A Defra-funded study, involving BASC, WWT and the CLA, shows that most (344 out of 492, ie 70%) shot ducks bought from gamedealers, supermarkets and butchers are illegally shot with lead ammunition. This figure is similar to that found in 2002 in a study by WWT and the RSPB - there has been no real progress in the last eight years.
Quite shockingly, the survey of shooters indicated that most understood the law but nearly half (45%) admitted to breaking the law. At least this suggests that the 'honest' ones (the 45% who admit to acting illegally) are the best shots (if 70% of ducks have been shot illegally)!
The main reasons given for breaking the law are: small chance of being caught, don't believe that lead is a problem and lead-free ammunition is more expensive or more difficult to obtain than lead ammunition.
We await the reaction of shooting organisations and the shooting press with interest. Some shooting organisations have spent quite considerable time and effort communicating to their members on this issue - they must feel very let down.
We also await Defra's reaction. Minister of State Jim Paice is a keen shot and a former trustee of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust. Defra has just withdrawn its secretarial support from the Lead Ammunition Group that it and the Food Standards Agency set up to look at issues surrounding the (legal) use of lead ammunition concerning human and wildlife health.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Hi Harebelly - agreed, very good points. It's your body, you decide what to put in it, that's the way it should be. And like you, I want the best possible impartial information on what the effects might be of eating this or that. Trouble is getting truly impartial information - frankly I take it all with a pinch of (toxic) NaCl, whether it's put out by BASC or RSPB, they've all got their own agenda. But this 'growing concern' you feel is driven by campaigning by groups who're hardly fans of shooting.
I know plenty of old, healthy gamekeepers who've eaten lead-shot game all their lives. I've yet to come across a single person affected by eating game with lead shot in it. All anecdotal, not science, but I suspect there's an element of scare tactics in use here. Whenever I read about the 'risks' of lead shot, it's full of 'might' this and 'could' that. For instance, Dr Benford's evidence to the Lead Ammunition Group here www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/LAG%20-%20minutes%20-%2029%20September%202010.html - sounds like they're struggling to even measure exposure, never mind find any effect on humans.
Shooters' concerns over non-lead shot are being misrepresented. I'd happily pay a bit more for non-lead shot, just to be on the safe side. Some steel shot shells are cheaper than lead now. But i) there are concerns over safety, and damage to guns, ii) I have doubts about their ability to kill quarry cleanly, and iii) they are inclined to make the bird inedible, which rather defeats the object. If RSPB are so concerned about lead use, perhaps they'd like to help address these concerns, which are the major obstacles to change.
At least it seems Mark and I are agreed - people should obey the law, and seek to change it if it is daft.