Nor is lead ammunition a major concern of those working to reduce or ideally eliminate lead poisoning.
GWCT lead ban : One for the BASC bashers
- Thread starter Nimrod1960
- Start date
- Status
Yes, the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was voluntary and many shoots have made the move including the GWCT on its Loddington shoot.
A quote from the GWCT response: GWCT Director of Policy Dr Alastair Leake added: “Scientific monitoring of wildlife over the past 30 years at the Trust’s demonstration shoot shows game management delivering a clear biodiversity net gain and playing a vital role in reversing the decline of many red-listed species. The shoot has easily adapted to non-lead ammunition over the past two seasons, which will enhance its positive impact.”
A further insight from GWCT's Mike Swan on Loddington and other shoots moving away from lead shot here:
Here is a comment piece by CA following an article in Shooting Times about lead shot ingestion by grey partridge adults and chicks - the latter being a key concern as regards chick survival rate
Grey partridge chicks dying of lead poisoning
Countryside Alliance analysis of research about grey partridges dying of lead poisoning.
www.countryside-alliance.org
The Shooting Times article is here:
Is lead shot killing wild grey chicks?
Wild grey partridge chicks face many challenges from the moment they hatch. They start out the size of bumblebees and, with lemming-like tendencies, the parents have their hands full getting their offspring through the critical first few weeks. We all know the story of the English partridge and...
www.shootinguk.co.uk
As for the data, the 2005 GWCT paper on grey partridge is here:
A paper on population modelling based on available data in UK and France is below. The data itself showed lead shot ingestion in grey partridge as 4% of direct causes of mortality and 7% of ultimate causes of mortality. As for the modelling this showed that lead shot ingestion at modelled rates reduced population size of partridges by 10%, and when combined with bait and pesticide poisons, by 18%.
Can Ingestion of Lead Shot and Poisons Change Population Trends of Three European Birds: Grey Partridge, Common Buzzard, and Red Kite? - PubMed
Little is known about the magnitude of the effects of lead shot ingestion alone or combined with poisons (e.g., in bait or seeds/granules containing pesticides) on population size, growth, and extinction of non-waterbird avian species that ingest these substances. We used population models to...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It is now widely accepted that the main cause of the grey partridge decline in the UK was due to reduced availability and density of the right insects at the right time for chicks. Outside of partridge manors, this was not well understood until it began to be studied. Acceptance of the impact of herbicides and insecticides came later.
Lead shot ingestion and its impact continues to be studied. Understanding and acceptance will come later as per attitudes to herbicides and insecticides. I don't think lead shot is the cause of the grey partridge decline, but it is likely to be amongst many factors hindering its recovery, and moving away from lead shot will help grey partridge and many other bird species that eat lead shot as grit or mistake it for seeds, as per the GWCT response in the OP.
hendrix's rifle
Well-Known Member
Im all up for a lead ban for shotguns given the huge amounts of lead being put in to the ground on an extremely regular basis and the issues surrounding birds having lead in their gizzard and potentially causing issues and ive no doubt this is documented somewhere.Yes, the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was voluntary and many shoots have made the move including the GWCT on its Loddington shoot.
A quote from the GWCT response: GWCT Director of Policy Dr Alastair Leake added: “Scientific monitoring of wildlife over the past 30 years at the Trust’s demonstration shoot shows game management delivering a clear biodiversity net gain and playing a vital role in reversing the decline of many red-listed species. The shoot has easily adapted to non-lead ammunition over the past two seasons, which will enhance its positive impact.”
A further insight from GWCT's Mike Swan on Loddington and other shoots moving away from lead shot here:
Here is a comment piece by CA following an article in Shooting Times about lead shot ingestion by grey partridge adults and chicks - the latter being a key concern as regards chick survival rate
Grey partridge chicks dying of lead poisoning
Countryside Alliance analysis of research about grey partridges dying of lead poisoning.
The Shooting Times article is here:
Is lead shot killing wild grey chicks?
Wild grey partridge chicks face many challenges from the moment they hatch. They start out the size of bumblebees and, with lemming-like tendencies, the parents have their hands full getting their offspring through the critical first few weeks. We all know the story of the English partridge and...
As for the data, the 2005 GWCT paper on grey partridge is here:
A paper on population modelling based on available data in UK and France is below. The data itself showed lead shot ingestion in grey partridge as 4% of direct causes of mortality and 7% of ultimate causes of mortality. As for the modelling this showed that lead shot ingestion at modelled rates reduced population size of partridges by 10%, and when combined with bait and pesticide poisons, by 18%.
Can Ingestion of Lead Shot and Poisons Change Population Trends of Three European Birds: Grey Partridge, Common Buzzard, and Red Kite? - PubMed
Little is known about the magnitude of the effects of lead shot ingestion alone or combined with poisons (e.g., in bait or seeds/granules containing pesticides) on population size, growth, and extinction of non-waterbird avian species that ingest these substances. We used population models to...
It is now widely accepted that the main cause of the grey partridge decline in the UK was due to reduced availability and density of the right insects at the right time for chicks. Outside of partridge manors, this was not well understood until it began to be studied. Acceptance of the impact of herbicides and insecticides came later.
Lead shot ingestion and its impact continues to be studied. Understanding and acceptance will come later as per attitudes to herbicides and insecticides. I don't think lead shot is the cause of the grey partridge decline, but it is likely to be amongst many factors hindering its recovery, and moving away from lead shot will help grey partridge and many other bird species that eat lead shot as grit or mistake it for seeds, as per the GWCT response in the OP.
However, why has lead rifle ammo come under this? Its so far away to the shotguns in terms of lead going in to the ground and the issue of the birds that it really has no effect? Before we come back to the birds digesting it from gralloch or whatever will be posted, ive not found anything in the UK to back that up other than loose claims and theories
And today we see the water companies continuing to discharge record amounts of excrement into our water courses. If I were a duck I reckon I'd take my chances with the lead and hope my wider habitate might not be destroyed . The bigger picture is totally lost in this debate.
Supposing you discovered that amounts being put in aren't huge and are often far lower and far less toxic than the amounts naturally present in compound forms? Suppose you discovered that the average amount was 25milligrams per m2, when the same area might naturally contain orders of magnitude more of the stuff. What would you think then?
Again, you're looking to ban something on grounds that haven't been proven to exist on any significant level. If you discovered that these so-called issues didn't exist, what would you think then?
That is the same level of evidence that applies to lead shot.
hendrix's rifle
Well-Known Member
You seem to have me mistaken for a pro lead free/copper whatever else. I'm not. The point I'm making is between shotguns and rifles (I use both) and the amount of lead being deposited in to the ground, the shotgun puts far more out than rifles.
I've not really looked in to the shotgun side if im honest, probably because it doesn't have as much an effect on me than the rifle situation. I'm struggling to understand why all the ammunition has been put in to 1 place with scrutiny over the lot as apose to their individual uses and so on
The European Chemicals Agency recommended a ban on the outdoor recreational use of lead rifle ammunition based on it's review of the evidence. The European hunting organisations disagreed with some of that evidence and some compromises reached. The Health and Safety Executive used more or less the same recommendations for its review. BASC disagreed with some of that evidence and some compromises reached. BASC's arguments are outlined in detail in its response to the final HSE consultation in 2023, in summary, calling on the HSE not to propose restrictions for lead rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting.
BASC response to HSE lead ammunition consultation
Read BASC's response to the Health and Safety Executive's socio-economic consultation on proposals to restrict the use of lead ammunition.
basc.org.uk
There were also responses from around 11,000 people - mostly shooters.
hendrix's rifle
Well-Known Member
Therein lies the problem- the evidence. There really isnt anything compelling for the use of rifle ammo to warrant or justify a proposed ban like they are suggesting.The European Chemicals Agency recommended a ban on the outdoor recreational use of lead rifle ammunition based on it's review of the evidence. The European hunting organisations disagreed with some of that evidence and some compromises reached. The Health and Safety Executive used more or less the same recommendations for its review. BASC disagreed with some of that evidence and some compromises reached. BASC's arguments are outlined in detail in its response to the final HSE consultation in 2023, in summary, calling on the HSE not to propose restrictions for lead rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting.
BASC response to HSE lead ammunition consultation
Read BASC's response to the Health and Safety Executive's socio-economic consultation on proposals to restrict the use of lead ammunition.
There were also responses from around 11,000 people - mostly shooters.
I think we all know how reliable population modelling is (following a catalogue of disgraceful and disreputable failures in the field - COVID, vCJD, etc). Modelling returns outputs dependent on the assumptions of the authors. All this tells us is that the authors assumed and made estimates which led to that output. It does not in any way measure reality any more than computer games do.Yes, the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was voluntary and many shoots have made the move including the GWCT on its Loddington shoot.
A quote from the GWCT response: GWCT Director of Policy Dr Alastair Leake added: “Scientific monitoring of wildlife over the past 30 years at the Trust’s demonstration shoot shows game management delivering a clear biodiversity net gain and playing a vital role in reversing the decline of many red-listed species. The shoot has easily adapted to non-lead ammunition over the past two seasons, which will enhance its positive impact.”
A further insight from GWCT's Mike Swan on Loddington and other shoots moving away from lead shot here:
Here is a comment piece by CA following an article in Shooting Times about lead shot ingestion by grey partridge adults and chicks - the latter being a key concern as regards chick survival rate
Grey partridge chicks dying of lead poisoning
Countryside Alliance analysis of research about grey partridges dying of lead poisoning.
The Shooting Times article is here:
Is lead shot killing wild grey chicks?
Wild grey partridge chicks face many challenges from the moment they hatch. They start out the size of bumblebees and, with lemming-like tendencies, the parents have their hands full getting their offspring through the critical first few weeks. We all know the story of the English partridge and...
As for the data, the 2005 GWCT paper on grey partridge is here:
A paper on population modelling based on available data in UK and France is below.
No, it didn't. It is important to be clear on this point. It modelled those outputs. It did not measure anything, least of all the direct causes of mortality of any birds. To quote the authors directly " used population models to create example scenarios demonstrating how changes in these parameters might affect". You have consistently been doing this - misrepresenting estimates as facts. That point needs acknowledging because it is critically important.
As for the modelling this showed that lead shot ingestion at modelled rates reduced population size of partridges by 10%, and when combined with bait and pesticide poisons, by 18%.
Can Ingestion of Lead Shot and Poisons Change Population Trends of Three European Birds: Grey Partridge, Common Buzzard, and Red Kite? - PubMed
Little is known about the magnitude of the effects of lead shot ingestion alone or combined with poisons (e.g., in bait or seeds/granules containing pesticides) on population size, growth, and extinction of non-waterbird avian species that ingest these substances. We used population models to...
It is now widely accepted that the main cause of the grey partridge decline in the UK was due to reduced availability and density of the right insects at the right time for chicks. Outside of partridge manors, this was not well understood until it began to be studied. Acceptance of the impact of herbicides and insecticides came later.
Lead shot ingestion and its impact continues to be studied. Understanding and acceptance will come later as per attitudes to herbicides and insecticides. I don't think lead shot is the cause of the grey partridge decline, but it is likely to be amongst many factors hindering its recovery, and moving away from lead shot will help grey partridge and many other bird species that eat lead shot as grit or mistake it for seeds, as per the GWCT response in the OP.
Given that you claim the science has been absolutely clear for quite long time that lead shot was harmful (and I believe that one of the GWCT's own papers on the topic (in my view, possibly the most compelling among a field otherwise largely occupied with pseudo-scientific tripe) relating to grey partridge is around 20ish years old), are you able to explain why the trust's demonstration shoot didn't shift away from lead shot very much earlier, but only in the last couple of years presumably in response to political developments?
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Their all crooked as far as I can see, I’ve not been a member of anybody organisation for almost 10 years none of them are worth the coin in my opinionFor all on here who have it in their heads that all their lead woes are down to BASC!
I was mistaking you for someone who said "I'm all up for a lead ban for shotguns...." I'm having some difficulty interpreting that as meaning you don't support any lead ban.
It does indeed. The point I am making is that people are supporting bans on the presumption that things which are not true, not significant or not detected are all both real and serious. Could I press you into answering the questions I asked? If you discovered that there wasn't a significant problem would you not change your view?
The reason is because this is a political attack on shooting and not an independent scientific/environmental process.
We will just have to agree to disagree. As for the GWCT moving away from lead shot for its Loddington shoot you would be best asking them.
hendrix's rifle
Well-Known Member
No, if people want to throw **** at someone then I suggest they aim it towards shotgunners who do put tonnes and tonnes of lead in to the ground. Not rifle shooters who don't.
I don't believe there is a significant problem with lead which im sure if you read my previous posts on the subject over the last year or two you will see.
I agree its political and its another way to stop people shooting.
Agreed. You disagree with what "the science" you cite actually says. Yet again.
With the greatest respect, you're still supporting a lead ban without any good reason for doing it.
I imagine this is because you haven't taken the opportunity to consider it sensibly, which I invited you to do.
hendrix's rifle
Well-Known Member
No, i support no ban but given the box has already been opened and now everything is falling out and crap being flung from all corners, I can understand why someone would look at shotguns and their cartridges.
I'm quite content shooting my 29g lead pigeon cartridges and my lead SG's for fox.
If you say so. Out of curiosity, are there any studies anywhere in the world on the impact of lead shot on birds, whose findings you agree with?
tackb
Well-Known Member
he did say so and clearly articulated his point with an example from something you posted , you could respond to that rather than throw your toys out?
i'm not convinced a study showing the impact of lead on birds exists in a true proven form , too much modelling and presumption for me personally. certainly not strong enough evidence to ban the use of lead shot
Dozens. What I don't agree with is when people pretend that studies mean things they don't. The fact is that I agree more closely with many of them than you do, including the paper in question above by Meyer et al. It is you who is repeatedly in denial here. I actually directly quoted the paper to you and you rejected it. You've established a pattern of this.
I referred - imprecisely - to one in this page (post #129). I can't be bothered to look it up. It was I think by GWCT, possibly Potts or similar name and I'd guess 2005 or before about grey partridge on the South Downs. I think you're familiar with it.
There is a subset of alleged studies I disagree with for one or more of a set of very good and valid reasons: they contain specific errors or faults; they are produced not by independent scientists but by activists, or paid for by antis; they are inapplicable to the UK; they contain invalid assumptions. None of that is in any way whatsoever denialism.
Out of curiosity, is there any factual error, rejection of science or unreasonable assumption I have used in the page above in my correspondence with you on the Meyer paper?
- Status
Similar threads
