Ducks Unlimited NZ
Sunday, 25 February 2018 22:51

The Anti-lead shot mythology

(Also known as pseudo science, mythical science and subversion of science.)
Only over the past few years has it become widely appreciated that the anti-lead shot/antilead projectile brigade’s ‘scientific evidence’ does either not exist or the evidence is a figment of someone’s imagination – MYTHOLGY; i.e. scientific ‘opinion’ not based on any honest scientific research!

Way back in the 1950s research commenced to prove that wild waterfowl die from ingesting lead shot, but when this research failed to determine this hypothesis another pseudo research programme was created - one that saw huge numbers of captive waterfowl dosed with massive quantities of lead shot; this resulted in a number of birds dying! Hardly surprising as the amount of dosage was hundred times greater than any bird would intake in the wild.

Google – search for: Dosing ducks with lead shot.
In the late 1950s the United Nations latched on to the opportunity to establish a world-wide anti-lead programme, solely aimed at curtailing the growth of shooting sports and at the same time take firearms out of private hands!

In 2012 the UK’s high profile Countryside Alliance financed extensive research on lead in the environment; this determined that 30 commonly eaten foods all contained element of lead – none of which had come from lead shot!

Lead in the environment is a naturally occurring element and no-one appears to have died from eating any of the 30 foods listed in the CA research publication.

Australian scientist John Reid said this about ‘modern scientific research:
“There are issues concerning the way science and scientists are perceived by the public and by themselves. “Why is it assumed that science always gets it right, that only industry is capable of wrecking the environment? “
There are issues about the unholy alliance between environmental scientists on the government payroll and environmental activists and lobby groups acting politically.

“There are issues about the way in which scientists continue to produce those environmental “threats” which have proven so useful in maintaining project funding.”

John Reid has also said:
“It works like this: activists, NZ - Forest & Bird, the Green Party, Dept of Conservation, etc., and overseas, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, US Fish & Game, etc use science to push for international action on a science-related issue in an area such as health or environment. Then, an international agreement is established, and the science on which it is has been based becomes institutionalised and funded by government. Time and again, when this happens, “the science” stops being science.

“This is because the scientists working on the relevant topic start being advocates and stop being researchers. After all, they are now being paid by the bureaucracy to support a particular doctrine, not to discover new stuff.” (The Subversion of Science).

Recently – from the USA’s Hunt for Truth:
The crux of anti-hunting activists’ argument against traditional ammunition rests on the misplaced assertion that the use of lead ammunition for hunting leads to elevated lead exposure and poisoning in scavenging animals, such as the California condor, that allegedly ingest fragments of spent ammunition in gutpiles or carcasses left by hunters. The scientific studies relied on by the anti-lead proponents are in fact not scientifically sound.
The proponents use “faulty science” to support their antilead ammunition agenda. has procured and analysed over one hundred thousand documents from governmental agencies, universities and researchers and have found systemic flaws, which include faulty methodology and sampling protocols and the selective use of data (i.e. “cherry picking” data for publication).

The anti-lead ammunition proponents have employed psuedo science as a tool to support their distorted agenda. Indeed, the scientific studies used to impose lead ammunition bans are flawed. Researchers who have published these papers have used questionable sampling sizes and have ignored data believed to be contrary to their pre-conceived conclusions regarding lead ammunition. They have also routinely ignored evidence of alternative sources of lead in the environment as a potential cause of lead poisoning or mortality in wildlife. Key studies that profess to link lead ammunition to lead poisoning or mortality in wildlife have been criticised by scientists, and have even been embroiled in lawsuits for withholding original data that show results contrary to their published conclusions.

In March 2015 I detailed the background to this anti-lead shot scenario pointing out that this has played the major role in the demise of the mallard – and possibly the demise of duck shooting in this country.

This was distributed widely – here and overseas – and here it has resulted in NZ Fish & Game admitting that there is a major problem with mallard numbers!

Neil Hayes
Read 1600 times Last modified on Saturday, 09 November 2019 23:20