I’ve known of this issue working its way through the grindingly slow processes of the EU for quite a while and was wondering when the heads-in-the-sand shooters in the UK might notice that the world is changing around them.
The European Chemicals Agency is looking at the use of lead ammunition with a view to standardising an EU-wide position. This is very likely to make it much more difficult to use lead ammunition in the UK – whether we stay in the EU or leave.
Someone called Jack Knott (I hope that the RSPB’s J Knott isn’t moonlighting) in the Countryside Alliance is quoted as spouting a load of nonsense on the subject. He said ‘Oooh, oooooh, ooooooooooh’ which is exactly the noise that an Ostrich makes.
[registration_form]
Really hope it’s banned very soon. Lead persists for so long, even after no longer being used. In BC it was banned decade ago, but birders say it is still picked up in fragments in mud banks, etc. by wild birds, and is still as toxic after a length of time. Raptors then prey upon poisoned birds… all have agonizing debility and deaths… Must be stopped soon…absolute travesty!
I wonder if they would class a reservoir, or as Anglian Water like to call it, a Water as a wetland? The only dogs allowed in the water on their nature reserves are hunting dogs for retrieving Pheasants that have accidentally fallen into the ‘Water’ after being shot.
Now I don’t know how far a Pheasant can fly after it’s been blasted at close range but I’m pretty sure that some of the shot that brought it down would have fallen into the same water.
I’m not a betting man but I’d wager my last year’s tax bill that the shot being used to bring down those hapless birds isn’t non-lead.
What Mr Knott actually said was that the Counytyside Alliance “requests scientific evidence in order to change or further restrict the current legislation; we have made it explicitly clear that there is no such evidence.“
Mark, you devalue your status as a scientist by silly lines like the one you used. Use a genuine quote, argue against it and prove your point. By acting like a child in a schoolyard, you come across as immature and lacking in gravitas.
Mike – thank you for your comment and your comments as @weaves14 on Twitter.
When did you lose your sense of humour, or did you never have one?
If you look hard, you’ll see that there is a link in the post to the quote given by Mr Knott (Jack not Jazzy Jeff). But thank you for your help and support.
Anyway, Mr Knott started the descent into humour with his quote didn’t he? He cannot have been serious when he said that ‘there is no such evidence’. Or if he was serious, then he does not deserve to be taken seriously, so I didn’t.
I think even the shooting community would accept that birds are regularly killed by lead poisoning. The arguments are about whether such deaths have an impact at the population level. They may well do and why take the chance when safe alternatives are available? But even setting that aside, how do the regular (and slow) deaths from lead poisoning square with all we hear about hunters having respect for their quarry? I ask this as a genuine, rather than a rhetorical, question if Mike is still reading.
Why don’t shooters see this as an opportunity for them to lead from the front and set a good example by championing the use of non-toxic shot?
And why don’t BASC and GWCT champion this themselves? Rather than defending the indefensible needless use of a poison?
How will BASC and GWCT be able to explain to their members that they haven’t advised them not to eat lead shot game when they have known for nearly a decade that ingesting lead shot in game meat could affect their children’s health.
Shame on you BASC and GWCT.
According to one person on twitter “lead is so much better, ballistically than steel” My assumption is this belief is because lead shot has a wider dispersal than steel shot over the same range giving on paper a greater perceived likelihood of actually hitting the target.
Like any good scientist I did a little reading and discovered a study in which “Hunters were unable to distinguish the ammunition type being used in the field, and we detected no relationship between ammunition type and level of hunter satisfaction” Pierce, Brian L., et al. “A comparison of lead and steel shot loads for harvesting mourning doves.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 39.1 (2015): 103-115.
So there is another argument for the use of lead shot over steel that can quite quickly be blown apart (pun intended).
Anthony B – exactly. And of course there are many parts of the world where shooters have switched to non-toxic ammunition and still keep shooting. A switch to non-toxic ammunition is often portrayed as anti-shooting but it is no such thing.
Fishermen switched years ago yet the shooting ” lobby” has fervently resisted for years or at least their “Leadership” has. They seem to see all change as a threat, all criticism as a threat and seem to support a whole host of foolish positions on lead, on persecution, on vicarious liability. Lead is toxic it and it seems their leadership is too. I suppose in time the ordinary shooter will question their stupidity but I’ll not be holding my breath.
Lets not praise anglers too much, a protected goosander was shot on the River Tweed just recently. That is a species that anglers hate with a vengeance, and otters still have a tough time on salmon rivers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-41148073
Anglers might not be as bad as the rest of the shooting and hunting lobby, but they are still trouble makers for our wildlife.