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

[Dunwaters]

You seem delighted with the thought. The focus should be on whether such a ban is justified rather than joy at accepting further restrictions. The anti lead shot lobby will morph into the anti plastic wad lobby or other suchlike as they march on to deprive future generations of the sport you have enjoyed over your lifetime. Give yourself a pat on the back for welcoming in the anticipated restrictions ,the millions of released pheasants will thrive in the new lead shot free environment

We’ve lost this battle, it’s over, the only thing left is some minor dickering over the T’s n C’s.
That’s why I don’t get too worked up over it. We’ve been playing around with this issue for at least 40 years, but when the WHO and EU REACH came out with the zero safe levels of lead mantra we had no answers and no counter arguments. Whether you or I accept the science is immaterial, the zero safe Pb level is not open to challenge. That reduces the shooting lobby’s to trying to argue that the lead we broadcast into the environment and our food is almost harmless.
Almost isn’t good enough.
If you want to keep lead ammunition it’s not enough to keep sniping at and dismissing every single study showing that lead is harmful, you need to produce one that proves Pb is not harmful .
Good luck with that.

 

[Ruger#1]

We’ve lost this battle, it’s over, the only thing left is some minor dickering over the T’s n C’s.
That’s why I don’t get too worked up over it. We’ve been playing around with this issue for at least 40 years, but when the WHO and EU REACH came out with the zero safe levels of lead mantra we had no answers and no counter arguments. Whether you or I accept the science is immaterial, the zero safe Pb level is not open to challenge. That reduces the shooting lobby’s to trying to argue that the lead we broadcast into the environment and our food is almost harmless.
Almost isn’t good enough.
If you want to keep lead ammunition it’s not enough to keep sniping at and dismissing every single study showing that lead is harmful, you need to produce one that proves Pb is not harmful .
Good luck with that.

It’s the degree of harm that is the crux of the matter and all the studies so far presented fail to quantify the degree of harm which we are supposedly alleviating by bringing in a total lead ban.
Rather than generalise and accept that zero lead levels are a justified aim can you quantify the degree of harm caused by lead shot presence inland. Even the most biased of the research that has been presented so far fails to do so.
Exactly what has changed since 2016 ,any thoughts VSS, 63, T.eddie dunwater ? I’d be happy to hear some solid justification for the acceptance of restrictions based on strong scientific evidence.

 

[Dunwaters]

It’s the degree of harm that is the crux of the matter and all the studies so far presented fail to quantify the degree of harm which we are supposedly alleviating by bringing in a total lead ban.

You concede that some harm is being caused, your remaining argument boils down to your belief that because the extent of that harm has not been measured, quantified and documented to your personal satisfaction, nothing should be done until it is.
Unfortunately, the relevant authorities don’t see things that way. They are also perfectly satisfied with the science which you reject and are proceeding accordingly.

Rather than generalise and accept that zero lead levels are a justified aim can you quantify the degree of harm caused by lead shot presence inland. Even the most biased of the research that has been presented so far fails to do so.

I never said that zero lead levels were justified or attainable, I said that WHO has stated that there is no safe limit of exposure.

They say the same thing about alcohol, but so far theres no big push to bring back prohibition, for which I am truly grateful.

Personally I cannot quantify or vouch for the amount of harm caused by lead, either inland or on marshes and estuaries. I accept that there is a level of harm caused. You and some others reject every single paper supporting the view that lead is harmful and attempting to estimate the level of damage, what you cannot deny is that while individual studies may be flawed, the overwhelming result of the combined findings of thousands of them supports the contention that lead shot and high velocity lead rifle projectiles are harmful to wildlife.

I have yet to see a single study supporting the continued use of lead because it has little or no impact on wildlife.

Where alternatives exist, we should be using them. We should have done so years ago.

Exactly what has changed since 2016 ,any thoughts VSS, 63, T.eddie dunwater ? I’d be happy to hear some solid justification for the acceptance of restrictions based on strong scientific evidence.

If you want further “ strong scientific evidence “ to add to the library full of studies already provided to you and which you reject en mass, I refer you to the recent EU revised definition of “wetland”, I predict that you’re going to follow it, and you’re also going to follow EU ammunition restrictions.
You yourself accept that lead from firearms causes harm, however, you believe the amount of harm caused by lead use is acceptable and should continue pending incontrovertible evidence of damage at population levels.
What’s your scientific basis for doing nothing?

 

[cjm1066]

We’ve lost this battle, it’s over, the only thing left is some minor dickering over the T’s n C’s.
That’s why I don’t get too worked up over it. We’ve been playing around with this issue for at least 40 years, but when the WHO and EU REACH came out with the zero safe levels of lead mantra we had no answers and no counter arguments. Whether you or I accept the science is immaterial, the zero safe Pb level is not open to challenge. That reduces the shooting lobby’s to trying to argue that the lead we broadcast into the environment and our food is almost harmless.
Almost isn’t good enough.
If you want to keep lead ammunition it’s not enough to keep sniping at and dismissing every single study showing that lead is harmful, you need to produce one that proves Pb is not harmful .
Good luck with that.

If we look around the World lead bans are widespread. The HSE have made their recommendations to Government, as dunwater notes it the terms and conditions in the implementation that will shape the future.

We need to learn the lessons, for the next battle - a review of some sort of firearms legislation, I will post my thoughts on a new thread later.

All the best.

 

[Dunwaters]

A lead ban won’t mean the end of shooting, we may have to make some changes to how we do things, but it will settle down and we’ll get on with it.
The biggest impact potentially will be international competitive shooting. The ruling bodies decide on the ammunition, if lead is available and gives an advantage, your international shots could be handicapped competing abroad if they can’t practice with it at home.
.22’s could be in trouble unless theres a bit of common sense, so are airguns and vintage rifles and muzzle loaders.
Personally I’d give them an exemption, the shotgun shooters put more lead in the air in an hour than a .22 will in a decade.
That’d be common sense, which naturally makes it highly unlikely to happen.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

If we look around the World lead bans are widespread. The HSE have made their recommendations to Government, as dunwater notes it the terms and conditions in the implementation that will shape the future.

We need to learn the lessons, for the next battle - a review of some sort of firearms legislation, I will post my thoughts on a new thread later.

All the best.

Yes, the decision is now with Defra and devolved governments for England, Wales and Scotland as regards the HSE recommendation for a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting with a 5 year transition. The WWT, RSPB, Wild Justice and others have been lobbying for an 18 months transition for all lead ammunition and their campaign has resulted in 14,000 emails to Defra secretary of state. 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 evidencing the impact of lead shot on birds as a matter of principle on lead shot restrictions for live quarry - 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.

 

[Ruger#1]

You concede that some harm is being caused, your remaining argument boils down to your belief that because the extent of that harm has not been measured, quantified and documented to your personal satisfaction, nothing should be done until it is.
Unfortunately, the relevant authorities don’t see things that way. They are also perfectly satisfied with the science which you reject and are proceeding accordingly.

I never said that zero lead levels were justified or attainable, I said that WHO has stated that there is no safe limit of exposure.

They say the same thing about alcohol, but so far theres no big push to bring back prohibition, for which I am truly grateful.

Personally I cannot quantify or vouch for the amount of harm caused by lead, either inland or on marshes and estuaries. I accept that there is a level of harm caused. You and some others reject every single paper supporting the view that lead is harmful and attempting to estimate the level of damage, what you cannot deny is that while individual studies may be flawed, the overwhelming result of the combined findings of thousands of them supports the contention that lead shot and high velocity lead rifle projectiles are harmful to wildlife.

I have yet to see a single study supporting the continued use of lead because it has little or no impact on wildlife.

Where alternatives exist, we should be using them. We should have done so years ago.

If you want further “ strong scientific evidence “ to add to the library full of studies already provided to you and which you reject en mass, I refer you to the recent EU revised definition of “wetland”, I predict that you’re going to follow it, and you’re also going to follow EU ammunition restrictions.
You yourself accept that lead from firearms causes harm, however, you believe the amount of harm caused by lead use is acceptable and should continue pending incontrovertible evidence of damage at population levels.
What’s your scientific basis for doing nothing?

I don’t concede that any harm is occurring as the evidence to show that does not exist outwith force feeding lead to animals to determine LD50s or such like. The degree of harm I refer to could just as easily be zero as no degree of harm to bird populations inland has been shown to exist.

 

[Ruger#1]

A lead ban won’t mean the end of shooting, we may have to make some changes to how we do things, but it will settle down and we’ll get on with it.
The biggest impact potentially will be international competitive shooting. The ruling bodies decide on the ammunition, if lead is available and gives an advantage, your international shots could be handicapped competing abroad if they can’t practice with it at home.
.22’s could be in trouble unless theres a bit of common sense, so are airguns and vintage rifles and muzzle loaders.
Personally I’d give them an exemption, the shotgun shooters put more lead in the air in an hour than a .22 will in a decade.
That’d be common sense, which naturally makes it highly unlikely to happen.

It definitely won’t mean the end of shooting for me. For the type of shooting I do bismuth and possibly other non steel products will see use of my side by sides continuing and my more modern open bored over and unders are fit for steel use as is my semi auto. I’m just disappointed in the way our shooting organisations have acted particularly BASC and their anti lead shot propaganda that filled forums to influence opinion. I wonder if they will let us down again when it comes to the inevitable next challenge.
No sign of BASC explaining the reasoning behind agreeing that there was no justification for a lead ban in 2016 but falling over themselves to accept the ban now without any post 2016 evidence for justification . Equally no sign of confirming or denying any change in policy regarding their stance on opposing lead shot legislation as previously stated in their response to HSE.
Politics and agendas have a lot to answer for.
There will be many with their I’m all right Jack attitudes happy to accept these new proposals ,none have been able to state in their own words justification for agreeing to a ban other than a lead is toxic generalisation. Not even BASC could muster data to quantify any impact of lead shot use inland.
Hopefully when it comes to opposing section 1 requirements for section 2 shotguns we won’t see a similar level of appeasement by our shooting organisations and if such proposals are followed through to legislation spare us from BASC promoting the idea as being in our overall best interests.

 

[Mike L]

85

 

[Ruger#1]

I don't envisage any organisations here or across Europe arguing against the science evidencing the impact of lead shot on birds as a matter of principle on lead shot restrictions for live quarry - 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.

I don’t envisage BASC arguing against any lead shot restrictions despite their statement to that effect in their response to HSE.

 

[Ruger#1]

85

The purpose of a forum is primarily to debate issues , there would be no point if its sole function was an echo chamber. Your post defines you.

 

[Mike L]

Ah bless

 

[Ruger#1]

Ah bless

I thought falling over to ingratiate yourself with others ended at primary school, apparently not

 

[Mike L]

Rent free son, rent free. Because EVERYBODY knows why you are here

 

[Ruger#1]

Rent free son, rent free. Because EVERYBODY knows why you are here

You don’t even know why you are here yourself. I’m obviously living rent free in your headspace , zero contribution outwith childish personal remarks but big on opinion. Not worth bothering about really, bit of an attention seeker perhaps

 

[Dunwaters]

I don’t concede that any harm is occurring as the evidence to show that does not exist outwith force feeding lead to animals to determine LD50s or such like. The degree of harm I refer to could just as easily be zero as no degree of harm to bird populations inland has been shown to exist.

That opinion is a little strange.
Do you have any scientific evidence to back it up?
There are lots of contrary findings, I’d love some ammunition ( lead obviously) to shoot them down.
The zero harm claim is particularly interesting. What evidence do you have to back it up?
There is quite a bit of contrary evidence ranging from chick survival across several species to adult raptors and swans.

 

[Ruger#1]

That opinion is a little strange.
Do you have any scientific evidence to back it up?
There are lots of contrary findings, I’d love some ammunition ( lead obviously) to shoot them down.
The zero harm claim is particularly interesting. What evidence do you have to back it up?
There is quite a bit of contrary evidence ranging from chick survival across several species to adult raptors and swans.

It’s customary to provide evidence to justify change not a status quo.
The fact that DEFRA and BASC concluded in 2016 that there was no evidence to justify further lead shot legislation and no evidence has surfaced since 2016 to counter that decision is good enough for me.

What’s the specific evidence that has you believing the case for further lead shot restrictions is justified.

As short a time ago as March of this year BASC stated on this forum that they had fought lead shot restrictions since 1980 and would continue to do so. Perhaps in the last two months conclusive evidence has come to light to support a ban , if so BASC hasn’t passed that on to substantiate any reason for a u turn in policy.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Meanwhile.... the volume of science on lead shot ingestion by birds continues to grow. This time it's Japan.

Current situation of lead (Pb) exposure in raptors and waterfowl in Japan and difference in sensitivity to in vitro lead exposure among avian species (2024)

Although lead (Pb) poisoning in wild birds has been considered a serious problem in Japan for over 30 years, there is little information about Pb exposure and its sources throughout Japan except for Hokkaido. Furthermore, to identify and effectively prioritize the conservation needs of highly vulnerable species, differences in sensitivity to Pb exposure among avian species need to be determined. Therefore, we investigated the current situation of Pb exposure in raptors (13 species, N = 82), waterfowl (eight species, N = 44) and crows (one species, N = 6) using concentration and isotope analysis. We employed blood or tissue samples collected in various Japanese facilities mainly in 2022 or 2023. We also carried out a comparative study of blood δ-ALAD sensitivity to in vitro Pb exposure using blood of nine avian species.

Pb concentrations in the blood or tissues displayed increased levels (>0.1 μg/g blood) in two raptors (2.4%), ten waterfowl (23%) and one crow (17%). Among them, poisoning levels (>0.6 μg/g blood) were found in one black kite and one common teal. The sources of Pb isotope ratios in ten blood samples with high Pb levels were determined as deriving from shot pellets (N = 9) or rifle bullets (N = 1). In the δ-ALAD study, red-crowned crane showed the highest sensitivity among the nine tested avian species and was followed in order by five Accipitriformes species (including white-tailed and Steller's sea eagle), Blakiston's fish owl, Muscovy duck and chicken, suggesting a genetically driven variance in susceptibility.

Further studies on contamination conditions and exposure sources are urgently needed to inform strict regulations on the usage of Pb ammunition. Furthermore, detailed examinations of δ-ALAD sensitivity, interspecific differences, and other factors involved in the variability in sensitivity to Pb are required to identify and prioritize highly sensitive species.

 

[Ruger#1]

Meanwhile.... the volume of science on lead shot ingestion by birds continues to grow.

While the evidence of the impact of lead shot ingestion on bird populations remains static

 

[Dunwaters]

It’s customary to provide evidence to justify change not a status quo.

You’ve had evidence, any amount of it from a variety of sources. You reject it every single time.

The fact that DEFRA and BASC concluded in 2016 that there was no evidence to justify further lead shot legislation and no evidence has surfaced since 2016 to counter that decision is good enough for me.

You’re going to follow the EU, they’ve been following this trajectory for around 40 years and they’re not going to reverse.
The UK is going to fall into step too, you have no choice if you want to keep the EU as a market.
What DEFRA and BASC agreed 8 years ago has no bearing and clearly the decision has changed or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

What’s the specific evidence that has you believing the case for further lead shot restrictions is justified.

I never said I agreed with the legislative changes. I read the evidence and made my own choice. Which is just as well, we now have some fairly onerous restrictions on lead shotgun ammunition.
What I concede is that the argument shifted, most of us missed it, but REACH and WHO are dictating the terms, and the terms are hard core, no lead, no exceptions.

As short a time ago as March of this year BASC stated on this forum that they had fought lead shot restrictions since 1980 and would continue to do so. Perhaps in the last two months conclusive evidence has come to light to support a ban , if so BASC hasn’t passed that on to substantiate any reason for a u turn in policy.

BASC, and many other national organisations, have indeed been battling lead restrictions for decades. We managed to stall them right up until the REACH challenge. That re-invigorated the official side, they were handed a straight flush and they went all in.
There is simply no counter to the argument that there is no safe level of lead contamination.
Forget birds, forget wolves, forget fishes, forget people licking lead crystal glasses. With that single WHO recommendation, backed up by REACH direction, we lost the campaign.
This is the new science. Its not new, just a different take on the old science
The argument boils down to a single question, since lead is dangerous to all living things, why should shooters be allowed to continue to unnecessarily broadcast hundreds of tons of the stuff in an easily ingested form over the landscape every year?

It is no longer up to them to provide evidence to support a ban, it is up to us to show why one shouldn’t be imposed.

They literally took the ground from under our feet, the onus was firmly placed on us to show that what we were doing was both necessary, harmless and could not be done with any other substance.
No one has managed that so far.
Maybe you can be the one.