The GWCT’s Andrew Gilruth writes about lead on the GWCT blog.
First he reveals that only just over half (53%) of respondents to a GWCT survey agreed with moving away from lead shot. The reasons why people did and didn’t favour the move are interesting. Those not ready to move away from lead yet are a mixed up crazy bunch: they think that non-toxic shot doesn’t provide a clean kill despite the testimony and evidence from shooters across the world that it does – ask a Danish wildfowler! And in a poor example of drafting, the questions allow those who are just too mean to pay a little more for environmental safety to be lumped in with those who think that leaqd shot is ineffective. Overall, th results show what a poor job the GWCT , other pro-shooting organisations and the shooting press have done over the3 years in educating the shooting community. The results may also indicate that it will be difficult to get compliance with a move from use of lead shot with such an uneducated bunch of characters. It wouldn’t be the first time that shooting organisations have had a public position that their members honour more in the breach than the observance.
Gilruth tries to appear as though he has been leading the education campaign against lead for years – well, we hadn’t noticed but it’s good that he claims not to be in the business of ‘defending the indefensible on lead’ these days, so that just leaves defending the indefensible on Pheasant release numbers, moor burning, the general licences etc etc.
[registration_form]
A ban on the sale of lead ammunition is needed. That way those shooters who are either too mean or too bloody minded to use alternatives under a voluntary scheme will be obliged to comply once they have used up their stocks of lead.
Yes with “Kiltruth” Gilruth supporting a whole host of indefensible positions I’m surprised by his support for a phasing out of lead ammunition. Many of the shooting organisations signed up to phasing lead out have claimed that they are leading the way on lead rather than the true reality of seeing the writing on the wall and making a last ditch effort to appear to be in the vanguard rather than being dragged into the C21st as they appeared to be just scant few months ago.
Probably too much to hope that this will lead to further changes of heart ” on the road to Damascus.”
Surely the way to tackle the lead issue is for government to legislate for a ban on the manufacture and sale of lead ammunition, its probably the only way to get compliance.
Perhaps the best way to achieve a ban on lead might be for the manufacturers of alternatives to donate a few hundred grand to the tory party?
It wasn’t that long ago they were all crowing about collapsing the Government’s group on lead and seeing off the more sensible elements in shooting. Now what we’ll see is the demand for an unfeasibly long transition – on the basis that they bare being so co-operative. The single largest game resource – Forestry Commission deer – is now lead free. 3 years looks quite long enough to move to a complete ban on the sale – and use, because otherwise there’ll be stockpiling – of lead shot.
As far as I am aware the forestry commission is lead free in rifle ammunition for their deer culls but will not allow steel shot to be used in forestry citing damage to saws when processing the wood
Mark, you have been a little economical with the facts a move from lead shot would change my costs of shooting from £280.00 to £1169.00 for a thousand cartridges for non toxic bismuth.
but we are just to mean to pay a little more.
Life is never as simple as you twist it to be.
John – what’s wrong with steel?
Nothing, just not available in the type of gun I shoot.
But may be in time if it is technically possible steel will be an option, after all we have five years to comply with the voluntary ban of lead.
Moving to steel without a biodegradable wad just changes the type of pollution we put into the environment, but does remove the toxic lead from food. Just be be clear I am not a game shooter I limit my shooting to crop protection.
John – what type of gun is that then?
28gauge most of the time and a silenced .410 round farm buildings. Steel shot is yet to be an option in these and given the latter requires a pellet velocity less than the speed of sound and steel is that much lighter than lead it may prove a non starter in steel as the pellet energy will be very low. Then leaving only very expensive types of non toxic shoot as options. Still five years is a long time and i may not need to change, not getting any younger.
Ask Demark why one of the top ten plastic pollutions found on their shoreline is plastic shotgun wads.
So they have swapped lead for plastic pollution please decide which is the worst of the two evils?
One of the quite valid reasons, in my opinion, against the widespread
change to steel shot, has been the lack of a workable, biodegradable
shot cup, necessary for the protection of shotgun barrels.
As ‘K’ notes, this has caused problems where lead has been phased
out, and not just in Denmark.
However, at least two companies have, over the last year or so, seemingly overcome this problem.
Trapit – come on, any excuse!
K – but we don’t have to ask them why more than half of wildfowl on sale in game dealers have been shot illegally with toxic lead shot, do we? There’s always some lame excuse from shooting. If GWCT and Countryside Alliance hadn’t flounced out of the Lead Ammunition Group we could have got to this point years ago. Shooting has no good reason for its anti-social, anti-science attitude to lead ammunition use. It is a blot on the reputation of shooting just like the tobacco lobby’s refusal to admit to the link between smoking and cancer continues to hang heavy on the reputati9on of that industry.
Agree mark, their is no excuse for wild Fowler’s with their large bore guns not to be using steel, however then most will be using plastic wads. These wads contain a lot more non biodegradable plastic than the lead shot equivalent.
So we have swapped lead for plastic pollution, so serious Science question which is the worst to spread around? As that is currently one of the big questions as a consequence of the voluntary ban.
Yes we do have a new non biodegradable wads starting to appear In one gauge only so far, so they have a very long way to go to replace all types of current plastic wads in use.
The five year transition and the not insignificant, £100, difference in price of the eco cartridges will I bet stop even most people who could be using the biodegradable wads from doing so until that price gap is reduced, accept the responsible wild Fowler’s, yes a lot are, as most Fowler’s do not fire very many cartridges in a season.
K – serious answer; lead is far worse.
I note you talk of a 5-year transition as though that is agreed. There should be a much shorter transition if the industry can’t sort itself out in a couple of years than we can do without shooting for a year or two and then it could re-start. It’s a polluting hobby, not a right.
Mark, it is a voluntary transition over five years which at the end they hope will conclude with a ban on all lead shot and non biodegradable wads.
But it’s a goal even the cartridge industry think is impossible in five years.
https://www.eleyhawkltd.com/media-events/press-releases/uk-game-cartridges-a-joint-statement-by-the-uk-manufacturers
We both know, shooting will not stop for two years the industry employs lots of people and generates lots of money for the rural economies.
We can do without cars, hgvs and planes for two years if we all go back to horse and carts and growing our own food.
Did you see the nasa pictures of China showing the big difference in pollution a year ago and now due to their industry shutting down due to Corvus-19.
John – it’s the type of voluntary transition which is designed to put government off legislating – I think government should still legislate. The shooting industry has delayed and delayed and delayed, and now it says ‘Oh! we need some time to get ready’. Ha ha.
If shooters are so concerned about plastic pollution why do I find spent plastic cartridges lying on the ground in places that are regularly shot over?
And since you ask, although plastic pollution is undeniably a serious issue, I would consider that in this case lead is the worse of the two evils. Furthermore, as comments below indicate, the development of biodegradable wads suitable for use with steel shot is not a technically insuperable problem.
If you disagree and believe that it is not possible to shoot without littering the countryside with one dangerous pollutant or another maybe the answer is to stop shooting?
Hi Jonathan, possibly you find the odd spend cartridge case lying around due possibly to the type of gun used.
The self-loading type of gun eject the cartridges a not inconsiderable distance from where the gun was fired.
Hence it is possible when typing up at the end of a days shooting for some to be missed, but we do our best to pick them up.
Any shooter I know if at anytime spotting a case lying about the ground regardless if they fired it or not would always pick it up as I am sure you do. Sometimes this can be several weeks or months latter, we do not go out with an intention of littering the countryside with plastic waste.
Which is one reason I choose to use biodegradable fibre wads not plastic wads.
It has taken nine years to get the water soluble wad available but hopefully progress will be faster from this point.
When walking the dog round the local dog areas I see plastic litter together with drink cans and food outlet wrappings etc etc.
I will continue shooting as I do not need your permission.
I’ve heard this before about picking up spent cartridges but I don’t see it. What I do see on a regular basis is spent cartridge cases strewn around the bases of the high seats in our local woods. Not only that but rubbish like plastic bags, tin cans and snack wrappers. This is in a wood not open to the public to which I have access.
Then it’s up to the wood owner to police such unsociable behaviour and ban from the woods those responsible as my farmers would do to me if I did not clear up after a days shooting.
The base of the cartridge is magnetic so they are easy to pickup with a magnetic stick.
John – if it’s so easy, then it’s surprising that these sights are so common… Isn’t it?
“I will continue shooting as I do not need your permission.”
Where did I suggest that you need my permission? I was replying to ‘K’ who suggested that plastic wads and lead shot are two evils (his* word) that are equally undesirable. Although I think that lead is clearly worse I suggested that if this is really his view the option is open to him to choose to stop shooting and thereby avoid leaving either pollutant in the countryside where it can harm wildlife.
” what’s wrong with steel?”
I always wondered why you were so puzzled by the lack of enthusiasm for banning lead shot here compared with the USA. I am also puzzled why John says “nothing”.
Years ago I asked a old gun sale and repair shop and they told me the older barrels are not suitable for steel shot. Steel being harder than lead it will wear the barrels and eventually they will blow out. (Choose your own emoji)
Ok you might say they wanted to sell a new gun but why then the range of new guns with hardened barrels classed as suitable for steel shot. The Americans of course would have no problem with voting for banning lead, it being an excuse to buy a new gun. I wonder if the British “rough shooter” is less keen to spend money(?) and their old and sometimes valuable heirlooms will become obsolete.
The old barrels are ok with Bismuth shot and, when I asked, the price differential was greater than John says above. Back then I was quoted about £2 per shot cf 20p, which is nothing but £2 adds up fast up as John says. Looking at John’s figures prices seem to have come down a bit.
andrew – there are very few old guns affected by steel shot issues and those issues can be solved. We simply have the usual picture of inconveniences for an industry (which in this case is largely a hobby) being portrayed as more imoportant than the public good (lead-free game meat as just one example).
As you can see, I don’t have a great deal of sympathy.
Mark, I think you will find their are a lot of old guns and more modern types that will not be able to use steel.
But Lead shot will go, do you really think we enjoy all the negative criticism it brings shooting? But that won’t stop your objections to shooting will it?
John – this is one of my objections to shooting! Shooting has gone through decades, to be at our most generous it’s a very concentrated decade, of denial of any problems, denigration of all who raised the scientific case against lead, defiance over the consensus, delay over acceptance and we are now in the dawdling stage of doing anything about it. Shooting interests in the UK, inm constrast to many elsewhere in the world, have been disgracefully dishonest over lead and are now dishonouraqbly disinclined to do very much.
Mark, we use that which we can buy and afford and your list of objections is long and clearly if we all could stop using lead shot tomorrow you would still not be happy.
Yes the industry possible could have moved faster to ban lead shot (millions have been spent so far on R&D) but that is true of so many other sources of pollution, all of which comes down to money.
Basc has apparently asked the government for tax payers money in the form of a grant to help cartridge manufactures end the used of lead shot how do you view that idea?