Norway to allow lead shot for wild game

Ronny Wollert Anderassen writes:

The Energy and Environment Committee of the Norwegian goverment recommends to allow lead gunshot again for shotguns. The Parlament will vote on the case on February 3, but it is plural to reintroduce lead gunshot.
This is a great victory for Norwegian hunters. Jegernes Interesseorganisasjon (Norwegian hunters association) have worked with this case for several years to get lead gunshot back for hunters. Safety and humane hunting on wild game is the most important for hunters, in forest and in the mountains.
It will not be allowed to use lead shot in wetlands or shooting ranges for shotguns.


Shooting News on General Licence by Arnold Chapkis

The following it taken for the new Shooting News – newsletter email

by Arnold Chapkis January 2015


The text of the 2015 English General Licence implies that a semi-automatic shotgun with a magazine capacity of 2 cartridges or less, is prohibited. Few understand or are aware of the trap that has been set.

Natural England has followed DEFRA in administering the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. The recent ‘public consultation’ proposals lifted a veil revealing the depth of RSPB, RSCPA, LACS, and the WWT lobby penetration into Government law making machinery.

It revealed a malignant bias against shooting and has resulted in an English General Licence designed to entrap, mislead, containing unacceptable mistakes, and conflicts. It attempts to rewrite the law without due process. It has brought the Law into disrespect.

It has demonstrated the complicity of Government officials in allowing the RSPB, RSCPA, LACS, and the WWT to write and re-write the law without public scrutiny.

The 1981 Act is riddled with amendments all stemming from the anti-shooting lobbying. Their intervention and manipulation of UK law making is costing the taxpayer many hundreds of millions per year, to manage the consequential executive burden, it is a public scandal. It is persecution of the shooting public. It is the invisible hand of zealots at work.

They enter by the back door afforded by the EU Commission to re-jig the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. You can see the footprint of all of this by visiting the Act on the Government’s website.

The board of directors of Natural England have failed in their duty to protect the Shooting Public against frivolous intervention from extremists. It issued a biased and incompetent 2015 General Licence consultation document.

The BASC had been paid to deal with this matter over the years but to little effect. For the last 10 years, the Licence had been ‘null and void’ having been based on the wrong sub-section of the 1981 Act. This was acknowledged and corrected by Natural England in recent weeks.  The fault was flagged by a member of the shooting public, not the BASC who had acted as the chief negotiator with Natural over the years. Natural England now refers to the current published 2015 General Licence as a ‘draft’. So that’s alright?

To be fair, the Countryside Alliance had an equally poor record on shooting until the last few years. However, it was they who managed to kill the ludicrous ‘shoo before you shoot’ proposal leaving the BASC bobbing in their wake.

You now need a deep pocket to fund the legions of QC’s required to interrogate, interpret, and decipher Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 for it is a completely mangled document that Natural England itself has difficulty in understanding.

It is an outrageous abuse of the public’s right to be governed in a transparent fair and competent manner.

The act has been subject to an accretion of amendments and multi-layered complexity authored on a yearly basis by the RSPB, RSCPA, LACS, and the WWT. Their malign objective to shackle and entrap shooting by subverting the law has been successful.

They have successfully usurped democratic law making. Bent government departments to their will, and written and rewritten the Wildlife Act at will, and at great cost to the taxpayer. They have harnessed a welcoming and willing EU Commission to their agenda, and forced through EU ‘directives’ to be gold plated by English Government bureaucrats.

The current General Licence is now almost meaningless, designed (as it is) to eliminate shooting, to mislead and entrap, rather than, elucidate and inform. It is now no longer possible to draft the English General Licence without conflict with the underlying 1981 Act. The Act is now so convoluted and deformed, that even the Green Blob shudders at the thought of engaging in litigation, for fear of bankrupting their respective organisations. They have won, and persecuted the English Shooting Culture into submission.

When the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act was passed, there was no need for a General Licence. Section 2 of the Act took care of the matter. It scheduled the species that applied and amended the schedule according to need. The Green Blob did not like that. They lobbied the EU Commission to issue a ‘Wildlife’ directive. The ‘directive was optional. However, craven Labour Government officials chose to gold plated the ‘directive’ at the urging of the Green Blob and rendered Section 2 redundant by deleting the schedule of species. They said that there was already the same schedule in Section 4 of the Act. In order to use Section 4 each individual shooter has to ‘apply’ separately to gain use of the Licence, for each individual species scheduled in the Section. This of course caused uproar and the Green Blob generously allowed a General Licence to be created. How they did smirk at the cost and disruption that they had caused, and still cause.

Let us hope that the Law Commission review of the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act ensures that a new clear, honest piece of legislation, replaces it. Most of all the Law Commission must ensure that the RSPB, RSCPA, LACS, WWT cartel, are deprived of the undue influence that has allowed them to write the Law by default.

A bit of gossip: Alasdair Mitchell has a regular column in the BASC weekly journal, the Shooting Times. He wrote just after the Lead Ammunition Group was set up, that he did not mind in the slightest if Lead ammunition was banned. He was just not bothered. Not many will remember that – well not many read him.

In the 21st Jan 2015 edition of the Shooting Times he  writes to bring to his reader’s attention that George Mobiout links Lead in petrol to violent behaviour. This is all pretty old hat and the ‘studies’ preaching this come form the usual suspects, along with the usual propaganda halo.

But note the timing; we are waiting on the Lead Ammunition Report now 4 years late, (it has taken as long as the Chilcot Enquiry). John Swift has been doing the rounds briefing against Lead ammunition. The BASC Council fails to put their names to a statement demanding a factual defence of Lead Ammunition. We face the risk of an anti-Lead, anti-shooting Labour Government. What happens? Our favourite hack gets out his anti-Lead dog whistle again, and gives it a good blow. Then remember, his day job title is Northern Region Director for BASC.

Bottom line – issues 2015.

General licence update

I’ve been working on this for a month and we have ended up with two schools of thought. I do not know which one is correct.

1, that the use of a normal shotgun and air gun are not mentioned in the W & C Act or licence. therfore they are allowed.

2. the licence issued under section 16 of the W & C Act has to have the birds that can be killed [in are case shoot] and the methods that can be use shell be specified.

My hope is that 1 is correct but with my limited legal training I’m afraid the 2nd may be correct. We can safety say by the way the licence is worded that the use of semi auto’s on a shotgun certificate are prohibited under this licence.

Letter to Natural England on General Licence

Letter to Natural England.

Thank you for your email, I’m sorry but this is not satisfactory.

I had the reply for Natural England. They have edited the sub-section the licence is issued under for (i) to (k) which is now correct. However it has not cleared up the problem with the working of the methods that can be used.

All they have done is added two paragraphs (i and ii) which dates back to the 2006 licence. I attached PDF of 9 years of licence and you will see that they have been issuing the licence under the wrong sub-section of the Act for the last 9 years.

So all shooters in England who carrying out pest control on farms have been doing it illegally for the last 9 years because the licence was issued under the wrong sub-section.

The licence is issued under section 16 of the W & C Act 1981. It states that the birds should be listed and “shell specify the methods”.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

16 (5A)A licence under subsection (1) which authorises any action in respect of wild birds—

(a)shall specify the species of wild birds in respect of which, the circumstances in which, and the conditions subject to which, the action may be taken;

(b)shall specify the methods, means or arrangements which are authorised or required for the taking of the action; and

(c)subject to subsection (5)(d), shall be valid for the period, not exceeding two years, stated in the licence.]

So the methods to be used should be on the licence. The problem is it only allows semi automatic weapons. The definition is clear only for a semi automatic with more then 2 round in the magazine. This is a shotgun with more then 2 cartridges in the magazine and would be on a Firearms certificate.

“Semi-automatic weapon” means any weapon which is not prohibited by section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and which has a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition, where the depression of the trigger discharges a single shot and reloads the next, each subsequent shot requiring a further depression of the trigger.

So where does that leave us with a semi automatic shotgun that is on shotgun certificate with only 2 cartridges in the magazine?

They say that the use of a normal shotgun or air gun is not prohibited therefore it is allowed. How can this be, as the methods that can be used have to be on the licence?

The Scottish and Welish licences have make it clear that shotguns and air guns are cover by the licence, so why not the English licence?

What we have is two forms of law, English common law and European law.

The pest birds list on the wildlife and countryside act where removed by order of an EU wild bird directive and to allow us to carry out pest control on pigeon and crows ect they brought in the general licence.

The General Licence has to have the birds that can be killed and the methods that can be used written on the licence.

Using the two methods of law we have two possible outcomes.

Under the English common law is it is not prohibited then it is allowed.

Under European law if it is not allowed it is prohibited.

The wildlife and countryside act was written under English common law and they placed exception so pest control could still be carried out. They added Pigeon and Corws ect to the list of birds that could be taken or killed at any time, schedule 1 part 2.

The EU wild bird directive made the UK government remove all the birds on that list as they now all had to be protected.

So we how have two rules of laws that govern us.

By English common law, shotguns and air gun do not need to be on the list of methods allowed as they are not prohibited.

Where on the other hand under EU rules because they are not on the list of methods that are allowed, they are prohibited.

I think that explain my position.

I would like the wording on the general licence made clear.

Ian Summerell


English General Licence.

Subject to all the terms and conditions of this licence and solely for the purpose(s) stated above, this licence permits Authorised Persons:

  1. to kill or take any of the wild birds listed at (a) and (b) below, to take, damage or destroy their nests or to take or destroy their eggs:

(a) Crow Corvus corone

Dove, Collared Streptopelia decaocto

Gull, Lesser Black-backed Larus fuscus

Jackdaw Corvus monedula

Jay Garrulus glandarius

Magpie Pica pica

Pigeon, Feral Columba livia

Rook Corvus frugilegus

Woodpigeon Columba palumbus

(b) Goose, Canada Branta canadensis

Parakeet, Monk Myiopsitta monachus

Parakeet, Ring-necked Psittacula krameri

Egyptian goose Alopochen aegyptiacus

  1. and when acting under ‘i’ above to use any of the following methods prohibited by Section 5 of the 1981 Act:

(a) a semi-automatic weapon;

Definitions used in this licence:

Semi-automatic weapon” means any weapon which is not prohibited by section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) and which has a magazine capable of holding more than two rounds of ammunition, where the depression of the trigger discharges a single shot and reloads the next, each subsequent shot requiring a further depression of the trigger.

Welish general lience:

  1. Subject to the terms and conditions below, and solely for the purposes set out in paragraph (1)

above, this licence permits:

(i) any authorised person (see definitions) to kill or take any of the wild birds listed in this


Crow, Carrion Corvus corone

Dove, Collared Streptopelia decaocto

Jackdaw Corvus monedula

Jay Garrulus glandarius

Magpie Pica pica

Pigeon, Feral Columba livia

Rook Corvus frugilegus

Woodpigeon Columba palumbus

Goose, Canada Branta canadensis

by shooting or by use of cage trap or net or by any other method not prohibited by Section 5 of

the Act ; or to take, damage or destroy their nests; or to take or destroy their eggs, subject to

the conditions specified below.

(ii) the use of a semi-automatic weapon by authorised persons acting under subparagraph


List of General Licences over last 9 years.

List of general licence over the last 9 years please note that the sub-section of the act [on the right] that they where made under.

2006-11 under ( j )

2012 under ( i )

2013 then back to ( j )

2014 back to ( i ) again.

2015 started off under ( i ) put edited to ( J and K ) on the 9th Jan 2015 after I notified Natural England of the mistake.

Date PDF code Code Title section of the Act
Licence to kill or take certain birds To prevent serious damage or diease It was made under
01/01/2007-08 GL2006 WLF 18 (08/07) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
1 Jan – 31 Dec 08 GL2008 WML Gen-LO5 (12/07) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
1 Jan – 31 Dec 09 GL2009 WML Gen-LO5 (12/08) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
1 Jan – 31 Dec 10 GL2010(Jan) WML Gen-LO5 (01/10) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
13 Apr – 31 dec 10 GL2010(Apr) WML Gen-L05 (04/10b) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
1 Jan – 31 Dec 11 GL2011 WML Gen-L05 (01/11) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
1 Jan – 31 Dec 12 GL2012 WML GL04 (01/12) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(i) & 16(5)
1Jan – 31 Dec 13 GL2013 WML GL04 (01/12) Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) & 16(5)
1 Jan – 31 Dec 14 GL2014 WML GL04 Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(i) & 16(5)
1 Jan -31 Dec 15 GL2015 WML GL04 Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(i) & 16(5)
(Version Dec 2014)
1 Jan – Dec 15 GL2015 WML GL04 Semi automatic weapon 16 (1)(j) 16(1)(k) & 16(5)
(Version Jan 2015
1 Jan – Dec 15 GL Wales GEN/WCA/01/2015              as below 16 (j) and (k)
by shooting or use fo cage trap or net, the use of a semi automatic weapon
1 Jan – Dec 15 Scotland GL GL 02/2015          as below 16 (1) (k)
Shooting with any firearm, including semi-automatic firearms, shotguns or air guns

Last 9 years of the General Licence GL04

Below is a list of PDF file of the General Licence from 2006-2014.

Please note that the licences where issued under the wrong sub-section of the wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in the 9th Jan this year. From 2006 they where issued under 16(1)( j) or (i) it should have been under ( k ).

GL 2006

GL 2008

GL04 2009

GL04 2010 (Apr)

GL04 2010 (Jan)

GL04 2011

GL04 2012 (1)

GL04 2013 (1)

GL04 2014 (1)

Old GL04 2015 issued Ist Jan 2015

GL04 2015 (1) issued 9th Jan 2015

WWT lead in game meet [much to do about nothing]

‘Much to do about nothing’

by Ian Summerell

John Swift came to the DI meeting and reported the findings of a Norwegian report. People who eat lead shot game meat had higher lead level than people who don’t. I cannot accuse John Swift of lying but I make the accusation that he was misleading and disingenuous in his reporting.

The new report from Norway is the “Consumption of lead-shot cervid meat and blood lead concentrations in groups of adult Norwegians.” Meltzer et al (2013)

The Abstract of the report states:

Several recent investigations have reported high concentrations of lead in samples of minced cervid meat. This paper describes findings from a Norwegian study performed in 2012 among 147 adults with a wide range of cervid game consumption. The main aim was to assess whether high consumption of lead-shot cervid meat is associated with increased concentration of lead in blood. A second aim was to investigate to what extent factors apart from game consumption explain observed variability in blood lead levels.


Median (5and95percentile) blood concentration of lead was 16.6 mg/L (7.5and39 mg/L). An optimal multivariate linear regression model for log-transformed blood lead indicated that cervid game meat consumption once a month or more was associated with approximately 31% in crease in blood lead concentrations. The increase seemed to be mostly associated with consumption of minced cervid meat, particularly purchased minced meat.

However, many participants with high and long-lasting game meat intake had low blood lead concentrations. Cervid meat together with number of bullet shots per year, years with game consumption, self-assembly of bullets, wine consumption and smoking jointly accounted for approximately 25% of the variation in blood lead concentrations, while age and sex accounted for 27% of the variance. Blood lead concentrations increased approximately 18% per decade of age, and men had on average 30% higher blood lead concentrations than women. Hunters who assembled their own ammunition had 52% higher blood lead concentrations than persons not making ammunition.

In conjunction with minced cervid meat, wine intake was significantly associated with increased blood lead. Our results indicate that hunting practices such as use of lead based ammunition, self-assembling of lead containing bullets and inclusion of lead-contaminated meat for mincing to a large extent determine the exposure to lead from cervid game consumption.

After reading this you may be thinking that hunters that eat lead shot game are doomed! I believe this is no more than scare mongering, we had the scare in fresh chickens last week and soon we may see a report in the shooting press reporting the high levels of lead in game meat is dangerous and reporting the findings in the Norwegian study.

The Norwegian study had no control group.

The average BLL at 19.3 ug/l in the Norwegian Study was below other EU studies at 20-30ug/l.

I would point out that this stud shows that Norwegian hunters who eat lead shot game have lower BBL than the EU average.

We are told that lead is toxic. They banned lead for wildfowling, they now want to have a total lead ban for all shooting. That is the aim of the WWT and RSPB, the WWT reported this in a BBC news report and the RSPB have reported their intent on their web site.

Oh, they say, they’ve removed lead from paint, lead from pencils and lead from petrol.

Lets look at this a little closer, over the years we have been told that lead is toxic, CO2 is the cause of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) and carrots help you see in the dark.

I do not intend to go into detail of CO2 but we have been told that CO2 is the cause of global warming were as in fact NASA tells us that there has been no global warming for over 15 years. I believe this was to create a market for CO2 and alternative energy systems.

They haven’t removed the lead from the inside of pencils. Lead wasn’t put into the graphite, it was in the paint on the outside of the pencils.

The wartime propaganda told the British public that carrots helped you see in the dark. This was to make the Germans think RAF pilots ate carrots to see in the dark, to hide the fact that we had radar.

That brings back to TOXIC lead. Lead is toxic in high concentrations and the lead they put into paint and petrol was not the lead we use for shooting. The lead we use in shooting is solid lead and may have a little bit of antimony in it to make it harder.


Lead in petrol was not solid lead, in was Tetraethyl lead and it had a chemical formula of (CH3CH2)4 Pb. Researching this article I found a web site reporting that the level of lead in the air reduced year on year from 1920 but when Tetraethyl lead was removed from petrol it started to go up year on year. The theory is that the Tetraethyl lead in petrol combined with the lead in the air and fell to the ground.

Lead in paint was white and red lead, white lead is lead carbonate or lead sulphate, and red lead is lead tetroxide. White lead was the main white lead pigment used in some paints. Red lead was used in metal paint and primer coatings.

The lead used in shot and bullets is not toxic in its solid state and is very stable.

Now lets look at the Norwegian report, they report hunters that eat lead shot game meat having higher levels of lead in their blood than people who do not. This may be true but how toxic is the level they have?

We know the human body needs trace elements of metals and minerals. You need Iron and Zinc. You also have trace elements of silver and lead. I’m told we also need trace elements of Arsenic!

It is said that the phrase born with a silver spoon, was because people that used silver cups for wine and drinks had trace elements of silver in the blood helping to fight off diseases.

Question, do we also need a trace element of lead in our blood? I do not know the answer.

How much lead did the Norwegian hunters have in their blood?

The Norwegian report says that an average of 22.3ug/l lead was found in the blood of hunters that eat lead shot game meat. That was higher then people who did not eat lead shot game meat.

How toxic is 22.3 ug/l of lead in the blood?

ug refers to micrograms and L is litres, so there is 22.3 micrograms of lead in every litre of blood. To put this into prospective the average is a trace element of a really very small tiny amount of only 0.0000223 grams of lead per litre of blood.

That is the claim and we are being told that we should reduce that lead level. John Swift told the DI back in 2010 that there is lead in the food chain and we have to find ways to reduce it.

What is the safe level of lead in blood?

I work with lead in the workshop and Health and Safety tell me that the max level of lead in my blood should be not more than 600ug/l, at that level I have to stop working with lead. At 500ug/l I have to see a doctor. That is 0.000600 grams per litre of Blood.

If I read the American study Schafer (2005) correctly, the blood lead levels in the general population are expected to be around 15 μg/dL.,15 ug/dl is 150 ug/l.

That is why at the end of the Norwegian report, that an average of 22.3ug/l in hunters eating lead shot game is lower than the average American at 150ug/l, comes to the clear conclusion that “the risk at an individual level is low or negligible.”

So all this hype about higher lead levels in people who eat lead shot game is no more than scare mongering. This article is headed, ‘much to do about nothing’ or are we to believe the hype that lead shot game is toxic, my conclusion is that it is “much to do about nothing!”