GWCT lead ban : One for the BASC bashers

[Spear Chucker]

Or it could be that the membership are so far detached from the world in which we live?

Clearly no sense coming from VSS land any time soon

 

[Spear Chucker]

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.

Well said Sir.

 

[tackb]

wild ducks live 5-10 years apparently , has there been a change in wild duck numbers since lead was banned on wetlands/foreshore in 1999 ?

surely such a serious issue and draconian solution should show tangible results fairly quick ?

 

[Smellydog]

wild ducks live 5-10 years apparently , has there been a change in wild duck numbers since lead was banned on wetlands/foreshore in 1999 ?

surely such a serious issue and draconian solution should show tangible results fairly quick ?

Absolutely. I've often said how I was expecting the place to be overcrowded with duck by now but there's no more than there ever has been

 

[Smellydog]

And then the thread fell momentarily silent whilst the left sought a reply or went looking for a tangent to deflect the dam idiot that spoke with common sense...

 

[Mr. Gain]

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.

Thanks for the helpful info on the BP/vintage stuff. Much appreciated.

I'm not "in denial" about the science, by the way, I'm frustrated that it has tunnel vision and no sense of proportion.

Let's take grey partridge, for example.

Lovely things, but not a lot of them about, and mostly on shoots with really good conservation policies (because otherwise the predators get them, or the habitat isn't there), shoots that could easily (if they don't already), mandate the use of non-lead by visiting guns. Issue solved. No legislation, no cost or inconvenience to others. Something we can all get behind. Reasonable and proportionate. Voluntary.

Speaking of which, you mentioned a "voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting [that] began in 2020". I would just say that, however voluntary it may have looked from where you were standing, it most certainly was not something most shooters took a pace forward or held up their hand for. By peremptorily "volunteering" us, BASC and the other organisations dug a deep well of resentment and mistrust. The communications strategy was somewhere between "Trust me, bro" and a two-fingered salute, and yet somehow the organisations still seem to think it's the membership's fault for not playing along.

 

[countrryboy]

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.

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.

So can u state that wildfowl and possibly grey partridges wont pick up steel shot either mistakenly for grit or feed??
I find it hard to believe they will pick up 1 but not the other.

Bht i also still find it very hard to believe they are picking up much shot esp on dry ground.
Has there ever been studies done on birds living on active clay grounds?
The amount of lead on the ground will far outwiegh any game shoots ground.

Seems strange they will actively ingest 1 and not the other.

I thought the gwct findings were only 1% of partrdges had lead shot

 

[countrryboy]

wild ducks live 5-10 years apparently , has there been a change in wild duck numbers since lead was banned on wetlands/foreshore in 1999 ?

surely such a serious issue and draconian solution should show tangible results fairly quick ?

Must admit locally mallard are scarcer than theyve ever been.
Pretty sure BTO has them listed in decline.

Funny i never thought of that aspect, be intresting to look into local area counts or returns from wildfowling assocs to see if birds on rise or fall.

 

[AGR]

So can u state that wildfowl and possibly grey partridges wont pick up steel shot either mistakenly for grit or feed??
I find it hard to believe they will pick up 1 but not the other.

Bht i also still find it very hard to believe they are picking up much shot esp on dry ground.
Has there ever been studies done on birds living on active clay grounds?
The amount of lead on the ground will far outwiegh any game shoots ground.

Seems strange they will actively ingest 1 and not the other.

I thought the gwct findings were only 1% of partrdges had lead shot

I'm sure I've posted this before, but I believe age permits me to repeat myself.
When I was keepering I was given some (cwts) of wheat contaminated with rape seed. Free food, I used it, the birds ate it. Unfortunately we had a very dry year, the birds did a lot of scratching and dust bathing. In doing so they uncovered buried lead shot, which I imagine looked like the rape seed. I lost around 300 poults.
A neighbouring keeper had fenced off a copse which in the past 50 years had been a favourite pigeon roost and decoying site. He too lost poults to lead poisoning.
I recently sanded off an old door (outside) which was believed to have been painted with lead based paint. I was very careful, I wore a dust mask. Because of the lead.

 

[Ruger#1]

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.

As you know habitat and predator control are far more relevant to grey partridge chick survival than lead shot ingestion as shown in the figures of the study you fail to elaborate on.. The GWCT lead shot ingestion figures showed single figure ingestion rate and extrapolated from that figure an almost negligible loss of ,if I remember correctly, 1 percent hence your attempt to convince us that that figure has some significance by stating every partridge counts.
Can I ask in what way do you consider it counts , so that there are more to shoot come September the 1st ? Or perhaps significant as a potential producer of more partridge again to fill the bag after September the 1st.
Your sympathy surrounding partridge chick survival rates seems at odds with the acceptance that these partridges you refer to destiny is to produce sport for paying guns .
Could it simply be that your apparent concern for partridge chick survival rate is no more than a vehicle to spout yet more ant lead shot propaganda.
After all an estimated 1 percent mortality rate surely pales into insignificance when the numbers shot are taken into consideration.
From your posts you seem ill suited to represent the interests of the shooting community and your misrepresentation of lead shot impact under the guise of concern for the welfare of every individual partridge chick would lead some to believe that your niche resides working for a pure conservation body rather than working for an organisation that represents shooters.
If your concern for every wild grey partridge chick was sincere then it seems logic dictates that you should be campaigning for the abolition of grey partridge shooting as compared to the mortality rate due to shooting the estimated 1 percent loss to lead shot pales into insignificance.
Perhaps you could illustrate your point with a rundown of the figures from the study so that forum readers can put your conclusions in context.

 

[countrryboy]

I'm sure I've posted this before, but I believe age permits me to repeat myself.
When I was keepering I was given some (cwts) of wheat contaminated with rape seed. Free food, I used it, the birds ate it. Unfortunately we had a very dry year, the birds did a lot of scratching and dust bathing. In doing so they uncovered buried lead shot, which I imagine looked like the rape seed. I lost around 300 poults.
A neighbouring keeper had fenced off a copse which in the past 50 years had been a favourite pigeon roost and decoying site. He too lost poults to lead poisoning.
I recently sanded off an old door (outside) which was believed to have been painted with lead based paint. I was very careful, I wore a dust mask. Because of the lead.

Fair play. Thars a big loss.
Must admit its the 1st time ive read that wether or not uve posted it before, i do try to stay off these type of threads.
Ill be honest it does surprise me.
Esp when i was trying to find pellets on well shot ponds and never found a single 1. Those ponds have been heavily shot for decades

But even with wildfowl i think u get hot spots that are really bad for it, possibly all the feed locally is the same size.
Theyre was 1 lake in Oz that had terrible casulties but i dobt think other lakes had the same problem

Did ur birds die as gizzards were rammed full of shot so starved?
Or absorbed into blood?

I know the local big clay ground used to have pheasants and a wee shoot in the past. Never heard them ever complain but was only a rough knock about for 1/2 day so not big bags.
Im just worried steel could still cause the same problems. The larger size could may help if larger than wheat but being less dense it will stay nearer the surface for longer

 

[mudman]

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.

No increase in ducks, the opposite in general. A warming climate is having a big affect on wildfowl visiting our isles, even in 20 years migratory habits have changed markedly. The wildfowl is still there, just not here, instead prefers g to winter in mainland Europe as there is no extended cold weather to push them further west over the North Sea to us.

broadly, winter populations are down for mallard, wigeon, pintail, tufted and pochard. Some to a large degree. Euro Whitefronted geese hardly bother to visit the UK now likewise Beans. Geese species from further north migrate south to us are a mixed bag, Pinkfooted geese doing great, migratory Greylag declining (over shot).

Species doing well are teal, gadwall and shovellers. And home bred Greylags andCanadas.

So what I am kind of saying, climate has masked any observable effects of the lead ban.

PS as a foreshore wildfowler…….non toxic including Steel works. The only people a lead ban will affect are those who want to use old guns to shoot a large amount of cartridges (otherwise Bismuth is a like for like replacement) and those who want to shoot lots of shells at extreme range driven game, but if they can afford to do a lot of that they can probably afford the large expense to use TSS or another Tungsten based shot.

 

[mudman]

Thanks for the helpful info on the BP/vintage stuff. Much appreciated.

I'm not "in denial" about the science, by the way, I'm frustrated that it has tunnel vision and no sense of proportion.

Let's take grey partridge, for example.

Lovely things, but not a lot of them about, and mostly on shoots with really good conservation policies (because otherwise the predators get them, or the habitat isn't there), shoots that could easily (if they don't already), mandate the use of non-lead by visiting guns. Issue solved. No legislation, no cost or inconvenience to others. Something we can all get behind. Reasonable and proportionate. Voluntary.

Speaking of which, you mentioned a "voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting [that] began in 2020". I would just say that, however voluntary it may have looked from where you were standing, it most certainly was not something most shooters took a pace forward or held up their hand for. By peremptorily "volunteering" us, BASC and the other organisations dug a deep well of resentment and mistrust. The communications strategy was somewhere between "Trust me, bro" and a two-fingered salute, and yet somehow the organisations still seem to think it's the membership's fault for not playing along.

Generally the grey partridge I see are away from keepered land.

Game keepers general no longer run large amounts of tunnels traps or even Larsen. Most predator control now is rifle work, and chiefly Fox. Which is fine for released game. A help but not a considerable help to wild game. Which need the rats, stoats and carrions crows also reduced to absolute minimal numbers.

Modern Keepered shoots generally release large number of game, large numbers of Redlegs. And purely from my observations…large numbers of released redlegs are a disaster for wild greys.

Go on unkeepered, or at least land without released redlegs, and there are generally a few, not many, but at least some wild grey partridge to be encountered even with abundant ‘vermin’, keepered driven shoots ….none.

It’s Redlegs you see. Not wild Redlegs, but the disease vectors that come out of crates.

 

[tarponhead]

Go on unkeepered, or at least land without released redlegs, and there are generally a few, not many, but at least some wild grey partridge to be encountered even with abundant ‘vermin’, keepered driven shoots ….none.

It’s Redlegs you see. Not wild Redlegs, but the disease vectors that come out of crates.
[/QUOTE]

Points well made. Do you think there would be as many pest predators if we released less reared pheasant and partridges, each year? Once the game season is done, I guess the predators outside keepered estates are still there, feeding on the local wildlife. Maybe the lead ban may see a reduction in reared bird releases and less pressure on local wildlife. For the record I support game and clay shooting but also see the need to find an alternative to the sheer quantity of lead shot released into the environment from shotguns - it’s just been done for the wrong reasons and without a managed transition. If it had been done at the same time as marketing game meat as sustainable and nutritious, the profligate waste you see each year from thousands of dumped shot birds might be avoided. I look at the mounds of empty cases discarded at my favourite clay ground and the fields of grain and grazing the surround its immediate perimeter and do wonder.

 

[countrryboy]

It would not surprise me if more wild greys now on grouse moors along the moorland fringe.
Most moors have really good numbers of hill greys.
Even or esp in scotland be more hill greys now than arable greys.

Off all the many problems wild greys have lead shot is not in the top 10 yet its brought up as a major problem.

 

[Mr. Gain]

Generally the grey partridge I see are away from keepered land.

Game keepers general no longer run large amounts of tunnels traps or even Larsen. Most predator control now is rifle work, and chiefly Fox. Which is fine for released game. A help but not a considerable help to wild game. Which need the rats, stoats and carrions crows also reduced to absolute minimal numbers.

Modern Keepered shoots generally release large number of game, large numbers of Redlegs. And purely from my observations…large numbers of released redlegs are a disaster for wild greys.

Go on unkeepered, or at least land without released redlegs, and there are generally a few, not many, but at least some wild grey partridge to be encountered even with abundant ‘vermin’, keepered driven shoots ….none.

It’s Redlegs you see. Not wild Redlegs, but the disease vectors that come out of crates.

We're thinking about different kinds of shoots, I think. Only a minority can afford to operate on the principle of conserving wild birds. Shoots that depend on large releases of farmed birds will have different keepering and land use models.

Experience suggests that it is always a mistake to asume that any group or sector is homogeneous. This mistake, in turn, carries the risk of generating inappropriately broad-brush policies whose unintended consequences have significant negative impacts.

Nevertheless, catch-all calls to action are widely favoured by those with a drive to change the world because they know that most of us are more likely to support measures when they are presented as un-nuanced black-and-white no-brainers.

 

[nun_hunter]

They’re as bad as each other to be honest , how ever basc claim to be the “ voice of shooting “

Tim Bonner, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance said:

“This is an important step for the future of shooting, which will benefit the countryside and rural economy. The Alliance has long advocated a move away from lead ammunition which is necessary and beneficial. Alternatives are now available for nearly every gun for nearly every purpose.

"We have always argued for a single transition date and do have concerns about the practical implications of a three-year transition for all uses of shotgun cartridges. Bringing in a ban on lead shot in advance of the Health and Safety Executive’s recommendations and the EU transition process would be challenging for ammunition manufacturers who are already having to cope with much increased demand for military ammunition”.

 

[VSS]

So can u state that wildfowl and possibly grey partridges wont pick up steel shot either mistakenly for grit or feed??
I find it hard to believe they will pick up 1 but not the other.

Of course they will pick up steel shot, but it doesn't matter if they do.

 

[Apthorpe]

Tim Bonner, Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance said:

“This is an important step for the future of shooting, which will benefit the countryside and rural economy.

This is PR guff. Nobody has presented any sensible analysis demonstrating any benefit to the rural economy at all.

I'd be very interested to discover what this alleged benefit is

 

[timbrayford]

As you know habitat and predator control are far more relevant to grey partridge chick survival than lead shot ingestion as shown in the figures of the study you fail to elaborate on.. The GWCT lead shot ingestion figures showed single figure ingestion rate and extrapolated from that figure an almost negligible loss of ,if I remember correctly, 1 percent hence your attempt to convince us that that figure has some significance by stating every partridge counts.
Can I ask in what way do you consider it counts , so that there are more to shoot come September the 1st ? Or perhaps significant as a potential producer of more partridge again to fill the bag after September the 1st.
Your sympathy surrounding partridge chick survival rates seems at odds with the acceptance that these partridges you refer to destiny is to produce sport for paying guns .
Could it simply be that your apparent concern for partridge chick survival rate is no more than a vehicle to spout yet more ant lead shot propaganda.
After all an estimated 1 percent mortality rate surely pales into insignificance when the numbers shot are taken into consideration.
From your posts you seem ill suited to represent the interests of the shooting community and your misrepresentation of lead shot impact under the guise of concern for the welfare of every individual partridge chick would lead some to believe that your niche resides working for a pure conservation body rather than working for an organisation that represents shooters.
If your concern for every wild grey partridge chick was sincere then it seems logic dictates that you should be campaigning for the abolition of grey partridge shooting as compared to the mortality rate due to shooting the estimated 1 percent loss to lead shot pales into insignificance.
Perhaps you could illustrate your point with a rundown of the figures from the study so that forum readers can put your conclusions in context.

Having just read "Return of the Grey Partridge" by Grenville and Norfolk they don't give lead shot ingestion as a cause for the decline of the Grey Partridge on the South Downs, so its surprising that it only appears to get a mention by those evangelically pursuing a lead shot ban.