Woodenbeam
Well-Known Member
I’m much happier to argue the case in favour of lead shot & ammunition than I am large commercial game shoots.
Whereas BASC seems to be trying to appease to extend the life of……………in my opinion
An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
- Status
Whereas BASC seems to be trying to appease to extend the life of……………in my opinion
The results of a poll on members feelings ,if not all members of all shooting organisations would be enlightening, yes I’m aware that the die is probably cast for lead,whichever way it falls, but the results may indicate that the level of consultation with members over such far reaching decisions was insufficient and that future policy decisions of such magnitude should first be supported at least by the memberships. Bearing in mind BASC is itself proclaiming itself as the voice of shooting ie all shooters. It would be enlightening to see how much truth is in that claim regarding the lead ammunition issue.
I suppose the question to ask is, how many large commercial shoots insist on non lead shot, the three I've recently been on have stipulated felt or fibre wads for years, yet none of them have insisted on lead alternativesI’m much happier to argue the case in favour of lead shot & ammunition than I am large commercial game shoots.
Whereas BASC seems to be trying to appease to extend the life of……………in my opinion
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Yeah, on mine too, but 60% of them vanish into the ether every year and it’s not considered polite to ask where they all went?
Not being able to answer perfectly reasonable questions is a problem.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Without the large scale releases, just how viable is game shooting as a business?I’m much happier to argue the case in favour of lead shot & ammunition than I am large commercial game shoots.
Whereas BASC seems to be trying to appease to extend the life of……………in my opinion
From my own experience, not very, game birds don’t breed well enough here to produce enough surplus for a reliable annual harvest.
If you’re running a viable business, you need a predictable supply of product.
Without the injection of reared birds, the driven shooting industry will crumble or become so expensive that most of us can only dream of a shooting day.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
It seems to me that for a tiny minority of half a dozen SD members dominating this thread that this is not really about lead ammunition, its not even about the science, its about various axes to grind with BASC and also misconceived opposition to game shooting interests.
The CA, CPSA and NGO published statements on their websites when the HSE announced its recommendations. Snippets as follows. CA: The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK. CPSA: In early 2025 we will be setting up a working group of CPSA board members, ground operators & partners from the gun trade, to plan this potential key change for our sport in the coming years. NGO: Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe.
The reaction from the half dozen? No concerns raised. No outrage. No capitulation memes.
I have provided some science on lead shot ingestion by gamebirds in the UK and it's become quite evident that there is denial not only about the science on lead shot ingestion by birds in terrestrial habitats but also by wildfowl in wetlands habitats. And that's after a quarter of a century since wetlands restrictions came into effect in England.
As for swans not ingesting lead shot, that is misinformation, and if anyone wants to read about lead shot ingestion in swans I suggestion you start with this 2016 paper and work backwards on all the evidence contained in that paper for mute, whooper and Bewick's swan.
Widespread exposure to lead affects the body condition of free-living whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in Britain
As regards lead shot for live quarry shooting the political reality is that it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when', further restrictions come into force in the UK and EU.
During its review the HSE wanted a three year transition period before a ban on lead shot for live quarry came into force, however, BASC argued successfully for five years. We await a government response to the HSE recommendations on that and all the various uses of lead ammunition for outdoor recreational shooting.
I don't envisage any shooting organisation arguing against the science regarding the impact of lead shot ingestion by birds as a means to oppose new legislation on lead shot for live quarry shooting. The GWCT has reviewed and agreed with the science and reducing that impact is what underpins the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. However, there may be arguments around timelines and exemptions depending on what Defra announces and any of us can contact our MPs (and/or our elected members of Senedd/Scottish Parliament) with our own views.
It is also worth noting that it is unclear how changes in legislation will be brought in - will they be at GB level, or will they be by Westminster for England, the Welsh Assembly for Wales, and Scottish Parliament for Scotland. Also note that NI is not subject to any decision based on the HSE recommendations, but would be subject to the EU regulations to further restrict lead ammunition.
As regards the HSE recommendations and a pending decision, here is a recent Scottish Parliament Q&A which indicates a 'UK statutory instrument'.
www.parliament.scot
Here are some recent House of Commons PQs.
The CA, CPSA and NGO published statements on their websites when the HSE announced its recommendations. Snippets as follows. CA: The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK. CPSA: In early 2025 we will be setting up a working group of CPSA board members, ground operators & partners from the gun trade, to plan this potential key change for our sport in the coming years. NGO: Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe.
The reaction from the half dozen? No concerns raised. No outrage. No capitulation memes.
I have provided some science on lead shot ingestion by gamebirds in the UK and it's become quite evident that there is denial not only about the science on lead shot ingestion by birds in terrestrial habitats but also by wildfowl in wetlands habitats. And that's after a quarter of a century since wetlands restrictions came into effect in England.
As for swans not ingesting lead shot, that is misinformation, and if anyone wants to read about lead shot ingestion in swans I suggestion you start with this 2016 paper and work backwards on all the evidence contained in that paper for mute, whooper and Bewick's swan.
Widespread exposure to lead affects the body condition of free-living whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in Britain
As regards lead shot for live quarry shooting the political reality is that it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when', further restrictions come into force in the UK and EU.
During its review the HSE wanted a three year transition period before a ban on lead shot for live quarry came into force, however, BASC argued successfully for five years. We await a government response to the HSE recommendations on that and all the various uses of lead ammunition for outdoor recreational shooting.
I don't envisage any shooting organisation arguing against the science regarding the impact of lead shot ingestion by birds as a means to oppose new legislation on lead shot for live quarry shooting. The GWCT has reviewed and agreed with the science and reducing that impact is what underpins the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. However, there may be arguments around timelines and exemptions depending on what Defra announces and any of us can contact our MPs (and/or our elected members of Senedd/Scottish Parliament) with our own views.
It is also worth noting that it is unclear how changes in legislation will be brought in - will they be at GB level, or will they be by Westminster for England, the Welsh Assembly for Wales, and Scottish Parliament for Scotland. Also note that NI is not subject to any decision based on the HSE recommendations, but would be subject to the EU regulations to further restrict lead ammunition.
As regards the HSE recommendations and a pending decision, here is a recent Scottish Parliament Q&A which indicates a 'UK statutory instrument'.
The Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament examines what the Scottish Government is doing, makes new laws on devolved matters and debates the issues of the day.
www.parliament.scot
Here are some recent House of Commons PQs.
Woodenbeam
Well-Known Member
People are probably bored as hell with this thread but hey ho. To my other 1/2 Dozen vocal SD members fear not, it’s not just us as Conor says.
Scroll down to the comments at the end of the following articles. There are some interesting points raised in the articles themselves also though.
With your attitude Conor ‘I don't envisage any shooting organisation arguing against the science regarding the impact of lead shot ingestion by birds’ unfortunately not. Maybe if our shooting organisations had followed the actions of those in Norway……….well
Scroll down to the comments at the end of the following articles. There are some interesting points raised in the articles themselves also though.
With your attitude Conor ‘I don't envisage any shooting organisation arguing against the science regarding the impact of lead shot ingestion by birds’ unfortunately not. Maybe if our shooting organisations had followed the actions of those in Norway……….well
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
Well here's another,what BASC got so wrong was not putting such a fundamentally important issue to its membership before deciding what was best for them...a huge mistake Connor.It seems to me that for a tiny minority of half a dozen SD members dominating this thread that this is not really about lead ammunition, its not even about the science, its about various axes to grind with BASC and also misconceived opposition to game shooting interests.
The CA, CPSA and NGO published statements on their websites when the HSE announced its recommendations. Snippets as follows. CA: The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK. CPSA: In early 2025 we will be setting up a working group of CPSA board members, ground operators & partners from the gun trade, to plan this potential key change for our sport in the coming years. NGO: Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe.
The reaction from the half dozen? No concerns raised. No outrage. No capitulation memes.
I have provided some science on lead shot ingestion by gamebirds in the UK and it's become quite evident that there is denial not only about the science on lead shot ingestion by birds in terrestrial habitats but also by wildfowl in wetlands habitats. And that's after a quarter of a century since wetlands restrictions came into effect in England.
As for swans not ingesting lead shot, that is misinformation, and if anyone wants to read about lead shot ingestion in swans I suggestion you start with this 2016 paper and work backwards on all the evidence contained in that paper for mute, whooper and Bewick's swan.
Widespread exposure to lead affects the body condition of free-living whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in Britain
As regards lead shot for live quarry shooting the political reality is that it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when', further restrictions come into force in the UK and EU.
During its review the HSE wanted a three year transition period before a ban on lead shot for live quarry came into force, however, BASC argued successfully for five years. We await a government response to the HSE recommendations on that and all the various uses of lead ammunition for outdoor recreational shooting.
I don't envisage any shooting organisation arguing against the science regarding the impact of lead shot ingestion by birds as a means to oppose new legislation on lead shot for live quarry shooting. The GWCT has reviewed and agreed with the science and reducing that impact is what underpins the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. However, there may be arguments around timelines and exemptions depending on what Defra announces and any of us can contact our MPs (and/or our elected members of Senedd/Scottish Parliament) with our own views.
It is also worth noting that it is unclear how changes in legislation will be brought in - will they be at GB level, or will they be by Westminster for England, the Welsh Assembly for Wales, and Scottish Parliament for Scotland. Also note that NI is not subject to any decision based on the HSE recommendations, but would be subject to the EU regulations to further restrict lead ammunition.
As regards the HSE recommendations and a pending decision, here is a recent Scottish Parliament Q&A which indicates a 'UK statutory instrument'.
The Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament examines what the Scottish Government is doing, makes new laws on devolved matters and debates the issues of the day.
Here are some recent House of Commons PQs.
It would be convenient if as you say all the dissent voiced in this thread was simply axe grinding as you put it. If that was so it lets you off the hook and there is no need for you to confront the issues being raised. It’s far easier for you to maintain that the problem is that the posters in disagreement with your spin on the lead shot issue are simply biased against yourself or BASC or both or alternatively that posters are in denial about the occurrence of lead shot ingestion.It seems to me that for a tiny minority of half a dozen SD members dominating this thread that this is not really about lead ammunition, its not even about the science, its about various axes to grind with BASC and also misconceived opposition to game shooting interests.
The CA, CPSA and NGO published statements on their websites when the HSE announced its recommendations. Snippets as follows. CA: The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK. CPSA: In early 2025 we will be setting up a working group of CPSA board members, ground operators & partners from the gun trade, to plan this potential key change for our sport in the coming years. NGO: Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe.
The reaction from the half dozen? No concerns raised. No outrage. No capitulation memes.
I have provided some science on lead shot ingestion by gamebirds in the UK and it's become quite evident that there is denial not only about the science on lead shot ingestion by birds in terrestrial habitats but also by wildfowl in wetlands habitats. And that's after a quarter of a century since wetlands restrictions came into effect in England.
As for swans not ingesting lead shot, that is misinformation, and if anyone wants to read about lead shot ingestion in swans I suggestion you start with this 2016 paper and work backwards on all the evidence contained in that paper for mute, whooper and Bewick's swan.
Widespread exposure to lead affects the body condition of free-living whooper swans Cygnus cygnus wintering in Britain
As regards lead shot for live quarry shooting the political reality is that it is not a matter of 'if', but 'when', further restrictions come into force in the UK and EU.
During its review the HSE wanted a three year transition period before a ban on lead shot for live quarry came into force, however, BASC argued successfully for five years. We await a government response to the HSE recommendations on that and all the various uses of lead ammunition for outdoor recreational shooting.
I don't envisage any shooting organisation arguing against the science regarding the impact of lead shot ingestion by birds as a means to oppose new legislation on lead shot for live quarry shooting. The GWCT has reviewed and agreed with the science and reducing that impact is what underpins the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. However, there may be arguments around timelines and exemptions depending on what Defra announces and any of us can contact our MPs (and/or our elected members of Senedd/Scottish Parliament) with our own views.
It is also worth noting that it is unclear how changes in legislation will be brought in - will they be at GB level, or will they be by Westminster for England, the Welsh Assembly for Wales, and Scottish Parliament for Scotland. Also note that NI is not subject to any decision based on the HSE recommendations, but would be subject to the EU regulations to further restrict lead ammunition.
As regards the HSE recommendations and a pending decision, here is a recent Scottish Parliament Q&A which indicates a 'UK statutory instrument'.
The Scottish Parliament
The Scottish Parliament examines what the Scottish Government is doing, makes new laws on devolved matters and debates the issues of the day.
Here are some recent House of Commons PQs.
The reality is that the disagreement partially arises from there being no consultation with any membership prior to the policy decision being taken to initiate a voluntary move away from the use of lead shot. Had there been consultation with members and the overwhelming response was not in favour then BASC et al ,if they maintained that they were representing their members, would have had to decline supporting any decision to move away from lead shot. An inconvenience considered best avoided hence the lack of consultation.
I’m sure all the posters accept that lead ingestion occurs and you have laboured that fact over countless threads however what is missing is a measure of the impact caused by that lead ingestion and you are unable to quantify that impact. Using grey partridge as an example ,in all the various random studies googled solely concerned with partridge mortality factors lead shot ingestion is not listed.Habitat management, insecticide and pesticide use and predation are all considered but lead shot ingestion is conspicuous by its absence ,if your interpretation of its importance is correct surely it should merit a mention but it doesn’t.
Perhaps the reason for the lack of response to the CPSA statement that you quoted is simply because it is a statement of intent in response to possible further legislation. The continuous justification for a lead ban in posts that you have been responsible for on shooting forums is unequalled by any other poster ,no other shooting organisations representatives have chosen to follow your example which probably explains the lack of outrage from the individuals you mention in your post being directed at other organisations.
The fact that you shy away from answering questions directly and addressing points made in response to your posts does not act in your favour and the resulting frustration that can lead to more abrupt responses invariably countered with condescension on your part all of which only serves to direct attention away from the genuine concern posters have for how the interests of shooters are being represented and also creates ill feeling amongst all concerned.
Dave Lakes
Well-Known Member
Hi Conor, not embedded shot, they seem to apply a weighting to say that birds who have previously ingested (eaten) lead shot are more likely to be shot, and that is a big part of how this number is derived.
You say to trust the science, but the study that seems to underpin this move doesn’t make any sense to me. It talks about 50-100,000 birds, which is actually quite a small amount in the grand scheme, but also says that the number is probably in the low tens of thousands. That sounds to me like they have no idea what the number is. Couple that with the dodgy accounting around the likelihood of birds being shot and the whole thing sounds ridiculous.
The study also talks about highly fragmented lead shot in hit birds, something find hard to believe. It also talks about analysing soil on a pheasant shoot and how high it is compared to the control site, yet it’s still half of the accepted background lead amount, so surely no problem there?
I’m all for a lead ban if there is a real issue to solve here, but so far no one has been able to explain it clearly with openness about the methodology for their findings, and the key study that has been cited seems completely absurd.
No one is disputing that lead is dangerous in some formats, but this seems so low risk as to not be worth pursuing. Hundreds of people die every year from jars falling out of cupboards and hitting them on the head, but on balance it’s just not a risk worth mitigating.
Thank you for your continued engagement, you have thicker skin than me! Despite some often nasty comments, I think most of us just want to understand. It’s important that individual shooters can justify their actions to the non-shooting public, and the lead ban is one that I cannot explain to people.
“I’m all for a lead ban if there is a real issue to solve here”
The issue to solve is that it is becoming untenable to shoot living targets for fun, game, if they do not then enter the food chain and the market is apparently demanding lead free game, which is understandable. Money talks.
So either commercial game shooting has no future or we all take the pain of saying good by to lead ammunition for the majority of its use, because we cannot be trusted not to use lead ammunition, especially lead shot if still available for clay shooting, unless an olympic athlete.
The issue to solve is that it is becoming untenable to shoot living targets for fun, game, if they do not then enter the food chain and the market is apparently demanding lead free game, which is understandable. Money talks.
So either commercial game shooting has no future or we all take the pain of saying good by to lead ammunition for the majority of its use, because we cannot be trusted not to use lead ammunition, especially lead shot if still available for clay shooting, unless an olympic athlete.
I don’t think that there is a will within our own shooting organisations to put up any effective opposition to further lead shot restrictions. As far as I can see any mention of the repeal of lead shot restrictions in Norway by our own organisations focuses on the different game shooting practices in Norway . The Norwegian shooting organisation’s contention that the lead shot ban was initiated using false scientific data and relied on emotive rather than factual arguments is completely ignored.
The fact that hunting in Norway is not reliant on releasing game birds as occurs in the uk to service the demand for industrial scale shooting but rather follows a trend of low impact walked up shooting with game consumed by the hunters acts in their favour. The more urban based population of the UK with its lower connection to the countryside is more prone to a sentimental connection to the environment. When this is coupled to the perception of game shooting being linked to excessive bags obtained by few numbers of shooters commonly indifferent to taking game away for personal consumption and creates a glut of game meat on the market ,some of which will be destined for dog food ,this scenario is easily capitalised on by the emotive arguments of the anti lead shot lobby.
Any repeal of further lead shot restrictions in the UK as a result would have an uphill struggle. Whereas Norway has a back story of sustainable harvest of its wildlife we are in contrast in the position of having to justify lifestyle marketed ,artificial, commercial driven game shooting. When you then factor in politics and class structure and our own organisations support for lead shot restrictions the possibility of a repeal of any new lead ammunition legislation in the UK looks unlikely.
Rather than fight against further restrictions based on contesting the evidence put forward to justify a ban our organisations opted to attempt a damage limitation exercise in the hope that such appeasement would safeguard our current shooting practices. Of course the anti shooting lobby welcome the win and move on to their next target confident that with weak opposition they will eventually achieve their goals.
Last edited:
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
One of the reasons for going back to lead in Scandinavia, (or so I was told), was that the timber companies didn’t like finding steel shot in their timber mills.
Scandinavian shooting practices also mean that there is a far lower level dispersal of shot into the environment than happens in the UK.
Dave Lakes
Well-Known Member
So that requires no legislation or outside influence. If the companies that buy and sell game decide for whatever reason that they do not want to take game that has been lead shot, they will put a process in place. The game dealers can detect lead and take action accordingly in the form of withholding payment or refusing further business.
This works as can be seen if you take a days stalking on most estates in Scotland, they will physically check your ammunition as they need to ensure the market for their game.
The issue you’ve described is solvable through free markets. You will point to the study that shows this is not being followed in duck, agreed, but game dealers could put a stop to that if they wanted.
The places I shoot are either for my own consumption or split between the guns/beaters/keepers etc. In that situation, if we deem lead ammunition to be humane and effective, why can we not use it?
The only argument against doing so would be if it causes issues to others, e.g environmental harm. The crux of the issue is that I’m yet to see clear evidence of that being a significant problem.
Just to be clear I am for keeping lead for all.
But what you suggest was tried was it not? it was called the voluntary transition to non toxic shot for live quarry shooting and it failed badly. The motivation to make it work voluntarily with the guns and game processing industry looked not to happen.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Hi Dave, there are multiple specific studies showing localised impacts of lead shot ingestion, usually on a given species on a given site, and then there are various modelling studies and estimates for national impacts.
As threads like this demonstrate there are limitations to gaining understanding on forums because people wade in with so many agendas and rational and logical discussion soon gets drowned out.
In my experience the best way of gaining an understanding of this topic is in telephone calls and face to face chats at shows and events. Many thousands of people have also attended workshops where they can try a range of steel shot cartridges and speak to staff and ammunition reps. If you want to start with a phone call with myself I am happy to chat and go through all your concerns. Message me if of interest and let's take it from there.
The loudest voices on these threads tend to baulk at the concept of a phone call, as if these threads are a form of public inquiry with the loudest voices judge and jury.
The GWCT does a good overview here albeit its getting a little dated:
Lead ammunition today - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Here is a podcast with a detailed Q&A into every aspect of the voluntary move away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting - with lots of myth-busting:
Honestly ??
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Honesty? 33 comments on SD so far, nearly all about me/BASC, you might start to come clean and be honest about why you REALLY joined this forum because it sure was not to discuss deer stalking as you alleged in your intro!Honestly ??
- Status
Similar threads
