Lead restriction proposals - public consultation
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
That is a somewhat facile statement.
Not sure where you are going with that.
Yes, in UK, or GB, or just England, lots of lead shot off in shotguns. immediate satisfaction. Quite an industry around that, also to provide the feathered targets, and the hospitality around that.
The bye products/refuse resulting from that, hardly considered. Nope, it doesn't all get eaten, by man nor beast. It is a bit of an embarrassment.
Yes, please study it. A lot of work has gone into it. and a lot that could be selectively quoted to suit some agendas.
Here is the link again. https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/da9bf395-e6c3-b48e-396f-afc8dcef0b21
Can't understand why this is not better understood, nor discussed even with the most simplistic explanations. Better minds than I, together with other interests, will decide the future. Change, slowly, may happen.
Is it correct, or not, that the fihure of 15-17,000 tonnes per year is for the whole of the EU and not the UK.
As I made unmistakeably clear with the first clause, the intention is to clarify the amount of lead, and to out the quantity into context. You're not making it clear that the quantity your referred to is mostly not in the UK.
Now that really is facile in the extreme.
Think again. and study what is proposed. As to what you have stated, in bold, "
This includes a ban on the placing on the market and use of lead gunshot for any purpose.
Truly you do not understand what's going on. And are spouting, "shi eyte" Get a grip, and calm down. Please.
that was a quote from page 7 with 404 pages it is heavy going so which page/s contradicks that statement, please.
That is a somewhat facile statement.
Not sure where you are going with that.
Yes, in UK, or GB, or just England, lots of lead shot off in shotguns. immediate satisfaction. Quite an industry around that, also to provide the feathered targets, and the hospitality around that.
The by products/refuse resulting from that, hardly considered. Nope, it doesn't all get eaten, by man nor beast. It is a bit of an embarrassment.
Sorry, I have focussed on the hunting use of ammunition. Thinking that it might be more relevant to most on this forum. The sporting use, e.g. for clay shooting, or rifle target shooting is also discussed. In quite some detail. Actually that matters to me more.
I'm sorry if it seems to be a big read, but nevertheless it is all there. Rightly or wrongly, it is the current position, at the moment. I don't think that I am in any position to summarise it or give any easy answers to such questions. Look to bigger people, maybe even BASC and @Conor O'Gorman to tell us where the situation stands, as they see it.
I have a facility for speed-reading and summarising, also have been following this, perhaps obsessively, since it started. That's the easy bit. And so easy for knee-jerk ripostes But I also think about things as well.
Meanwhile, it is what it is. Nothing happening, yet. So educate yourselves. And maybe anticipate some changes.
As to the use of "plastic" wads in shotgun ammunition, I have my own theories about the whataboutery surrounding that, personally I have never shot anything but fibre for at least ten years.. Wouldn't be acceptable on a shoot if otherwise. And steel with a fibre cup (they do exist, aren't great, but work).
As to the the positioning of supposedly biodegradeable plastics, sorry, but they don't work. I have, unscientifically tested some. As in cast them about on fields, and foreshore, inside a quadrat. Just a little experiment. The fibre wads, unsurprisingly, vanished. The polymer ones did not.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
@Sharpie maybe the following cut and paste from the blog summarised in the OP might help in relation to the debate above.
I think it's likely that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will focus on the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting and game shooting in particular [in the restriction dossier for England, Wales and Scotland] due to be published in April]. This is due to the scale of use and the evidenced risks involved.
The evidence is clear – some uses of lead shot for live quarry shooting are having negative impacts; that is the assessment of the shooting community’s best scientists at the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust.
See: Lead Ammunition - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
The question is how far the HSE is prepared to go in its proposals to address these risks? In addition, how much of an impact could such restrictions cause in the short to medium-term for shooting?
Will the HSE take into account the five-year voluntary transition away from lead shot in live quarry shooting or will they seek to wield an unforgiving axe over game shooting in particular, despite the progress that has been made?
The joint statement two-years ago sent a clear signal to the ammunition manufacturers that there will be a growing market for non-lead alternatives. Since then, we have seen a diversity of new non-lead shot cartridges come to market and game shooters are being encouraged to try these out.
At last year’s National Game Dealers Association’s AGM, members voted to commit to sourcing all feather and fur game as well as venison and wild boar from lead-free chains from 1 July 2022 onwards.
A Guns on Pegs survey found that game shoots of all shapes and sizes are planning for a lead-free 2022/23 season. Similarly, a Savills survey found that 65% of game shoots will be lead-free by the end of 2023 with another 20% phasing lead shot out by the end of 2025.
Last year, a consortium of academics with research interests in lead ammunition launched the SHOT-SWITCH project, funded by RSPB, Waitrose and Lincolnshire Game, to annually test wild-shot pheasants offered for sale across Britain to see if they had been shot using lead shot or non-lead alternatives. Based on two-years’ results they think progress is too slow, but BASC does not agree.
See: The lead shot transition: solid progress on the ground - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
So, will the HSE propose a blanket-ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting or will it take a step-wise approach based on availability?
Whilst there are a growing number of non-lead shotgun cartridges available in 12 bore and 20 bore there are few options for 16 bore, 28 bore and .410. BASC highlighted this issue in its submission to last year’s call for evidence.
Worldwide, governments are reviewing the use of lead ammunition too. I think New Zealand is an interesting case study where phased restrictions have been introduced for live quarry shooting with the support of most hunters.
Restrictions have been phased in since 2004 and there are currently exemptions for .410 shotguns due to lack of alternatives to lead shot. Upland shooting also sits outside of the restrictions as research has shown that birds are not affected due to shot being so widely dispersed in that environment.
Here in the UK, restrictions on shotgun cartridges for live quarry shooting should only be implemented when where there are effective and affordable alternatives in sufficient volumes to meet demand. And, based on what the manufacturers are saying, this could take up to ten years, not least when one factors in non-plastic wads.
But what about other uses of lead ammunition? Will restrictions aimed at reducing the impacts of lead shot for live quarry shooting unfairly ban the use of lead ammunition for other shooting disciplines?
In our submission to last year’s call for evidence, we stated that lead ammunition should continue to be used in contained environments, such as a range, or where there is an absence of reasonable alternatives.
It’s difficult to know how risk-averse the HSE will be in its assessment. However, when the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published its ‘restriction dossier’ last year it stated that outdoor target shooting posed a risk to the environment (soil, surface water and – under certain circumstances – also ground water); wildlife such as birds, livestock, and human health.
ECHA found that non-lead alternatives for clay target shooting were effective and that the barriers for advancing with these were not technical. It was instead that they were imposed by the rules of the ISSF, FITASC and other organisations that require lead shot to be used and/or have not approved other shot material.
It’s unlikely that the HSE will come up with exactly the same findings as ECHA. This is because the ECHA restriction dossier has been subject to detailed critique by FACE, BASC and all the other shooting organisations across Europe.
See: FACE | 1 IN 4 HUNTERS WILL STOP HUNTING IF PROPOSED BAN ON LEAD AMMUNITION BECOMES A REALITY
Furthermore, the UK REACH process should consider risks in the context of England, Wales and Scotland only because our shooting activities and the habitats they take place in are quite different to those found across most of mainland Europe.
In our submission to last year’s call for evidence we detailed the issues around availability and viability of non-lead alternatives for airgun pellets and various types of shotgun and rifle ammunition.
We explained that non-lead alternatives for rifle calibres larger than 6.5mm are technically viable for the shooting of live quarry.
We detailed the issues with rifle calibres smaller than 6.5mm, where maintaining sufficient down-range energy requires larger bullets travelling at higher speeds. This can lead to destabilisation and resulting loss of accuracy – a critical element when we are trying to humanely dispatch live quarry.
We pointed out that there are currently no subsonic alternatives to lead rimfire ammunition; and that this form of ammunition is predominantly utilised for the hunting of small game species – usually in the control of mammalian pests such as rabbits and rats – where minimising disturbance of quarry through noise, improves the efficiency and efficacy of culling practices.
Whatever the specific detail is for the evidence and restriction proposals, further restrictions on lead ammunition must not result in a reduction in people participating in shooting due to a lack of ammunition for their guns and shooting disciplines.
Working closely with other organisations, we will ensure that the needs of both live quarry and target shooting interests are considered, and we will oppose one-size-fits-all restrictions.
We will carefully review the evidence and restriction proposals due to be published in April. I hope that many of you will get involved in this very important consultation.
I think it's likely that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will focus on the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting and game shooting in particular [in the restriction dossier for England, Wales and Scotland] due to be published in April]. This is due to the scale of use and the evidenced risks involved.
The evidence is clear – some uses of lead shot for live quarry shooting are having negative impacts; that is the assessment of the shooting community’s best scientists at the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust.
See: Lead Ammunition - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
The question is how far the HSE is prepared to go in its proposals to address these risks? In addition, how much of an impact could such restrictions cause in the short to medium-term for shooting?
Will the HSE take into account the five-year voluntary transition away from lead shot in live quarry shooting or will they seek to wield an unforgiving axe over game shooting in particular, despite the progress that has been made?
The joint statement two-years ago sent a clear signal to the ammunition manufacturers that there will be a growing market for non-lead alternatives. Since then, we have seen a diversity of new non-lead shot cartridges come to market and game shooters are being encouraged to try these out.
At last year’s National Game Dealers Association’s AGM, members voted to commit to sourcing all feather and fur game as well as venison and wild boar from lead-free chains from 1 July 2022 onwards.
A Guns on Pegs survey found that game shoots of all shapes and sizes are planning for a lead-free 2022/23 season. Similarly, a Savills survey found that 65% of game shoots will be lead-free by the end of 2023 with another 20% phasing lead shot out by the end of 2025.
Last year, a consortium of academics with research interests in lead ammunition launched the SHOT-SWITCH project, funded by RSPB, Waitrose and Lincolnshire Game, to annually test wild-shot pheasants offered for sale across Britain to see if they had been shot using lead shot or non-lead alternatives. Based on two-years’ results they think progress is too slow, but BASC does not agree.
See: The lead shot transition: solid progress on the ground - The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
So, will the HSE propose a blanket-ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting or will it take a step-wise approach based on availability?
Whilst there are a growing number of non-lead shotgun cartridges available in 12 bore and 20 bore there are few options for 16 bore, 28 bore and .410. BASC highlighted this issue in its submission to last year’s call for evidence.
Worldwide, governments are reviewing the use of lead ammunition too. I think New Zealand is an interesting case study where phased restrictions have been introduced for live quarry shooting with the support of most hunters.
Restrictions have been phased in since 2004 and there are currently exemptions for .410 shotguns due to lack of alternatives to lead shot. Upland shooting also sits outside of the restrictions as research has shown that birds are not affected due to shot being so widely dispersed in that environment.
Here in the UK, restrictions on shotgun cartridges for live quarry shooting should only be implemented when where there are effective and affordable alternatives in sufficient volumes to meet demand. And, based on what the manufacturers are saying, this could take up to ten years, not least when one factors in non-plastic wads.
But what about other uses of lead ammunition? Will restrictions aimed at reducing the impacts of lead shot for live quarry shooting unfairly ban the use of lead ammunition for other shooting disciplines?
In our submission to last year’s call for evidence, we stated that lead ammunition should continue to be used in contained environments, such as a range, or where there is an absence of reasonable alternatives.
It’s difficult to know how risk-averse the HSE will be in its assessment. However, when the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published its ‘restriction dossier’ last year it stated that outdoor target shooting posed a risk to the environment (soil, surface water and – under certain circumstances – also ground water); wildlife such as birds, livestock, and human health.
ECHA found that non-lead alternatives for clay target shooting were effective and that the barriers for advancing with these were not technical. It was instead that they were imposed by the rules of the ISSF, FITASC and other organisations that require lead shot to be used and/or have not approved other shot material.
It’s unlikely that the HSE will come up with exactly the same findings as ECHA. This is because the ECHA restriction dossier has been subject to detailed critique by FACE, BASC and all the other shooting organisations across Europe.
See: FACE | 1 IN 4 HUNTERS WILL STOP HUNTING IF PROPOSED BAN ON LEAD AMMUNITION BECOMES A REALITY
Furthermore, the UK REACH process should consider risks in the context of England, Wales and Scotland only because our shooting activities and the habitats they take place in are quite different to those found across most of mainland Europe.
In our submission to last year’s call for evidence we detailed the issues around availability and viability of non-lead alternatives for airgun pellets and various types of shotgun and rifle ammunition.
We explained that non-lead alternatives for rifle calibres larger than 6.5mm are technically viable for the shooting of live quarry.
We detailed the issues with rifle calibres smaller than 6.5mm, where maintaining sufficient down-range energy requires larger bullets travelling at higher speeds. This can lead to destabilisation and resulting loss of accuracy – a critical element when we are trying to humanely dispatch live quarry.
We pointed out that there are currently no subsonic alternatives to lead rimfire ammunition; and that this form of ammunition is predominantly utilised for the hunting of small game species – usually in the control of mammalian pests such as rabbits and rats – where minimising disturbance of quarry through noise, improves the efficiency and efficacy of culling practices.
Whatever the specific detail is for the evidence and restriction proposals, further restrictions on lead ammunition must not result in a reduction in people participating in shooting due to a lack of ammunition for their guns and shooting disciplines.
Working closely with other organisations, we will ensure that the needs of both live quarry and target shooting interests are considered, and we will oppose one-size-fits-all restrictions.
We will carefully review the evidence and restriction proposals due to be published in April. I hope that many of you will get involved in this very important consultation.
If we are going down the path towards a lead ban, and it makes sense to anybody to ban the use of lead for shooting animals, then there is no earthly reason why clay or target shooting ought to be exempted. Anyone clinging to that idea is off with the fairies.
The reality is now that our chief representative organisations have decided to represent our interests by doing exactly the opposite of our best interests, and lead for all uses will get banned.
We'll get an exemption for .22LR when pigs fly because all game shot with lead is toxic except rabbits and any other reamer shot with .22LR. And none of the bunny-huggers disapprove of shooting rabbits, squirrels or other small vermin.
And, of course, remember three things:
1. that after this shooting will be in a stronger position and antis won't seek to attack us as much.
2. That we will get premium prices for game and far more people will eat it.
3. Populations of wildfowl, raptors and most other bird species will boom.
4. The cancer rates, IQ and general health of everyone who eats game will rise so much that the improvement will be statistically detectable.
The above will be scientifically proven and confirmed by precisely the same scientists who told us what harm lead did.
The reality is now that our chief representative organisations have decided to represent our interests by doing exactly the opposite of our best interests, and lead for all uses will get banned.
We'll get an exemption for .22LR when pigs fly because all game shot with lead is toxic except rabbits and any other reamer shot with .22LR. And none of the bunny-huggers disapprove of shooting rabbits, squirrels or other small vermin.
And, of course, remember three things:
1. that after this shooting will be in a stronger position and antis won't seek to attack us as much.
2. That we will get premium prices for game and far more people will eat it.
3. Populations of wildfowl, raptors and most other bird species will boom.
4. The cancer rates, IQ and general health of everyone who eats game will rise so much that the improvement will be statistically detectable.
The above will be scientifically proven and confirmed by precisely the same scientists who told us what harm lead did.
Full details
obviously lord browne is quite happy to pollute the countryside with plastic wads as a switch to steel shot will do exactly that.
Last edited:
Of course he is. It's a bill which would only take effect in England & Wales and it was introduced by a Scottish peer.
And then the Scots spend half their waking hours whingeing about being exploited by the English.
Thank you for your reply. Yes I would encourage everyone to study the GWCT reports. They seem to me to be well considered and very relevant to UK circumstances. They are an organisation which I support.
As to the immediate issue, how the HSE are going to move, and put up their consultation next month, that will I'm sure require some considered ripostes. From the sound of it, you have no confidence that their position will be favourable to either game, quarry or target shooting (rifles or shotgun).
I had hoped that you might have some inside line into how the people at HSE tasked with this are thinking. Perhaps you do. Who are they and how many? No names no packdrill, but surely you know, and either some of them might listen to you. or maybe not, if your influencing hasn't been effective. TBH, if they are any good, and impartial, I wouldn't expect them to be easily schmoozed.
From what you have suggested, so far, we might be looking at a lead ban for rifle bullets of 6.5mm and above. A lead ban for all shotguns of 20, 12 10 bore etc..
Some comfort for rifle and air rifle shooters of somewhat less than 6.5mm. Maybe also shotguns of smaller than 20 bore. Hopefully but hardly a given.
Perhaps even a longer term compulsory phase-out of lead for shot gunning, in fieldsports and the added complexity of trying to make biodegradeable wads that actually work, when shooting steel/soft iron through a variety of old and new guns. Together with more suitable and effective cartridges in CIP countries, together with proof testing adjustments.
The voluntary five year transition, TBH isn't going too well. Apparently we might blame that on Covid. Nevertheless most of our ducks (been banned for ages but not observed), and almost all of our pheasants etc. are still shot with it. Some indications that some shoots are thinking about changing eventually. Which will require further education and demonstration, I know that BASC are doing a little bit of that. Good.
A small clique of gamedealers/AGHEs voted to get rid this year. I'm not sure that they are totally representative. So did some supermarkets. Well, at least one. That, I'm sure will continue to gain traction, and properly so. Ahead of the curve, well maybe yes. More cynically, seeing it as a marketing advantage, actually I don't think that's the whole story.
Realistically steel is the only way to keep the industry going, but despite some fanfare, there is a long way to go yet. And a huge turnaround in suppling it and manufacturing it into useful ammunition. Not to be underestimated
Though I am not convinced that we are anywhere near that yet Nor, I suspect, are the shot cartridge manufacturers. Despite a bit of work by a couple. It is a big industry here and supplying the EU, and I don't expect the Gamebore shot tower in Hull to be shutting down any time soon. Nor the other big one in Italy.
come on, that's outrageous !
48% of the Scottish electorate spends 100% of their waking hours blaming the English for everything, and I am convinced they dream about it as well, so this is a ridiculously low estimate
I also support them and have read their reports which appear superficial to me and ill-thought out.
Of course they’re not impartial.
If spreading lead around the countryside is causing serious environmental harm, which is the premise on which this entire exercise is built, then there is no rational basis for not banning all lead ammunition. Let’s dispense with the fantasies here. Nobody is going to say, “Let’s ban all this stuff to protect all these various species. Oh, hang on, it would stop people shooting rabbits, foxes and prevent people, including children, from using lighter shotguns. Shall we exempt this group of people So they can keep endangering wildlife? Or shall we ban it all with the bonus that we then reduce shooting, gun ownership etc? Hmmm.”
Let us be clear that the claims that this is the case are based on very small sample sets collected by committed antis with no attempt at forming representative samples in very few studies. It may or may not reflect the truth, but the fact is that nobody knows. If we’re going to follow the science, then let’s do that rather than following propaganda.
Realistically, the type of ammunition we use will do precisely nothing positive to secure the future of field sports or any form of shooting. Again, let’s deal with reality. There is not one single person who is anti-shooting now, who will become pro-shooting if we start using different ammunition.
I was in Game & Country the other day and non-lead prices were not horrendous compared to budget ammunition. So not the end of the world. Reloading was even beginning to look unattractive with component prices going up and loaded ammo coming down. Not uniform but you can see the volume effects kicking in
That depends on whether it is acceptable to clay shooters. There is some chat about ricochet risk off the target I think. I have used it in the past and it worked fine, but it is banned at a couple of grounds I use.
come on, that's outrageous !
48% of the Scottish electorate spends 100% of their waking hours blaming the English for everything, and I am convinced they dream about it as well, so this is a ridiculously low estimate
I like to think some of them spend no time thinking that, and perhaps it might average out.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
. That we will get premium prices for game and far more people will eat it.
So that will be 4p a bird instead of 2p a bird will it.
So cartridges will be double or treble the price they are now and you will get a few pence more.
My prediction is more people are getting fed up with all the red tape such as medicals for licences using cartridges treble the price they will throw the towel in and give up their guns.
So that will be 4p a bird instead of 2p a bird will it.
So cartridges will be double or treble the price they are now and you will get a few pence more.
My prediction is more people are getting fed up with all the red tape such as medicals for licences using cartridges treble the price they will throw the towel in and give up their guns.
one suggestion for clay shooting to continue to use lead shot is to cover the ground in sheeting and build walls like they did at woolwich for the Olympics to catch and recover the lead shot. Works for trap disciplines but virtually impossible for English sporting. Then the cost. A ban on lead shot for clay shooting would likely make it less accessible to future generations, no starting the grandchild on a .410 or 28ga and then the cost.
And cartridge prices will continue to rise significantly as now for non toxic shot and biodegradable wads.
I don't think so. They are dealing with complex issues, and giving straightforward, yes maybe simplistic answers, but I don't think that they are altogether wrong. Far from it. Not at all.
As to what the minds at the HSE are considering, or is in their brief, the socio-economic aspects of which might not be on their radar. Nor the practicalities. Nor much at all. Unlike elsewhere.
Maybe the few there have picked up a poisoned chalice and aren't quite sure what to do with it or whom to turn to.. Or maybe not.
Let's see what they come up with next month. Possibly this will drag on.
Last edited:
375 mag
Well-Known Member
Are fishermen - women coming under the same restrictions, are lead weights getting band.
If a belly full of lead is bad for wildlife whats a belly full of rusting steel going to do to them.
Also is the militry and police going none lead. The army and police ranges on the moors near me must be covered in lead.
If a belly full of lead is bad for wildlife whats a belly full of rusting steel going to do to them.
Also is the militry and police going none lead. The army and police ranges on the moors near me must be covered in lead.
Similar threads
