There are now two e-petitions on the subject of lead ammunition: one to ban it and one to keep it.
Having failed to get Chris Packham sacked from the BBC, Andy Richardson now has put his name to an e-petition to keep lead ammunition. There can’t be many people who would want their name associated with such a damaging proposal but Andy Richardson is that person despite the scientific evidence for both wildlife and human harm summarised in the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group, and despite the fact that others have banned lead and kept on shooting (150,000 Danish hunters for a start!)!
So, the race is on – and at the moment the wrong e-petition is winning. I’d be interested to hear from anyone to learn if any hunting organisations are promoting the Richardson ‘keep the poison’ e-petition. They don’t appear to be doing this in the public eye, possibly because they would be ashamed to do so.
We’ll see what happens.
But surely the RSPB and WWT must enter this debate soon – don’t leave it too long guys!
[registration_form]
Shame he didn’t check the spelling of his petition before posting it.
Mark, any comment/info on the claim about Norway?
Norway is the only country to do this as far as I know – the trajectory (we call it progress) is all in the other direction. Norway retains a ban of lead shot use over wetlands – and Norwegian hunters probably stick to the law unlike the low level of compliance demonstrated by tests of wildfowl on sale for food in the UK.
These Danish hunters are completely unequivocal about the need and the practicality of a ban on lead – and it’s been in place in Denmark for 30 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaSKlaBUQTU More hunters in tiny Denmark than massive Norway too!
Thanks Mark.
I read somewhere (can’t remember where) that using steel ammunition in the heavily wooded forests resulted in shot being left in tree trunks which ruined the timber value of the trees. I don’t know if this is true or just speculative – maybe someone else would know?
If the wrong petition reached 10,000 then the government would have to respond (well they would probably release a wishy washy statement), if it was to reach 100,000 then it would be considered for debate. With all the science pointing to how harmful it is, would it be a bad thing? I’m sure it won’t get to that figure but it would be funny if it backfired, wouldn’t it? Just thinking out loud!
Stewart – you’re right and I had thought of that (but maybe Andy had not). 10,000 signatures would trigger a response and it would be very interesting to see what it was.
Depends which Minister would append their signature to it & surely there would be some who would be wise to declare a potential conflict of interest?
Then again it’s generally been a Department response? So does anyone actually taken ownership of these replies?
Wisdom, but then eating meat with residual lead in it ….
Stewart,
That was my immediate thought. Would the relevant Government department come out and support the retention of lead when there are safer alternatives. It may depend on the Government department – EFRA or Health. The former may feel it is easier to support the status quo; the latter would likely find it extremely difficult; though it would open up the debate to a wider audience and in a more important political arena.
It is a risky and ill thought approach given the evidence. I hope it does reach 10,000 signatures…and quickly.
Richard
Richard – the UK voted for a ban in Quito last year, as part of the EU attendance at the Quito meeting. Would look a bit odd to say one thing there and then change your mind at home.
Well, in that case it is surely ‘fait accompli’? I would still look forward to the Government’s reply if/ when it reached 10,000.
Encouraging to see that the ‘true countrymen’ of rural Chelsea and Fulham are throwing their support behind this with this constituency containing one of the highest number of signatories.
I believe Austria have also reversed some of their anti lead legislation and Australia are considering it. There is no evidence to show that Norwegians are any more law abiding than the rest of us and their behaviour as owners of many Scottish fish farms tends to confirm this but I digress. The fact that a number of the original LAG group resigned indicates that the LAG findings are slanted as demonstrated by the remarks of the so called chairman of that group. As far as human health is concerned you are far more at risk from the consumption of beer and potatoes than the from eating game. Any ducks on sale containing lead shot are almost certainly reared duck from inland commercial shoots where the pheasant shooters have not bothered to change cartridges after shooting pheasants. I,m in three wildfowling clubs and I don,t know anyone who sells what they shoot or anyone who uses lead on the foreshore. I,m sure there will be a few who break the law in the same way that some people drink and drive. In England and Wales most of the available wildfowling is controlled by clubs and most clubs police their own members. In Scotland however there is almost unlimited access to the foreshore and there is no doubt that this attracts a number of marsh cowboys many of whom are visitors from the near continent. More policing of the right sort is needed.
Peter – the fact remains, that 70% of wildfowl, sold into the human food chain, contain lead ammunition at potentially dangerous levels after more than a decade of this being illegal. No-one except shooters put lead shot into our food. It’s illegal, and shooters cannot complain when it is banned completely partly because of their illegal behaviour.
But that isn’t the only reason – tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of wildlfowl are poisoned each year from poisonous lead. there is no need for this – 150,000 Danish hunters aren’t using lead and are still hunting.
So, when the LAG findings are confirmed by peer review, you will change your mind will you? Or will you never be persuaded by the science?
Although non-binding (legally), the world voted top phase out lead ammunition in Quito last year. That’s where we are heading.
“No-one except shooters put lead shot into our food” This is absolute and irrefutable lies. Would you like to explain how lead ends up in other food and drink sources other than game meat? Are you telling me that hunters and shooters are secretly going into food production factories and emptying cartridges into their products? No that’s not the case, lead occurs naturally in soils and in differing quantities in different areas of the country, in some areas it is high enough to have an effect on cattle if they ingest too much soil on poor grazing. Lead is evident in water supplies and can be in severely high concentrations when next to lead minings which leech under heavy rainfall. There are numerous other ways in which lead contaminates food sources, sheep ingesting old lead paint around farm buildings, batteries leeching into the soil etc Stop preaching your ignorance.
Jon – is lead in the soil someone putting it in to our food? No.
No-one except shooters is choosing to put lead into our food when they could choose to use non-toxic ammunition as is done in so many countries across the world (and is required in the UK but compliance is chronically bad).
Peter, your argument is persuasive except that as you admit, ‘I’m sure there will be a few who break the law’. The countryside has proved to be virtually impossible to police. The game meat supply chain is not systematically monitored, and hunting interests are incapable of self-regulation. The only effective solution to environmental damage and the protection of human health is a complete ban on the use of lead ammunition.
Do the70% of wildfowl contain actual shot in the carcass or in the gut or blood stream. Two very different scenarios. One indicates lleagal use of lead shot (if shot in England. In Scotland wildfowl can legally be shot with lead if not over wetland). The other indicates residual lead from a now banmed practice.
Robin – another newcomer. Welcome. Answer – in the carcasse indicating illegal use. Thanks for asking.
It is only proof of illegal use if the bird concerned is definitively known to have been shot in England.
This obviously poses the question whether the precise origin of each tested bird known – and if so how – or is it just assumed that because the test is carried out in the England then that is where it was shot?
John – yes. You’ll be telling me next that the Countryside Alliance ship in specially shot Scottish waterfowl to all game dealers and supermarkets in England just so that our lead levels can be elevated.
What it actually poses is why you can sell game meat with potentially a thousand times the lead levels that would be allowed in other meats by law? Why do you think it is possible?
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your reply.
Your reply poses two questions.
Firstly why have you not answered my question about any checks on the origin of birds tested?
Secondly why are you conflating lead levels which are fundamentally different? Consider a Mallard and a joint of lamb of identical weight with both containing 1gm of lead. In the lamb the lead will be in the tissue and only detectable by laboratory analysis whereas in the Mallard it will be as a number of pellets which can and should be removed and are thus very unlikely to be ingested.
John – you are obviously way off the pace on this subject. You need to do some reading on what has happened. The lead levels measured in waterfowl (as has been explained many times on this blog) are of the flesh once the lead shot have been removed. The lead levels come from tiny fragments of lead which split off from lead shot or lead bullets. This blog would be a good place to start catching up https://markavery.info/2015/10/29/mystery-bird-competition-4/
There is not necessarily any reason why you should know this – but notice that your comment assumes I don’t know what I’m talking about. And, actually, I do!
If you get your information from BASC, the Countryside Alliance or the Shooting Times then you are sadly ill-informed.
You could start by clicking on the ‘category’ leblled ‘ead’ on this blog and reading the large amount of information presented here – with links to the original studies.
Thank you for your comment.
Thanks again Mark.
I was not assuming you did not know what you were talking about but merely asking for clarification regarding the lead levels which you have now supplied but as a supplementary how do the tests distinguish between environmentally acquired lead and lead from shot?
Perhaps you could also clarify how the origins of the birds analysed is determined?
John – perhaps you could do what I suggested – read the stuff?
Thanks for your reply Mark.
Is answer to the question you have now avoided answering three times about how the origin of tested birds is determined also in one of the links mentioned?
John – I refer you to my previous response.
Thanks for your response Mark.
I am grateful for your time but can sense you obviously feel you have now devoted enough to me – although this does make one wonder why you did not actually answer the last question with a simple “Yes” or “No” – as it would have been quicker to type than “John – I refer you to my previous response.” and if “Yes” it would have answered the question – rather than avoid it for a fourth time.
John – you seem to have avoided doing the obvious thing, reading about the subject, four times.
You started off by telling me that I was conflating two things. This was not only, I believe, a misuse of the word conflate but also showed that you haven’t read the relevant information and yet had decided to have a go at me. You’ll have to forgive me, or not, if I am of the impression that you aren’t here as a simple seeker after truth – your opening remark made that clear. So, if you want a discussion go away and find out what you are talking about and then I’ll think about it.
Hilarious.
From the ‘keep’ petition.
‘other none(sic) toxic types’
Admission of guilt.
Mark – I do not have the information to contradict your figures but in relation to wildfowl sold containing lead shot can you say :-
Who took the samples and how many
How many duck were involved in each
Were the duck shot on the foreshore or inland
When were they taken
How was the presence of lead detected
Please be specific in your answers.
How have you arrived at your figures ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of fowl dying from lead poisoning – have they been extrapolated from the samples referred to above.
I,m happy with science but sometimes commonsense has to prevail. A blinkered adherence to science can lead to wrong decisions. Science is frequently proved wrong or wrongly interpreted – sometimes deliberately.
Yes lead is toxic but the risks are tiny and I can only conclude that it is being used as a stick to beat shooting with.
As for the Danes I reminded of the old joke about flies and s–t.
I look forward to the answers to my questions above
Peter – read the scientific papers. You could start by following the links in the blogs on this site which are tagged ‘lead’. Did you read the summary findings of the Lead Ammunition Group? That’s what I was quoting and so I guess you say they made it all up?
No you can’t dismiss the Danes that easily or rudely. If Danish hunters have spent the last 30 years shooting away without lead why can’t you? And why is compliance with the existing law so low in the UK?
Mark, you say that the ‘wrong’ petition is winning. Here you clearly show your bias. Surely there is no ‘wrong’ OR ‘right’ petition…its all down to how people vote.
Just because YOU don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be banned. Let the people decide and stop being a bully who thinks he is always right.
Steve – welcome to this blog. It’s not bias, it’s my preference. It’s hardly hidden and has been a theme of this blog for years. Nice of you to join us.
As usual people here not dealing in scientific facts just scaremongering. Fact is there is no evidence of thousands of birds dying from injesting lead. There are however a lot of estimates from people that this is the case. As to human consumption of lead again not one case of anyone dying from injesting lead from eating game. No one ever said lead was not toxic but traces are present in potatoes,beer and other vegetables and at higher levels that most shot birds unless that is you eat every lead pellet.To date I have not seen any argument to justify a lead ban in fact most of the arguments used are completely based on estimated numbers which are simply not fact.
Derek – welcome to this blog. Another newcomer today. ‘Fact is’?
Where is the scientific evidence??
Norman – welcome to this blog. Try clicking on the link to the findings of the lead ammunition group and see their summary. try clicking on ‘lead’ on this blog and following the links. Or wait for the scientific report of the Lead Ammunition Group to be published.
After being away from the world of WiFi and social media for a few days, I was surprised to get reconnected and find a counter petition supporting retaining the use of all lead ammo. I guess at first I was disappointed to see it was at 6000+ signatures compared to the c1250 signatures of the petition I set up.
But as a few comments have suggested on this blog, maybe it won’t be such a bad thing if (when) both petitions reach the 10,000 threshold. A government response would be interesting to either petition, but especially to the one that is calling for the use of lead ammunition to be retained.
Thanks to everyone who has signed either petition – DEFRA could start researching the response now. Here’s some good science as a starting point:
http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/departments/conservation-science/European-Statement
#bantoxiclead
The pro-toxic lead petition is being promoted on http://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/lead-ammunition-petition.921
I notice one commentator saying that he had signed using all his many email addresses. Never thought of that devious ploy! Still, I personally wouldn’t stoop to it. As you say, maybe if the Government has to respond, it will be illuminating and force the issue. Maybe Mr Richardson is somewhat of a “loose cannon” (sorry). Any sign of the report to DEFRA being released yet?
I have responded to you with some questions but my message is awaiting moderation probably because I used a thinly disguised expletive (not against you)
Peter – no, because I was having a whale of a time driving to and from Surbiton.
One can legislate as much as you want but it will not change behaviour unless legislation is enforced. Examples of everyday non-compliance can be seen everywhere with idiots driving and jabbering on their mobiles at the same time.
I have no doubt that Peter Lloyd is right about the origin of duck for sale with lead shot found in the carcass. These will be from commercial shoots where pheasants & duck are reared and released for shooting. As in all commercial shoots, the shooters shoot far more than they can consume and the carcasses are sold to a Game Dealer and then on to a butcher or whoever. The legislation was poorly drafted as anyone could see that the possibility of shooters quickly changing cartridges depending on whether a duck or a pheasant was flying over was not living in the real world.
In England where coastal wildfowling is controlled by clubs the compliance will be high, particularly if club rules have their wardens checking with “Hot Shots”.
Hot shot is a method developed in the USA for checking that waterfowlers are complying with non-toxic shot legislation.
see: https://www.streamsystems.com/stream_website/hotshot/more_info/hotshot.htm
Up here in Scotland legislation is different, in respect of an individuals right to shoot on the foreshore and with regard to legislation on lead shot. Compliance on the foreshore is poor. Recently, walking around Findhorn Bay at wildfowling “hot spots” I found recently discarded cartridge cases and their boxes – approximately 50% were from lead shot cartridges and 50% steel shot.
Many coastal wildfowlers will comply with legislation because they love their sport, respect their quarry and think it is the right thing to do. Sadly, some will not comply. This will not change as there is no one to check compliance.
On commercial shoots where thousands of cartridges are discharged on each shoot day compliance is poor as the checks on wildfowl for sale has shown. This will not change as no one checks compliance at a shoot.
All lead shot is dangerous to the environment and I really cannot understand why those that shoot do not wish to change to non-toxic alternatives.
I gave up shooting live quarry (I had been a coastal wildfowler and roughshooter since my teens) in 2008. I started to use non-toxic shot in Scotland before legislation demanded it because it was the right thing to do.
In 1965 I joined WAGBI (Wildfowlers Association of Great Britain & Northern Ireland) which later, unfortunately (in my opinion) became BASC. I resigned from BASC this year – here is the text of my resignation letter to the secretary of my wildfowling club in Scotland:
“I have enclosed the raffle tickets you sent with your membership renewal letter as I will not be renewing my BASC membership.
I joined WAGBI in 1965 when it was an organisation then solely representing wildfowlers and rough shooters. I have recently become disenchanted with the direction that BASC is heading.
I thought it wrong for the BASC Chairman and CEO to essentially “rubbish” John Swift with regard to his views on lead shot and their blindness to the science with regard to the proven negative impact of lead shot.
As BASC, in my view, no longer reflects the ethos of true wildfowlers and conservationists I will go my own way.
I do wish you an enjoyable and successful wildfowling season.
With best wishes and kind regards,
Robert Ince”
I have of course signed the petition to ban lead shot.
Robert – many thanks.
Interesting cluster of signatures in parts of North Yorkshire, the North Pennines and bits of Northeast Scotland. I wonder why there are so many lead lovers in these areas?
From the pro lead camp it seems the main argument seems to be down to damage to gun barrels. I’m no metallurgist but surely if steel or another alloy can be created to mimic the softness of lead?
Peter,
There are several non-toxic shot alternatives to lead that are suitable such as bismuth and tungsten Matrix which would obviate any damage to “traditional” guns – i.e. “soft” barrelled and very expensive guns that the majority of shooters do not use let alone afford.
The majority of modern shotguns are suitable for use with steel shot.
Last year (in two huge boxes) I gave all my files on non-toxic lead trials, barrell tests etc etc to RSPB at Forest Lodge in Abernethy so I am unable to give references here – but I used steel shot in all my shotguns and no damage occurred.
Irrespective of how many signatories the pro-lead petition attracts, its almost set to fail in how it indirectly admits lead is toxic by saying “compared with other none toxic types”. Putting evidence against aside, if you are admitting it is a toxin would you not take the precautionary principle? It comes across, as the main concern is that it will damage your trusty Purdey or Holland and Holland or render them useless for modern day shooting life.
There is a fascinating comment on the stalking directory yesterday: “I have spoken to BASC at length regarding this issue. In a nutshell, the phrase ‘Never has there been a recorded death through lead ingestion.’ is not entirely accurate in either a worldwide or historical sense, hence reticence to support membership wide. I am assured that they have done a huge amount of work behind the scenes ensuring that the right folk are on board to keep the status quo. The person who I spoke to certainly gave me the impression that BASC are working hard on the issue. Reports on the many things that they have done are available on their website just type lead in a search.”
I’m surprised at the number of anti-lead stalkers given FC (one of the UK’s biggest deer managers) is largely lead free and the Deer Initiative often advocate non-lead as best practice. Clearly however they wont win over Hunting Solutions from their comments that have been trying to push BASC hard to support it via twitter. I’m also amused that so many in the shooting community see it as the RSPB’s petition.
Looks like we have found our hunting organisation supporting the petition – BASC have caved in, Duncan Thomas their man in the north is fully supportive via his official Twitter account. Shameful.
Duncan Thomas, the ex- Lancs Police Wildlife Crime Officer.
Thanks Robert –
I understand the concerns of lead shot being used in areas that it is not right of safe to do so, but what people seem to be missing here is that those of us that follow the rules and those of us that only shoot in indoor ranges will have our ranges and sport taken away from us.
The alternative bullet heads for section 1 firearms are not just more expensive but far more dangerous to use, will cause ricochets and could kill someone.
At ranges the lead is cleared up and disposed of safely so why should we loose are sport because someone made a report saying that it will poison birds and the earth and our ammunition has nothing to do with it.
When I go walking in the countryside, I am forever trying to dodge fly tipping waste, dog feces and cigarettes butts.
Cigarettes have over 4000 chemicals in them, I have seen wildlife trying to eat these disgusting things left littering the countryside.
If people were truly concerned over the wildlife and countryside there are many other areas to address that cause more of a problem.
The only reason lead ammunition has come up is because it falls under the heading of guns.
When I go shooting I leave no trace in the country side and respect all living creatures.
So before people just sign saying lets ban all lead, think of the other areas this will affect as its not only a sport to some its their life.
Justin – thanks for your comment. It would be up to government to decide how to implement any controls but at the moment they are idly standing by while more and more lead is pumped into our countryside and our food (if we eat shot game). And the compliance with the existing lead legislation is so poor (70% of waterfowl purchased in game dealers and supermarkets have lead in them) that it isn’t surprising that many want to see the law made far more embracing. When shooters don’t stick to the law they risk losing any sympathy from the general public. As in other areas, shooting should have cleaned up its act over the last couple of decades – current dissatisfaction is the result of inaction by shooters not unfairness by the rest of us.
I’m not quite sure to whom ‘shooting lead’ is ‘their life’.
I appreciate your comment, but its not all shooters causing the problem.
The hundreds of members at my shooting club are all law abiding shooters and indorr ranges and outdoor ranges have always cleaned up after ourselves as build up of bullet heads regardless of metal used is very dangerous and cause ricochets.
The irresponsible shooters that shoot lead illegally in areas that it is not allowed will not be deterred by another ban as it was illegal in the first place.
The life aspect I will clarify.
For most shooters it is not just a sport it is a social gathering and the only social life that quite a few have. We have disabled members that only get out of the house once a week and that is to come shooting and see the other members.
The others that it affects are those that own shops (we are talking about individuals and not big chains) but those that work for the ranges (instructors, markers, grounds maintenance, office staff etc) all of which could loose their jobs. non of my clubs lead ammunition ends up poisoning anything.
if lead is found in food in supermarkets then the supermarkets need to have more rigorous checks about quality of food and where it comes from.
Shooters that use lead and shoot illegally will never change unless you tackle them directly.
Shooting is a great sport and we now stand a chance of loosing it for all because of a blanket ban that is not justified for ranges.
Justin – I didn’t say it was all shooters causing the problem – but it is shooters. Tt’s not all bankers, politicians or journalists that cause problems either.
The irresponsible few – and actually it’s not that few according to BASC’s own figures – will not be able to use lead if it’s banned. They and you will still be able to shoot using non-toxic ammunition though.
Use non-toxic ammunition – problem solved.
The problem is that non toxic ammunition has issues:
Some non-toxic ammunition has a slower velocity or will travel less distance making it more likely to maim and animal or injure it with with a long drawn out death.
Current price of shotgun cartridges are around £5 a box of 25, non-toxic can be in the region of £35-50 a box of 25.
Non-toxic ammunition is normally harder and more likely to ricochet and kill someone.
The majority of shooters will have to give up the sport due to the increase in prices of non-toxic ammunition.
Why doesn’t anyone realise that for cley pigeon shooting or range shooting there is no risk when using lead ammunition.
BASC also say the the sport of shooting is worth £2.5 Billion to the British economy.
Shooters like myself are responsible and are active members of BASC.
With the logic of lets ban all lead, why not make statements like lets ban ownership or dogs, because the amount of money spent on cleaning up after irresponsible owners?
Or lets ban smoking completely as it really does much more harm to humans and animals that lead ammunition because some smoker do smoke when they are not supposed to and leg butts all over the land which do not biodegrade.
If this was another type of sport, I’ sure there would be the same response. An example fishing, I sea fish and fresh water fish, the amount of lead I have lost fishing is a lot more than when I shoot and I know its not cleaned up, how about all the 150 – 200 gram lead weight used in sea fishing that litter the coast lines of nearly every country including ours? That gets into our food supply through the fish that eat it.
Just a thought, thank you for reading.
Justin – come off it! You’re stretching your argument to breaking point – oh Snap! There it goes.
Non-toxic ammunition ‘can be in the range of’ five to ten times the price of lead? You’re using platinum are you? You may be using bismuth but you can get 25 steel shot cartridges for £6-£7 – not that I’m an expert but I can use Google. There is a price differential but then we aren’t here to make your hobby (or life) cheap. You’d rather we pay in poisoned wildfowl and lead levels in food would you? the market will provide.
Those figures for the ‘value’ of shooting don’t take any of the societal costs into account, do they? And, an economist will tell you that shooting will be ‘worth’ even more if you pay more for your shot so you should be even happier.
A survey of BASC members showed, through their own responses, that many ignore the ban on using lead ammunition. Not a clever thing to do is it?
Yes, there was a lot of fuss from fishermen before lead was banned for most weights and there was a lot of fuss when it was banned from petrol. there’s always a lot of fuss.
Most shooters would give up shooting would they? That’s not what happened in Denmark or anywhere else where lead ammunition has been banned is it?
I look forward to your next comment – the rate you are going you’ll be predicting the fall of western civilisation if youa re forced to use non-toxic ammunition.
I think banning it completely all because of a few is stretching it.
I’m glad you can google. Steel shot doesn’t travel as far and is more likely to inflict injury and will not kill it humanly.
Expanding ammunition is needed to kill animals humanly, hence lead was used.
The Price of £35-50 is for Tungsten cartridges a little heavier than steel but still not as heavy as lead.
The value to the economy will be less because shooters wont be able to afford to buy the more expensive hence less shooter and less money to the economy. Your statement only works if everyone continues to shoot the same quantity and as regularly which will not happen if the price to kill humanly goes up to £35-£50 a box or cartridges.
BASC support the use of lead ammunition in areas that it is LEGAL to do so, again you are taking the actions of a few and imposing the reputation on all shooters.
Why not petition to have higher penalties for people caught using lead ammunition in areas that are not legal to use it? Like removal of their licence, or heavier fines, or custodial sentences?
Its amazing then that they didn’t ban lead weights????? Oh that’s right it doesn’t involve guns so no one really cared.
I think you mean Norway and they actually realised that there was little scientific evidence and have now removed the ban, and they now continue to use lead shot as it is more human and they lost a lot of money, but what do I know.
I think you underestimate how many people are involved in the sport, and regardless of what I say you have this idea that all lead ammunition is bad and that no matter what is said you will never listen to reason.
The end of the day lead on an indoor range will never pollute wildlife and end up in our food chain.
Justin – most lead weights are indeed banned and have been since 1986 http://www.anglersmail.co.uk/news/angling-trade-association-warns-against-illegal-lead-fishing-weights-16431. Are you still using them? Bit out of date aren’t you? Fishermen made a lot of fuss, rather similar to yours on this issue, but there is no campaign to reintroduce lead weights to poison our swans (whose numbers have, as expected, increased in areas where lead poisoning was a big problem). Not the best example for you to use to bolster your poor case.
No, I meant Denmark where all lead ammunition was banned 30 years ago. there are still 150,000 Danish hunters who now use non-toxic, mostly steel shot, and wouldn’t switch back to lead even if they were allowed. You need to get better informed about this issue – stop reading the Shooting Times would be my advice! Try this video and listen to all those DANISH shooters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF92adFLadY who are not experiencing the problems you cite.
In Norway, they have not reversed the ban on lead, they have reversed part of it for non-wetlands (low levels of hunting) and this was against the recommendation of Norwegian health experts. Another poor example for you to cite. https://markavery.info/2015/11/26/21626/
Your head seems full of misinformation. Try reading last week’s Oxford Lead Symposium to get up to date on the issue. http://oxfordleadsymposium.info/ You might be particularly interested in the last paper, one of whose authors is Niels Kanstrup from the Danish Academy of Hunting.