doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com No Lead ban in the UK

A Chance? Not when science is political and predisposed to an answer. One thing life has taught me is to be wary of all science in the news. 1st because the news selectively quotes. 2nd because too often science has become more subjective and less objecive when linked to funding and politics.

No one political view has a monopoly on half baked unscientific science

Wasted effort to fight the lead ban for waterfowl. That train left the station 25 years ago. Uplands . . . different story. And for the most part, it's going to be one state at a time. (See California.) So if you see it coming in your state, make noise. Ask for evidence that the ingestion of lead is harming the species in question. Hunters and shooters have won a number of battles on this issue. California's problem is that they have only a tiny percentage of hunters. It's far less likely to happen in states with more hunters and shooters.

I think old colonel and Larry have it right: it all comes down to numbers, whatever the science says. If you've got the numbers you carry the day. Authenticity of numbers as representative of reality is as ephemeral and accurate as the news today that the "Republican Party" made Trump its nominee.

Canada's most controversial environmental debate of the 70s was whether to spray Nova Scotia forests to protect from the spruce budworm. Medical researchers "linked" spraying to children's deaths from Reye's Syndrome. Public protest withdrew protection, makingthe largest clearcut on the continent, observable by astronauts in space.

I campaigned for protection---forests can't be managed without protection. All of the august authority of the doctors won with the public. The federal government investigated the so-called link of the insecticide with Reye's Syndrome. I announced its findings to an US international forestry conference: another case of bad science.

The Colonel's right: triumphs of reason are victories only for today. The reality is that there are more antis than us. Numbers count, right or wrong.

King should certainly know about the numbers of "anti's" since he is one of them. Few here have posted as much anti-lead or anti-2nd Amendment garbage on this site as King.

And when it comes to getting off topic, King is just as bad as his little brother Larry. Who in hell was talking about spruce budworms or Reye's Syndrome anyway??? But whenever King can't get away with re-inventing himself, he typically falls back on attempting to change the subject.

It was equally entertaining to see Larry Brown's comments on what it takes to stave off future lead bans. Larry went on and on for days back in January of this year in the "Lead and Condor deaths" thread blaming lead poisoning in eagles on alleged lead bullet fragments left in gut piles and wounded deer. Talk about junk science, but Larry kept repeating it without considering the ridiculous assertions that all of these gut piles were contaminated with literally hundreds of lead bullet fragments. His remarks were about as much help as tossing a cement block to a drowning man.

So, when we're hanging out at King's place, sampling the fine wines, why would we want to listen to Larry advocate for a blind test of lead vs. steel with regard to wounding pheasant? Before you over indulge, as long as you stand by the science doesn't matter position, who would be interested in reading a report about barbarians maiming innocent wildlife? Let's suppose you change your mind and science becomes important, who would be interested in reading a report about barbarian hunters maiming innocent wildlife?

If Larry is so right, doesn't all he might want to do is just use steel shot for himself, instead of advocate? Why go through so much gymnastics to be anti hunting? Why not ferguson for a total hunting ban, and then civilly reach across aisle and offer notox hunting of biodegradable targets in a magnanimous gesture? Did I get it right, hunters and anglers really are not victims of any mythical overboard ricochet, just fools for denying the inevitable?

Craig, have you been drinking again? The only place I've ever shot upland birds with steel is on a preserve which requires nontox. I shoot lead. I advocate for lead in the uplands. If there were blind tests showing that steel ends up crippling more birds than lead, that would give the lead supporters more "ammunition" when they oppose any move to require nontox for upland birds.

The nontox requirement for waterfowl is obviously "inevitable". It's here to stay. The wasted effort is in fighting that battle. Fighting any requirement for nontox in the uplands, on the other hand, is a war in which those of us who support lead have already won numerous battles. A few examples: If Wisconsin's Natural Resources Board had their way, all DNR-managed lands in the state would be nontoxic shot only. They're not. The people of WI voted that recommendation down, soundly, at DNR meetings a few years ago. The IA Natural Resources Commission wanted dove hunting to be nontox only. That got shot down. MT has significantly limited its game department's ability to regulate lead shot.

Re King's statements, I'd disagree with him on one point: I don't believe--at least in the USA--that there are more antis than there are hunters/shooters. There may be more antis in some states than hunters/shooters, and that's where we have a problem. But where there are good numbers of hunters and shooters, and where they're willing to make noise (and politicians listen to noise), they can win--as illustrated above.

The real danger is that the antis have latched onto the "lead is bad, let's get rid of it!" line--and that's a line which, unfortunately, can be sold to people who aren't really anti-hunting. Right now, the EPA can't regulate lead in ammunition. Katie bar the door, all across the country, if they ever get that authority.

No Larry, it was a typo, I mean't whine. But, since you asked, I'll give it the ole try. I don't care what you chose to use or not use for ammo while upland hunting. I was commenting on what you advocate for.

Please read for comprehension, it looks like you occasionally disagree with King about the value of a scientific study. King says the road is set, regardless of the science.

The 'real danger' would be the title of the study that you advocate for, 'hunting cripples'. You yourself said that the audience is the non hunting politically aware. If your facts mattered, you would never have to comment, 'the wasted effort is in fighting that battle'. Unless, of course, King is right and facts don't matter a bit.

It seems like you're trying to be a functional alcoholic? Just kidding around Larry, I'll work on my drinking problem, if you'll work on yours?

What do I advocate for, Craig . . . other than lead? No need to advocate for anything where waterfowl is concerned. The law is in place. No sense advocating for lead for waterfowl because it's illegal. Likewise, no sense advocating for nontox because that's the law. But always a good idea to advocate for lead (if that's what you support) for upland game, because that's where it's under attack.

Cripples are a reality, regardless of what kind of ammo you shoot. The only extensive steel shot study done on pheasants--comparing various sizes of steel--showed what I consider to be an unacceptably high rate of cripples. However, steel shotshells have improved since then. But I still think it would be worthwhile to do the blind test, lead against steel.

We're ALL the audience, Craig. When there's a threat, that's when hunters get excited and start making noise. If that "noise" were to include the results of a study showing the superiority of lead over steel, that would help us make our case to the politicians--who are the ones that end up making the decisions.

Here in the UK the LAG that was set up by the government five years ago became heavily discredited last year. The chairman, who was the last British Association for Shooting & Conservation chief executive, had a letter made public in which he came out in favour of a lead ban, before the full committee had seen all the evidence.

It might have been expected that this fellow, John Swift, would naturally lean towards lead shot retention. However, it appears his release of this letter was an ill-judged attempt to influence members of the committee who were either neutral or against a ban. One probably did not have to look too far behind Swift to see some political string-pulling going on.

The LAG report was sitting in the Minister's in-tray at the time of the referendum and Cameron resignation. Liz Truss was moved from that department to become SoS for Justice. It must have been one of her last - and best - actions to rule against the report and allow the continued use of lead ammunition. In fact, she was quite blunt: "With regard to the impact of lead ammunition on wildlife, we note that the report does not provide evidence of causation linking possible impacts of lead ammunition with sizes of bird populations in England. In both instances � human health and wildlife � the report did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing current policy; we therefore do not accept your recommendation to ban the use of lead ammunition."

Tim

I do not understand how the pro lead policy was adopted, but your explanation shows that the ban had a good chance of being rubber stamped into acceptance. For someone to dig it out of a pile of unfinished business likely had more to do with their political convictions than results of studies.

If I'm not mistaken, there is evidence that elevated lead levels can be found in upland game birds, and that lead can be ingested by other animals and humans that eat those birds. Thankfully, but by the slimmest of margins, Ms Truss distinguished some difference between wildlife and shooting estates. Thanks for the insight from your side of the pond.