EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles

[Conor O'Gorman]

I believe that I've rather hit the nail firmly on the head, please carry on Conor, I have long since joined the ranks of disgruntled ex.BASC members and I am personally content to promote the cause of the shooting community as an individual.

Why won't you answer the question about the science, ie. do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

 

[timbrayford]

Why won't you answer the question about the science, ie. do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

Again you've rather proved my point, please do carry on

 

[Apthorpe]

In 2020 there was sufficient evidence for birds ingesting lead shot in the wild outside wetlands to underpin the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting in the UK.

No, there wasn't. That was the original error which BASC has continued to compound.

The evidence continues to grow. You are free to disbelieve the evidence that the GWCT's scientists have reviewed.

I don't. My views are entirely in line with their conclusion that there is "little evidence" of lead shot ingestion in the wild in the UK, outside wetlands.

There are some that disbelieve the evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands. What evidence would you present to them that supports your belief that there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands? Name one scientific paper from research undertaken in the UK whose findings you agree with.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am the person being paid to represent shooting interests here. Is your point now that you think BASC ought to be campaigning to have lead shot use permitted over wetlands because you don't think there is good evidence that it's harmful to wildfowl? Why are you going to such extensive efforts to dispute these matters with shooters when half the effort expended on actually examining and challenging the numerous manifest faults in the anti-shooting literature would be much more useful?
When I have pointed out to you that papers you have presented on here to further the anti-lead argument were deficient in various specified and real ways, you have just refused to register this or claimed that the fact papers are produced by non-expert scientists operating outside their sphere of qualification, paid for by anti-shooting bodies, use deliberately very unrepresentative samples, make statistically spurious claims from small sample sizes and then publicise conclusions which can't possibly be supported from the underlying evidence doesn't matter, that you refuse to engage with those errors and that you stand by your decision to promote anti-shooting propaganda. It is incumbent on you not only to abstain from condoning pseudo-scientific, erroneous or fraudulent claims, but to challenge them and not to promote them against the interests of your members.

 

[Apthorpe]

Why won't you answer the question about the science, ie. do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

It is you who evades scrutiny here.

eg...

Conor O'Gorman​

Well-Known Member​

Supporter

• Mar 12, 2025
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #765

Indeed we can. I attach below direct quotes from GWCT.

“Does the new evidence demonstrate population scale effects occurring in species in the UK?
No, none of the new evidence, except a paper based on computer models, relates to studies in the UK, although a number of species that occur in the UK are shown to be affected.“

“There is as yet little evidence of the impact of lead on other (apart from wildfowl and game birds) species of wildlife. There is also not much knowledge about how lead shot interacts with the environment as it degrades.“

“Is this likely to result in population-level effects in any species?
Scientists know that lead shot poisoning can affect birth, death, and survival rates in wildfowl. Because of that, lead shot poisoning is capable of changing population sizes, growth rates, and demographics” Capable but not demonstrated or proven.

This does not amount to sufficient evidence to ban lead ammunition. What research there is is overwhelmingly one or more of the following: methodologically defective, biased, inapplicable to the UK, extrapolations from small, spurious or unrepresentative samples. It does not and has not demonstrated much harm.

Yet, you have continued to insist that papers making wholly unsupportable claims (on a statistical level) are not erroneous. Why on earth you think it is part of your job to keep propagating bad pseudo-science which undermines the interest of your members and all shooters is incomprehensible to me. In precisely the same way, I am baffled by those who insist in the face of the facts that the earth is flat.

I appreciate you disagree with the science, as reviewed by our very own GWCT scientists on the side of shooting, and I appreciate that you believe they are all 'flat-earthers' and that's fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.

Here I wrote a comment on the same topic and your answer consisted of avoiding the issue, failing to acknowledge what GWCT actually published, as directly quoted, and then made a grossly false claim about what I wrote where you dismissed what GWCT published as "flat-earthism" and just my opinion.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

It is you who evades scrutiny here.

eg...

Conor O'Gorman​

Well-Known Member​

Supporter

• Mar 12, 2025
• 
  
• Add bookmark
• #765

I appreciate you disagree with the science, as reviewed by our very own GWCT scientists on the side of shooting, and I appreciate that you believe they are all 'flat-earthers' and that's fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion.

Here I wrote a comment on the same topic and your answer consisted of avoiding the issue, failing to acknowledge what GWCT actually published, as directly quoted, and then made a grossly false claim about what I wrote where you dismissed what GWCT published as "flat-earthism" and just my opinion.

I think if you read that comment from March back again you will find that the 'flat earthers' reference is yours. And you seem to be deflecting from the question in this thread which, again, is as follows: do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

 

[Apthorpe]

I think if you read that comment from March back again you will find that the 'flat earthers' reference is yours.

On review. Yes, it was....in reference to people who won't accept GWCT's views which i directly quoted to you and which you persisted n rejecting and dsmissing as just my opinion. I referred to those who insist that the state of science supports a ban on lead ammunition, when the expert, published opinion of GWCT's scientists was that there was very little evidence for such a policy.

And you seem to be deflecting from the question in this thread which, again, is as follows: do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

That, in itself, is a deflection from the question of why you're expending more effort on promoting anti-shooting propaganda publicly as either fact or representative of reality, than you are on pointing out the faults with such propaganda.

 

[Apthorpe]

(Withdrawn pending checking)

 

[Ruger#1]

Not true, the main driver is to remove lead shot from places where it is inadvertently consumed by wildlife. Human consumption is very much a secondary issue. You can personally eat as much as you like. What you may not do is continue to broadcast tons of the stuff annually into the environment where it may cause a problem purely because you always have.

As stated a major argument in the promotion of a lead free tomorrow is the presence of lead shot in game meat , did you not see the WWT advertisement in Private Eye regarding lead shot consumption , it is very much a major argument.

Unlike the scale of lead deposition that commercial shooting is responsible for the shot I broadcast annually is minimal and has neglible impact so negligible in fact that according to the the findings of GWCT there is no measurable impact ,hence my earlier comment regarding the need to address the issue by dealing with lead deposition where it is considered appropriate.

Your post however does illustrate the deliberate altering of major to main in order to then state my post is untrue when in fact it is true that one of the main arguments has been the constant referral to how there is no safe level of lead consumption and for example how consumption is not advised for women who are pregnant or youngsters.
The deliberate misrepresentation of another’s post in the best interests of then being able to contradict it does little to further what should be a discussion to establish a proportionate response from shooters and their organisations to an issue that has been politicised and used against shooting sports best interests.

 

[Mike L]

I am on the clays next weekend so if some kind organisation wants to send me some steel cartridges, I will test them out

150 will do.

 

[Ruger#1]

Lead shot is a problem for wildlife, there are hundreds of studies confirming it, lead ingestion was identified as a factor affecting ducks at population level in the USA, which is what triggered their federal ban.
Our refusal as shooters to accept that their may be a problem is what triggered the draconian authoritarian approach.
We left them

The availability of lead to dabbling duck and geese in heavily shot over ponds hardly mimics the scale of lead shot available to birds outwith a wetland habitat.
The numbers of duck shot inland with lead from the same spot pheasants can legally be shot with lead is a problem caused by poor law making. The lead shot is still shot over the ground when pheasant are the target and this is considered acceptable whereas when duck are the target it is not. Where is the logic in that ?

 

[Ruger#1]

The merit in steel shot is that it works, we know this because it has been mandated for wildfowl in both the UK and numerous other countries.

It works in my ten bore and my 3 1/2 inch 12 but was never designed for use in my Damascus barrelled 12 or any of the classic British side by sides whose barrel profiles were perfected for the use of lead shot. Early reports in the US showed barrel bulging on much thicker barrelled old Browning A5s I reckon the silver soldered ribs and chamber and choke profiles of my classic guns are far less equipped to deal with the constant use of steel shot.

 

[Ruger#1]

Why won't you answer the question about the science,

Why won’t you ?
GWCT has stated that there is little evidence of lead shot ingestion in the wild why do you choose not to highlight this in favour of promoting an anti lead shot agenda while being employed by a shooting organisation whose stated policy is to oppose further lead shot legislation.

 

[timbrayford]

On review. Yes, it was....in reference to people who won't accept GWCT's views which i directly quoted to you and which you persisted n rejecting and dsmissing as just my opinion. I referred to those who insist that the state of science supports a ban on lead ammunition, when the expert, published opinion of GWCT's scientists was that there was very little evidence for such a policy.

That, in itself, is a deflection from the question of why you're expending more effort on promoting anti-shooting propaganda publicly as either fact or representative of reality, than you are on pointing out the faults with such propaganda.

I believe that Conor would be more comfortable side tracking this discussion rather than acknowledging and respecting the genuine concerns of the shooting community.

 

[Ruger#1]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am the person being paid to represent shooting interests here. Is your point now that you think BASC ought to be campaigning to have lead shot use permitted over wetlands because you don't think there is good evidence that it's harmful to wildfowl? Why are you going to such extensive efforts to dispute these matters with shooters when half the effort expended on actually examining and challenging the numerous manifest faults in the anti-shooting literature would be much more useful?
When I have pointed out to you that papers you have presented on here to further the anti-lead argument were deficient in various specified and real ways, you have just refused to register this or claimed that the fact papers are produced by non-expert scientists operating outside their sphere of qualification, paid for by anti-shooting bodies, use deliberately very unrepresentative samples, make statistically spurious claims from small sample sizes and then publicise conclusions which can't possibly be supported from the underlying evidence doesn't matter, that you refuse to engage with those errors and that you stand by your decision to promote anti-shooting propaganda. It is incumbent on you not only to abstain from condoning pseudo-scientific, erroneous or fraudulent claims, but to challenge them and not to promote them against the interests of your members.

Well said.
If some were to move their focus away from pointless argument towards the lack of data that is able to quantify the extent of harm caused by lead shot dispersal, GWCT acknowledges that their is little evidence of lead shot ingestion, and focus instead in establishing the scale of detriment due to lead shot dispersal inland a more proportionate approach could be established to address any problems ,if indeed any exist.
But no we’d rather misquote and misrepresent in order to appear to win the argument.

 

[Heym SR20]

It works in my ten bore and my 3 1/2 inch 12 but was never designed for use in my Damascus barrelled 12 or any of the classic British side by sides whose barrel profiles were perfected for the use of lead shot. Early reports in the US showed barrel bulging on much thicker barrelled old Browning A5s I reckon the silver soldered ribs and chamber and choke profiles of my classic guns are far less equipped to deal with the constant use of steel shot.

Plenty of good steel cartridges now available that are being used in 100 year old guns. Provided they are not heavily chocked you really have no issues.

Besides the steel shot is contained in a cup shaped wad that has more than enough flexibility to work with any little constriction of choke, and the pellets can be squeezed together with minimal force. And the steel shot makes no contact with the barrel walls, unlike the case with traditional lead shot and fibre wads.

With steel you actually need very little choke.

Plenty of older guns do have issues with their barrels. That’s because they are old and poorly maintained. The fact they pop a rib or bulge a barrel has bugger all to do with steel - it’s much more to do with the poor condition of the gun.

Of course there are those who will stuff a 3” magnum into a light game gun, or stuff a high performance steel cartridge - both of which are proofed to 4 tons of pressure and then wonder why the gun has let go.

 

[Ruger#1]

believe that Conor would be more comfortable side tracking this discussion rather than acknowledging and respecting the genuine concerns of the shooting community

Unfortunately that has always been the case and while acceptable as an opinion from a fellow forum member is unacceptable by an employee of one of our shooting organisations when speaking on their behalf.

 

[Ruger#1]

Plenty of good steel cartridges now available that are being used in 100 year old guns. Provided they are not heavily chocked you really have no issues.

Besides the steel shot is contained in a cup shaped wad that has more than enough flexibility to work with any little constriction of choke, and the pellets can be squeezed together with minimal force. And the steel shot makes no contact with the barrel walls, unlike the case with traditional lead shot and fibre wads.

With steel you actually need very little choke.

Plenty of older guns do have issues with their barrels. That’s because they are old and poorly maintained. The fact they pop a rib or bulge a barrel has bugger all to do with steel - it’s much more to do with the poor condition of the gun.

Of course there are those who will stuff a 3” magnum into a light game gun, or stuff a high performance steel cartridge - both of which are proofed to 4 tons of pressure and then wonder why the gun has let go.

You’re welcome to use them in yours ,I certainly won’t be using them in mine.
As GWCT have been unable to quantify any risk to wildlife or the environment from the use of lead shot as the impact is so low I fail to see the need to change not because I feel entitled to spread tons of lead into the environment as I have always done as was stated earlier but because the amount of lead shot I use will have negligible impact as conceded by GWCT.
Rather than promote change for changes sake would time not be better spent discussing a proportionate response to what is yet another attack on shooting sports.

 

[Ruger#1]

Plenty of good steel cartridges now available that are being used in 100 year old guns. Provided they are not heavily chocked you really have no issues.

Besides the steel shot is contained in a cup shaped wad that has more than enough flexibility to work with any little constriction of choke, and the pellets can be squeezed together with minimal force. And the steel shot makes no contact with the barrel walls, unlike the case with traditional lead shot and fibre wads.

With steel you actually need very little choke.

As per the voluntary aspect of BASC’s policy on lead shot use I will choose to continue to use lead.
(Reading over their representative’s posts it would be easy to forget that policy is still the official line.)
You are equally free to choose to use steel and I have no problem with that ,you are obviously convinced of its adequacy and that is sufficient reason.
When choosing representation I always prefer to have someone willing and able to fight my corner , to act in my best interests and be a formidable opponent. I’m seeing little evidence of those qualities in those tasked with promoting shooting’s best interests and find it strange that others are oblivious to those shortcomings. What is needed is an organisation well equipped to deal with ill founded claims masquerading as concern for the environment based on non existent data and instead what we have is individuals bending over backwards to legitimise such claims and conceding ground when there is no need or justification for doing so.

 

[enfieldspares]

What is never mentioned, as far as I know, is if a control has been done to show how long said birds that died from consuming lead shot would have lived had they not consumed lead shot. I doubt that in the wider scheme of things it would have been that much longer at all.

 

[Heym SR20]

As per the voluntary aspect of BASC’s policy on lead shot use I will choose to continue to use lead.
(Reading over their representative’s posts it would be easy to forget that policy is still the official line.)
You are equally free to choose to use steel and I have no problem with that ,you are obviously convinced of its adequacy and that is sufficient reason.
When choosing representation I always prefer to have someone willing and able to fight my corner , to act in my best interests and be a formidable opponent. I’m seeing little evidence of those qualities in those tasked with promoting shooting’s best interests and find it strange that others are oblivious to those shortcomings. What is needed is an organisation well equipped to deal with ill founded claims masquerading as concern for the environment based on non existent data and instead what we have is individuals bending over backwards to legitimise such claims and conceding ground when there is no need or justification for doing so.

You equally are free to leave the BASC, GWCT etc etc.

There is plenty of very good evidence that lead is harmful. It has been known so for a very long time. There is plenty of very good evidence, some of which I have posted.

There is plenty of lead in our foodstuffs - notably cereal grains. Lead occurs freely in nature in certain places. These are in the Western upland parts of the UK where they used to mine lead - cornwall, wales, cumbria, scottish highlands. Lead doesn’t occur naturally on our main agricultural areas. Lead in our food is due to man made pollution. Shooting is the last major contributor.

You may or may believe the science. You may or may not believe the earth is flat. You may take the view that lead does no harm, that there is no evidence that it does etc. I consider these to be totally ill founded claims.

Thankfully there are plenty who do understand the dangers of lead. Indeed shooting is one of the few sectors which still freely uses lead. In all other places lead has been replaced.

I think BASC and other shooting organisations have done a good job in getting this debate going, getting the industry to develop alternatives so that when lead is out lawed we can carry on as before.