GWCT lead ban : One for the BASC bashers
- Thread starter Nimrod1960
- Start date
- Status
You seem desperate for attention. Perhaps consider having an opinion on a shooting related topic and joining in on the forum. You seem to be paying for the privilege so knock yourself out you’ve earned it .If you come up with a reasonable thread I may even post an opinion.Go on, it’s only a few quid
Scarpa
Well-Known Member
OK, writing here my views as a qualified biologist. Lead in airgun ammo is pretty damn safe. Antimony hardened lead shot for shotgunning is pretty safe for humans, if swallowed it tends to pass through the gut. Lead shot swallowed by wetland birds is quite toxic as it is ground up by stones in the gizzard. Lead CF ammo is quite toxic due to the fragmentation, just look at X-rays of tissue surrounding the bullet path. OK, it's not going to give any sudden symtoms, it's an accumulative toxin that has subtle effects. I shoot lead in airguns, shotguns away from wetlands and use copper in CF.
www.who.int
Lead poisoning
WHO fact sheet on lead poisoning including sections on sources and routes of exposure, health effects in childen, burden of disease and WHO's work in this area.
Bloody expensive rats!Get yourself an air fifle and kill them with lead.
Yes - they have been - BUT the results with ducks nesting in particular has been incredible
I dont only use the 12 - i use air rifle - and .22 rf - but have shot many hundreds on clearfell / beetle banks where its hard / impossible to with a rifle - or at least in timescale
The rats run for cover in the bramble but the thermal on the shotty sees them sat there and the 12 does the job - no hitting sticks - brambles etc
What a melt.You seem desperate for attention. Perhaps consider having an opinion on a shooting related topic and joining in on the forum. You seem to be paying for the privilege so knock yourself out you’ve earned it .If you come up with a reasonable thread I may even post an opinion.
TBH I have quite a few steel carts left from my early trials with them. Maybe ok on rats but they were exceptionally poor on ducks
Many many many years ago we shot a few duck on a fairly large lake and we all had to use steel - and TBH they were terrible - i still have some of them - and they are still shocking and they are plas wads - i use them if im shooting rats round our cabins so i can actually pick the wads up - and i do
When BASC then came knocking many moons later to show how steel had changed i was very sceptical - i although i organised it with them - did not even shoot the steel - However as times changed and we did another event and then another and i saw how clays were smashed with it - i tried it - then i tried it on rats / pigeon - and eventually game - Honestly in my opinion most people would be hard pressed to tell any difference
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Not in my 20 bore they won't!
I think you are overpaying for the use you get from the forum no comment on my previous posts content though , I thought it unlikely.
Rather than clutter up a thread why don’t you continue the insults via pm , knock yourself out. It’ll fill your evening and I’m quite happy to let you unload and get rid of all that pent up anger, you might even feel that better after it you’ll be able to post something relevant worth reading on the forum.
The subject is GWCT lead ban in case you’ve forgotten/didn’t know in the first place 
Last edited:
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Its just Conor trying to side track the discussion, don't fall for it!
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Indeed, BASC has successfully argued for an exemption on the sale and use of lead airgun pellets, namely due to lack of evidence of adverse impacts.OK, writing here my views as a qualified biologist. Lead in airgun ammo is pretty damn safe. Antimony hardened lead shot for shotgunning is pretty safe for humans, if swallowed it tends to pass through the gut. Lead shot swallowed by wetland birds is quite toxic as it is ground up by stones in the gizzard. Lead CF ammo is quite toxic due to the fragmentation, just look at X-rays of tissue surrounding the bullet path. OK, it's not going to give any sudden symtoms, it's an accumulative toxin that has subtle effects. I shoot lead in airguns, shotguns away from wetlands and use copper in CF.
Lead poisoning
WHO fact sheet on lead poisoning including sections on sources and routes of exposure, health effects in childen, burden of disease and WHO's work in this area.
The key issue is the evidenced impact on birds from lead shot ingestion. As a Zoologist, subsequently focusing on game biology and grey partridge, I know that a phased move away from lead shot in areas with wild greys will help their population recovery as underlined by GWCT research on lead shot ingestion by grey partridge chicks and adults. Every partridge counts.
What we now know thanks to research worldwide is that waterbird species and many other non-waterbird species ingest lead shot as grit or seed in terrestrial habitats. This is not a wetlands only issue. The impact of lead shot on birds is across all habitats from the moors to the marshes and that impact will be reduced by a phased move away from lead shot. This has been happening since the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting began in 2020 and that phase out will continue up until 2029.
Can’t believe how much bismuth is increasing in price, Says it all when your slab of cartridges is worth more than the gun your using 
, I’m sure I remember them saying at some point when lead was first banned on the fore shore that bismuth would eventually be the same price as lead.
fieldsportschannel.tv
, I’m sure I remember them saying at some point when lead was first banned on the fore shore that bismuth would eventually be the same price as lead.
Massive majority against lead ammo ban
The world of shooting does not want a lead ammo ban. Look into it more carefully and a complex picture emerges. Charlie Jacoby talks to Warter Priory headkeeper Frank Croft, who banned lead on his shoot in 2021, pigeon shooters Geoff Garrod and José Souto who have moved over to steel, Simon...
fieldsportschannel.tv
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks, but do you think that the evidence for those dabbling duck was sufficient to warrant your cessation of lead shot use for the wetlands you shoot over? Where are the bodies? Which studies convinced you of this impact on dabbling duck, or was it taken on trust from reports on the science and/or reasonable assumptions? Or as you put it, should there be "evidence of proper systematic investigation that looks at the claims of harm, assesses their plausibility and severity, and proposes proportionate measures to mitigate them" for these dabbling duck?
In light of the so far failed voluntary move away from lead shot ,despite your continued support for further lead shot restrictions in your back catalogue of posts ,perhaps it would be in members best interests if instead of continuing to make the case for those restrictions you chose to devote at least equal time on working to secure exemptions for shooting practices that entail minimal risk to the environment.
Your latest posts seem a little self indulgent and arguably reflect a personal crusade rather than working on the behalf of shooters with concerns regarding the future of shooting sports. It would seem more appropriate now that further lead shot restrictions loom over us to focus on informing forum members of the arguments being made for the exclusion of clay pigeon shooting from any proposed new legislation but perhaps that is of lesser concern given your preoccupation with partridge chicks and the accompanying minefields of lead.
Last edited:
Nimrod1960
Well-Known Member
Just popped up from under the tin hat, having started the thread.
As usual VSS makes valid points.
I regularly see things and people on driven shoots I find loathsome.
I have shot on all sorts from casual walk arounds to 1000+ corporate slaughters
.These days 8 x125 days is more than enough and if it wasnt for the dogs and the social side I would rather stalk (sit in a high seat
) I particularly dislike those who have no appreciation of the graft on “the other side of the hedge” and suddenly have an opinion on all aspects of shooting.
VSS has a point about our bubble not understanding the real world. Ours is a relatively small world and many in it ignore or wont understand the reality of the (IL) liberal urban puplic sector , quangocrat, lawyer elite that currently runs our lives.
This is the reality and in this context BASC IMHO do a pretty good job.
We could all howl at the moon but the moon aint going away anytime soon.
It was a long time ago. I was more trusting. Possibly I was wrong. In any case, at the time the restriction seemed proportionate, and the notion that birds might pick up pellets while filtering mud, grind them in their gizzards, and thereby take on a harmful dose of lead seemed plausible.
It would be most interesting to know whether subsequent studies indicated that the restriction on using lead (which I believe was widely respected on foreshore and marsh) did any good. Was an increase in wildfowl numbers recorded? Did anyone check? Or was it actually pointless do-goodery? With hindsight, it is hard not to suspect the latter.
In any case, on reflection I applaud your scepticism, I just wish it were directed at the anti-lead yarn-spinners rather than at members of the shooting community who are going to have to swallow not only increased constraints and costs, but also a pack of lies into the bargain.
The opponents of lead projectiles -scientists included - clearly set out to prove harms, and designed and reported their experiments accordingly, selecting and spinning, and offering bogus statistics and false analogies to the press. There was no scientific "debate", and no push-back in the media questioning the scope and bias of the science.
As an example of this, a couple of years back I listened to an extraordinarily skewed piece about the supposed harms of lead projectiles on BBC R4's Inside Science in which the researchers presenting their latest work offered a string of suspect claims that were never once questioned by the chair. This opened my eyes to the fact that the programme is just a loosely-curated shop window for grant-seekers that has not the least interest in probing the validity of the work it reports.
Silly me, you may say, and you would be right. And yes, I did write to the programme producers to express my concerns, and naturally I received a template reply of the "thankyou for contacting us but we don't care so go away" type I should have expected.
Anyway, our strong disagreement on this aside, would you mind having a go at getting a waiver for antique guns (anything black powder and low-pressure, basically)? These seem to have been forgotten about, perhaps on the basis of their statistical insignificance - which, along with the lack of substitute projectiles - is a good reason for exempting them. That would at least be a scintilla of good news amid the lowering gloom.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Trust is the issue alright - or lack of trust in science. None of us is expected to trawl through reams of research papers to determine the balance of probabilities - that's the scientists' jobs - and for us the GWCT has done that and I for one trust their judgement that lead shot impacts on birds are much wider than just in wetlands. The other thing is denial. Many wildfowlers were in denial about the science back then - not because they reviewed the science but because of the implications having to move away from lead shot - and I understand that there was a 3 year voluntary transition leading up to the 1999 lead shot regs. Wildfowlers found alternatives, it was not without its challenges at the time, and now two decades later there is some irony that the science on wetlands is now accepted without question by most wildfowlers. That is because they have been successfully using alternatives to lead shot. Here we are again. Denial of the science on the impacts of lead shot by a wider cohort of shooters - move forward 10 years from now and new shooters coming in will wonder what all the fuss was about. The same happened in Denmark, in Holland, in the USA and so on.
As regards historic and muzzle loading firearms, the Government’s initial statement last week said: “As part of the restrictions, there will be exemptions in place for the military, police, elite athletes, outdoor target shooting ranges with risk management measures in place, museum collections and other minor uses.”
There was recently a parliamentary question in the House of Commons asking about a “derogation for vintage firearms that cannot safely use alternatives to lead shot in the proposed lead shot ban”
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-30/49526
The 'other minor uses' reference may provide an opening to argue for exemptions for some vintage guns to be used for live quarry and target shooting and in the EU an exemption has already been written into a draft regulation to further restrict the use and sale of lead ammunition as follows:
32. By way of derogation, paragraphs 21 and 22, paragraph 24, point (a), and paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 shall not apply to the use and placing on the market of gunshot, or to the use of bullets, for muzzle-loading guns and historic firearms, including their modern replicas.
The draft regulation explanatory text says that “The Commission considers it appropriate to allow derogations from the restriction for lead ammunition fired from historic firearms (such as muzzle loaders or breechloading guns) and their modern replicas, because there is no suitable alternative ammunition that would not risk irreparably damaging them. In addition, RAC recognised that their use is limited in volume and that the impact of the derogation on overall risk reduction would therefore be low”.
Whether such an exemptions to next years regulations for England, Wales and Scotland will be lobbied for I don't know, but I understand it will be discussed by the British Shooting Sports Council, which Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain are members of.
Also, standard steel loads and steel shot are being experimented with on many vintage and muzzle loading guns, dispelling many myths, and the advice and understanding around this may change between now and 2029 as well as availability of non-lead shot options other than bismuth.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
"Trust is the issue alright" Precisely!
A clear argument for banning shooting grey partridges altogether. Nice work!
That is a set of claims which go considerably further than can be scientifically sustained on the evidence presented to date and it deviates from GWCT's published opinion - a body you acknowledge as being more expert on the subject than you. You repeatedly refused to accept GWCT's conclusions on the matter and acknowledge your own denials of science. There's my opinion as a zoologist.
- Status
Similar threads
