The premise, the set of assumptions you base your question on, is false. Therefore the question is irrelevant, because it doesn’t have anything to do with reality. The fact is that if you shot all game with lead alternatives, or even if they were all euthanased in a special super-ethical clinic, people won’t eat it. You’ve made the mistake of presuming that the reason people don’t buy game meat much is because they are concerned that it is contaminated with lead. That is wrong. Completely wrong.
Hypothetically, pheasants, partridge and wildfowl are unusual cases. The legal basis for shooting every other animal has nothing to do with food and the fact that they actually do go to waste in large numbers isn’t an ethical objection.
That same ethical question applies to the entire livestock farming sector. It is not necessary to eat meat, and indeed a significant proportion of meat goes to waste - possibly more than shot game.
As a landowner, here are two alternatives to achieve the same effect: I need to make some money to pay for the cost of living. At approximate current rates, I could either raise and sell 4000 chickens. Studies have shown that at least 200 of them would go to waste and mostly likely approximately 1200. Or I could raise and have shot 100 pheasants for my shoot. Although there is no real evidence to show that any would go to waste, let us presume that they all go to waste. (In fact, perhaps 2-4% go to waste because of not being fit for consumption) Which is ethically worse and why? Throwing 200-1200 shed-raised chickens in a hole or 100 free-roaming pheasants?
What I actually consider is that your entire line of argument is facile, largely wrong and spurious in the extreme. It is one thing to have this sort of ill-informed nonsense from antis, but very disappointing from anyone who shoots.
