In news that will come as no surprise whatsoever, a new study has revealed that toxic lead ammunition is still being used widely to shoot birds in coastal intertidal and riparian habitats across Scotland, even though its use was banned in these habitats 18 years ago.
The new study, which has just been published in the journal Conservation Evidence, analysed discarded shotgun cartridges at various wetland locations and found that approximately half appeared to contain lead shot, which hasn’t been permitted for use over Scottish wetlands since 2005.
The ban on using lead shotgun ammunition over wetlands was introduced to try and reduce the amount of lead poisoning in wetland birds and the subsequent poisoning of predators that might scavenge the shot birds, particularly certain raptor species (e.g. see here and here).
Here’s the summary of the study (full paper available at the foot of this blog):
Similar legislation (with slight variations) was introduced in England in 1999 after a voluntary ban on the use of lead shotgun ammunition over wetlands failed.
However, a number of studies since that new legislation was introduced (see here) have shown high levels of non-compliance with the law, for example 68% non-compliance in 2001-2002; 70% non-compliance with the law in 2008-2009 & 2009-2010; and 77-82% non-compliance with the law in 2013-2014.
Another study published in 2021 concluded that since the regulations were introduced in England in 1999, an estimated 13 million ducks have been shot illegally using lead shotgun ammunition, with an annual average of approximately 586,000 ducks, representing approximately 70% of the total ducks shot (see here).
Tellingly, this 2015 paper that included the findings of a questionnaire survey of shooters’ behaviour and attitudes revealed that one of the main reasons for non-compliance with the law was the shooters believed they “were not going to get caught” i.e. shooters knew that using lead ammunition would not involve penalties as the law is not enforced. This is a really common feature of wildlife crime in general, but particularly raptor persecution crimes, which I’ve written about before (e.g. here). It doesn’t matter how stiff the penalty is, if the offender thinks there’s little to no chance of being caught then it’s worth the risk of committing the crime.
The 13 million illegally shot ducks also provide an excellent example of why it’s idiotic to calculate the extent of a crime based on the number of convictions (as Professor Simon Denny tried to do in his recent ‘truly objective‘ claim that raptor persecution isn’t a widespread issue on grouse moors – see here). If we classify every one of those shot ducks as a separate crime, there has only ever been one successful prosecution out of a potential 13 million crimes (and that prosecution only happened because the offender shot a swan in front of witnesses, mistaking it for a goose whilst on a pheasant shoot in North Yorkshire). One conviction from 13 million crimes demonstrates quite clearly that a lack of prosecutions / convictions does not equate to a lack of crime!
It’s an important lesson for the Scottish Parliament as it considers the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill – if there is insufficient monitoring and enforcement accompanying the new legislation on grouse moor management practices, the offenders will continue to commit their crimes (i.e. killing birds of prey and lighting fires on deep peat) because they’ll know the chances of being caught are pretty slim.
The Westminster Government is currently considering a range of options for phasing out the use of lead ammunition (see here), after ignoring the overwhelming scientific evidence for years and instead choosing to support the shooting industry’s (then) refusal to get rid of toxic lead ammunition (e.g. see here and here).
Three years ago some (but not all) in the game-shooting industry realised the game was up and proclaimed a five-year voluntary phase-out of toxic lead ammunition (largely, I believe, because they didn’t want to have a ban enforced upon them). However, three years into that five-year phase out, things aren’t going too well (see here) and many UK supermarkets are still selling poisonous game meat to unsuspecting customers for both human consumption (here) and for pet food (here).
The HSE is due to report its recommendations about the use of toxic lead ammunition to Government by 6th November 2023. DEFRA Minister Richard Benyon told Green peer Natalie Bennett recently that the DEFRA Secretary of State ‘will be required to make a decision within three months of receipt of the opinions, with the consent of Welsh & Scottish Ministers‘ (see here).
Anything less than an immediate ban on the use of toxic lead ammunition for killing any species in any habitat (not just some species in some wetland habitats), will be challenged.
Here’s the full paper on the significant non-compliance of the law by shooters in Scotland, who are still using toxic lead shotgun ammunition to kill birds over wetlands, 18 years after it was banned. Well worth a read:
UPDATE 13th September 2023: Is DEFRA can-kicking the decision to phase out use of toxic lead ammunition by gamebird shooters? (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
If they give out shotgun certificates to irresponsible people what do you expect ??? Laws that are not enforced are completely useless but if you honestly expect the police to bother about any of this you are very misguided.
the simple answer is to ban the sale of lead filled cartridges and of lead shot
And possession, loan and use.
I agree with the thrust of this paper but the assumption that discarded shotgun cases give an unbiased sample of lead v non-lead cartidges used seems open to challenge
. Won’t the criminals who leave cases behind be those most likely to use lead cartridges?
Hi Peter – if you read the discussion section of the paper the authors consider this, and other potential biases.
“Won’t the criminals who leave cases behind be those most likely to use lead cartridges?”
Why do you think that criminals are more likely to deliberately leave evidence behind? That strikes me as contrived and anti-intuitive.
It also works the other way. It could be argued that wildfowlers who shoot legitimately, and do not use lead shot, may be more likely to pick up spent cartridges, as their more responsible approach might mean they are less likely to discard litter- which is effectively what spent cartridges are.
There is also lots of research which indicates that those who commit crimes are also more likely to engage in low level offending or antisocial behaviour. This might indicate that those who break the rules when it comes to using lead shoot, might also be more prepared to break the rules when it comes to depositing litter.
I would suggest most shooters are aware that leaving spent cartridges is also highly unlikely to lead to individuals being identified, and as such those who break the rules are probably very aware they will not be caught.
I think the researchers acknowledge that using spent cartridges as the source of determining whether there is compliance with the regulations may introduce bias into their research, and therefore may not give an accurate picture as to exact level of compliance with the regulations.
Perhaps a more realistic assessment could be achieved if there were random checks on those shooting over wetlands to ascertain just what ammunition they were using?
As I suggested in my earlier comment, even if shooting is taking place on private land, but which is deemed a public place then the police could probably use their powers to inspect weapons and ammunition under the Firearms Act. This might be a way forward for future research if the police carried out such inspections, and the data from those inspections was analysed?
Virtually the entire bloodsports community consider themselves to be above the law so this is no surprise. Even on the rare occasions that they are prosecuted, the punishments are pathetic. This would all end very quickly if one of two of them were given a stretch in prison. Let’s hope the next Labour government deals with this once and for all. ( I won’t hold my breath ).
I feel a five year study and then a further five year consultation may do the job. This would then result in a very sensible ten year voluntary faze out period.
I’m always wary of research abuses and will take the time to read through the paper before judging it but as a wildfowler, I’m absolutely raging this is even a thing in 2023.
Ammunition industry has made big steps towards non toxic ammunition and there should be no place for lead cartridges in any wetland area.
I support the lead ban proposed by BASC especially if now means these criminals won’t have any more resources to break the law.
Wildfowling should never be about bags, rather about the experience and the beauty of wetland and personal skills.
“Wildfowling should never be about bags, rather about the experience and the beauty of wetland and personal skills.”
Ha! ‘beauty of wetland’ my foot! Completely blind to the beauty of wildfowl, are you? Insensible to the cruelty you employ? Contemptuous to the waste of lives?
spoken like a person who has only ever shopped in a supermarket allowing other people to kill the plants and animals that he eats so that he can sit on his precious high horse criticising the actions and choices of other people reading these comments sickens me with the bias and lack of credible evidence that you all choose to believe it is no wonder that the country and the world are in the toilet it seems to me that the world has become so narrow minded that people only take on board what bolsters their beliefs never bothering to get all the facts and form a broader opinion and whilst wildfowling is not for me i can understand the allure of being out on the marsh at dawn or dusk and witnessing the truly amazing sights that reside there and if they want to take something home to eat good on them and shame on you all for your intolerance
Apparently, a significant proportion of gun-owners in Scotland don’t give a stuff about the environment or laws designed to protect it – yet this same group are seen to be fit to hold gun licenses by Police Scotland. Lack of enforcement renders the legislation pointless.
As a van driver, I’ve been subject to random police checks (‘we always stop vans out late at night’) so why can’t gun users be subject to similar, when out shooting? These people do possess firearms, after all.
Probably because gun users will typically be on private land, not on public roads. The Police need to have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a crime has taken place to be able to enter private land, and a warrant if they want to enter and conduct formal searches.
Looks pretty clear that the threshold of ‘reasonable suspicion’ has been reached – and anyone can enter private land in Scotland, excluding buildings, associated curtilages, garden, etc.
What you’re actually saying is that the law regarding the use of lead on wetlands is so poorly drafted as to be totally unenforceable. A total ban on lead is the only realistic way forward, with meaningful penalties for possession and/or supply.
“A total ban on lead is the only realistic way forward”
Why would you think that? Why not simply ban lead in game meat for sale, as we do for all other meats?
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive, but if lead ammunition is banned across all types of shooting and all habitats – enforced via a ban on manufacture, importation and sale of lead ammunition, then compliance by shooters ceases to be an issue (at least once existing stocks are used up). If lead ammo is available there will always be some who will use it in the hope/expectation of not being caught. A ban on lead in game meat for sale will have no impact on those who are not looking to sell their game (such as all those pheasants that get dumped in stink pits or fly-tipped in bin liners).
“if lead ammunition is banned across all types of shooting and all habitats – enforced via a ban on manufacture, importation and sale of lead ammunition, then compliance by shooters ceases to be an issue (at least once existing stocks are used up)”
Loading your own lead is one of the easiest, and cheapest, of tasks, as shockingly demonstrated by the notorious Raoul Moat.
“A ban on lead in game meat for sale will have no impact on those who are not looking to sell their game”
On shooting estates no one can tell who has killed what, because the bag is mixed up. It doesn’t matter if some individual is not interested in selling, because if a single shooter is using lead the bag will be contaminated, and the entire shoot product would end up as rejected/blacklisted by any retailer facing legal action from the FSA and local authorities (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) or Food Standards Scotland (SFELC).
Which is precisely why – thus far – that lead in game meat is specifically made exempt from food safety legislation in all four nations! The FSA and FSS care LESS about the consumer’s health than they care about the viability of the shooting industry.
People are not being forced to eat game it’s a personal choice so if anyone has reservations about eating game that may have been shot with lead they should avoid eating game. Lead shot is used legally to shoot all game so it would be wise to be careful if you intend avoiding lead shot game
“People are not being forced to eat game…”
People are not forced to eat anything. They rely upon the FSA and FSS to make sure all their food is free from all dangerous toxins.
That wildfowlers are contemptuous of public health safety comes as no surprise.
Your conclusions from my reply only highlight your blinkered views.
I try to be a bit more self reliant.
“I try to be a bit more self reliant” by eating lead-contaminated meat.
Why is retail lead-contaminated meat not banned by the FSA or the FSS?
“I try to be a bit more self reliant.”
It’s not really clear what you mean by this John. Are you suggesting that we shouldn’t have food safety standards at all? I assume even you purchase some of your food. Are you really happy with the idea that buying groceries should be a lottery in which you don’t know if what you’re buying contains toxic contaminants? If not, can you explain why game should be exempt from the rules that apply to everything else?
I am certainly in favour of game that is offered for sale being subject to the same food safety standards as any other meat, Keith. I don’t think there is a single ‘only way forward’ and would favour a variety of approaches. Notwithstanding the ease with which self-loading may be carried out, I believe that there are likely to be very many shooters who still could not be bothered with the faff – e.g. the wealthy city boys who descend on grouse moors, so a ban on the sale of lead shot would surely have a big impact.
By self reliant I mean that the game I eat I provide for myself all shot with lead apart from foreshore geese and ducks.
As an aside [Ed: rest of comment deleted as off topic]
If people are happy to eat the game they shoot with lead shot why should they be prevented from doing that.
Why should a ban on the sale of lead shot game have any impact on those not selling game ?
Do you eat game provided that it has been verified to have been killed with steel shot and if so how many birds do you consume over the season.
It isn’t an issue confined to Scotland though, is it? Until the government(s) both central and devolved, make it a crime to use lead shot, with effective penalties, shooters will keep abusing the law. As for voluntary bans & transitions, we all saw how well that worked with the voluntary smoking ban: strong laws and effective enforcement are needed.
Why not a police task force, paid for through the licence fee to get rid of any arguments about limited police funds, who have the right to knock on any shotgun licence holder’s door and demand to inspect their weapons and ammunition, and that it should be done prior to any renewal of a licence?
Shotgun licence fees are subsidised by the taxpayer, which is, in itself, an absurdity.
“make it a crime to use lead shot, with effective penalties”
Far easier to simply ban lead in food. The FSA have a lot to answer for – knowing perfectly well that they permit extravagantly high levels of this toxin to be openly sold in so-called game meat throughout supermarkets and markets across the UK.
While the BBC also dedicates entire programmes to the lying propaganda of the ‘health-giving’ properties of consuming high levels of lead in game food.
You just hate people who hunt. It’s not about conservation. It’s about imposing your morals on others. A few weeks back comments on here included rants about people fishing for trout. Your masks always slip.
Our shoot has unbelievable conservation results that have come about through our stewardship……but it wouldn’t matter to you. Like a former league against cruel sports chairman once said, he would rather see no animals than see people enjoy hunting them.
Unbelievable conservation results?. ACW.
“A few weeks back comments on here included rants about people fishing for trout.”
Is that true, or are you just making it up? Supply the URL.
“Our shoot has unbelievable conservation results”
That much is true: no one believes your ‘results’.
We pay £2000 a year to lease our shoot. Why don’t you all chip in and lease some land? Put your money where your mouth is. If your rants could become practical work imagine the success you would have. Every time you want to rant about others go put a bird box up instead or do a nights poacher patrol? Computer warriors
Would you care to address the findings on which this thread is based? Or are your hypocritical comments (both of which are plainly “rants” themselves) just a childish attempt to divert the reader’s attention from them?
That will never happen Ian these people are people haters not animal lovers.
Another one afraid to respond to the facts.
“facts”.
In over 45 years wildfowling I have never come across discarded ammunition yet you base your assumptions on these conveniently uncovered cartridges.
I think you are well overdue a reality check. Perhaps a bit more research on your part would show a more accurate portrayal of the issue. But that would involve conceding ground so it will never happen.
Extreme views thrive on misinformation and it appears we can’t have a more balanced view as it would not suit the polarization of opinion that gives you your self righteousness.
It’s your comments that read like the “extreme view”. Have a read of the report and I think you may come to agree that the researchers did a thorough job of collecting and analysing the cases, and explaining their methodology. But anyway, what would be an “accurate portrayal of the issue”? Surely it’s a simple one – nobody should be using lead over wetlands, but they are! And there’s no need for it and no excuses for it. It’s just more dumb & uncaring self-inflicted wounding, that is steadily burying the reputation of the shooting world.
An accurate portrayal would be that the vast majority of foreshore wildfowlers are using non toxic shot.
Ah, so it’s a few “rotten apples” that are causing the problem here too, then? Well, go get ’em and make them change their ways or shame them out of the sport – maybe encourage them to do something better with their time – like putting up bird boxes. But here’s a tip – those rotten apples doing the wrong thing are less likely to be found among the researchers who produced the report, the owner / admin of this site or among the commenters who are condemning the use of lead shot. They are more likely to be found either in the field / on the foreshore or on websites, forums and Facebook groups devoted to shooting / fieldsports.
“An accurate portrayal would be that the vast majority of foreshore wildfowlers are using non toxic shot.”
In the survey of 21 sites around Scotland 167 spent cartridges were found to be for lead shot, while only 152 were for steel.
You are just making wild assertions without any evidence.
Those cartridge cases could all or mostly been reloaded with steel, as you wrote earlier reloading is a simple procedure.
So not really conclusive evidence of lead shot being used on the foreshore
The only “assumptions” here have been made by you, and Iain, regarding the motivation of the site admin and those who comment here. Anyone who regularly walks in the UK countryside will know that spent cartridges (not “discarded ammunition”) are commonly found wherever shooting has taken place.
“In over 45 years wildfowling I have never come across discarded ammunition”
Of course you haven’t. It is spent cartridges, which can be easily found by anyone.
I have come across discarded cartridge cases. I’d imagine that the main cause of them not being picked up is failure to find ejected cases from a semi automatic being used at dusk or while moonlighting. The number of cases found in the study are not particularly high if averaged out over a few seasons. Most wildfowlers in my experience make the effort to pick them up.
“The number of cases found in the study are not particularly high if averaged out over a few seasons”
You are trying to falsify the data. The more recent the spent cartridge, the higher the percentage were lead, and all the percentages were upwards of 50% of the spent cartridges found.
Not true I think you should reread the report. From memory 3 cases from Baldoon all linked to steel shot
“From memory 3 cases from Baldoon all linked to steel shot”
What you originally, falsly, claimed was “The number of cases found in the study are not particularly high if averaged out over a few seasons”.
Figure 3 shows the proportions of discarded cartridge cases correlated with an analogue for age. All six age groups show proportions upwards of 50% of discarded cases being lead, with the highest proportion being in the most recent age group.
Baldoon is just one of 21 sites examined. Table 1 shows that in total, 167 discarded cartridge cases were for lead, and 152 were for steel. Another 46 could not be determined.
Wildfowlers are still widely using lead shot because they do not give a damn about the environment, and neither do they care about all the other wild birds which are killed ingestion their lead.
Do you have a link for the evidence that all wildfowlers are still widely using lead shot because they do not give a damn about the environment or are you making that assumption from the cartridge cases found. You do realise that the cases found could have been reloaded with steel or bismuth ,as mentioned earlier it is very easily done
Spent cartridge cases can easily be reloaded with steel so are no indicator on their own that lead is being used on the foreshore hence my assumption that it was being claimed that complete discarded cartridges had been found
If we are going to trade anecdote (as that is all you are doing) I have next to never been out for a walk or out birdwatching in many parts of the UK for over 50 years without coming across used and abandoned shotgun cartridges, including on the edges of nature reserves, SSSIs and the like.
“…yet you base your assumptions on these conveniently uncovered cartridges”.
The study this post is based on was carried out by highly reputed and experienced researchers. The paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (meaning that its methods, analysis and conclusions have all been independently vetted by other researchers to check they are robust and appropriate). The authors clearly explain their methods and discuss the potential sources of error within their results. There are no grounds whatever for your contemptible insinuation that the results are somehow made up. The results of their analysis show quite clearly that a significant proportion of the cartridges found on foreshores had contained lead-shot. The reasonable conclusion from this is that a significant proportion of wildfowlers are using lead-shot illegally.
Further down this thread you assert that you are well-placed to assess the amount of lead-shot that is or isn’t used on the foreshore but how so? If you say you don’t use it, I am prepared to believe you and perhaps you are aware of the cartridges some of your chums use but do you really have any idea of what other wildfowlers are using all around the coast? What methods have you used to make your assessment and what are the assumptions and errors involved? In the absence of some hard evidence from you on these points I am very strongly inclined to believe the results of Green et al whose basis is clearly explained, rather than your subjective assessment which ‘conveniently’ coincides with your apparent view that everything is fine and we should all leave wildfowlers alone.
I should add that, if in 45 years you have never seen spent cartridges abandoned on the ground, your powers of observation must be extremely limited and very little confidence can therefore be placed in whatever you may or may not feel you are in a position to assess.
As mentioned elsewhere it is entirely possible that the cartridge cases had been recycled and reloaded with non lead shot.
Of course you are inclined to believe the results of green et al as after all it suits your agenda.
Is it not just as reasonable to say that of course you are inclined to disbelieve the results of Green et al as after all it suits your agenda to do so?
I do not disbelieve the results of Green et al
The results indicate that they discovered discarded cartridge cases on the foreshore which could have been loaded with non toxic shot prior to being shot.
We know for sure that they did contain lead at some point.
We know from other types of evidence that compliance with lead shot regulations elsewhere (England) is a long way from total (to put it mildly).
It is far less of a stretch to consider that the results of Green et al provide significant evidence of non compliance in Scotland (even if we can’t be sure of the exact percentage of non compliance due to acknowledged potential sources of error) than to assume, as you seemingly do, that all these cartridge cases had been re-filled with non-toxic shot and consequently that there is no evidence of breaking the law.
You have repeatedly asserted that Scottish wildfowlers are completely law abiding but when asked on what evidence your confidence is based have repeatedly failed to provide any. You accuse others of reaching conclusions simply because they chime with their ‘agenda’ but fail to recognise that your own agenda might be clouding your own vision.
“That will never happen Ian these people are people haters not animal lovers”
No, we are haters of people who shoot living creatures for ‘enjoyment’.
Does that extend to hating those who have others kill animals for their enjoyment ie any meat eater
“Does that extend to hating those who have others kill animals for their enjoyment ie any meat eater”
Now, why on earth should that be? Human beings are omnivores, and the overwhelming majority eat meat. What they do not do is kill animals simply for the pleasure of the killing, as shooters do:-( And then chuck the carcasses into incinerators and stink pits, as shooters do. Or supply the odd, lead-contaminated carcass to the meat trade – poisoning some unwary consumer – as shooters do.
Based on the information you are using to form your opinion I understand your heartfelt grievance but your information is a distortion of fact.
Perhaps if you made an effort to educate yourself on the wide ranging activities that make up what for many is a healthy way of procuring food for the table, cutting out the middleman you wouldn’t feel so upset by the harvesting of game for human consumption.
Your idea that shooters just kill things to enjoy the act of killing is a simplistic attempt to demonise shooters. Try thinking a bit deeper.
“Your idea that shooters just kill things to enjoy the act of killing is a simplistic attempt to demonise shooters. Try thinking a bit deeper”
Yet someone on this very thread (see above) – who describes himself “as a wildfowler” – admitted: “Wildfowling should never be about bags, rather about… personal skills.”
‘Personal skills’ being the act of killing.
So you are just trying to distort facts. Again. Perhaps, if you made an effort to educate yourself on the reasons why wildfowlers ‘enjoy’ the ‘personal skill’ of killing wildfowl you would stop making false claims?
You also describe the practise of shooting birds with lead ammunition “as a healthy way of procuring food”. And you have already admitted “I do use lead inland”…
So, John Robinson, you claim that eating meat contaminated with lead is ‘healthy’, which is not an opinion supported by any science.
Try thinking a bit deeper. If your apparently lead-effected brain can.
“A healthy way of procuring food”
yes ,what could be healthier than rising before dawn for morning flight and the exercise involved in getting over the foreshore and back in order to bag your dinner.
“yes ,what could be healthier…”
Not killing wild birds. Not eating contaminated meat. Not putting lead-contaminated meat into the food chain.
Deliberately taken out of context. Try rereading my reply .
All my ducks ,geese ,pheasants ,rabbit ,deer and pigeon are eaten by myself and the lifestyle employed in obtaining them is beneficial to my health as it is to the millions of people around the world who share a similar lifestyle
Personal skills probably refers to the ability to recognise all lawful quarry species in flight ,to be able to predict the flight lines of birds ,to have the ability to get within range of those birds ,to conceal oneself on the marsh,to lay out a decoy spread to fool the birds into range and also have the ability to call birds into range and also to being mindful of the tides and the weather that affects their flow in order to get on and off the marsh safely that’s a few of the personal skills required to be a successful fowler.
Your idea that personal skill is “being the act of killing” shows a lack of understanding of the process of wildfowling ,unsurprisingly really.
“Personal skills probably refers to the ability to recognise all lawful quarry species in flight ,to be able to predict the flight lines of birds etc etc”
That is all part of enjoying the act of killing, isn’t it? Otherwise, why kill and not take a photo?
You can’t eat a photograph Keith and no need for photographs when you have countless good memories
Personal skills would refer to the ability to place oneself within range of the quarry.
I can’t see how you can equate it to the act of killing, that maybe your interpretation but not what was actually written.
There is no necessity for you ,for example, to eat a steak you do so because you enjoy it.
There is no necessity for me to shoot a duck for the table I do enjoy the ability to provide meat for the table and the time spent procuring game.
Neither of us enjoy the act of the animal being killed but both of us enjoy eating the product.
Where’s the difference
“Where’s the difference”
Wildfowlers do not kill humanely. Wildfowlers kill wild birds. Wildfowlers put lead-contaminated meat into the food chain. Wildfowlers spread lead over the foreshore, killing lots of other wild birds.
Wildfowlers enjoy the act of killing, in and of itself.
Have you been to an abattoir? It’s not a pleasant experience.
How can you possibly know that
“Wildfowlers enjoy the act of killing,in and of itself” can you give me a link to substantiate your claim?
You seem to have an unfortunate distorted view of people and also seem to be driven by an unfounded dislike of people you clearly have little understanding about.
I have a great love of wildlife and the countryside being born and brought up there it doesn’t stop me from taking a harvest to put meat on my plate. I’m assuming you get all this secondhand from the supermarket
“How can you possibly know that
“Wildfowlers enjoy the act of killing,in and of itself” can you give me a link to substantiate your claim?”
Because one of them admitted it (see above).
“I have a great love of wildlife and the countryside being born and brought up there it doesn’t stop me from taking a harvest to put meat on my plate”
Words are cheap. You love wildlife so much that you can’t help but kill some of it.
The wildlife you kill is not yours to kill, is it? You are actively depriving others from enjoying any of the wildlife you kill.
Wildlife on the foreshore is owned by no one but it is brought into my possession when I shoot it.
It maybe argued that game and wildfowl are considered under the ownership of the land owner on whose land they are found as poaching laws consider game taken without the permission of the landowner an offence
Do you (or your shoot members) use lead shot over wetlands, illegally? If not, you have nothing to complain about here.
My complaint is the massive misrepresentation of the reality of shooting on the foreshore. I am well placed to assess the accuracy of the claims made which is more than can be said for the majority of posters on the topic. And no I don’t use lead shot over wetlands. I do use lead inland, as is legal in Scotland,on geese and ducks and have no worries about eating those I shoot.
I echo Iain’s view earlier that your time and money would be better spent contributing to practical conservation than complaining on forums about subjects that you have limited experience of.
You have absolutely no idea of the conservation activity of those who comment here. Yet once more, you choose to speculate without a shred of evidence. It’s assumption after assumption from you, isn’t it?
But what should we expect from one with pontificates about conservation, while happily showering our countryside with highly toxic lead for the last 45 years.
“I do use lead inland, as is legal in Scotland,on geese and ducks and have no worries about eating those I shoot.”
Lead ingested from food cause all manor of neurological damage, perhaps as evidenced from your confusion over ‘discarded ammunition’ and spent cartridges’?
I wasn’t confused, I mistakenly thought that the report was referring to discarded cartridges when reading through the comments made and before reading it.
I understand point scoring trumps all in these forums but I am savvy enough to know the extent of the use of non toxic shot on the shore from my own personal experience.
I think you will find that shotgun and firearm certificate holders are probably the most law abiding citizens as any comparatively minor breaking of the law can lead to withdrawal of their licences.
There is a substantial amount of evidence of law breaking by shot-gun users. This includes the research mentioned in this post as well as the regular discovery of dead and injured birds of species such as birds of prey that are not legal quarry but which are found to have been peppered with shot-gun pellets.
“I wasn’t confused, I mistakenly thought…”
Contradicted yourself immediately, there!
“I think you will find that shotgun and firearm certificate holders are probably the most law abiding citizens”
In the only published figures available, the BBC announced that one Police force revealed nearly 40% of all gun and crossbow license holders had criminal records.
See https://unlock.org.uk/advice/firearms-licence-holder/
Being confused and being mistaken are not synonymous
“Being confused and being mistaken are not synonymous”
Oh yes they are.
See https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/mistaken
Synonyms for ‘mistaken’: confused
In the context that I used them the words were not synonymous.
Being mistaken does not mean that one is in a state of confusion ie the state of being bewildered.
I agree that you might not be able to differentiate the two
“In the context that I used them the words were not synonymous.”
Ha! “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
The “only published figures” probably have little relevance as they include reference to the Isle of Man’s Regulated Weapon Certificate which is required in order to lawfully possess low powered air weapons and crossbows.
The conditions for the successful application for either a firearms certificate or shotgun certificate in the UK will be more stringent to reflect the responsibility required to possess either shotguns or firearms for example a drunk driving offence or even bad tempered arguments with neighbours can and does see your certificates revoked.
“for example a drunk driving offence or even bad tempered arguments with neighbours can and does see your certificates revoked.”
You clearly do not understand the firearms and shotgun laws very well, either.
The ‘only published figures’ are all we have, and 40% had criminal records. Far from the ‘most law abiding citizens” you would have others believe.
Tell me, which of Alexander and Robert McKellar were ‘most law abiding citizens’?
I clearly understand them better than you. The Isle of Man figures you refer to are not comparable to Mainland UK licensing as the laws are completely different.
England has no licensing of sub 12ft/lb air rifles and sub 6ft/lb air pistols and there is no licensing of crossbows in Scotland ,England, Wales or Ireland.
As I was referring to the shotgun and firearm licence holders being probably the most law abiding section of the community your reference to Airgun and crossbow licensing in the Isle of Man is irrelevant,though I appreciate that you might not grasp that.
Xxxxx xxxxx wrote: “your reference to Airgun and crossbow licensing in the Isle of Man is irrelevant”
Confused again?
The reference is to ALL registered gun and crossbow owners. It stated “As of 31 March 2019, 2,003 people held certificates for firearms and regulated weapons with 789 of these (39%) having at least one conviction.”
Regulated weapons in the context of the Isle of Man licensing laws includes the licensing of ownership of low powered air weapons and crossbows. As the criteria for the possession of such weapons is not as stringent as that for the possession of shotguns in mainland UK there are no grounds for comparing the offender rate of those possessing an air rifle or pistol in the Isle of Man with the offender rate for shotgun and firearm certificate holders in the UK.
Bear in mind that possession of a sub 12 ft/lb air rifle in England has no requirement for a licence.
As I explained earlier I made the assumption that it was complete intact cartridges that were found as it is impossible to tell whether a spent cartridge case had been recycled by being reloaded with non lead shot for use on the foreshore.
“Why don’t you all chip in and lease some land?”
Because we usually buy land for nature reserves instead. Didn’t you know?
This throws into sharp relief all the worthless sentiments expressed by the shootiung industry and it’s allies in regards for caring for non game birds. The thruth is tat neither they nor their landowning sponsors give one whit about anything except the numbers of birds there are for them to shoot and what lies to tell the media to get the more responsible citizens of our country off their back.
NOTHING — and I mean NOTHING — could be simpler than ridding the country of lead shot. This is sheer doggedness on their part which gives them an opportunity to cock a snoot at the rest of us at great expense to both out environment and our ecology — just because they can.
We will know when these laws become properly enforced and mass factory production dwindles, because prices will rise and “home-loading” (traditionally a bit of a niche hobby for those fascinated with the technical side and historical workings of shotguns and shotgun cartridges) will take off in a big way in the mainstream i.e. people will load their own lead cartridges / others will make them to sell amongst friends.
There’s no need to use lead when high performance steel, tss, bioammo and bismuth shot are freely available. Why risk losing your licence and spoiling your day worrying when perfectly acceptable alternatives exist.
Your premise that wildfowlers are mainly using lead on the foreshore has lead you to conclude that therefore they will handload then distribute lead cartridges to like minded fowlers. Its a doubtful scenario.
I feel this whole thread is not about toxic ammunition it’s about restricting the shooting of wild animals for the table and any report that can be used to bring that about is welcome. A bit more honesty in replies wouldn’t go amiss. But hey a lot of people just enjoy spending their time arguing especially in a polarized forum.
[Ed: rest of comment deleted as off topic]
I don’t hate people who hunt and I don’t object to people catching trout. I must therefore possess some sort of curious qualification that means I am able to condemn the use of lead cartridges over wetlands. Remind me, why is it a good idea to let it continue?
Shooting with lead over wetlands is already illegal and non toxic shot is used by far the vast majority of wildfowlers as is required by law and could be verified by any experienced wildfowler
I understand your frustration if you think that the majority of wildfowlers are flaunting the law but there is no need to worry I’m sure the foreshore and it’s wildfowl are capable of coping with the incredibly small amounts of lead illegally shot over the shore.
I will continue to use non toxic shot successfully, with the ammunition available there is really no need for lead.
“non toxic shot is used by far the vast majority of wildfowlers as is required by law”
Not true.
See https://www.conservationevidence.com/individual-study/12257
With such small numbers of cartridge cases found I think it is wrong to conclude that it is an accurate portrayal of the extent of non toxic cartridges regularly used on the foreshore.
I think it is more indicative of occasional use of lead by occasional wildfowlers not under the influence of the law abiding majority of regular wildfowlers.
All anecdotal but that is the nature of experience.
“With such small numbers of cartridge cases found…”
Not true. Hundreds of spent cartridge cases found and analysed. The statistically relevant figure is the proportion of those containing lead, and that figure was upwards of 50%.
As there is no evidence to suggest that the cases you are referring to were not reloaded with steel,bismuth or any non toxic shot alternative to lead you have no evidence at all to show that there has been any lead shot fired over the foreshore at any of the locations mentioned in the report you refer to.
Hi John, to try to answer both your replies to my comments in one go…I’m not frustrated because I believe that the majority of wildfowlers are flouting the law. I actually think the majority of wildfowlers will use non-toxic cartridges, perhaps rough guess 75% of total individual wildfowlers. However, the other 25% (the morons) will account for more per season (so the total amount of lead shot still used will be quite high), as among that intransigent quartile you will have some of the most dedicated and obsessed individuals who are determined that there way is the right way and anyone that says differently is an anti or a Packham supporter and can f-k off, etc. And here is what I am frustrated about…responsible wildfowlers like yourself putting their efforts into trying to discredit research and deny a problem exists, when your hobby would be better served by accepting there is a significant problem and educating and/or purging from your ranks the morons still using lead. It’s the same with all the other bad things that go on in the broader shooting world, the good people need to admit “we have a problem” and change, not cover up for those knee-deep in wrongdoing. I actually think wildfowling is perhaps the most legally compliant and ethically defensible sector of shooting world, way ahead of the horrors of typical reared bird shoots and high end grouse moors. So why not push for a completely clean bill of health, rather than let this issue fester?
Perhaps Mr Robinson would be good enough to square his statement of September 11, 2023 at 9:15 pm…
“I do use lead inland, as is legal in Scotland, on geese and ducks and have no worries about eating those I shoot.”
with that of September 13, 2023 at 1:44 pm…
“There’s no need to use lead when high performance steel, tss, bioammo and bismuth shot are freely available.”
and September 13, 2023 at 2:00 pm…
“with the ammunition available there is really no need for lead.”?
Gladly it is entirely dependent on the gun I am using. I use a 10 bore single barrel shotgun inland with 10 bore lead cartridges and 1/2 choke which gives me a killing pattern at 50 yards or so. I have around 100 lead cartridges left and will continue to use them while legal. I have an old 1 and 1/2 oz proofed English side by side which is heavily choked and not suitable for steel at present I will use it inland with a range of lead cartridges depending on the quarry. I use a 3 and 1/2 inch magnum semi automatic designed for use with steel shot that I use on the foreshore with a range of steel cartridges.
While non toxic shot has improved it is still not as ballistically efficient as lead and it holds a tighter pattern so that anything too close can be overshot and anything too far wounded. So on the shore you have to be more aware of range if you want birds fit for the table or not wounded.
Shooting inland with lead with one open choked barrel and one tightly choked gives the shooter both greater range and flexibility depending on the ammunition used.
Shooting with steel on the shore is a compromise where one has to be more aware of range. In reality when shooting at geese one chooses the best steel option and restricts range it’s a compromise.
It would be more accurate to state that
“with the ammunition available there is no need for lead but one has to accept a decrease in range on the foreshore and avoid taking birds closer than you could with lead or they will not be fit for the pot”
The tss shot and bismuth while ballistically superior to steel as shot material are prohibitively expensive and so not used by me inland.
My earlier longer reply has seemingly gone missing.
The short answer is that there are limitations with non toxic shot that I am willing to accept on the foreshore to remain shooting legally.
When shooting inland I am able to take advantage of the superior ballistic properties of lead that give me a lesser chance of wounding and a greater chance of having a bird fit for the table.
So, although you’re unwilling to use lead on the foreshore, it appears that inland ecosystems aren’t, in your view, important enough to treat with the same respect. So you continue polluting them as you have done for 45 years.
Or is your use of non-toxic alternatives in wetland habitats simply driven by fear of prosecution rather than any real environmental concerns?
Maybe you’d like to put your point regarding ballistics to Danish and Dutch shooters, who seem to have done very well without lead for three decades…
“In summary, shot material plays a secondary role in shot performance. The right choice of shot sizes, shooting distances, and cartridge quality, i.e. sufficient energy and conformity of components, play a more important role. Furthermore, shooting efficacy and the success of the shot are related to the shooter rather than the ammunition, though shooters may need to adapt to using different ammunition. Steel and other alternatives can be used as effectively as lead shot (Thomas et al. 2015).”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675819/
Lead and steel cartridges are not ballistically equivalent hence the the mention of
“the right choice of shooting distances “
As steel has a smaller range of distance that it can be used effectively to harvest game ie the range in which it will not overshoot game and the range which it has sufficient energy to kill cleanly is shorter than with lead.
Hence the massive loads of steel shot used in semi automatic shotguns to mimic what loads were commonly used with lead shot and still are inland.
The devil is in the detail and if you don’t have the experience to put what you are reading in a context then that detail is lost to you.
Let’s cut all this “experience” crap, shall we?
I remind you once more: Danish and Dutch shooters have managed perfectly well for decades, and many are young enough to have never used lead. So, even if we accept your rather poor excuse, the fact remains that you pollute our countryside by choice. In your own words…
“with the ammunition available there is really no need for lead.”
To end with more of your own words…
“fit for the table”…
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-019-01194-x
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311843.2018.1557316
https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc7568734
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0010315#s3
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100531082601.htm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161761/
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(16)30021-3/pdf
https://www.food.gov.uk/safety-hygiene/lead-shot-game
Click to access Risk_Assessment.pdf
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/food-safety/waitrose-to-phase-out-lead-shot-game-across-its-estates/596119.article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6062035/
Click to access OLS_proceedings_kanstrup.pdf
Well Coop as you seem to have no direct experience of the subject ie wildfowling and shotgun ballistics I am at a loss to figure out how you can express an opinion as you have no insight to verify or disprove what you are reading.
Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
The report regarding the finding of empty cartridge cases is deeply flawed because there is no way of knowing what was in the cartridges prior to them being fired on the foreshore.
As mentioned a few times earlier reloading cartridges is easily done and is commonly practiced by wildfowlers to cut the cost of their sport so it is perfectly feasible that the original lead shot cartridge cases were recycled and reloaded with non lead shot.
To paraphrase the individual currently squatting in 10 Downing St, you really are Captain Assumption, aren’t you? For all you know, I might be a Gunsmith.
The truth is that despite all the (utterly irrelevant) excuses and waffle that you trot out, your continued, wilful pollution of our environment with lead is indefensible when…
“There’s no need to use lead when high performance steel, tss, bioammo and bismuth shot are freely available”.
And, the fact that you believe that you have the right to do so for your own narrow, selfish ends says much of the mindset which is so prevelant within your hobby. Therefore, it’s no real surprise that some respond with the “extreme” views (which I don’t share) that you apparently find so unpalatable.
Your “experience” (in truth, opinion) is utterly worthless when compared to the peer-reviewed, published evidence which you so futilely attempt to deny.
It’s not that inland ecosystems are not important enough to cause me not to use lead shot inland it is because the threat to wildlife from lead is due to its ingestion by dabbling ducks feeding on shallow ponds. The threat to wildlife therefore doesn’t exist when for example shooting bolting rabbits, flighting wood pigeons or shooting flushed pheasants away from standing water.
Your hypocrisy is only exceeded by your lamentable ignorance. It’s all too apparent that you have no “experience” at all of the various species which take in grit as a digestive aid, regardless of the obvious soil contamination.
Do, by all means, keep digging.
I see plenty of birds gritting but not on grassland. As for digging review your own contributions and my replies and let me know how deep the hole is you are standing in.
No hypocrisy on my part after all you are the omnivore who while happy to see their meat processed through an abattoir is not willing to kill it yourself.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Coop my opinion on the matter being discussed is derived from experience ,surely that is the most relevant source of opinion.
Your own opinions however seem to be derived from your distaste for the activities of those that take a harvest of game each season ,as I note that your aggressive dismissive tone is present in other threads on this forum, and from selective reading of secondhand information that you are not really qualified to interpret.
I concede that you maybe expressing your opinion in the belief that you are in some way contributing to the protection of wildlife and the environment but the attitude shown through your posts makes it equally possible that you are just an ill informed anti field sports supporter more concerned in your dislike of those involved in field sports than any genuine concern for the countryside and the animals living in it.
The biodiversity and abundance of wildlife in areas which are managed for shooting is far greater than unmanaged ground as can be verified by studies carried out by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust .
This biodiversity gap is clearly demonstrated when moors managed for grouse are subsequently not shot over and management ceases leading to undermanaged heather that lacks not only decreased grouse numbers but decreased nesting for wading birds during the summer. The lack of fox and crow control also contributing to decreasing nesting success.
Thankfully there are people willing to subsidise from their own pocket the management of grouse moors in years when there is no shooting income.
Perhaps in light of this information you should be a bit more pragmatic if your concern for the environment is sincere.
More assumption.
More deflection.
More waffle.
More falsehoods.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
First thank you for the courteous reply.
I’d like to see the general debate surrounding blood/field sports move away from the black and white scenario where those that shoot game or wildfowl in an ethical manner predominantly for their own consumption are portrayed as deviants who kill animals solely to derive pleasure from that killing.
I don’t agree however that I am guilty of discrediting the research carried out rather that in my experience it’s conclusions do not reflect the reality of wildfowling today and I feel it only right to state that.
I also can’t agree with your statement that those using lead are the more dedicated and obsessed individuals as in my experience the more dedicated and obsessed individuals are those who are working up efficient steel hand loads or dabbling with tss reloads in order to maximise the probability of a clean kill as no one wants to wound birds at flight.
Many people wildfowling today have never known of a time when lead was the only ammunition used and are more than happy to use the newer non toxics in their modern semi automatics and are not interested in shooting lead.
I feel that those using lead are predominantly occasional fowlers who are not shooting sufficiently to consider working out the best non toxic load for their shotgun and so take the lazy way out to providing themselves with a proven cartridge to maximise their chances of bagging a goose or duck . There may be older fowlers with shotguns not suited to the new non toxics but for nostalgic reasons may still want to take out an old Damascus barrelled shotgun for example for a duck using ammunition adequate for the task. Just my own thoughts and no evidence to back it up as I have no personal experience of either just an educated guess.
The range of opinions expressed here highlight that shooters have much to to be wary of. For example the idea perhaps widely held on this forum that shooters main aim is the enjoyment of the act of killing is a misrepresentation and contributes to polarising opinion to such an extent that future voluntary change would be approaching impossible as it would be seen as the thin end of a very large wedge to having all shooting of animals banned.( Unless of course it involves treating deer as vermin and includes having them shot out of season and during the night)
There may be a lot of potential improvement that could change commercial shooting for the better but bickering and misrepresentation of each other goes nowhere towards confronting and dealing with those issues.
“I don’t agree however that I am guilty of discrediting the research carried out rather that in my experience it’s conclusions do not reflect the reality of wildfowling today and I feel it only right to state that.”
You have referred to the recovered cartridge cases that the research was based on as being ‘conveniently uncovered’. Can you explain what you meant by this phrase if it was not an insinuation that the results were somehow fraudulent and a slur on the moral probity of the researchers? The paper by Green et al clearly states its methods and anyone can see how it reaches the conclusions drawn. By contrast you have simply referred to you subjective experience coupled with crude innuendo to dismiss it. Nowhere do you point to any hard, robust data to support your assertions.
As you acknowledge, there is no actual need to use lead as other non toxic shot is available. Lead is a very toxic substance and there is plenty of scientific evidence from around the world showing that spent ammunition does have a serious impact on wild birds that ingest it. The shooting organisations have acknowledged that time is up for lead ammunition and introduced a voluntary phase out. In spite of all of this, the evidence, which includes this paper and other research published by Green and others (based on analysis of game carcasses purchased from retailer), shows that both the voluntary phase out and, where applicable, regulations, are widely flouted. The shooting world has long sought to discredit the notion that lead is harmful but having realised that this is untenable now seeks to undermine the evidence that its voluntary phase-out of lead is proving ineffectual. It is time for legislation to deal with the issue effectively once and for all.
Not all the shooting organisations agree with the phasing out of lead and many shooters are of the opinion that the only reason those organisations that did agree did so was to protect the sale of game overseas by the shooting industries /large game shoots . It’s not unusual to have 1000 head of game killed in a day. With an insufficient home market to absorb the game meat it was in the shooting industries best interests to have game shooters change from lead to non lead shot.
So all is not as straightforward as you would have us believe in your post
Well John, I must say you are a master of deflection. You are also keen to accuse people of making assumptions that suit their agenda whilst being happy to do the same yourself.
You may be strictly correct that some shooting organisations do not support the voluntary phase out but the 9 that do are certainly the big players. You seem to think you know the ‘only reason’ why they support it but on what evidence? Their reasons for supporting it may well be various and no doubt include the recognition that legally and commercially (sales of game meat) the writing is on the wall, but a glance at the web-sites of BASC and GWCT indicates that both acknowledge the environmental and health threats posed by lead and refer to alternative ammunition as ‘sustainable’. Whatever their reasons, these organisations have launched the voluntary phase out and – one presumes – hope and expect shooters will go along with it. The evidence, sadly, indicates that this is not happening to any great degree. Perhaps we should not be surprised that a voluntary phase out is being widely disregarded when the evidence also shows that where lead shot is actually illegal this is also widely disregarded.
The paper referred to in the original post is part of this evidence but not the only evidence. You decline to respond to my question about what you were intending to imply by the term ‘conveniently uncovered’ when referring to the cartridge cases examined in the survey but the fact is that the paper is completely transparent about its methods and its discussion recognises the potential sources of error that might have an influence (in either direction) on their estimates of compliance rates. This includes the possibility that some of the cases identified as having contained lead shot may have been refilled with alternative shot by home loaders. According to you this possibility means that there is no evidence at all that lead shot has been used on the foreshore – a possibility that requires the rather large (and unsupported by any evidence) assumption that all those cases had been refilled with eco-safe shot. Leaving aside the fact that re-fillers would surely be unlikely to leave their empty cases behind on the foreshore, it seems a lot more plausible – and consistent with evidence from elsewhere – that a substantial (if not exactly known) proportion of those cases reflect use of lead by wildfowlers.
What is that evidence from elsewhere? In England it is illegal to shoot ducks with lead shot anywhere and so levels of compliance can be investigated there by sampling wild duck carcasses from game-dealers and retailers. This has been done (see references in the paper by Green et al) and repeatedly shows that very high proportions (70%) of ducks are shot unlawfully with lead shot. Scottish shooters may not exactly match their English counterparts in terms of compliance but it requires a very big assumption indeed to conclude that they are wholly compliant and the cartridge case evidence presented by Green et al completely misinterpreted.
You have repeatedly asserted that the vast majority of wildfowlers comply with the law on ammunition but equally consistently fail to provide any evidence or indication of how you know this. Apart from those you have a direct relationship with how on earth do you know what ammunition other shooters are using? The accusation is not that all wildfowlers flout the law but that a significant proportion do and evidence is provided in support in this. Apart from your feeling that wildfowlers are all a fine bunch of fellows, what actual evidence do you have to counter this?
Do you have any figures to show that the obligation to comply with the law regarding use of lead shot is “widely disregarded” and if so could you state same.
The paper being discussed is certainly no proof that this is occurring.
As mentioned in my comment the paper by Green et al give references to surveys that have been carried out which show this.
I’m glad you highlighted the fact that in England it is possible to shoot a passing pheasant with lead and yet it is illegal to shot the next duck that passes I personally fail to see the logic of such a law and consider Scottish law where it is only illegal to shoot over wetlands where the lead ingestion has shown to be a problem for dabbling ducks.
As the probability of what the cartridge cases contained cannot be ascertained your assumptions and mine are not evidence. And as assumptions are not evidence the paper fails completely to prove that any lead at all is being used over the foreshore.
I think the sales figures for non lead ammunition and loose non lead shot will indicate widespread and substantial use of non lead ammunition being used to comply with the law regarding shooting on the foreshore and this tallies with my personal experience and what you and I can both gather from wildfowling forums ,magazines and the internet.
In conclusion I fail to see how you can state that a significant proportion of wildfowlers are guilty of non compliance with the law as you have failed to produce figures to prove this just an assumption that empty cartridge cases were used with lead shot when there is every probability that every case found had been reloaded with either steel or bismuth shot.
So no proof just conjecture.
Well we agree that it makes little sense to require ducks to be shot with non-toxic shot but permit pheasants to be shot with lead which is why I am in favour of lead ammunition being phased out altogether as soon as possible. The major shooting organisations have a shared policy towards the same end (even if they might disagree with conservationists about how quickly this should happen and have – rather optimistically – pinned their hopes on a voluntary phase out).
It is ludicrous for you to keep saying that there are no figures in support of the assertion that regulations are flouted by some wildfowlers whilst yourself airily giving out data-free claims about the sales of gun shops and your personal experience. The findings reported by Green et don’t prove that every ‘lead-type’ case they found was the result of an illegal act but the numbers found are certainly evidence that such illegal acts are occurring. Your assertion that there is ‘every probability that every case found had been re-loaded with steel or bismuth shot’ stretches credulity.
Scottish law to be better
I stated that the cartridges were conveniently uncovered as I was under the misapprehension that they were complete intact lead cartridges. I thought this highly unlikely as in over 45 years wildfowling on the foreshore I have yet to find any dropped whole cartridges.
I subsequently became aware that it was cartridge cases that were found and surprised about the conclusions drawn by the paper as cartridge cases are commonly reloaded and some wildfowlers take time to home load cartridges for economic reasons.
You’re definitely no gunsmith coop.
Perhaps if you didn’t reply in such a non specific way regarding anything I have written I could clarify but I expect you to be able to take the information supplied and either counter it specifically or concede that practical experience of the subject being discussed ie wildfowling and shotgun ballistics is worth a bit more than your theorising about things you have no personal experience of. Unless of course you can show otherwise. You haven’t been able to do so so far however.
You are keen to quote out of full context to make a point but anyone taking what I have written in full and in context will easily see who is most guilty of irrelevant waffle..
Do you agree that there is no way to determine whether the cartridge cases in the study were last used with lead shot or whether they were recycled and loaded with non lead shot for use on the foreshore and could you explain your reasoning in coming to your conclusion.
I don’t think there will be any scientific paper you could google to help out but is there any experience you have on the subject that could shed some light on the two possibilities.
Bravo, Mr Robinson! Well spotted! What I am is, of course, of no consequence whatsoever.
As I’m sure you are well aware, “the subject being discussed” between the two of us is your continued use of lead, which is at odds with your pretence of concern for our natural heritage. That is the subject on which I questioned you, and no other.
It seems that now you’ve ran out of excuses for your behaviour, you’ve resorted to feeble attempts to divert attention from the issue.
The subject being discussed is actually the accuracy of the paper you are claiming is evidence of law breaking.
The paper does not prove this as it cannot ascertain that the cases fired actually contained lead prior to being last fired.
I have no need to make excuses for my behaviour as I have nothing to be excused for.
And the issue is whether coastal wildfowlers are guilty of using lead shot. This paper shows no evidence that this is the case
You need to get your facts right…
“The subject being discussed is actually the accuracy of the paper you are claiming is evidence of law breaking.”
I’ve made no such claim. Either you’re getting yourself into a muddle with your various attempts at deflection, or you’re deliberately lying.
Which is it?
Correction , the subject being discussed is the claim that wildfowlers are breaking the law by using lead on the foreshore and that this can be proven by the paper of Green et al.
I have explained that I do not consider this to be the case and given reasons for that belief.
I fail to see any valid argument from yourself to the contrary and have countered the points you have made none of which I considered to have any substance. You seem to devote more time to personal attack rather than countering any points I have made to support my opinion.
From your last statement can I now take it that you consider that the paper by Green et al is not evidence that there has been significant use of lead shot by wildfowlers on the foreshore as you write “I’ve made no such claim “
Or perhaps you are the one getting in a muddle.
We can only take it that you are indeed deliberately lying. All here can see that I’ve made no reference at all to the paper in question.
Coop the only person not replying to the issues raised in this discussion is yourself, perhaps you should go through my posts, read the issues raised and try to refute them . xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
As to the question of whether I am lying or muddled I think a brief review of my replies here will show the answer to be neither. [Ed: rest of comment deleted, personal abuse]
You continue to pollute our countryside with your selfish use of lead, when in your own words ““there’s no need”.
The only justification for your behaviour that you can come up with is that you are unable to, or aren’t prepared to change your approach (as countless shooters have done in countries where lead shot is completely banned). So, despite your claim that…
“I have no need to make excuses for my behaviour”
you do exactly that.
You even show breathtaking arrogance and distorted logic by suggesting that only those with “experience” in the use of firearms or knowledge of ballistics should be permitted to question your activity.
Should a non-driver, upon witnessing a “boy racer” mowing down an innocent pedestrian be precluded from giving an opinion, simply due to the fact that they can’t drive themselves? After all, although your deliberate/reckless acts of pollution are currently legal, they are every bit as damaging and anti-social.
Yet all you can come up with is a single ridiculous excuse.
Sorry Coop but yet again I am having what I have written shortened and taken out of context.
“There is no need” is written in the context of there being no need to use lead on the foreshore when there are alternatives to lead shot which while not as good ballistically as lead have improved since the lead ban on the foreshore and make successful foreshore shooting a possibility without breaking the law.
Further I have stated that I do not use lead on the foreshore but do not see the logic in curtailing it’s use inland as it is ballistically superior and thus minimises the risk of wounding and is of no threat to wildlife when used inland provided that it is not shot over standing water where dabbling ducks are prone to feeding.
I have already made all these points clearly yet you seem incapable of grasping them so perhaps you are right to say that only those with appropriate experience of firearms and ballistics are capable of questioning my activity as you seem incapable of understanding them even after having them carefully explained to you. For example are you aware that the shotguns predominantly used on the foreshore are 3 and 1/2 inch magnum chambered 12 and 10 bores and that the commonly used shotguns used inland are the smaller 20 ,16 and 2 and 1/2 inch chambered 12 bores ? Consequentially are you aware of the difference in payload of shot suitable for use in those 2 classes ,as it were, of firearms. I think the answer is probably not so I expect you will be unaware of the shortcomings of using lighter steel as a means of killing an animal swiftly without wounding in these smaller calibre weapons and therefore why it is sensible to bring about their demise with the ballistically more efficient lead shot. All while ensuring the lead fired does not land on standing water where it may be consumed by dabbling ducks.
Your analogy with the boy racer / non driver fails as although the non driver cannot drive he is perfectly able to understand the consequences of driving too fast in a built up area or where cyclists may be at risk on a winding country road. His inability to drive is no handicap in understanding the risks.
You on the other hand lacking basic insight into the issue of shotgun ballistics and having no knowledge of the issues surrounding the complexities of shotguns, shotgun ballistics and common practice in field shooting are handicapped and it limits your ability to contribute to the discussion.
If when you write about deliberate/reckless acts of pollution you are referring to my use of lead inland I refer you to the third paragraph above.
It is the almost hysterical and ill informed responses of people like yourself that are anti social in that they create the barriers between shooters and non shooters and make compromise harder to achieve. The obsession you have about the degree of flaunting the law being carried out by coastal wildfowlers I think is clouding your judgement as is witnessed in your personal attacks in your replies.
The general population do not give a hoot about lead shot being used to harvest game especially when it is being consumed by the person who shoots the game.
I am constantly asked by colleagues for venison pheasants ducks and trout and generally oblige in order to share the experience. Lead bullets or shot are never mentioned by the recipients and they are predominantly graduates with second degrees so I think you are overestimating the public’s concern over the use of lead shot to harvest game.
“The obsession you have about the degree of flaunting the law being carried out by coastal wildfowlers”
Once again, I remind you that I’ve made no reference to the issue.
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
Coop I’ll ask again as you seem to have ignored my question.
Do you consider that the paper by Green et al under discussion proves that there is widespread illegal use of lead shot on the foreshore by coastal wildfowlers when the proof hinges on identifying shotgun cartridge cases that have originally been loaded with lead bearing in mind that hand loading of cartridges is commonly used by wildfowlers to recycle cases using non lead shot for foreshore use. Google handloading or search on YouTube for verification of what I state if your experience does not encompass that information.
And once again, I refuse to be drawn, as that isn’t the issue on which I challenged you. As you well know.
How much longer are you going to persist with this stupidity?
My opinion, even withstanding the potential that many might well have been non-toxic home reloads – enough alarm bells are ringing in my head to merit a proper government agency led programme of site inspections with spot-checks of what wildfowlers are using / carrying with them*
where the law stands on wildfowlers waiting on the foreshore gun in hand with both types of cartridges in their pockets / bag / on their belt, I don’t know.
Personally, next time I am out I will be picking up any new looking discarded cartridges I find. If they were lead (and if they had not been washed about in the tides) there may well still be some very fine powdery lead residue remaining on the inside wall of the plastic case. (Push a damp tissue in & wipe around the inside). Not scientific, but suggestive to me at least. Perhaps a bit of “citizen science” as with organised raptor monitoring, of people collecting and sending in their finds to (???) would be useful?
If your actions were to lead to what I consider to be a very small amount of coastal wildfowlers abiding by the law and not bringing the reputation of coastal wildfowling into disrepute then that would be a step forward.
…more cartridges *per person* per season…
Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong.
How much shooting is carried out on land which is “Open Access Land” as defined by the relevant legislation in both England/Wales and Scotland?
Since open access land gives the public a right of access, then doesn’t that by definition make such land a public place?
I believe the definition of “a public place” includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.
Sect 47 of the Firearms Act 1968, states:
“A constable may require any person who he has reasonable cause to suspect-
(a). of having a firearm, with or without ammunition with him in a public place
… to hand over the firearm or any ammunition for examination by the constable.
The legislation goes on to state that a constable may also search a vehicle in a public place for a firearm, if he has reasonable cause to suspect that there is a firearm in that vehicle.
This would seem to suggest that the police could, if they so wished, inspect firearms and ammunition in wetlands, or other places for that matter, if such places were a deemed a public place to ensure the firearm and ammunition were being used legitimately. If the police exercised these powers on wetlands, could that deter the use of lead shot, especially if those misusing lead shot were prosecuted?
The problem for the police could be access to where firearms are being used, as I believe open access land is usually only accessible by foot (England), and by foot, cycle or horse in Scotland.
It would therefore seem sensible to include within any game shooting licensing regulations the power for the police, or other statutory body the right to access “open access land” by way of a motor vehicle/mechanically propelled vehicle so that police officers/ or other authorised persons could easily travel to the more remote areas of such land to ensure compliance with legislation.
No word about the Hundreds of thousands of wildfowl that was crippled by none toxic shot though .😡
Your “concern” is very touching. Does it also extent to the victims of lead?
If you’re hanging on to the old myth that non-toxic shot is less efficient at killing than lead, I suggest that you educate yourself…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675819/