An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

My anti change rhetoric comes from the belief that it’s not ‘a natural progression’ but a misaligned strategy that backfired & inadvertently affected all aspects of shooting.
If it was a natural progression why are so few people using ‘viable alternatives’? Just look at the quantity of lead v not in your local shop.

What started as an idea to put big bag commercial shoots in a favourable light highlighted the fact lead is toxic - something that the anti’s immediately took hold of & have run with ever since at every opportunity. It may be toxic but applying some common sense puts it into perspective. Where’s all the lead poisoned stuff that should be littering the ground around me. Where have all these birds of prey come from when they’re eating all this poisonous toxic affected game/gallroch. Where are all the dead people who have died due to toxic meat?

If lead gets banned a proportion of shooters (old/new/prospective) will stop, excellent if you are anti shooting. It’ll then move onto something else to kick my enjoyable pastime further into touch.

If you wish to use lead free fine, I’ve not a problem with that, good on ya. I think with some types of shooting there is the potential to move forward in that direction. Provide a suitable round that does what it says on the tin at an affordable price & people will change - but it hasn’t happened yet (I’m thinking centre-fire)
If commercial game bird shoots are so interested in ‘lead free game’ why are they not leading the way by supplying cartridges on the day allowing a premium product to be then easily sold? Surely this would be a good demonstration of a sustainable way forward.

The trouble with Coner he’s paid to represent BASC, having any stance other than he does would be shooting himself in the foot. He keeps deflecting some of our questioning to other shooting organisations. Thing is BASC shouted this change from the rooftops, others just mistakenly went along with the flow. After all, who would dare question the fact that lead is toxic? You can’t because it is.

I would suggest that those who invest time and effort in squeezing performance out of their guns (namely wildfowlers and some stalkers) have first hand experience of the equal if not superior performance of a good non toxic load, these are the guys who don't see a move away from lead as a threat. However, despite being the best informed, they are the minority hence you are correct that it is LEAD LEAD LEAD in many shops. How do we change that? I suppose there are two options:

1. Go willingly onto something that is equally effective regardless of whether you see lead as a threat to health.
2. Try and hold ground running the risk of damage on the way, turning those who were neutral to anti.

I am not really following the running battle with Coner, but noting that I am not in the employment of BASC, I shoot game, wildfowl and stalk, I hope my comments might at least cause some to question their views.

 

[Tim.243]

I don't think you are questioning the toxic nature of lead but are questioning that it does harm. Speaking purely for myself, without conducting my own study or reviewing every study in existence, it stands to reason that consuming something that is toxic might be bad for you and if there are viable alternatives it is only logical to use them instead. Rather than seeing it as a threat to shooting I see it as a natural progression.

If I try and put myself in the shoes of someone who is neutral or anti shooting I think I would take a very similar view that spreading toxic material is probably not ideal.

If one of my neutral or anti mates asked my why do I think that so many shooters vehemently defend lead I would probably say that it comes down to two camps:

1. Those who see any change to shooting as an attack on the sport and therefore they see the only defence to refuse to adapt or budge on any topic.
2. Those who are both belligerent, stubborn and vocal.

If one of my neutral or anti mates then asked me whether I thought taking these views was good for the future of shooting I would probably say, NO, many of us are confirming an image of an out of touch community who care little for the environment or for the people who might be negatively affected.

1
You can't think/speak for me or put yourself in the shoes of anyone else (you can try but will fail)
2
What you are ignoring is science does get it wrong and blissfully swerved the 2 examples I have given you to show it does,
3
I shoot steel on marsh land as it is required so I have moved with what is required, however shooting both mediums steel and lead both act differently steel is fast but drops off compared to lead that is why to combat that drop off the HP steel is being used but the pressures it generates which in turn needs a HP proof gun.
4
Pointing the finger saying people care little for the environment then with steel being used in the future people will give up for general use of pest control, then the pests will increase as less people will want to carry the cost, (let's face it pest control is funded out of people's own pockets as very very few farms will cover the price of cartridges)
5
There is a lot more going on with the environment than this lead/steel hand wringing debate, we need to grow more food and with good land growing houses and being turned into "wild bird" cover the countryside is shrinking as I have seen over the last 64 years, locally 1000 houses earmarked on grade 2 land once that is gone no more crops on that block a 500 acre farm put down in a wild bird scheme.
6
My mystic meg crystal ball says for the future, less land to grow crops more pests to impact on them less people shooting (at) them.

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

1
You can't think/speak for me or put yourself in the shoes of anyone else (you can try but will fail)
2
What you are ignoring is science does get it wrong and blissfully swerved the 2 examples I have given you to show it does,
3
I shoot steel on marsh land as it is required so I have moved with what is required, however shooting both mediums steel and lead both act differently steel is fast but drops off compared to lead that is why to combat that drop off the HP steel is being used but the pressures it generates which in turn needs a HP proof gun.
4
Pointing the finger saying people care little for the environment then with steel being used in the future people will give up for general use of pest control, then the pests will increase as less people will want to carry the cost, (let's face it pest control is funded out of people's own pockets as very very few farms will cover the price of cartridges)
5
There is a lot more going on with the environment than this lead/steel hand wringing debate, we need to grow more food and with good land growing houses and being turned into "wild bird" cover the countryside is shrinking as I have seen over the last 64 years, locally 1000 houses earmarked on grade 2 land once that is gone no more crops on that block a 500 acre farm put down in a wild bird scheme.
6
My mystic meg crystal ball says for the future, less land to grow crops more pests to impact on them less people shooting (at) them.

1
You can't think/speak for me or put yourself in the shoes of anyone else (you can try but will fail)
2
What you are ignoring is science does get it wrong and blissfully swerved the 2 examples I have given you to show it does,
3
I shoot steel on marsh land as it is required so I have moved with what is required, however shooting both mediums steel and lead both act differently steel is fast but drops off compared to lead that is why to combat that drop off the HP steel is being used but the pressures it generates which in turn needs a HP proof gun.
4
Pointing the finger saying people care little for the environment then with steel being used in the future people will give up for general use of pest control, then the pests will increase as less people will want to carry the cost, (let's face it pest control is funded out of people's own pockets as very very few farms will cover the price of cartridges)
5
There is a lot more going on with the environment than this lead/steel hand wringing debate, we need to grow more food and with good land growing houses and being turned into "wild bird" cover the countryside is shrinking as I have seen over the last 64 years, locally 1000 houses earmarked on grade 2 land once that is gone no more crops on that block a 500 acre farm put down in a wild bird scheme.
6
My mystic meg crystal ball says for the future, less land to grow crops more pests to impact on them less people shooting (at) them.

I am not trying to speak for you Tim, just trying to understand your point of view as I am sure we are not a million miles apart. Whilst a big part of me detests forums where shooters in fight it is still the best place to discuss these issues that effect us all and will likely have a bearing on the future of our sport.

 

[Tim.243]

I am not trying to speak for you Tim, just trying to understand your point of view as I am sure we are not a million miles apart. Whilst a big part of me detests forums where shooters in fight it is still the best place to discuss these issues that effect us all and will likely have a bearing on the future of our sport.

You are still swerving that science can and sometimes is wrong. We are miles apart as I conceded science can get it wrong and you avoid replying to my question like PM question time.
Also you can split the ribs on larger deer.

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

You are still swerving that science can and sometimes is wrong. We are miles apart as I conceded science can get it wrong and you avoid replying to my question like PM question time.
Also you can split the ribs on larger deer.

Tim, I am not trying to swerve anything, I just don't really understand the point you keep making on "Science sometimes being wrong". Scientific studies can be inaccurate, misinterpreted and misrepresented. That is true of anything, how does this reflect on the topic of lead. Are you dismissing any study that reports negatively on lead contamination? Because at the same time "Science can be right", hence why I have not really understood why you are clinging to this catchphrase.

I mean you can split the rib cage of an elephant but it is'nt quite as easy to pick up if you get my point.

 

[Tim.243]

Tim, I am not trying to swerve anything, I just don't really understand the point you keep making on "Science sometimes being wrong". Scientific studies can be inaccurate, misinterpreted and misrepresented. That is true of anything, how does this reflect on the topic of lead. Are you dismissing any study that reports negatively on lead contamination? Because at the same time "Science can be right", hence why I have not really understood why you are clinging to this catchphrase.

I mean you can split the rib cage of an elephant but it is'nt quite as easy to pick up if you get my point.

The point is if the science is wrong about the long term affect's of lead, (It well could be right) but once that change has been made then it will never be reversed. As you said in bold.
Just like when you pull a shot and loose a deer never to be found you can't get that time back and we have all wished we had not done that.
I spend a lot of time with farmers who shoot, care for their birds very well from their health well being pest control and not one wants to see the change as we never see sick birds over a number of big Essex farms.

 

[Woodenbeam]

So just to ensure it straight in my head Tim:
You’re saying change is being forced upon us by potentially flawed science. Once this change takes place it’ll never be reversed.
If so, yep I can agree with your train of thought

 

[Ruger#1]

If one of my neutral or anti mates asked my why do I think that so many shooters vehemently defend lead I would probably say that it comes down to two camps:

1. Those who see any change to shooting as an attack on the sport and therefore they see the only defence to refuse to adapt or budge on any topic.
2. T

I think that in your post you miss the relevance of the degree of harm and the likelihood of harm that can be attributed to the use of lead shot.
The perceived problem of lead shot in food is easily solved by those supplying the game meat market ensuring that only lead free shot is accepted as saleable . That relies on shoots that supply the market ensuring only non lead shot is used on shoot days.
If people are deemed fit to decide whether they smoke , drink or eat processed food to the exclusion of all else all of which has been shown to have greater impact on their physical health why is it not justifiable to allow the same choice regarding the consumption of lead shot quarry which has no record of causing ill health outwith pregnant ladies and potentially youngsters ?
If there is genuine concern for lead shot in the environment surely the extent of lead shot dispersal is a major factor in determining the extent of any harm. There would be a lot less dissent if areas of high volume dispersal of lead were targeted to comply with any non lead use restrictions and as these areas are the usual suppliers of the game meat market then restricting the use of lead shot would also comply with any need to ensure lead free game meat destined for market.
Approaching the perceived problem in this way would leave those that shoot with vintage guns including muzzle loaders free rein to use their guns with lead on rough shoots where lead dispersal is minimal and any impact of such use negligible.
Those neutral to fieldsports generally have no concern for the risk to others of lead shot meat consumption if those consuming it have chosen to make that decision and there is an absence of repercussions then why should they concern themselves ?
There is a lack of intelligent thought going into minimising any risk associated with lead shot.
Was it too much to expect that our national shooting organisations ,the most vocal of which is BASC should have promoted a compromise solution that would have seen any risk associated with lead shot minimised while at the same time protecting the interests of those who took part in low impact shooting with vintage weapons,
In conclusion while you may have chosen not to follow the disagreements arising from the thread in a nutshell it hinges around the appropriateness of a salaried BASC employee promoting the cause of lead shot restrictions when BASC policy is to oppose any further restrictions.All the supporting rhetoric involves studies carried out prior to 2016 when DEFRA decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify a lead shot ban and BASC itself decided there was no evidence to support such restrictions. My contention is that the only changes that have occurred since then are political and it is up to shooters to oppose any moves to bring about disproportionate change that is not based on unbiased scientific evaluation of any perceived problems.

 

[Rewulf]

In conclusion while you may have chosen not to follow the disagreements arising from the thread in a nutshell it hinges around the appropriateness of a salaried BASC employee promoting the cause of lead shot restrictions when BASC policy is to oppose any further restrictions. As all the supporting rhetoric involves studies carried out prior to 2016 when DEFRA decided that there was insufficient evidence to justify a lead shot ban and BASC itself decided there was no evidence to support such restrictions. My contention is that the only changes that have occurred since then are political and it is up to shooters to oppose any moves to bring about disproportionate change that is not based on unbiased scientific evaluation of any perceived problems.

Absolutely, plus another conundrum I always find interesting, is certain peoples concern with lead contamination, that 'might' kill 1000s of birds, so we need to 'move away' from lead shot, then when DEFRA announces boundary lines around SSSIs to protect against bird flu that might kill millions of birds, these same people announce that we must 'fight' against these draconian measures !
Does it have anything to do with the birds at all, or is it more about protecting their business interests ?
I think its clear by now that Conor et al, is not neutral on the subject of lead, whatever BASCs official line is.

 

[Ruger#1]

Absolutely, plus another conundrum I always find interesting, is certain peoples concern with lead contamination, that 'might' kill 1000s of birds, so we need to 'move away' from lead shot, then when DEFRA announces boundary lines around SSSIs to protect against bird flu that might kill millions of birds, these same people announce that we must 'fight' against these draconian measures !
Does it have anything to do with the birds at all, or is it more about protecting their business interests ?
I think its clear by now that Conor et al, is not neutral on the subject of lead, whatever BASCs official line is.

I gave a like for that post Rewulf and hope it is not misconstrued as part of some harassment campaign or bullying rather ,to me anyway ,it is part of a logical disagreement on the appropriate way forward for dealing with the campaign against the use of lead shot which will contribute greatly to the diminishing of the variety of guns used in the field and probably the number of participants.

 

[Tim.243]

So just to ensure it straight in my head Tim:
You’re saying change is being forced upon us by potentially flawed science. Once this change takes place it’ll never be reversed.
If so, yep I can agree with your train of thought

Yes, the thing is the generations that will follow will only have their arm up against their back more and more as it will become far more restrictive. We have had the best of it but they won't know any different, TBH this is such a small " . " with what is going on but draws so much attention, the old saying "change is not always a good thing "

 

[Liveonce]

I don't mean to be patronising on this and I say it knowing I will get kick back but............... Shooting and cleanly killing a high goose is a challenge however a good steel cartridge (of which there are many factory loads) is more than capable of doing this. When I hear complaints from game shooters, vermin shooters and clay shooters I honestly cant see what their problem is. A pheasant, partridge, crow, clay are comparatively VERY easy to kill and quite frankly any competent shot should be able to do so with almost any brand of non toxic. For those who rejoice in poking at "Extreme" pheasants I would question the kill to cartridge ratio with lead anyway as nothing works on out of range birds.

3. Performance of non-toxic shot. - If you care about performance you should be shooting TSS anyway. Having done extensive testing and from experience I rate a good steel cartridge over lead in most applications.

4. English tradition of keeping historical firearms viable. - In 50 years time a browning cynergy will be a historic firearm. No one is making you get rid of it but if you genuinely care about performance I would expect you to be on a modern firearm. I bet you are not tipping up on your shoot with a historic blunderbuss rather a pretty modern gun that was made in the past 100 year.

5. End of small gauges I now do the vast majority of my wildfowling with a 410, this is on the foreshore at high geese. If you care about small gauges take the very small step to learn to home load.

6. plastic pollution - Fiber protective wads exist and are suitable for smaller steel. Demand will drive development. Aside from fibre alternatives there is the option to leave from where you are shooting with at least as many picked plastic wads as you fired. For clay shoots this is even easier. For game shooting fiber protective wads can be used as you are not shooting big shot sizes.

7. end of subsonic cartridges - If you care about performance you are unlikely to be using subsonics so I will loose little sleep on this point.

8. affordable alternatives. - Steel is cheaper than lead.


I just don't buy into these arguments at all.

I don’t buy all of your reply, I agree for some there is niche reloading .410 with TSS shot for wildfowling, where the quantity used is not great in comparison to other types of shooting. TSS is very expensive and not an every day replacement for lead.

100 years in nothing for historic english guns and yes there are game shoots that still have days using muzzle loaders as do lots of rifle clubs.

Plastic pollution, vs affordable alternatives, sorry the “cheap” steel cartridges do not use biodegradable wads be that plastic or cardboard cup types.

Subsonic has its uses especially around livery yards and field near houses, so many may lose sleep over this and was likely one of the reasons .22lr was excluded from the HSE proposal.

Probably nothing we can do now but wait and see what the government decides.

 

[Apthorpe]

I would suggest that those who invest time and effort in squeezing performance out of their guns (namely wildfowlers and some stalkers) have first hand experience of the equal if not superior performance of a good non toxic load, these are the guys who don't see a move away from lead as a threat. However, despite being the best informed,

They are not the best informed. They are a smallish group compelled by law or other requirements to use non-lead ammunition.

they are the minority hence you are correct that it is LEAD LEAD LEAD in many shops. How do we change that? I suppose there are two options:

1. Go willingly onto something that is equally effective regardless of whether you see lead as a threat to health.
2. Try and hold ground running the risk of damage on the way, turning those who were neutral to anti.

I am not really following the running battle with Coner, but noting that I am not in the employment of BASC, I shoot game, wildfowl and stalk, I hope my comments might at least cause some to question their views.

Everyone has questioned their views. The fact that you suggest something does not make it true or a sensible course of action, particularly when elements of what you suggest are well established to be literally impossible. I think that examining your views would be more worthwhile.

Is non lead ammunition "equal or superior" and why? Answer: No, it is inferior for the following reasons. Firstly lead is denser than the alternatives. This means that lead ammunition has superior ballistic characteristics. There is literally no debate over this fact. Secondly, lead is more accurate. Why? Because all leading target shooters use it. It is overwhelmingly chosen by militaries, police, manufacturers and ordinary shooters as being superior. Lead deflects less because of its superior ballistic characteristics. Thirdly, it is more lethal because it is softer and more frangible, meaning it can be designed into more effective bullets for all uses (save armour-piercing, which I'd suggest isn't relevant for these purposes). The point is that on all these scores, it is simply impossible that an alternative is as good or better. It is true that it's possible to create loads and circumstances where non-lead ammunition also kills things efficiently, which I've no doubt you have observed, but that is a very different thing to the claims you're suggesting.

 

[Tim.243]

I don't mean to be patronising on this and I say it knowing I will get kick back but............... Shooting and cleanly killing a high goose is a challenge however a good steel cartridge (of which there are many factory loads) is more than capable of doing this. When I hear complaints from game shooters, vermin shooters and clay shooters I honestly cant see what their problem is. A pheasant, partridge, crow, clay are comparatively VERY easy to kill and quite frankly any competent shot should be able to do so with almost any brand of non toxic. For those who rejoice in poking at "Extreme" pheasants I would question the kill to cartridge ratio with lead anyway as nothing works on out of range birds.

3. Performance of non-toxic shot. - If you care about performance you should be shooting TSS anyway. Having done extensive testing and from experience I rate a good steel cartridge over lead in most applications.

4. English tradition of keeping historical firearms viable. - In 50 years time a browning cynergy will be a historic firearm. No one is making you get rid of it but if you genuinely care about performance I would expect you to be on a modern firearm. I bet you are not tipping up on your shoot with a historic blunderbuss rather a pretty modern gun that was made in the past 100 year.

5. End of small gauges I now do the vast majority of my wildfowling with a 410, this is on the foreshore at high geese. If you care about small gauges take the very small step to learn to home load.

6. plastic pollution - Fiber protective wads exist and are suitable for smaller steel. Demand will drive development. Aside from fibre alternatives there is the option to leave from where you are shooting with at least as many picked plastic wads as you fired. For clay shoots this is even easier. For game shooting fiber protective wads can be used as you are not shooting big shot sizes.

7. end of subsonic cartridges - If you care about performance you are unlikely to be using subsonics so I will loose little sleep on this point.

8. affordable alternatives. - Steel is cheaper than lead.


I just don't buy into these arguments at all.

What steel shot do you use for your pigeons and corvids?

 

[old keeper]

I don't mean to be patronising on this and I say it knowing I will get kick back but............... Shooting and cleanly killing a high goose is a challenge however a good steel cartridge (of which there are many factory loads) is more than capable of doing this. When I hear complaints from game shooters, vermin shooters and clay shooters I honestly cant see what their problem is. A pheasant, partridge, crow, clay are comparatively VERY easy to kill and quite frankly any competent shot should be able to do so with almost any brand of non toxic. For those who rejoice in poking at "Extreme" pheasants I would question the kill to cartridge ratio with lead anyway as nothing works on out of range birds.

3. Performance of non-toxic shot. - If you care about performance you should be shooting TSS anyway. Having done extensive testing and from experience I rate a good steel cartridge over lead in most applications.

4. English tradition of keeping historical firearms viable. - In 50 years time a browning cynergy will be a historic firearm. No one is making you get rid of it but if you genuinely care about performance I would expect you to be on a modern firearm. I bet you are not tipping up on your shoot with a historic blunderbuss rather a pretty modern gun that was made in the past 100 year.

5. End of small gauges I now do the vast majority of my wildfowling with a 410, this is on the foreshore at high geese. If you care about small gauges take the very small step to learn to home load.

6. plastic pollution - Fiber protective wads exist and are suitable for smaller steel. Demand will drive development. Aside from fibre alternatives there is the option to leave from where you are shooting with at least as many picked plastic wads as you fired. For clay shoots this is even easier. For game shooting fiber protective wads can be used as you are not shooting big shot sizes.

7. end of subsonic cartridges - If you care about performance you are unlikely to be using subsonics so I will loose little sleep on this point.

8. affordable alternatives. - Steel is cheaper than lead.


I just don't buy into these arguments at all.

@Crunchy Peanut Butter What’s your .410 load?

I, too, am interested in the 410 load you use for high geese?

 

[Ruger#1]

The convenience of a light .410 and an easy range of 40 yards is an attractive proposition

 

[Smallholder]

@Crunchy Peanut Butter What’s your .410 load?

I'd also be interested, so make that four!

I assume plastic wadded TSS?

I frequently use a moderated .410 to control squirrels in noise sensitive areas so I'm waiting for something subsonic and non-plastic wad. Now I do reload, and am currently waiting for the Jocker .410 wads but it's not cheap for everyone to do and so I doubt many will.

Looking at some of the links posted up about lead I would think you'd get far more environmental benefit from clearing up the lead spread over the large scale shoots than stopping people using .410s for pest control.

 

[Smellydog]

I don't think you are questioning the toxic nature of lead but are questioning that it does harm. Speaking purely for myself, without conducting my own study or reviewing every study in existence, it stands to reason that consuming something that is toxic might be bad for you and if there are viable alternatives it is only logical to use them instead. Rather than seeing it as a threat to shooting I see it as a natural progression.

If I try and put myself in the shoes of someone who is neutral or anti shooting I think I would take a very similar view that spreading toxic material is probably not ideal.

If one of my neutral or anti mates asked my why do I think that so many shooters vehemently defend lead I would probably say that it comes down to two camps:

1. Those who see any change to shooting as an attack on the sport and therefore they see the only defence to refuse to adapt or budge on any topic.
2. Those who are both belligerent, stubborn and vocal.

If one of my neutral or anti mates then asked me whether I thought taking these views was good for the future of shooting I would probably say, NO, many of us are confirming an image of an out of touch community who care little for the environment or for the people who might be negatively affected.

Non of what you just makes any sense whatsoever.
There is NO evidence of people becoming sick from eating lead shot game and no evidence of shot people still alive carrying lead shot in them making them ill but you are happy to eat produce sprayed with all manner of known toxins!
Take the blinkers off buddy!

 

[Smellydog]

I bet you are not tipping up on your shoot with a historic blunderbuss

I do.

 

[Ruger#1]

It’ll be a sad day if we all end up shooting the latest hp steel proofed gun while the products of the British gun trade lie unused in cabinets because of ill considered new legislation. Yes I do know you can put steel and bismuth etc through them but inevitably many will cease to be used regardless compared with the numbers that would continue to be used if a niche was created for them where they could continue to be used with lead shot with negligible impact.