GWCT lead ban : One for the BASC bashers

[countrryboy]

I think these studies on alcohol are far more recent than the fact that lead has no safe level so maybe

So ur telling me even radiation, nuclear power has a 'safe limit' but the lead pipe that brings u ur drinking water supply and sonething people have been using to hunt for hundreds of years is now so dangerous it has no safe limits?
Im not saying we shoild be swallowing lead on purpose but just like the HH/BoP persecution, muirburn, blue hare, hell even the GL they are being used as a political weapon to attack shooting nothing more.
U think packh am and co care about the health and well being of shooters who they regard as murdering pyscos

This should never have got anywhere like this far.

IF and thats a pretty big IF theyre is a massive untapped market for non toxic shot game game dealers would of insisted on it years ago.
Any commercial shoots supplying the dealer must use non toxic.
As ive said a shoot i pick up for done it a few years back as game dealer told them to.
No expert panels, no groups, wasted money.
All it took, 1 phone call Hello mr keeper, u still want us to take ur game next season? Yes, well were going 100% non toxic shot. Have a think and let me know.
In my area not that many game dealers.
This shoot has always supplied cartridges so now supplies non toxic instead.
Job done no drama.
Wee diy shoots can do as they please.
Yes they might still be firing lead shot but on many wee shoots a big day might only be 100 shots between everyone.over the whole day
1 gun will fire that on a drive on a commercial shoot often fire twice that per drive.

 

[Chris Richardson]

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

Have you found me anything ?

 

[Chris Richardson]

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! )

But they haven’t Tim that’s the crux of it

 

[Liveonce]

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! )

if only

I have never said moving away from lead, especially lead shot is not the right thing to do, but it’s the constant rhetoric
from some over five years that steel shot meets our needs, if not use Bismuth.

If they were honest and say yes bismuth is stupidly expensive for all but a few to use and steel shot has significant limitations but is much more affordable and hence the only logical substitute for lead then possibly they would get more respect and support.

If anybody comes up with your suggestion an alternative shot that is a direct replacement to lead in always at the same price as lead they will make a fortune

 

[Apthorpe]

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?

Obviously not. 99%+ of people would already have changed over.

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! )

Obviously not. Nobody unhappy with this state of affairs is unhappy because they want to use toxic material in preference to equivalent alternatives. Thry are unhappy at being forced into either inferior or significantly more expensive alternatives, or having their guns rendered useless - many of which are irreplaceable or very expensive to replace.

 

[countrryboy]

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...

I agree with everthing u have said above.
But

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

The science is the exact same for wildfowl wether inland or coastal.
The scottish legislation was better as it was to do with where ur spent shot landed not the species ur shooting.
U are correct if ur driving the ducks and shot falling on a dry field/wood,
But too be able to shoot a pheasant with 1 barrel and a duck with the other and only 1 barrel should be non toxic is crazy.
But equally in scotland if u were driving pheasants over a wetland u should be using non toxic.
Which atleast does agree with the science.

I vaguely mind a study back from 30yrs ago ( well would be 30 yrs ago when i read it, so older) Magpie geese i think in a certain lake in Oz. They were suffering massive losses due to lead as the seed/feed the geese were feeding on was the exact same size as the shot they were being shot with.
So geese were actively dabbling and selecting the shot thinking it was food.

But in many cases the issue was the gizzard being jam packed with shot and so no room for food so they were starving to death not dying throu lead asorbtion.
I cant see how using steel completely solves this issue if it does at all.
Possibly the increased shot size may help if their not actively selecting that size but it equally it could also make it worse.
And the fact its less dense and larger probably means it will be available for longer as less likely to sink into the silt out off dabbling depth.

 

[Selous]

Yet for all that science not one study showing eating lead shot game causes illness

I’ll just leave this list here for you to read. Have a look at the risks to human health section.

Resources – Lead Ammunition Group

 

[jimmer.13]

 

[jall55]

Have you found me anything ?

Can you read ?
Look at GWCT website - i said im no whizz at copying links etc - and as i conceded yesterday if you read it - the explicit statement that lead shot kills people i would imagine will be lacking - but please we cant argue that lead is toxic surely - and no amount is "safe "

 

[jall55]

So ur telling me even radiation, nuclear power has a 'safe limit' but the lead pipe that brings u ur drinking water supply and sonething people have been using to hunt for hundreds of years is now so dangerous it has no safe limits?
Im not saying we shoild be swallowing lead on purpose but just like the HH/BoP persecution, muirburn, blue hare, hell even the GL they are being used as a political weapon to attack shooting nothing more.
U think packh am and co care about the health and well being of shooters who they regard as murdering pyscos

This should never have got anywhere like this far.

IF and thats a pretty big IF theyre is a massive untapped market for non toxic shot game game dealers would of insisted on it years ago.
Any commercial shoots supplying the dealer must use non toxic.
As ive said a shoot i pick up for done it a few years back as game dealer told them to.
No expert panels, no groups, wasted money.
All it took, 1 phone call Hello mr keeper, u still want us to take ur game next season? Yes, well were going 100% non toxic shot. Have a think and let me know.
In my area not that many game dealers.
This shoot has always supplied cartridges so now supplies non toxic instead.
Job done no drama.
Wee diy shoots can do as they please.
Yes they might still be firing lead shot but on many wee shoots a big day might only be 100 shots between everyone.over the whole day
1 gun will fire that on a drive on a commercial shoot often fire twice that per drive.

Well radiation is all round us for a kick off - its something we cannot do anything about

It is well understood fact that lead is a toxic poison - i have no issue eating game shot with it because i believe it passes through perhaps before damage is caused - but who really knows

 

[Apthorpe]

Can you read ?
Look at GWCT website - i said im no whizz at copying links etc - and as i conceded yesterday if you read it - the explicit statement that lead shot kills people i would imagine will be lacking - but please we cant argue that lead is toxic surely - and no amount is "safe "

GWCT website does not contain any claim that a human has been made ill by eating lead-shot game. For very good reason.

The argument that lead is toxic and no amount is "safe" justifies banning lead ammunition is a complete logical failure. By the same token, there is a much stronger case to ban air travel because people falling from height are known to usually to injured or killed.

 

[jall55]

GWCT website does not contain any claim that a human has been made ill by eating lead-shot game. For very good reason.

The argument that lead is toxic and no amount is "safe" justifies banning lead ammunition is a complete logical failure. By the same token, there is a much stronger case to ban air travel because people falling from height are known to usually to injured or killed.

Not really - the goal with air travel is not to fall from height
Eating lead - or should i say actually ingestion of lead is toxic and has no safe limit - according to scientists

 

[jall55]

GWCT website does not contain any claim that a human has been made ill by eating lead-shot game. For very good reason.

The argument that lead is toxic and no amount is "safe" justifies banning lead ammunition is a complete logical failure. By the same token, there is a much stronger case to ban air travel because people falling from height are known to usually to injured or killed.

Its a link from GWCT website to Food standards agency actually

 

[Apthorpe]

Its a link from GWCT website to Food standards agency actually

There is still no evidence of anyone having ever become ill or dying from eating lead-shot game. That is an established fact.

 

[jall55]

There is still no evidence of anyone having ever become ill or dying from eating lead-shot game. That is an established fact.

According to WHO circa 1 million people die each year from lead exposure - so maybe eating it is storing up health problems for us later in life ?

 

[Apthorpe]

Not really - the goal with air travel is not to fall from height

In the same way as the goal with eating game is to have a meal.

Eating lead - or should i say actually ingestion of lead is toxic and has no safe limit - according to scientists

That is a very different claim to the claim that eating lead-shot meat is dangerous or even has a material risk of harm.
The mistake is to believe that if something has no safe limit, then any quantity of it is dangerous. That is a categorical error. More importantly, it is not a sane justification for banning it.

Try as you like, the lead ban on ammunition has not arisen because of the toxicity of lead. This is why other greater routes of exposure to lead are not being banned. It is because of anti-shooting activism.

 

[enfieldspares]

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! )

Erm. We know the answer to that everytime we open our gun cabinet and reach for our shotguns. That's my view on the OP's question.

But like the famed "spaniel without its ears" there would be some that would still be clinging to their hammer guns whilst all others had gone to hammerless ejectors and some, that could afford it, to easy opening hammerless ejectors! Such was the reaction of some when they saw these first side by side guns with the hammers gone from the outside. Like it resembled a spaniel without its ears.

Just the same as the shooting community moved from black powder via Schultze and dram equivalent bulk powders such as Amberite to today's powders. For the late Victorians and the Edwardians were, many, obsessed with using new technology be that cars, electricty or improvements in firearms and ammunition and shooting sportsmen were early adopters (if it worked for them) of such.

Let us reflect that Churchill in the 1890s eschewed his revolver he took to India for a Mauser "Broomhandle" and in WWI took a Colt 1911 with him to France. He was, it is said, a very very open mind to many of the new technologies be it that or "sticky bombs" in the 1940 invasion scare or radar or the Bletchley computers or development of proximity fuses and beyond.

So I'd say like the plastic shotgun "shell" then yes 100% - like chilled and antimony hardened shot - if its features gave performance advantage. Absolutely.

 

[Liveonce]

According to WHO circa 1 million people die each year from lead exposure - so maybe eating it is storing up health problems for us later in life ?

really is that like the 100,000 wild fowl, find that 1 million hard to believe, however i do not dispute that lead is toxic.

 

[Apthorpe]

According to WHO circa 1 million people die each year from lead exposure - so maybe eating it is storing up health problems for us later in life ?

It is a practice (eating game) that has been going on for over 300 years. We would certainly know by now if that was the case, and there would be a large number of cases. The fact is that there are zero. You're flogging a dead horse.

Large numbers of people die from lead exposure because of occupational exposure or frankly, idiotic practices in the Third World. Even the WHO does not claim anyone ever became ill from eating game.

 

[Apthorpe]

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

If, and the question by no means applies only to you, you were to discover that lead ammunition didn't cause harm to people who eat the meat, and if it could not be demonstrated to do any significant environmental harm, would you still think it appropriate to ban lead ammunition? (While leaving lead in other foods, lead roofing, lead paint on roads, and so on all legal)