Unleaded!
Country groups want to future-proof shooting by phasing out lead shot. Philip Reynolds reports on the move and its implications
“We wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years … ”
So read the second half of the opening sentence of the announcement by a consortium of organisations that represent shooting interests in the UK. In all, there were nine signatories to the statement that was released on Monday 24 February: BASC, GWCT, Countryside Alliance, National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, CLA, the Moorland Association, British Game Alliance, Scottish Land and Estates, and the Scottish Association for Country Sports.
The statement went on to assert that recent advances in technology with regard to the quality and availability of non-lead shotgun cartridges, recyclable plastic cases and biodegradable cups for steel shot “have enabled the transition to take place”.
It ended by saying the phased transition away from lead was a necessary measure to safeguard wildlife and the environment. The signatories issued a rallying cry and called upon the wider shooting community to support and engage with the initiative.
But why was the announcement made when it was, who knew about it beforehand, and what were the reasons for making it?
The Q&A produced with the statement from the assorted groups said that probable legislative changes emanating from Europe, in particular as a result of work being undertaken by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an agency of the European Union, were a factor. Last November, the ECHA published a 20-page document on the use of lead outside wetlands following a call for evidence. The likelihood is that any recommendations would be incorporated into British law, regardless that we are no longer a member of the EU.
There is no disputing that the use of lead shot has been a hot topic for a good while. Following concerns about its effect on the health of humans and wildlife, Defra and the Food Standards Agency set up the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) in 2010. The group, which comprised a variety of stakeholders, submitted its report to Defra in 2015 and concluded, among other things, that the only way to avoid elevated concentrations of lead in the food chain from shot game was to replace it. Though the primary work of LAG finished with the report, it has continued to review new evidence in this regard. And lead has been banned from shooting over water since 1999 in England and 2002 and 2004, respectively in Wales and Scotland.
Thus, likely legal imperatives, along with the advance in technology with regard to non-lead alternatives and environmentally friendly wads, meant that from the signatories’ point of view there was no time like the present to act. That is certainly the view of BASC, which said the move was essential to “ensure the sustainable future of shooting... If we had not made the announcement, there is a real risk a ban would have been imposed on us; that risk has been mitigated but not removed.”
With regard to consultation, BASC said that the “shooting community has been discussing the issue of lead shot for 40 years” and that its members had been informed through articles in its in-house magazine.
However, the major British cartridge manufacturers – Gamebore, Hull, Eley Hawk and Lyalvale Express – issued their own statement four days later on 28 February, saying that there had been no consultation.
While the cartridge manufacturers stated that they would continue to encourage the use of steel shot (at present the only widescale alternative to lead), they said that as things stand there are limited options for non-lead ammunition with biodegradable wads on the market. In other words, for the mass market you either have lead with biodegradable wads or steel with plastic. “Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate – lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both,” said the statement for the cartridge manufacturers. They added that the change would require extensive research, development and investment, which would most likely be an expense passed on to shooters. That said, there have all ready been some notable if limited developments with regard to steel shot and eco wads (see panel opposite).
Initially, the coalition of shooting interests seemed taken aback at the vehemence of the statement from the cartridge manufacturers. BASC, the GWCT and the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation put statements on their websites welcoming the decision by the cartridge manufacturers “to seek alternatives to lead ammunition”. Nothing wrong with that and true, except it rather overlooked the previous 500 or so words of the statement, which was a thinly veiled criticism of the original announcement.
BASC clarified its position a few days later on 2 March in a further statement that said while it understood the cartridge manufacturers’ commercial concerns, they “were consulted before the publication by the shooting organisations of their initial joint statement on the proposed five-year transition to sustainable, nonlead ammunition”. BASC went on to state that representatives of the shooting organisations were in contact with cartridge manufacturers at meetings where the statement was discussed and a copy of the 24 February statement was given to them in advance. Other signatories of the original statement have also indicated as much.
Liam Bell, chairman of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, said: “The wider shooting community are aware of many of the challenges that lie ahead, the use of lead shot is just one of them. I think the move has been received very well, actually.”
Mixed feelings
People can make up their own minds about who said what and when – or did not say – but, ultimately, the not insignificant commercial considerations of the cartridge manufacturers and other businesses notwithstanding, the fact is the move is happening, on a voluntary basis for the time being, and that is what has to be addressed.
While there appears to be a consensus welcoming the proposed change with regard to the environmental gains, there seems to be mixed feelings about its feasibility and the ability of steel shoot to replicate the efficacy of lead, especially with regard to clean kills.
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association, for example, while agreeing with the environmental initiative in regard to getting rid of plastic and non-biodegradable wads, said the issue surrounding lead was less clear. It said: “Evidence regarding impacts of lead traces in food is limited. What evidence there is tends to be contested.” It called for more research and more holistic conclusions to be drawn on the impact of lead and any proposed changes well evidenced.
However, Andrew Gilruth of the GWCT said the charity had been discussing the impact of lead for many years. He also pointed to the work of the ECHA, which says that up to
27,000 tonnes of lead is dispersed into the European environment annually as a result of shooting and fishing. Lead, it says, is known to cause poisoning in wildlife and may also be detrimental to human health if consumed in game. The GWCT said in 2015 estimates suggested that up to 100,000 wildfowl die each year in the UK from lead poisoning. Not everybody is convinced.
Karl Waktare, managing director of GMK, the shooting sports distributor, said: “Whilst we understand the various shooting organisations wanting to take the initiative in this contentious issue, they have gone about it in a strange manner leading to huge controversy. Lead is a complicated enough issue without bringing in plastic wads at the same time. That said, it should be remembered that they have called for a five-year timescale. Without the demand for greater use of lead and plastic wad alternatives the cartridge manufacturers are not going to develop the products.
Edward King, the managing director of ASI, said the shooting industry needed to work in partnership with users to address the challenges ahead. He said: “From a gunmaking point of view, the specifications for steel shot proof have been in existence for some time (at least for 12- and 20-bore loads) and gunmakers have been making guns [which have been steel shot proofed] to accept these high performance loads [identified by a fleur-de-lys mark].”
He said that most new guns are being made to these higher specifications. The CIP (the
“Alternatives are not there for every gun and circumstance”
international proof organisation) will be under a certain amount of pressure to specify the requirements for the other commonly used calibres, which will then enable gunmakers to meet those specifications. It is possible to shoot standard steel cartridges through guns that have not been proofed for high-performance steel loads, as long as the chambers are the right size and as recommended by the UK proof houses, the chokes are half choke or less. Mr King added: “The question of time scale and feasibility must be answered by the cartridge manufacturers.”
Inevitable
Mat Manning, a contributor to Sporting Gun, said: “Taking the initiative to gradually move away from it is a sensible step when it comes to safeguarding the future of the sport, both in terms of expanding the market for game and in showing that the vast majority of us really do care about the planet. We have moved away from lead in petrol, pipes and paint and it was only ever a matter of time before a ban on lead shotgun ammunition was forced upon us. I think it is better that we are making the call ourselves.”
Charles Smith-Jones, who writes the Blast from the Past and Quarry features for Sporting Gun, was also positive about the change: “While I remain sceptical about some of the ‘science’ behind the perceived dangers posed by lead shot, this has been coming for a while now and a voluntary and phased move away from lead shot is far preferable to an outright ban. I used steel
shot (the Eco loads) extensively last season and was very impressed by it. I experienced little wounding, and certainly nothing beyond what might be expected with lead – but then, I try not to shoot at over-ambitious ranges. You do need to be mindful to increase your shot size accordingly and heed advice about not over choking the barrels. I am very happy to use it with confidence for the sort of shooting that I do.
Mr Smith-Jones did, however, raise the spectre of steel shot and older guns not proofed to take such shot, something that potentially leaves people with a lot of redundant guns in their cabinets (see Robert Morgan panel on this page).
The Gun Trade Association (GTA) said it had been working closely with the industry in this regard and has issued extensive advice on its website. Simon West, the GTA’s executive director, said the statement by the shooting groups was an acknowledgment that “in the end, the use of lead is highly likely to be restricted”. He said that while “alternatives are not there for every gun and every circumstance” the responsiveness of the shooting industry would create opportunities for change. He also pointed out that it is not a ban and there “is plenty of time to get it right”.
He also suggested that in any legal formalisation of the use of lead shot that there would be appropriate derogations. With regard to the issue of consultation with the shooting industry and wider shooting community, he said the issue had been a common topic in the press and that there had been “a grassroots recognition that lead’s time is limited”. He said that he was “seeking to work with the manufacturers to draw a roadmap for this transition. That is what seems to be missing at the moment.”
Mark Avery, of Wild Justice, writing on his personal blog, said that it “will be difficult to get compliance with a move from use of lead shot with such an uneducated bunch of characters. It wouldn’t be the first time that shooting organisations have had a public position that their members honour more in the breach than in observance.”
The next five years will show where we are with this and how accurate some of these statements prove to be. In the meantime, shooting must steel itself for more challenges looming over the horizon from those opposed to its very existence.