No lead ban!

[ianthegun]

No lead ban!
Four key paragraphs in the Liz Truss letter to John Swift:
Following receipt of your report, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) sought independent scientific advice from the Committee on Toxicity about the human health risk assessment within it. This advice, which has been in place since 2012, States:
... ‘To minimise the risk of lead intake, people who frequently eat lead-shot game, particularly small game, should cut down their consumption. This advice is especially important for vulnerable groups such as toddlers and children, pregnant woman and woman trying to have a baby’.
With regard to the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife, we note that the report does not provide evidence of causation linking possible imparts of lead ammunition with sizes of bird populations in England.
In both instances – human health and wildlife – the report did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing current policy; we therefore do not accept your recommendation to ban the use of lead ammunition.

 

[Muir]

Good news.Lead bans suck. Ask anyone living in California.~Muir

 

[enfieldspares]

Is that "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California"? Or another place of the same name?

 

[Muir]

Is that "The People's Democratic Socialist Republic of California"? Or another place of the same name?

It is. Regions of California have had lead banned so. All on thin science.~Muir

 

[ianthegun]

if you want to read thin science read the LAG report now on their web site. leadammuntiongroup.org.uk

The lead issue is like global warming all made up scientific ********.

 

[enfieldspares]

It's odd that, in some matters, the US has less "shooting" rights (not to be confused with "gun" rights) than does the UK. An long standing 8 bore ban, a bag limit per person on deer and etc.

OTOH you've truly open to the public hunting lands. Which we in the UK can only dream of having. Plus of course our 12 ft/lbs air gun restrictions. And our de facto muzzleloading prohibition.

 

[Muir]

It's odd that, in some matters, the US has less "shooting" rights (not to be confused with "gun" rights) than does the UK. An long standing 8 bore ban, a bag limit per person on deer and etc.

OTOH you've truly open to the public hunting lands. Which we in the UK can only dream of having. Plus of course our 12 ft/lbs air gun restrictions. And our de facto muzzleloading prohibition.

Remember that lead bans, deer limits, etc are generally left to the States so it's not "The US" it's States within the US. The 8 bore ban comes from the banning of punt guns, from what i understand; I have no opinion on that one. Public lands are one of the best things we have and those pesky license fees pay for their upkeep as well as most of the public parks -many of which restrict hunting and shooting, but hunters support them. I bought upland game, General deer, General Elk, and B-Tag deer (extra deer tag) along with the required Sportsman's License and it cost me $33 for the year. Just in this state alone we have 30 million acres of public State/Federal land much of which can be hunted. I just look at my fees paid as a $0.0000011 per/acre yearly rental.~Muir

 

[woodmaster]

At that price Muir I would n't mind renting a couple hundred thousand acres. Where do I send the cheque?
I suspect that although you have all that land to roam about freely with your rifle, shotgun, bow I'm sure there must be many thousands of acres where little or no game is to be found or where there is game there will be plenty of fellow hunters after your buck?
Still you are lucky to have the chance.

 

[Muir]

At that price Muir I would n't mind renting a couple hundred thousand acres. Where do I send the cheque?
I suspect that although you have all that land to roam about freely with your rifle, shotgun, bow I'm sure there must be many thousands of acres where little or no game is to be found or where there is game there will be plenty of fellow hunters after your buck?
Still you are lucky to have the chance.

Where I live in Montana we have more game than can be shot. Our residential population equates to one person per three square miles if I got my stat tidbit straight. Not everyone hunts. I have gone out at dusk and seen 40-60 deer just as a casual observance from the 9 miles of road out to my buddy's place. My girl friend and I counted over 300 deer in one day when we actually went looking -and then, these were only the ones visible from the road, and in one 20 mile loop of country road near Big Timber, Montana. (Home of the Sharps Rifles) It is hard not to see deer. I tend to hunt away from the farm lands up in the hills and I see deer, always.

That said, you must see the species and gender your license is good for. (Our money also pays for on going population surveys) For the last few years Mule deer does have been off limits so you needed to find whitetail does and mule/whitetail bucks. Last year I shot a young mule buck in the Custer National Forest. I prefer does, always, but I had no "B" doe tag that year. Tho not my preference, he is tasty nonetheless. This year The General License is good for all species and genders. That will make my hunting somewhat easier. I will shoot a whitetail doe by first choice, and if I draw a B tag, I will shoot whichever species it allows with no qualms. And i have mentioned on this site, in my State, you are definitely limited to the number of permits you can apply for, and the number of drawings you are allowed to qualify for. I may shoot two deer, max in this State this year. If I want more venison, I will travel to my brother's place in South Dakota and shoot more whitetail. Compared to many of my UK brethren, this is not a great deer tally but we cannot sell or 'give' away a deer. We technically must remove it from the field and ideally, consume it ourselves. If I fill all my tags I will have two deer and a cow elk. That is more meat than one person can consume in a year. I rely on filling my freezer as do many people in my area. I have already begun my augmented off-hand practice with my T-3 7mm-08 and 308 rifles. I will shoot them 3-5 nights a week through hunting season's start.~Muir

 

[ileso]

The only place where lead shot should be banned is around water where water fowl pick it up.
All else I see no real reason for banning lead in other ammo...

 

[ianthegun]

Muir, I came over to Montana had an interview fro a job in Montana long guns, are they still going? They where down near Flathead lake.

 

[woodmaster]

Thanks Muir. Always interesting to hear how things are with other peoples hunting. A little question is why are the restrictions so tight if the population (as observed by you around your home) is so large. Is it that all these numbers are seen out of season then many will be shot when the season arrives, or is it to allow for natural mortality due to weather/feed conditions?
As you say we in the uk are lucky that there are no restrictions on our cull other than that imposed by either self constraint or with self imposed management to allow for future numbers to be present. Of course some "have" to shoot everything they see in season where protecting timber or crop so many many deer will be taken by one guy. I had a steady year myself last year as I missed a couple of trips due to work commitments and only managed a dozen deer I think. More than I have eaten myself, but I do eat a fair amount of venison throughout the year, supplemented by my own stock reared on my small holding. Along with some shop bought stuff when the need arrises.
I wish I had land near to home to hunt even if it was only for a couple deer a year, would make them all the more prized and time could be spent observing which one to take many times before actually pulling the trigger. Hope you have a good hunting year this fall.

 

[Muir]

Restrictions, as you call them, are simply a management issue. Shooting deer keeps the population at manageable levels for the feed, the environment, and the tally sheet of the previous year's harvest. Deer aren't managed because we want them there to shoot. We manage them because we simply want them there. The deer belong to the public, they are a natural resource. Hunting season, ideally, skims off excess leaving a healthy population able to weather drought, blizzard and disease.

Would I shoot a dozen deer? No. I can't eat that much venison. It would be a waste and I don't waste any part of the deer I shoot. I may only shoot two or three a year, but I can shoot whenever I feel like it. When i hunt it is in rough country and often in adverse conditions (-20F with 20 mph winds year before last). Our rifles aren't suppressed. I usually don't get more than one chance at a deer and I practice year round to make sure it is a good one.

Thanks for the well wishes. I always enjoy our 30 day season and yes, knowing you may only have one deer adds a certain consideration as to when, or when not, to pull the trigger. When you do take one, it is very special indeed.~Muir

 

[Muir]

Muir, I came over to Montana had an interview fro a job in Montana long guns, are they still going? They where down near Flathead lake.

I don't think so. Nice country, Flat Head.~Muir

 

[ianthegun]

Ref Lead Ban:

When I was on the DI, John Swift was one of the trustees. The Forestry Commission where looking at using copper bullet for all deer culling on their land.

I believe that the plan was to get the FC to use non-lead bullets and then use that through the LAG to bring in a total lead ban for lead shot and lead bullets.

 

[Pedro]

There are places that have been shot over for many generations repeatedly. The amount of lead spread about by shotguns once a fortnight in the game shooting season over the last couple of hundred years would amount to tons! There, surely, if it was going to, any problems would have emerged by now.

 

[Woodsmoke]

An old post of mine came up on my Facebook memories for this day in 2013. Thought it might be of interest . . . . . .


Just read that the 'evidence' taken as a result of the much-touted Lead Impact Survey carried out by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust & RSPB relating to the impact of lead shot on wildfowl still hasn't been provided to the Lead Action Group that it pressured the government to set up in the first place...........

This 'Trust', along with the RSPB, have been vociferous in condemning lead shot as have a massive negative impact on the health of birds within the surveyed areas.................

As the LAG contains a good few representatives who actually know what they're talking about, a few absolute howlers have been uncovered:

Namely, that the statements made by the WWT to the effect that 'thousands' of post mortems have shown lead ingestion to be a major cause of death are in fact total fantasy. What they were at pains to hide are the facts that a) only 2500 birds were actually post-mortemed, and b) that only 251 were affected in any way by lead (merely due to elevated systemic levels as opposed to lead ingestion being the actual cause of death)

What they also completely failed to mention was that the testing took place over a 40-year period leaving the not-so-horrifying statistic of 6 birds a year being killed through lead poisoning. Another salient fact they also failed to mention is that this testing was carried out over their own reserves, where shooting has actually been curtailed for many decades!

Lead-poisoning identifying criteria are apparently notoriously vague, and most of the symptoms may have alternative causes, so for the WWT to immediately jump on the lead-poisoning bandwagon is extremely misleading and deviously self-serving.

Another very interesting point that the WWT would prefer us not to find out about is that the most common source for lead ingestion across the spectrum is actually the consumption of cereals, potatoes and grain.................which the WWT has been providing to its feathered friends by the tonne for decades. Draw your own conclusions.............?

I don't know how many of you are already aware of these facts, but as the WWT & RSPB have been (unsurprisingly) at pains to hide these utter howlers, one has to wonder just how many other lies, half-truths and misrepresentations have been deliberately fed to a trusting public who assume these charities are acting in a responsible, unbiased & fair manner. Having said that, it's probably too much to assume that a public-funded 'charity' would be above filling peoples' heads with rubbish to keep the coffers filled, and to hell with truth & reality!