case to promote such an outcome. I’m not aware of any other shooting organisation spending so much time on shooting forums repeatedly promoting justification for lead shot restrictions. It is here that BASC separates itself from all the other Co signatories.
Generalised comments regarding accepting the science of 135 years to justify restrictions ,when that science does not stand up to scrutiny and was found insufficient by both DEFRA and BASC in the very recent past to substantiate any further lead shot legislation , is quite simply unacceptable.
Perhaps an independent poll of BASC members and non BASC members separately to ascertain the level of support for the way BASC and its representatives have handled the lead shot issue would be in order and prove to be a reality check before shooting sports suffer any more losses to the anti shooting lobby. Our opponents will remain steadfast in their aims to eradicate our sport regardless of the severity of further restrictions on lead ammunition. Naive appeasement and what will be seen by our opponents as hypocritical virtue signalling will not contribute in any way to safeguarding our sport’s future. Wake up BASC further restrictions on lead ammunition is not the end goal of our opponents but its achievement is one less barrier to overcome in the quest to legislate our sport out of existence.
Not disagreeing there have been various campaigns, my point is, if birds are dying of lead shot ingestion in the numbers quoted, it would be the photo opportunity of the century, look how effective footage of birds involved in oil spills is in regards to public awareness, yet no piles of dead birds are published, Why? because they don't exist.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
And Conor, can I ask again, which organisation suggested this voluntary phase out please?
Of all those mentioned who have carried out the work voluntarily in defence of our sports future and the 150,00 members what proportion do you think support the way in which BASC has dealt with the lead shot issue and your personal crusade to justify restrictions on the use of lead shot ? Maybe now is the time to drop the crusade and poll the members to establish the level of support and the legitimacy to continue down the present road BASC and its representatives are travelling on.
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
Just an observation: the SGA, which seems to have tied the future of its members to the future of lead and says the alternatives are inhumane, has 5,000 members. BASC has 150,000.
Woodenbeam
Well-Known Member
A link to the SGA ‘common sense’ (in my opinion) statement
The SGA and Lead Shot | Scottish Gamekeepers
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association is wholly in agreement with the principal of seeking to be environmentally responsible.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Some of them end up on my plate.
- Status
Similar threads
