Clar­i­fy­ing lead laws

Sporting Shooter - - Letters -

I would like to raise a se­ri­ous is­sue with the ‘Goose-get­ters’ ar­ti­cle (p48) that was pub­lished in the Novem­ber is­sue of Sport­ing Shooter.

The first sen­tence of the in­tro­duc­tion read: ‘Non-toxic loads are a le­gal re­quire­ment when shoot­ing over wet­lands,’ and many may think that this is the only time that non-toxic loads are re­quired. It should have read: ‘Non-toxic loads are a le­gal re­quire­ment when shoot­ing any wild­fowl.’

The main prob­lem that wild­fowlers have is the in­land shoots: shoot­ing ducks flushed from ponds to make up the num­bers on driven days. I have beaten on sev­eral of these and know for a fact that Guns have not been asked to use non-toxic loads, and the word­ing in your ar­ti­cle does not help the mat­ter.

Also, I am sur­prised that Game­bore did not get a men­tion as they do sev­eral loads of steel or tung­sten. I use their Sil­ver Steel fi­bre-wadded steel car­tridge for in­land duck, as the landowner does not want plas­tic wads left in the area.

Ralph Stim­son, via email

The edi­tor replies: You are, of course, cor­rect that non-toxic loads are also a le­gal re­quire­ment when shoot­ing wild­fowl in­land in Eng­land. We cer­tainly didn’t in­tend to cause con­fu­sion.

When shoot­ing duck on a driven day, non-toxic loads should be used

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.