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 Defra has just withdrawn its secretarial support from the Lead Ammunition Group that it and the Food Standards Agency set up to look at issues surrounding the (legal) use of lead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.
Let's remember that we are talking about a naturally occurring element, not toxic sludge from the planet Zog. We mine it from the soil, it ends up back in the soil. A large part of our exposure to lead comes naturally from soil and dust. There's no "safe" level, but there's no "harm" level either, and we cannot achieve zero exposure. There is a study group under way to discover if there is even a problem with lead shot and if so, what can be done to reduce it.
That said, it's clear that in some circumstances lead shot can affect wildfowl - hence the ban on lead fishing weights, and the very sensible legislation in Scotland which bans use of lead shot in wetland areas.
Sadly the English legislation was poorly thought through. It makes no sense, and was poorly communicated (many shooters aren't members of BASC, and don't read shooting magazines etc).
I expect (I've no proof) that wildfowlers are virtually 100% compliant - they're well informed, well organised, and fully support the use of non-lead shot. They also don't tend to supply game dealers etc, they eat their bag themselves. Lead-shot ducks most likely come from pheasant shoot days, where mallard are shot off a pond in farmland, miles from the nearest wetlands.
Of course people should obey the law. But this one is just plain daft, and should be changed.
Just a brief one Mark - if readers go to Mike's web link above - re James Marchington - they will see on the home page - on the right - a fabulous graph re TB and the method of managing B*****S since the 80's and one doesn't need a PhD to understand it - it's obvious to all. So how come the RSPB missed it?
Incidentally - This week's Shooting Times reports(!) - non-lead richocet risk - in Germany where stalkers in Brandenberg have had their non-lead bullets (not shot) richochet and injure several and kill one!
Lead was banned following concern over local Sea Eagles being poisoned.
If there's such a price differential why not tax the lead shot - like for cigarettes ? Were the money recycled into the environment it might even get the support of both shooters & conservationists - but I fear this is one area in which the two sides would agree wholeheartedly that whatever they may feel about each other they'd be united in distrust of the Government sticking to any promises it made.
jamesmarchington.blogspot.com