BASC Chief Executive, Richard Ali, wrote to the BBC yesterday (presumably to BBC Wildlife magazine).
It can’t really be a letter that BASC expects to be published because it looks thrown together, is badly argued (though is very argumentative), is long and rambling, and has a split infinitive in its first line.
Ali is complaining about an article by Chris Packham in BBC Wildlife magazine – and the article is about me! Nothing contentious there then!
I was thinking of writing to BBC Wildlife magazine myself, to complain about the article too – it is far too gushing and goes over the top – but Ali has persuaded me that it was worth Chris writing it, if only to show how threadbare are the arguments of those who support the use of poisonous lead ammunition in our countryside and our food.
Ali describes the subject of the article (that’s me, I’m afraid) and the writer (that’s Chris) as a ‘pair’ (what are you suggesting Richard?) who ‘rely on unbalanced arguments to provide the thrust of this article’ – Hang on! I was being written about, how can I have relied on anything? Richard, you were so keen to have a go at Chris Packham that you didn’t actually make sure that your letter made any sense at all, did you? Or did you check it and fail?
But you are wrong about the science on lead. You describe the Oxford Lead Symposium as ‘shadowy’. Are you sure that members of the shooting community, in particular the members of the Lead Ammunition Group, weren’t invited to this ‘shadowy’ conference attended by a bunch of Fellows of the Royal Society and many other academics? Here are its ‘shadowy’, peer-reviewed published papers.
And here are some quotes from it:
The Lord Krebs Kt, MA, DPhil, FRS, FMedSci, Hon DSc: ‘Lead ammunition may be traditional but
it is doubtful whether future generations would perpetuate a tradition of knowingly adding lead to food or exposing wildlife to poisoning.‘.
Professor Chris Perrins, LVO, FRS: ‘Then, as now, the stakeholders involved appeared to have some sort of blind-spot when it came to seeing lead as a poison.’ and ‘Nowadays, no one can be oblivious to the issues of lead because of the damage to human health, particularly children’s health due to impacts on their developing brains. Eating food with lead purposefully shot into it, of course, now seems like a bad idea.‘.
Professor Ian Newton OBE, FRS, FRSE: ‘My own view is that a legislative ban is needed on the use of lead in all ammunition used for hunting. At one stroke this would alleviate the problems created for people (especially the hunters themselves), for wildlife and for domestic livestock by this unnecessary but highly toxic material.’.
So it seems that Richard Ali will be writing to the Royal Society next to correct the science of three of its fellows. It seems that Chris Packham got it right all along doesn’t it?
Let’s see the secret Lead Ammunition Group report and then we can make up our own minds. But I’ve already made up my mind on the evidence and so I’d ask you to resist the bullying of BASC and react to it by please signing Rob Sheldon’s e-petition to ban toxic lead ammunition.
But I was also thinking of writing to complain that there wasn’t enough about Hen Harriers in Chris’s article (nice t-shirt though!) – probably too contentious for BBC Wildlife magazine (mustn’t upset the shooting lobby at a time of charter renewal)!
Seriously, the BBC is under ferocious attack with letters of the type that Richard Ali has sent (although, to be fair, his is a pretty poor attempt at a letter; most are much better written) routinely heading to BBC Wildlife, Countryfile, Springwatch, the governors and all sorts just to put pressure on the BBC to cut words here, cut articles there and, remember, to cut their links with people like Chris himself.
The BBC needs our, the public’s support at this time – but they also need to demonstrate that they deserve that support by standing firm against bullying tactics from small but vocal pressure groups.
[registration_form]
I first read Ali’s letter on Bert Burnett’s fb page, hardly a good advertisement for it in the first place. We are used to rather contorted ‘logic’ from the CA, GWCT etc, but this took the biscuit. Sounded as if it was written by a petulant 12 year old, but then again that’s a bit of an insult to many intelligent, rational 12 year olds. A bit rich for him to accuse opponents of lead shot of being ’emotive’. Isn’t it depressing that people of this stature have been such a barrier to conservation in this country for decades, hardly Ernst Stavro Blofeld is he?
I will be writing my own letter of complaint to the BBC anon on the grounds that it’s spreading blatant untruths. Mark Avery an “Unsung Hero”? I think not. Most of us in the birding community have been singing your praises for years, supporting your campaigns sharing your posts, reading your books, etc. Keep campaigning Mark, you’re rattling a good few cages that badly need rattling as we can see from Richard Ali’s embarrassing “red mist moment” on seeing a positive (and factual) article about you.
I like this quote from the letter
‘rather than being told by Mr Packham ‘everyone knows lead is poisonous’, your readers would be credited the good grace of being allowed to think for themselves.’
Umm.
The petition opposing the ban toxic lead
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/112165
‘Lead ammunition is the most widely used due to its ballistic superiority compared with other none(sic) TOXIC types and doesn’t damage shotgun barrels.’ [my capitals].
I kid you not.
Signatures to date 23,657. So 23,657 thought for themselves, including I strongly suspect Richard Ali himself and signed a petition agreeing with Chris Packham that lead ammunition is toxic.
I didn’t read any further down Richard Ali’s letter when i got to that spin.
The stupidity of the shooting lobby is a strong indication of the mental damage caused by eating toxic lead.
I honestly do not understand why they are so worked up about keeping lead ammo. Is it just sheer knee-jerk obstinacy? Is there anything more than that behind it?
[note for Mark, not for publication: My email will be changing to an “@gmail” address in the next couple of posts. It is still me, not someone spoofing me. Just to set your mind at ease. ]
The description of the Oxford Lead Symposium as shadowy is bizarre when the participants include some of the most well known and respected academic ecologists in the country. The implication that there is some kind of concealed ulterior motive is scurrilous. It is also rather strange that he refers to ‘the pair’s surreptitious campaigning’, again implying that there is something underhand going on. I’d say that ‘the pair have been campaigning very openly and prominently and for clearly expounded reasons’ and as a result their views are very well known.
I guess that if, like Ali, you don’t have strong arguments then all that is left to you is vague smears…
Ian Newton and Chris Perrins are two of the most distinguished ornithologists in the UK. Lord Krebs is the President of the British Science Association and the erstwhile Chair of the Food Standards Agency. Hardly figures from the shadows, most would say.
And isn’t it sad to see BASC, which has an honourable record in the conservation of wild geese, ducks and waders, stooping to this sort of level? Bad enough when rubbish comes from the Moorland AssocIation and the Countryside Alliance, but they have never really pretended to be other than vested interest groups. BASC ought to be better than this.
My favourite line from the letter “Their assertion that lead ammunition harms wildlife has been exaggerated and distorted” um…. can you do more harm to wildlife than kill it? Isn’t the point of shooting something to do it harm? Or does lead ammunition, just plant kisses on the targeted creature? At least if you are going to try and argue that the lead does no further harm to wildlife, outside that done to the creature being shot, make it clear!
It’s the ingestion of toxic residue giving him ‘toxic’ indigestion perhaps?
Put lead in your pencils not in our wildlife…..
That article has more holes in it than a British raptor!
Just 2 further points.
I for one didn’t realise that Avery and Packham campaign ‘surreptitiously’. They haven’t done a very good job of keeping it secret in my opinion. (Dear Mr Ali, if you are going to use big words please make sure you know what they mean!).
But one must give Mr Ali credit for acknowledging that lead ammunition does indeed harm wildlife. The sneaky nay shadowy Avery and Packham may have ‘exaggerated and distorted’ the truth, but truth it is.
(As a member of BASC I have written to Mr Ali personally)
I have to say I have seen some non lead bullets trialed and their terminal behaviour was really poor and did not humaelly stop the animals concerned. Lead/steel shot for shotguns may be a different matter entirely of which I have no experience, but for bullets, I have yet to see a real world acceptable alternative unfortunately. Ive seen papers stating good results, but the photographs in those same research papers showed poor to nil expansion. That’s not humane.
John – thank you for your comment but RSPB deer stalkers switched to copper bullets more than a decade ago with no problem at all. And of course, so have lots of US hunters!