BASC raises serious concerns over misleading WWT film

[Conor O'Gorman]

Fair question.
We are attempting to market game as a sustainable alternative to farmed meat products, but we are reluctant to accept that if we want to market it as green and clean we need to lose the lead, and sooner rather than later.
The evidence at the moment suggests that the majority of shoots and shooters are still using lead, which just may indicate that the “ voluntary transition “ is not working.
So I m not aiming at BASC specifically, but I am pointing out that the video you posted is not totally inaccurate.
Lead is being placed in the food chain unnecessarily because large commercial shoots have not banned it.
They have banned plastic wads, but they refuse to ban lead probably because it means the end of extreme birds and high peg prices.
So no, my comment is not aimed at all of you, just those of you who think that it’s acceptable to put food containing heavy metal into the food chain and claim that it’s safe, green and sustainable.

Thanks, as you allude to, market forces have been influencing a move away from lead ammunition for many years for both small and large game, particularly the latter, as seen on this deer stalking forum.

As has been discussed before on this forum, and argued in BASC responses to the HSE consultations, the relationship between lead in game meat and clinical effects in humans is not conclusive.

Also in the mix we have people and orgs campaigning for a ban on lead ammunition via scaremongering about lead levels in game meat because they perceive this as a more persuasive means of gathering support to their cause than the impacts on birds from the use of lead shot. The WWT video in the OP with one customer collapsing dead over their meal is an extreme example of this - there are no cases of people dying from lead poisoning from eating game meat.

There was another WWT video in January with emotive footage of babies and puppies.

For at least a decade there have been images used in 'ban lead ammo' campaigns illustrating lead pathways from lead ammunition involving toddlers and pregnant women.

It's a complex issue with many nuances, as you know, and perhaps at two extremes we have some shooting folk that believe there is no negative impact from lead shot ingestion by birds and its all a conspiracy to ban shooting, and some other folk that believe that there is no impact on shooting by banning all uses of lead ammunition and they seek a one size fits all solution regardless of the evidence.

 

[steve sxs]

Eating it yourself knowing the risk and making an informed decision is your choice.
Now try marketing a product that contains a known toxin to the general public as being clean, green and sustainable.

My two pennies worth, in the unlikely event of actually swallowing a 6 shot it will pass through your gut and out the other end intact, as will have happened countless millions of times in the past with no ill affect, I am 72 and have eaten game since I can remember, scare mongering at its finest jmho

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Fair enough.

I did have a quick read throu it.
1 thing i do know it is amazing how often studies find in favour off whos ever is paying for their reseach or confirms there pre concived bias esp in emotive subjects like this.

Basc and others need to go throu any studies like this with a fine tooth comb everything from thier null hypothesis to methodology.
If its going to be used agaibst us it atleast much be valid

I dont shoot in eng so not really sure how well its followed but i would off thought more than 25% would of made the switch.
It does surprise me the number is just so high.

1 thing i will say they seem to sample 100- 150 ducks each year.
And from that there getting regionally differences as well.
They can only be buying a few ducks in each region, not really a massive sample size.
If only buying from 1 or 2 game dealers it could easy only be 1 or 2 shoots supplying them.
Would be pretty easy to skew that if u already had a bias or agenda.

Im not saying it doesnae go on but i dont believe its as high as 75%.

If u do believe lead pellets in food is a big problem its easily sorted.
Game dealers just need to say non toxic only and threaten to fine them or not take there game in future.

Shoots provide shells for the guns.
A shoot i pick up on has went non toxic, it just provides the shells add that on to the price of a bird.
Its in scotland so strictly no legal need to be non toxic, but game deqler wants birds shot with non toxic for his markets. Which is fair enough hes buying them so his rules.
Simple and no need for all this legisaltion.

Poor compliance with existing lead shot regulations has been documented in several studies since 1999, namely from testing of ducks from game dealers and butchers in England. To answer your question BASC has a research team that reviews all relevant scientific papers. We also produce a list of research relevant research once a month linked from the BASC Live Newsletter. As with any piece of research on any topic one could indeed argue about methods and the exact percentages - 75% in this study, 77% in a study a decade ago, and so on, but it is apparent there is a persistent issue.

 

[Dunwaters]

My two pennies worth, in the unlikely event of actually swallowing a 6 shot it will pass through your gut and out the other end intact, as will have happened countless millions of times in the past with no ill affect, I am 72 and have eaten game since I can remember, scare mongering at its finest jmho

I’m 70 and I’ve probably swallowed a couple of pounds of lead over my life, I don’t think it’s done me any harm but how could you tell for sure?
It also doesn’t mean that I intend to continue eating it, we were ignorant of the possible consequences, just like we were ignorant of the impact of shooting on our hearing, now we know better, so its lead free and hearing protection for me from now on.
I have no problem with you making your own assessment of the available information and reaching a different conclusion, except that if you continue to use lead you are not just affecting yourself you are also having a potential impact on me and your local wildlife.
Thats the other elephant in the room we consistently fail to address, the calls for a lead ban aren’t solely all about us, what we do has a wider impact.
Quite frankly as long as lead shot is being used, marketing game meat as a source of environmentally friendly protein is about as easy as selling Belfast as a tourist destination during the troubles.
The game industry really needs decide where it’s heading, is it all about the shooting or is it about both the shooting and food production?
If food production is going to form any part of the strategy, the lead has simply got to go.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

The surest indicator of a papers findings is to look at who paid for it.

I guess there is two sides to that. I can remember the Game Conservancy research into the benefits of predator control being rubbished by people and organisations that did not agree with the findings at the time, and the same with the first Value of Shooting report. We tend to find reasons not to agree with research findings that we don't agree with or we fear could lead to decisions that impact on us.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

As I see it, it’s out of our hands now, HSE has completed its work, now up to the Government of today to accept or reject all or part of it, and can probably guess how well that will go. The antis are far better at PR than we are and the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was basically a complete failure.
BASC may as well come clean and say they want a lead shot ban to ensure commercial game shooting has a future.
Personally I think commercial game shooting has a finite future as to many it is becoming just as untenable to rear millions of game birds just to be living targets as it is to use lead shot to kill them as both impact on the environment.

BASC has been clear in every submission to the HSE that new regulations are not needed. The idea that "BASC wants a lead ban to ensure commercial shooting has a future" is illogical and nonsense. Market forces will decide the provision of shooting days on shoots offering them and the interest of people paying for shoot days. The game meat market and the use of lead shot for harvesting small game will be decided by buyers big and small. That's always been the case. However, you are right it's now out of our hands for the next stage of the review, ie. what the ministers decide on as a result of what the HSE submitted. BASC has represented all shooting disciplines in its submissions and there has been success in some of the proposals being dropped.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Why does this paper appear not to consider the sources of supply of these ducks into the market? It seems very obvious that the birds supplied into the market are unlikely to representative of the birds actually shot. All this sort of stuff tells us is that large commercial shoots (of the type BASC has been structurally championing, incidentally) have been screwing everyone over by perhaps not making sure birds were shot with the right ammunition, as well as shooting more wildfowl than they could eat. I would wager that if the same size sample was taken of birds shot by wildfowlers, you wouldn't have similar results.

1. What actions has BASC taken to inform these anti-shooting "scientists" that they aren't doing their research honestly?
2. What actions has BASC taken to disincentivise commercial shoots from acting unethically?

I don't think anyone is blaming members of wildfowling clubs in England and Wales for lead shot found in ducks sold by supermarkets, game dealers and butchers etc. This has been happening on shooting estates. BASC has highlighted these issues since 1999 and every time we have done so there have been cries of treachery and treason from some on forums etc. BASC has also for many years also raised concerns about the illegal killing of birds of prey, which research has shown is associated with game shoots. Again, to cries of treachery and treason from some on forums etc. So, you could hardly say that "BASC has been structurally championing", "large commercial shoots".

As to your questions I am not aware of any cases of scientists not doing their research honestly as regards lead ammunition. Most papers I read are vetted and appear in peer reviewed respected journals. As I said earlier we tend to find reasons not to agree with research findings that we don't agree with or we fear could lead to decisions that impact on us. As regards BASC 'disincentivising commercial shoots from acting unethically' that is what the code of good shooting practice is all about. There are also many articles over the years in sporting press. I myself have written about the dangers of greed and excess damaging shooting. The types of shoots that are typically affiliated to BASC, and where we do our shoot visits, tend to be small clubs and syndicates. Which again makes a nonsense of this repeated assertion by yourself and a few others about BASC being only interested in 'big commercial shoots'.

Here is what BASC stands for:

What BASC stands for

We are the keeper of our traditions and the guardians of our future. We are stability and we are change.

basc.org.uk

 

[jall55]

I wonder why no shoots have been prosecuted the for using lead to shoot ducks ?
BASC would remove / ban members if they shot raptors - is breaking the law regarding ducks not as bad

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I wonder why no shoots have been prosecuted the for using lead to shoot ducks ?
BASC would remove / ban members if they shot raptors - is breaking the law regarding ducks not as bad

That would require enforcement of the regulations. The HSE recommendations estimate enforcement costs to cover their lead restriction proposals to be
£50,000 across a 20-year appraisal period!

The one and only prosecution in England as far as I know was in 2011 - and that was someone on a shoot day shooting a swan with lead shot.

Man fined for shooting swan 'thinking it was goose'

A man who shot a swan thinking it was a goose is believed to be the first person in England prosecuted for using illegal lead shot on wildfowl.

www.bbc.co.uk

See also news report below with quotes from BASC and RSPB.

Landmark ruling over use of lead to shoot wildfowl

RSPB report on the first conviction following the shooting of a Mute Swan with lead shot.

www.birdguides.com

 

[steve sxs]

That would require enforcement of the regulations. The HSE recommendations estimate enforcement costs to cover their lead restriction proposals to be
£50,000 across a 20-year appraisal period!

The one and only prosecution in England as far as I know was in 2011 - and that was someone on a shoot day shooting a swan with lead shot.

Man fined for shooting swan 'thinking it was goose'

A man who shot a swan thinking it was a goose is believed to be the first person in England prosecuted for using illegal lead shot on wildfowl.

www.bbc.co.uk

See also news report below with quotes from BASC and RSPB.

Landmark ruling over use of lead to shoot wildfowl

RSPB report on the first conviction following the shooting of a Mute Swan with lead shot.

www.birdguides.com

My opinion of a person shooting a swan with any weapon is they haven't got all their Dinner Money!

 

[levigsp]

the point is that lead has been determined to be a toxic heavy metal with no safe limit. It is a known and proven toxin that in the form of lead shot Rubbish, compounds of lead have been shown to be toxic

We, shooters, are the only ones deliberately and knowingly introducing lead into the human food chain, everyone else has stopped. Rubbish, have you never looked at the analysis of all human foods sold in the eu and UK? higher lead concentrations in most veg and fish than any game meat, fact, and its in the form of lead compounds not pure lead.


Pipes again? You forgot the flashing.
Thing is, no one is wrapping meat in lead sheeting and trying to pass it off as a healthy sustainable alternative to intensively farmed meat products. Game retailers are knowingly putting a product contaminated with a toxic heavy metal on supermarket shelves for human consumption. Read my comments above, more chance of getting lead poisoning from supermarket veg than lead shot game.

 

[levigsp]

The following paper was published in December 2024:

Spatial and temporal variation in the prevalence of illegal lead shot in reared and wild mallards harvested in England

Spatial and temporal variation in the prevalence of illegal lead shot in reared and wild mallards harvested in England

The use of lead shotgun ammunition for shooting wildfowl has been restricted in England since 1999, but surveys finding lead shot in harvested birds s…

www.sciencedirect.com

Considering that tungsten shot IS magnetic, I find these finds somewhat confusing, yet again agenda speaks for itself. I also wonder why the likes of the BASC with all there customer money cannot employ someone to do the tests themselves.

 

[jall55]

That would require enforcement of the regulations. The HSE recommendations estimate enforcement costs to cover their lead restriction proposals to be
£50,000 across a 20-year appraisal period!

The one and only prosecution in England as far as I know was in 2011 - and that was someone on a shoot day shooting a swan with lead shot.

Man fined for shooting swan 'thinking it was goose'

A man who shot a swan thinking it was a goose is believed to be the first person in England prosecuted for using illegal lead shot on wildfowl.

www.bbc.co.uk

See also news report below with quotes from BASC and RSPB.

Landmark ruling over use of lead to shoot wildfowl

RSPB report on the first conviction following the shooting of a Mute Swan with lead shot.

www.birdguides.com

Im not sure - RSPB rock up at so many places looking for raptor persecution - if 75 percent of all ducks shot contain lead then if they went to shoots shooting ducks they could effectively end shooting all together in a morning ?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Considering that tungsten shot IS magnetic, I find these finds somewhat confusing, yet again agenda speaks for itself. I also wonder why the likes of the BASC with all there customer money cannot employ someone to do the tests themselves.

As I said earlier poor compliance with existing lead shot regulations has been documented in several studies since 1999, namely from testing of ducks from game dealers and butchers in England. Also, we tend to find reasons not to agree with research findings that we don't agree with or we fear could lead to decisions that impact on us.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Im not sure - RSPB rock up at so many places looking for raptor persecution - if 75 percent of all ducks shot contain lead then if they went to shoots shooting ducks they could effectively end shooting all together in a morning ?

I don't have the answers to that - maybe ask RSPB.

 

[jall55]

I don't have the answers to that - maybe ask RSPB.

I also just find it so strange that so many game dealers would risk breaking the law - do you know if its an offence to receive wildlfowl shot with lead ?

 

[Apthorpe]

As to your questions I am not aware of any cases of scientists not doing their research honestly as regards lead ammunition. Most papers I read are vetted and appear in peer reviewed respected journals. As I said earlier we tend to find reasons not to agree with research findings that we don't agree with or we fear could lead to decisions that impact on us.

Points taken on the rest of it, bit with reference to the above. It is quite obvious that we agree that the scientists producing this stuff are performing studies with non-representative samples. That is absolutely fundamental and undermines the entire study.

 

[Kalahari]

@ Conor O'Gorman To get back to the nitty gritty couldn't BASC make a formal complaint to the charity commission? Sure;y charities are not allowed to tell lies in there output?

David.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I also just find it so strange that so many game dealers would risk breaking the law - do you know if its an offence to receive wildlfowl shot with lead ?

I don't think so, but don't take me at my word, I would have to check.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Points taken on the rest of it, bit with reference to the above. It is quite obvious that we agree that the scientists producing this stuff are performing studies with non-representative samples. That is absolutely fundamental and undermines the entire study.

The samples are obtained as described in the methods. That is transparent. These are peer reviewed journals. I don't have an issue myself with the sampling. The same high percentages keep occurring decades apart. That is a concern.