A TROUTY RETRIEVE
Himba [left] retrieving a trout. Himba belongs to Bill Lucas, who took the photograph, and is very proud of his dog’s fishing abilities.
Paul Kane, by email
THE LEAD DEBATE
I was pleased to read the Editor’s sensible and balanced defence of the use of lead shot [Comment,
May issue]. I am dismayed at the betrayal of the shooting community by the Countryside Alliance, in particular, and deeply disappointed with the attitude adopted by the GWCT and the BASC.
You point out correctly that we are about to escape from subjugation to European regulators, including the European Chemicals Agency. European regulation in this field, as in many others, places too much importance on the precautionary principle. I believe that post-brexit we will return to our common law-based proportionate system of regulation. It is deeply disappointing that the bodies representing shooting think that they cannot win this battle, for the very good reasons argued by Jonathan Young.
In any case, I do not believe that lead is sufficiently toxic to warrant its ban. We have accepted the argument as it relates to wetlands. Otherwise the toxicity argument should be resisted.
This agenda is being pushed by those who ultimately wish to ban game shooting for sport and the organisations that represent shooting should recognise this and be a lot more robust.
Jonathan Young’s final point what can he safely use in his gun that will cleanly and consistently kill a pheasant at 40 yards – is by a country mile the more important argument. And even if there were good scientific reasons to ban the use of lead shot – which I believe there are not – five years is an unreasonably short period in which to bring such a change into effect.
The Viscount Trenchard DL, Standon, Hertfordshire
Alea Iacta est? The words Suetonius attributes to Julius Caesar on crossing the Rubicon in 49BC. It appears the leaders of our shooting organisations have suffered from a bout of ‘group think’ panic. Their statement opens with the phrase “in consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for the healthiest game products”.
It is a huge mistake to accept this premise, and be certain that once lead has gone from shotguns and the feathered game market, the rifle will be next. There are mixed results in lead replacements for deer-suitable calibres and no suitable replacements for smaller rounds such as .22 rimfire or .223. Will a brace of rabbits shot with a .22 be illegal to put in the food chain? Even a .223 round for fox control would be banned under ‘environmental’ considerations.
For those ranged against our sport, whether a bird is killed with lead or steel shot is entirely academic – they are ethically
opposed to the whole idea. Banning lead will buy us no favours. We must not cut our own throats with actions that are highly divisive, likely to be flouted and not even supported by the manufacturers of cartridges. We must instead unite and emphasise at every turn the conservation benefits of shooting: habitat preservation, habitat creation and biodiversity. The real story is how we improve habitat and help wildlife thrive.
Yes, lead is technically toxic – so is alcohol. It’s all about acceptable levels of risk. We need to engage with our organisations and suggest an urgent rethink before the die is cast and there is no going back.
Alexander Durdin Robertson Clonegal, Co Carlow
Concerning BASC and its abject surrender to the steel shot/ non-toxic brigade, where is the evidence upon which its conclusion is based? Seemingly, there isn’t any. I see reference to improvements in steel shot cartridges; however, you can’t make them go any quicker than they do already and certainly not for standard proof and superior proof guns. You can’t change the specific density of steel shot.
In my workshop, I cut up a Gyttorp steel 32gm, No 3 shot cartridge. The steel 3s measured 0.137in in diameter, weighed 2.7grns and had a surface area of 0.015sq/in. I then measured a good-quality lead No 5 shot. This measured 0.110in in diameter and weighed 2.0grn and had a surface area of 0.0095sq/in. So my first observation is that the steel shot has a surface area 58% greater than lead shot, creating far greater air resistance and consequent loss of energy. The next observation is that the steel shot would have 183 pellets to 32gm and that the lead shot would have 247 – that is, 35% more pellets. To achieve the same pellet count in a steel No 3 32gm as in a lead No 5 32gm we would have to ram in 43.2gm. As steel has a greater volume this would be difficult in 2½in- and 2¾in-chambered guns.
Industry graphs show that at 40yd the steel shot is doing 550fps, or thereabouts, while lead shot would be doing 700fps. Applying Newton’s second law of motion, we find that a No 3 steel pellet will produce 1.81ft/lb of energy at 40yd and the lead shot will produce 2.174ft/lb.
The conclusion is that the lead shot has 20% more energy and 35% more pellets. Add to this the fact that lead shot on striking the bird will deform and give up its energy producing shock, whereas the steel shot will not deform nor give up its energy and will likely pass through the bird, thereby making hits on vital organs less of a certainty.
Steel is not a comparative option to lead, it is a poor substitute. The price will be many more wounded birds.
The so-called improvements and greater acceptance by hunters in the USA have been by increasing shot loads and therefore pellet counts, 3inand 3½in-chambered guns being common alongside a greater acceptance and usage of semi-automatic shotguns.
I have an image forming in my mind of BASC as a toothless old spaniel wagging its tail at anyone who’ll give it a biscuit.
Jack Gradwell Lymm, Cheshire
If the shooting world is concerned about the alternatives to lead shot, then perhaps the shooting community could crowd fund research? After all, some of the richest folk in the country shoot or own shoots. Maybe they should be asked to fund research to protect the future of our sport?
We need to take the lead shot issue seriously and to present a united front to Packham, Avery, Tingay et al. At present, we are squabbling about a change to our sport that will come sooner or later. We would be better adapting by choice than being forced to change by legislation being introduced to suit the whims of whichever party is governing us.
Graham C Hodgson Morpeth, Northumberland