I am aware that the banning of lead shot to shoot wildfowl has caused some concern with some shooters mainly due to the cost of the alternative materials. The ban was introduced to try and eliminate lead poisoning in birds such as swans, shell duck and other protected species. If this is the case then I simply cant see why they cant put a blanket ban on the use of lead regardless of what type of shooting you do, even clay pigeon shooting. Some of the larger commercial shoots that regularly shoot hundreds of birds must disperse tonnes of lead on to the land over a given period, for example lets say that 300 birds are shot I am given to understand that the average is 4 shots/bird, each shot carries about 1 oz of lead which means that a total of 75 lbs of lead will fall on to that land on that single day, multiply this by the number of shoot days and again by the number of shoots and very soon you will see that thousands of tonnes of lead is left on the land to cause untold damage and misery each year, surely it would be in everyone’s interest to opt for the alternatives.

Hi,

I can see your point but instances of lead ingestion killing wildfowl are pretty thin on the ground.

In my area I only know of two shoots with 50 miles radius that shoot 300 a day, most are far less than that but again I apprecaite that in some areas of the country such as Devon the 300 a day is probably nearer the mark. 300 a day average in my book equates to a 6,000 bird release and a full time keeper etc.

300 birds at say 3 to 1 equals 900 shots = 56 lbs approx of lead. In fairness guns shooting this size of bag will be shooting pretty straight after a drive or two and if the birds are not silly or a gale is blowing should be doing 1 to 2.5 or so. The gun line would have to have some novices or poor shots drawn together in it to do 4 to 1 on a day of that size. A 50 bird day maybe but 300 I doubt it.

Why are you 'given to understand' that 4 to 1 is reasonable?, are you not involved in the sport somehow?. If not then where has your info come from?. If you would like to become involved then you will of course be made most welcome no matter what branch you elect to try first.

At the end of the day where does lead come from, it is mined as an ore and refined.

It can quite reasonably be argued that cartridge costs are a tiny part of the cost of the days sport, however there is still a wide misstrust of the effectiveness of SOME of the alternatives. Personnally I have used Bismuth since it came out on duck or mixed duck/pheasant drives and killed petty well with it when I put the pattern in the right place. However I do not now take on anything much above 35 yards even with 4s..

A

According to the R.S.P.B. ingestion of lead is a major concern and kills hundreds of birds each year. It is also claimed that the nature of the death is somewhat drawn out and traumatic.
I admit that my ratio of 4:1 kill rate was none scientific in that the calculus was given by word of mouth from a seasoned game shooter who I know and is a long time member of a mature shoot that regularly shoot 300 – 400 birds/day.
Yes indeed lead is mined and refined and in its natural state is quite harmless but remember uranium is quite harmless in its natural state but when refined and enriched not quite as harmless is it.
I see that you have no issues concerning the use of bismuth cartridges as long as you are accurate and take the shot at a reasonable distance, surely all birds shot are done so within range, to take a shot at a distant bird in the faint hope of hitting the target is irresponsible to say the least.
My original post was not meant to be argumentative or contradictory, I was simply highlighting the plight of innocent birds (not simply those that are protected) that ingest lead pellets in the mistaken belief that they are ingesting grit to assist digestion and was trying to reason why there had not been a blanket ban on the use of lead.

im sorry but im getting rather fed up with this bloke now....

I apologise if I bore you arobicon but this is quite a pertinent topic. At the moment the ban of the use of lead shot to shoot wildfowl is self regulatory, in other words the hunters are entrusted to abide by the regulations. I am aware that the R.S.P.B. have made test purchases of shot wildfowl and have found that many carry lead shot. If this is the case then how long do you think it will take before there is a blanket ban imposed upon the hunters.

What will aid any change over is the price. Lead has risen in price hugely over the last 2 years. In the last month alone the market price has risen 25% to £2,200 per tonne, the world price driven by the chinese demand is predicted to continue to rise for the next ten years.

Personally I still feel much happier with lead in the chamber, through 3/4 choke I have killed some very long birds with Hull High Pheasant 30gr 6s and some decent ones with Impax 6s. Other than the first one I cannot remember a duck at much over 30 yards.

I am aware that a small group of americans that came over to shoot in the West Country for a few days were supplied only Bismuth by the London Gunsmith who stores their guns. At the end of their week they gave the remainder to their english co guns. loaders etc. In my friends case that was several thousand !. Small change though considering the money the trip cost them. In fairness they did not realise what they were using and got on fairly well with them but on bigger days you do soon get your eye in.

Personally I believe the RSPB may be inflating the amount of deaths caused by ingestion. Some will for example be pricked birds that die of their wounds, this is more relevent with non toxic shot than lead. JMHO

A

I have no doubt that castings has a major part to play in the reluctance of some people to opt for the none toxic option, however I simply can not fathom why this should be the case, taking into consideration the cost of the guns, the permission to shoot, home security etc, then the cost of the cartridge is minimal in comparison.
I shall not pretend to understand the technicalities of the ballistic comparisons but have been given to understand that the better quality (therefore more expensive) alternative offers equal if not better performances.
I understand that the RSPB research was carried out on protected species therefore you’re suggestion that some of the birds would have died from their wounds is not relevant in this case.