Lies, damned lies, and statistics

Robin Scott has a case of the heavy-metal blues as he considers the inevitability of the transition from lead ammunition to more ‘sustainable’ alternatives, but questions the presented facts that justify it

- Robin Scott

As hatchet jobs go, the campaign bulling up the benefits of iron shot and trashing lead pellets is a done deal. Whether we like it or not, sooner not later we’ll be spraying steel balls around the countryside with gay abandon. No amount of shouting or kicking against the traces is ever going to change this orchestrated outcome.

Lead’s demise was a given the moment the sport signed up to a ban for wildfowling 20 years ago. While the anti-lead propaganda peddled back then was bad enough, today it is relentless. And, depressingly, much of it is being generated and fanned by some in our own ranks. The argument is that it’s better we drive the switch to alternatives than have it dropped on us through legislation. That’s all very laudable but, voluntary or otherwise, the end result is going to be the same: a ban on a very effective material for shooting and scrapped guns.

Just cause

Although Man has used lead shot for three or more centuries and survived, maybe it is an evil bigger and more pernicious even than widespread habitat loss that has driven so much of our wildlife to the brink. If so, I will happily bite the bullet, applaud our leaders and switch to steel when my stock of lead dries up. Which won’t be any day soon.

No, my reluctance to join this particular steel band and sing to its tune has been hardened by the stridency of the campaign and the way matters are being orchestrated. Just as it was with the ban for wildfowling, scientists and antis – supported by the unquestioning acquiescence of most representative shooting groups – are firing off statistics in support of a ban that, quite frankly, take a lot of believing.