Swan Poisoned by Angler's Lead Weight

[gozzer]

Blimey, all this talk, and I can't remember seeing a pike angler on Yeadon Tarn.

Edited June 2, 2006 by gozzer

[Anderoo]

I'm sorry if I've stirred up angling disunity (although it's not difficult... ) - I was talking about the way angling changes over time regardless of other influences. I think that's undeniable. Needless to say, if angling was under real threat by those who have no understanding of it, I'd be there with the rest of you. I'll leave it there!

[ColinW]

I think Zaphod summed it up quite nicely in his first post and personally I think ALL lead weights of any desciption and size should be removed from the shelves.

 

Why?

 

I use lead weights in the legal sizes. If I use a No8 shot, or smaller, when I'm float fishing it will be real lead. I don't mind using the non-toxic ones up on the mainline but there's no way I'll use them on a hooklength. As I said earlier in this thread, I've had the same box of No8 shot for well over ten years (and a box of No10 which are probably 20 years old). Whenever I've seen X rays on the TV of swans with lead poisoning, the shot have been BB and upwards, which is why those sizes are rightly banned. This argument was put to bed 20 years ago and I don't really understand why the swan lovers are trying to resurrect it. Presumably the shot were surgically removed from the swan in the news item. In that case let them tell us what size they were. If they were No8 or smaller THEN they have justification for questioning the current legislation, otherwise they have no reason to stir up trouble (other than the fact that they like doing it).

 

At the other extreme I'd also like you to tell me what else other than lead to use when I'm making weights for sea fishing. Short of buying a blast furnace I don't see what other metal can be used.

[Steve Walker]

This argument was put to bed 20 years ago and I don't really understand why the swan lovers are trying to resurrect it. Presumably the shot were surgically removed from the swan in the news item. In that case let them tell us what size they were. If they were No8 or smaller THEN they have justification for questioning the current legislation, otherwise they have no reason to stir up trouble (other than the fact that they like doing it).

 

Well said. Have you ever seen these people interviewed? Many of them hate us. You have to remember that many swan rescue volunteers look upon anglers in much the same way that anglers look upon cormorants. They have problems with birds entangled in line or hooked up, they're hardly going to wish to give us a reasonable press.

 

I wonder how many swans were killed by power lines and wind farms this week?

[GlennB]

From The Scotsman newspaper 2 yrs ago -

 

"The negative impacts of lead shot on wildlife are well established. Water fowl in particular mistake the metal for grit, which they ingest while feeding to help aid the breakdown and digestion of their food, but this can then lead to poisoning and a slow death. Occasionally mass deaths also occur in unusual circumstances, such as in 1986 to 1987 at Loch Spynie, in Morayshire when more than 300 greylag geese were discovered dead."

 

The article was about lead shot from shotgun pellets.

 

Another article :

"In 2002, two thirds of ducks sampled at game dealers throughout the country had been shot with lead, revealed a disturbing, and damaging, lack of compliance. The problem appeared greatest in inland shoots."

 

It's only in the last few years that these have been "banned", and even then can still be used for certain bird species in certain locations I believe.

 

I've absolutely nothing against shooting but it seems to me that blasting hundreds of shot, hundreds of times in a single shoot is going to deposit vastly more lead in the water than a hundred years of angling activity. Could the conservation lobby give anglers a break now and then and look for other explanations, maybe?

 

p.s. I know it's been said. my mother-in-law is arriving soon and I fancied a good ol rant

Edited June 2, 2006 by GlennB

[Larry]

Whos to say where the swan picked up the whatever caused it death the one involved in bird flu scare had a few weeks ago had apparently flown in from Russia .

[Ferg]

I can remember fishing once on the Lancaster Canal and there was a shoot going on in the fields behind and every now and again it looked like it was raining and it was actually discharged shot from the guns. I'm sure this isn't the only place this happens as shooting for a lot of wild fowl revolves around water.

 

Sod it lets ban everything

[Newt]

Ferg - is the UK requiring steel shot for waterfowl shooting or can you still use lead shot?

[GlennB]

Ferg - is the UK requiring steel shot for waterfowl shooting or can you still use lead shot?

Newt, sorry to butt in but this might help -

In Scotland they were still consulting in 2004 :

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/04/19316/36636

 

In 2006 the British Association for Shooting and Conservation are still talking in terms of "If you use non-toxic shot.." :

http://www.basc.org.uk/content/shotgunpractice

 

A number of sites suggest that certain shotguns may not be suitable for non-toxic shot, which I imagine will slow down the move to other metals, and then I dare say there's a vast number of lead shot cartridges still for sale all over the country.

 

Why on earth anglers take all the flak for instances of lead poisoning totally escapes me.

[Dick Dastardly]

A number of sites suggest that certain shotguns may not be suitable for non-toxic shot,

 

 

Why on earth anglers take all the flak for instances of lead poisoning totally escapes me.

 

 

Steel shot is the only practical alternative (imagine the price of a cartridge full of a non toxic material similar to our non toxic shot!) Trouble with steel is that it wouldnt take many cartridges to thouroughly trash the bores of most shot guns.

 

The simple reason that we take all the flack is that we are probably the most apathetic and un united sport in the world!

 

The shooting world dispite having various disciplines is far more united (dont see a clay shooter saying that pidgeon shooting is cruel or a rough shooter saying pheasant shooting is unsporting).They have also realised that it isnt the anti killing brigade that threatens their individual sport but the anti gun lobby that threatens them all.

 

 

And we want to hand live baiting,keepnets etc to the antis on a plate? We have matchmen saying that sticking hooks in fish for bait is cruel? Pike anglers calling carp anglers "trappers"? and eveyone else saying putting fish in keepnets is wrong?