Make toxic lead ammunition a thing of the past

16 Replies to “Make toxic lead ammunition a thing of the past”

1. Rather than either lead or lead alternatives I use dogs to manage deer. Maybe we should be looking at making that legal as an alternative to killing them.

   It’s legal for me to use shotguns on them when they are flushed but it’s illegal for me not to shot them. That surely does not make sense at all.

   Regulations over wildlife management and country sports should be based on ecological and animal welfare factors.

   1. giles – thank you for your comment which isn’t about lead. Please try to stick to the point rather than hijack the point. What do you think of the idea of banning lead ammunition?

      1. Well Mark I believe

         Mark writes: The rest of this comment has been deleted because it is repeating comments made here so often and is not sufficiently on topic for me to regard it as worth publishing.

   2. “Regulations over wildlife management and country sports should be based on ecological and animal welfare factors.”

      Which is why there is a petition to ban the use of lead shot.

      1. Maybe – but do you not think Mark’s stance is a little hypocritical here?

         Why should people HAVE to kill wildlife when there is no need?

         Mark writes: I’ve told you before not to make up my views here on my blog, Giles. You just don’t listen do you? The rest of this comment has been deleted.

   3. Giles, I do not have the slightest interest in what you do or do not do. However, I do have an interest in, and concern about, whether lead continues to be spread around the countryside. This is the subject about which Mark posted on HIS blog. Giles, you seem to have a lot to say on a limited range of subjects so why don’t you write your own blog.

      1. Well Keith IF i was to obey the law which mark supports then a lot more lead WOULD be being spread around the countryside. It would be very unlikely that I’d get the Tiverton Staghounds to use steel ammo. Clear proof that properly committed wildlife crime reduces lead pollution and should therefore be encouraged.

2. Given that it takes only very few lead shot to kill a grouse – witness all those X-rays – then if They won’t ban lead then They could restrict the ammunition used to 5 shot per cartridge. This would invigorate gun manufacturing via the route of replacement technology because you would only need a teeny weeny barrel in fact a .22 could probably be used and a shroud could be added to make it look like a Big Man’s gun. It’s true that lead would still be pointlessly* sprayed over the land because most shots would miss – but it would be far less of an environmental loading than what happens now when the shot that hits the target is only a small proportion of that what leaves the blunderbuss. Goons could claim added prowess and Peer Approval because a successful shot would be a rare event.

   Better yet, the whole shooting match could be replaced by a virtual reality facility in a warehouse near Slough – we have the Technology.

   This post is off-topic because it does not propose a safe alternative to lead ammunition – whereas Giles’s’s addresses the sixth bullet point above.

   * I say pointlessly because I find pigeon and Guinea fowl much tastier

   1. No Mark this is NOT outside of the scope of this blog but it…

      Mark writes: Giles – who do you think wins this?

      1. Mark you are posting about using lead ammo to kill things. I am pointing out a clear alternative – just not killing animals – which is politically difficult for you to accept. Mark writes: there you are making up my views again – you never learn, do you? Do you?

         If you think ‘winning’ is not publishing my post then you win.

         Mark writes: yes

   2. STRONGLY disagree Mr Cobb. SLOUGH!!!!!!!!!!

3. Giles you are absolutely bloody tedious!
   The lead ammunition debate is much more important than whether you do or do not break the law when you flush these deer and don’t shoot them.
   When deer are controlled (and they need to be to stop them eating all the habitat, as we have killed off all their major predators) one can use copper ammunition.

4. I’m more than a little confused here. Giles is arguing against wildlife being shot and Mark is arguing that they must be shot but not with lead? If so then I have to say I’m with Giles. Mark how can you justify wildlife having to be shot?

   1. Dot – you didn’t read this bit then? ‘Mark writes: I’ve told you before not to make up my views here on my blog,’

5. Mark, many thanks for all the support you have given this petition. The support of WWT & RSPB each added approximately 3000 signatures when they engaged their membership directly.
   It is not clear how many signatures your blog added, but probably more over the course of the 6 months, and it has certainly kept the issue in the ‘public eye.’
   Overall, I’m pretty pleased with almost 17,000 signatures, and I’ll be even more pleased when the use of toxic lead ammunition becomes a thing of the past.

   Thanks to all who have signed, tweeted, re-tweeted and liked

   Rob

6. The final report of the LAG still does not appear to have been published. Does anyone know why? We still do not know what it contains. All this fuss about banning lead might not actually be supported by the full report. The report has not been made available to scrutiny by all interested parties. The whole basis for the petition is therefore uncertain. With so many resignations from the group and doubts cast about its validity surely it needs to be published?

Comments are closed.