Nimrod1960
Well-Known Member
For all on here who have it in their heads that all their lead woes are down to BASC!
GWCT lead ban : One for the BASC bashers
- Thread starter Nimrod1960
- Start date
- Status
They’re as bad as each other to be honest , how ever basc claim to be the “ voice of shooting “For all on here who have it in their heads that all their lead woes are down to BASC!
And the GWCT is the science behind it
Yet for all that science not one study showing eating lead shot game causes illness
Yet for all that science not one study showing eating lead shot game causes illness
A bit like on your estate - open your eyes and look mate - plenty of studies
Please dont tell me that lead is not toxic
Have a read of the GWCT before replying
In what world are the government's intentions reasonable and proportionate? The opponents of lead cannot present a single human victim of ingested lead shot - if they could have, they would have -, and even the waterfowl mortality numbers being bandied about are nothing but speculation based on extrapolation. If anyone were presenting this ban as a business case in the commercial world they wouldn't even get a hearing. GWCT is supposed to be science-led, but it's away with the fairies and UFO fanciers on this one - and worse, standing shoulder to shoulder with the anti-shooting activists. I've been donating to their projects for over 20 years. No more.
coppers toxic too my friend but folks conveniently ignore that ,
show me the study that proves eating lead shot game has caused ilness please ill wait
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I don't see the connection.
GWCT Chairman Ian Coghill resigned from the LAG in November 2014 as he felt his many years of experience in food safety issues were not being utilised by the group's Chairman.
More details here:- The Lead Ammunition Group - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
BASC CEO John Swift was appointed to the LAG in 2010, staying on after his retirement from BASC in 2013 and is currently its Chairman.
Here's what he had to say about the HSE/REACH UK proposals in January of this year :- "Heartened to re-read 2015 report by LAG, and see that the principles are mirrored in this proposal.
The LAG 2015 report here:- https://www.leadammunitiongroup.org...6/LAG-Report-June-2015-without-Appendices.pdf
GWCT Chairman Ian Coghill resigned from the LAG in November 2014 as he felt his many years of experience in food safety issues were not being utilised by the group's Chairman.
More details here:- The Lead Ammunition Group - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
BASC CEO John Swift was appointed to the LAG in 2010, staying on after his retirement from BASC in 2013 and is currently its Chairman.
Here's what he had to say about the HSE/REACH UK proposals in January of this year :- "Heartened to re-read 2015 report by LAG, and see that the principles are mirrored in this proposal.
The LAG 2015 report here:- https://www.leadammunitiongroup.org...6/LAG-Report-June-2015-without-Appendices.pdf
Last edited:
No problem - Im no computer Whizz but please look on GWCT site
Im not sure any study could be explicit saying its from lead shot however - as , as you know lead occurs in many places
Chris - copper is toxic - so is water - in fact so is everything
Its about the amount that that can be consumed before toxic effects - lead is zero
Copper is essential for life - indeed some trees are desirable - silver birch for example - as they fix copper into the ground
On that basis, alcohol will be next....
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
The risks and harms associated with drinking alcohol have been systematically evaluated over the years and are well documented.
On that basis, alcohol will be next....
No level of alcohol consumption is safe for our health
The risks and harms associated with drinking alcohol have been systematically evaluated over the years and are well documented.www.who.int
Yes quite possibly and cigarettes - except i suppose they simply bring in too much money to the coffers
I think these studies on alcohol are far more recent than the fact that lead has no safe level so maybe
Me to, just in the process of cancelling my membership.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
GWCT is science-led its just that its advice on this topic differs from your world view. It's not siding with antis its the science and goes back decades. The antis disagree with GWCT science on all sorts of studies on the positive impacts of shooting on biodiversity. Are they right? To stop donating to the scientists doing the objective research on shooting for decades because it challenges your world views is understandable in the heat of the moment but perhaps reflect, then contact the GWCT and talk to someone there before making a rash decision.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
As per comment above, why would you do that? GWCT is science-led its just that its advice on this topic differs from your world view. It's not siding with antis its the science and goes back decades. The antis disagree with GWCT science on all sorts of studies on the positive impacts of shooting on biodiversity. Are they right? To cancel your membership supporting the scientists doing the objective research on shooting for decades because it challenges your world views is understandable in the heat of the moment but perhaps reflect, then contact the GWCT and talk to someone there before making a rash decision.
Woodenbeam
Well-Known Member
Interesting comments on the GWCT link from people - more in favour of lead than against.
Would this reflect the general consensus as opposed the great & mighty who would like to impose on us
Would this reflect the general consensus as opposed the great & mighty who would like to impose on us
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Yet for all that science not one study showing eating lead shot game causes illness
To be fair why should the Gwct be studying that?
Has nothing to do with their aims, totally outside their wheel house, exactly why the Wwt should never have funded a study into it .
Just like the BDS hasnt funded a study into lead in the venision food chain.
Thats a human health issue not something the Gwct should be bothering with as theyre more about.
I could see some of the shooting orgs funded a study into health as that effects members.
Yes lead is toxic, but very very many things are.
In its solid state it is really very stable.
Hence why been used as water pipes for long enough.
It all depends on the form its in how it will effect u.
I think their was a table on another thread showing the lead concentrations off different meats/foods and game was well well down the list.
Personally speaking would very happily chose a lead shot bird or deer over an ultra processed ready meal stuffed with chemicals and additives.
Even a lab grown 'meat' never looked at the label but i cant imagine its teaming with natural organic ingrediants.
Yes lead may be a tiny risk for my health, but considering i can still legally smoke and drink amongst other things.
And with such a small % of population even eating game meat, i bet its way under 1%.
The risk they are mitigating to the general public is almost non existant in uk.
Considering the money and time spent studying it and talking about it.
Really quite amazing no safe limit for lead shot but their is a safe limit for alcohol and smoking or vaping??
Which are known to drastically shorten ur life.
I bet more science exists of people having bad side effects/reactions to vaccines than people being effected by ingested lead shot, which is pretty flimsy at best.
Connor. Where are the bodies?
"No safe level of lead" is a meaningless mantra. You might as well say that - though we need it to live - there is no safe level of oxygen, a ferociously corrosive element. Except, lead in projectiles is far less reactive than oxygen.
You - as part of an ad-hoc cabal of shooting organisations - all decided, without consulting the membership who pay you, to surrender to anti-shooting propaganda masquerading as environmentalism and public health concern, and you have been painting yourselves into a corner ever since.
You have never challenged the anti-shooting narrative on lead projectiles, or even called for more research before an epoch-making decision is made and an irreversible constraint is placed on millions of shooters (including those generations who follow us).
You are there to fight for us. That is your job... not to tell us to be good fellows and toe the line.
I will keep my "world view" as you call it, until presented with a plausible case for changing it.
For example, the case for not using lead over wetlands crossed that threshold, so I switched there... but lumping inland shoot-raised duck in with wild coastal waterfowl, as much of the current babble does is nonsense, and should properly be denounced as such.
GTG
If wonder, someone were to come up with an alternative product that performed better than lead at the same price, would we be having this discussion now? Would the shooting community still be refusing to accept that change might be a good thing, and continue to defend the use of lead?
(Probably!
)
(Probably!
)- Status
Similar threads
