I've signed this, you should too

If we are going to fight off unwarranted further restrictions on lead shot, it's important that we comply with the law as it stands.

Too often (even once is too often) shooters can't or won't switch to non-lead cartridges for a duck drive during a pheasant day. In England and Wales, that's illegal. If you're shooting ducks or geese, even miles inland and far away from wetlands, you must use non-lead shot.

The antis can all too easily point to ducks shot with lead and claim we can't be trusted to police ourselves, then call for a total ban on lead shot.

So: keepers, estate owners and shoot managers. Make this the season when you arrive at the duck drive with a box of non-lead cartridges for each Gun and insist the buggers use them, or be thrown off. The future of our sport depends on it.

I've signed this pledge, supported by all the major shooting and gamekeeping organisations. Please do the same, now.

Share|

Is there a handbook of how to campaign to ban something you don't like?

Consider this quote:

Dr David Fabry, who led the research, said: "We really do not know exactly how much xxxxx you need to be exposed to in order to be at increased risk. But we do know that the threshold for damage is very low. Really, the safe level of exposure is no exposure."

Was he talking about lead shot in game? He could have been - we've heard almost those exact same words spouted against lead shot by the WWT, RSPB and other anti-shooting groups, even though by the best scientific estimates you'd have to eat game for breakfast, lunch and dinner 7 days a week for there to be any detectable effect.

No, in this case, Dr Fabry was attacking smoking, on grounds that the splendid Moose takes issue with. I wonder if these people have a handbook full of useful pseudo-scientific phrases that sound scary but actually mean nothing at all.

Share|

Lead ban isn't working

Shooters are ignoring the lead ban and shooting ducks with lead shot, according to a study funded by Defra and carried out by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

Researchers found that 70% of ducks purchased from English game dealers, butchers and supermarkets had been shot illegally with lead. The study concluded that amongst those supplying game dealers and retail outlets, compliance with the law on lead shot is poor.

The WWT press release says that although their survey showed relatively good understanding of the spirit* of the law, up to 45% of respondents admitted to not always complying. "Survey responses included the belief that lead poisoning was not a sufficient problem to justify the regulations, and there were perceived issues** surrounding availability, cost and efficiency of the alternatives to lead, together with a lack of enforcement of the regulations."

[* Note 'spirit'. I'll bet that understanding of the practical details is much lower - hence the 45%, some of whom may be saying 'I've probably broken it because I don't really understand what it says'.

** Despite what's being claimed on other blogs, 'perceived issues' is not the same thing as someone saying 'I break the law cos I'm unlikely to get caught'. This is not the same 45% explaining 'why' they broke the law. And what's with "up to 45%". Was it 45 % or wasn't it? 2% falls within "up to 45%".]

The WWT calls on the government "to take urgent action to ensure that the risk of lead poisoning in waterbirds is substantially reduced by ensuring that lead gunshot is no longer used over wetlands or for shooting waterfowl and that the UK honours its international commitments."

Antis, from LACS to RSPB, will love it - I suspect the sirens are already sounding at BASC HQ. Oh look, Avery is jumping up and down with excitement already.

One interesting claim made in Avery's blog post: he says, "Defra has just withdrawn its secretarial support from the Lead Ammunition Group." (On checking I discover that this too is misleading - they simply can't spare anyone over the next couple of months, but there will be Defra staff available in time for the next scheduled meeting).

Oh how they're loving it... WWT themselves misleadingly tweeted:

It doesn't of course - it confirms that lead shot is still rather effective at bringing them down.

All in all, pretend outrage at poor compliance with a stupid and poorly communicated law which is misdirected at the species being shot rather than the type of land where the shot will fall. Further proof of the RSPB's anti-shooting agenda.

And no, that  doesn't mean I condone lawbreaking. Responsible shooters should always comply with the letter of the law, no matter how silly it is - but that needn't stop us campaigning to get it changed.

Fighting back on lead shot

Who said this:

“There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically based restriction on waterfowl hunting.”

BASC? The Countryside Alliance? The RSPB?

No, it's the American firearms industry, fighting back at the latest attacks on lead shot and bullets. I particularly like this line:

“Hunters and their ammunition have done more for wildlife than the CBD ever will. And the CBD’s scientifically baseless petition and endless lawsuits against state and federal wildlife managers certainly do not serve the wildlife that the organization claims to protect.”

Will the worm turn in the UK too? Time will tell.

The truth beind the Lead Ammunition Group

The Lead Ammunition Group website is up and running - so we can see the workings behind this small band with the power to deal shooting a crippling blow.

The first thing that struck me was the devious, misleading tone of the sh*t-stirring letter that RSPB and WWT sent to Defra in October 2009:

That, to my mind, vindicates BASC's assertion that trouble was coming anyway, and the best they could do was join the process and try to minimise any damage to shooting.

The shooting industry's reply, signed by John Swift, seems like a sensible response; it states clearly that they don't believe there's a case for restricting lead shot, and suggests that the industry's own Technical Working Group is already doing all the looking-into that's needed:

Significantly, the letter is signed by all the major shooting organisations - including those that are busy slagging off BASC now.

...and then back comes a letter from the minister, stating that he's setting up the Lead Ammunition Group and would you kindly let us know if you'd like to be involved. To which the only sensible answer is "Yes".

I'm not always 100% behind BASC's stance or methods, but on this one I honestly can't see what else they could have done. If shooters are looking for someone to throw insults at, I'd suggest starting with the RSPB, whose zero-tolerance precautionary principles are applied somewhat selectively.

Talking of the RSPB, have you noticed the slick way their PR machine has slid into action over the case of Lydd Airport?

The new government announced they would block any extension to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, leading to speculation that smaller airports like Lydd might receive extra traffic. And hey presto, the RSPB discovers a pair of nesting purple herons, about to raise the first ever purple heron chicks to be hatched in the UK. And, sniff, they could be threatened by the airport development. Brilliant! Cue widespread media coverage, and a crippling blow dealt to the developers' plans.

Now don't get me wrong. I care about as much for airport developments as I do purple herons. I'm just in awe of the PR and marketing skills of organisations like the RSPB.

Just yesterday I received a text on my mobile telling me breathlessly "There's still time to save nature" - all I need do is click the link and sign their cloying Letter to the Future (check it out, it's like a parody of a Miss World candidate's speech). Most people, of course, aren't cynical, miserable old gits like me and will happily sign up, feeling they're showing their support for a sunnier, more wildlife friendly future. The number of signatures will, ultimately, be used as a club to beat concessions from the government (I suspect that won't be so easy with the new lot, but time will tell).

Meanwhile, shooting always seems to be on the back foot, reacting to challenges - defending ourselves against the attack on lead shot is just the latest example.

Should we - could we - think bigger, set our sights higher? Is there any reason why 'hunters' shouldn't become the voice of conservation in the UK. After all, we look after more of it than the RSPB do. For now. I suspect they've got a plan for that one too.

What would you like the science to prove?

It's not just in the field of lead shot that everyone claims science is on their side. Check out this post about the latest study on mobile phones: depending on your preference, mobile phones do, don't, or might cause cancer. And while there's the slightest element of uncertainty, you can guarantee that someone will be calling for a ban on the precautionary principle.

My defences go up whenever I read the words "new research shows...". The way journalism works, the sub-text is "someone wants you to believe...". It's a sure thing the story came via a press release issued by someone with an axe to grind. And if you know what you're doing, you can make just about any statistics say what you want them to (Here are some of the techniques used).

That's worth remembering when we're discussing the alleged "risks" of using lead shot. We should always ask to see not just the original data, but who conducted it, who funded it, and what they set out to prove.

We're not the only ones with lead problems

Hunters are going through the same thing in the USA - in fact they're some way further down the road than us. Check out this very thoughtful blog post from the excellent NorCal Cazadora, a hunter who has vowed to stop using lead. Notice how the state of California made a complete mess of the whole thing by failing to get hunters on-side, while Arizona took a very different route.

Ramping up the pressure on lead

Just a week after the first meeting of the Lead Ammunition Group, I see the group's RSPB representative Mark Avery is already ramping up his campaign against lead shot and bullets, with a 'concerned' post on his blog.

Rather like the scientific papers he refers to, his post is full of 'suggests' this, 'maybe' that and 'I wonder' the other. The papers imply causal links without proper methodology. Kids with slightly higher lead levels are thicker than average... did anyone check whether they also happen to come from poorer families, where a) environmental exposure to eg lead paint may be higher, and b) educational performance may be lower for reasons other than lead? The 'science' doesn't say. It just leaves the implied accusation hanging in the air.

Fact is, everything is toxic. Salt, grass, tofu, carrots and lettuce leaves will all kill you if you eat enough of it. We don't run around in a panic, because it's a potential problem, not a real one. As we get better at measuring tiny amounts of this and that, any hobby-horse scare that attracts funding can be whipped up into a full-blown panic, because you'll never get a scientist to say anything is 100% safe.

Yes, we should take a good, objective look at lead ammunition, just in case it's more of a problem than we thought. But we're going to have to look very hard indeed to find gamekeepers or their kids lying around dead and injured because they ate too much partridge!

Which reminds me, I must look into what happened to T-shot [pdf]. That's the treatment that wraps up lead shot in a Teflon-like coat. Last I heard it was looking promising - and if it prevents lead getting into game meat at all, well it would scupper Mark Avery's argument. Or would it? I sometimes wonder where the RSPB are really going with this.

Talking of which, I see that the RSPB are looking to get their mitts on "well over a million hectares" of Britain via their new Futurescapes initiative, due to be launched in June [UPDATE 4 May: a Futurescapes page has just appeared on the RSPB website]. Not content with running their reserves and badgering the rest of us on how to be nice to birds, they want to control huge areas of the country without going to all the bother and expense of actually buying them.

I have a mental image of Mark Avery stroking a white cat and smirking "Mwahaha, you see Mr Bond, not even you can stop my plan for world domination!"

An RSPB spokesman yesterday

Science, truth, and lead shot

The RSPB's Mark Avery, who sits on the Defra Lead Ammunition Group, makes some interesting comments in response to my blogging on lead shot.

The RSPB has been trialling non-lead (actually copper) bullets for deer control on its reserves for a couple of years, with promising results. There's a scientific paper on the subject here (pdf).

In fact, the results aren't quite as rosy as Mark suggests. Copper bullets in .270 calibre seem to do a good job on roe and red deer. But in southern England, shooting sika with a .243 (the most common deer rifle calibre - and I've just gone and bought one!) the figures show a significantly increased risk of wounding, even with a perfectly placed chest shot. The paper goes on to imply we should all switch to head shots, as if that was the simplest thing in the world. Hmm.

As you can tell, I'm still not 100% convinced - but at least we have some real UK-based scientific evidence, presented (relatively) impartially, and out in the open for all to discuss.

By contrast, I was surprised to see BASC's Dr John Harradine fulminating in Shooting Times this week at last week's article by Tim Woodhouse on the efficacy of steel shot.

I'm sure Tim, like me, would cheerfully admit that he's fallible. But I know he holds the truth in high regard, and in proper scientific fashion he welcomes any challenge to his ideas. For Harradine to launch an ad-hominem attack in a public journal does him and his organisation a disservice.

Harradine seems to feel he has evidence that steel shot is really rather good, although I've heard doubts expressed about the validity of his tests. Woodhouse believes that steel has severe practical limitations, making it a less than adequate substitute for lead in many types of shooting as we know them today.

What we're sadly lacking here is proper, independent scientific research carried out under UK conditions and properly peer reviewed. Without it we're guessing.

At the risk of being slated for 'misinforming' and 'prejudicing' the shooting public, to my simple mind it seems likely that Harradine's view of steel's efficacy will be the 'official' BASC view presented to the Lead Ammunition Group. If it turns out that view is over-optimistic, it won't do shooting any favours.

We need to make sure the group's decision is based on solid science, and I'm far from convinced that science exists at present, at least in the area of the efficacy of 'non-toxic' alternatives to lead-based shotgun loads.

Perhaps it's time to commission some science we can all trust and believe in.

Lead ammunition group first meeting

The first meeting of the new Lead Ammunition Group was held today, and BASC has issued the following statement:

John Swift chair of Lead Ammunition Group said “Our Group held its first meeting today. There was a constructive exchange of views on working practices that will be needed to carry out the tasks set out in the Group’s terms of reference. The Group was in full agreement with keeping public stakeholders fully informed. This process is still at a very early stage and the Group has a full year before making a progress report to Defra and the FSA. The first step is to look closely at the evidence, conduct a risk assessment before deciding what steps if any need to be taken. The group plans to meet again in a month’s time. You will be able to keep in touch with the work of the Group and express your opinions by means of a Group website shortly to be created.

The whole issue of having a group at all, never mind BASC's involvement in it, has been highly contentious. It's split shooting down the middle, and led to some unkind things being said and written. Behind the scenes, shooting's 'old boy network' has gone into overdrive. The feeling seems to be "you're either with us or against us" - with "us" depending on who you're talking to.

All of which leaves journalists like myself in a difficult position. If you try to report the facts honestly and openly, you risk being attacked - whether for 'encouraging a ban' by even mentioning the fact that there are alternatives, being a dinosaur by suggesting that we might resist a ban, or simply  'stirring it up' for one's own perverse personal pleasure (apparently that's what journalists do!).

For what it's worth, and this is purely my personal view, I don't think we'll be shooting lead in 20 years time. Probably not 10 years. And I think we'll all have got used to it and shooting will be strong and healthy regardless. There, that's just lost me a couple of hundred friends for starters!

This is probably the most important issue facing shooting right now, and will be for some time to come. So as a shooting journalist I can't ignore it. I'll do my best to report what's going on honestly and fairly. And when I'm giving a personal opinion I'll make that clear.

So I suppose I shall be annoying those people who think that if we stick our fingers in our ears and go 'La la la' it will all go away. Ah well, you can't please everyone all the time - specially where lead shot is concerned.

Ah well, there goes lead shot then

Defra are setting up a "Lead ammunition advisory group" which will be chaired by John Swift of BASC.

Defra will provide a secretariat (whatever that means), but the group will, it seems, consist of a whole lot of 'stakeholders' representing shooting, conservation, the gun trade, animal welfare, food health & hygiene, etc.

All of which, to me, sounds like a talking shop for a bunch of turkeys to discuss the Christmas decorations. The press release omits to mention whether Swift and/or others will be paid for serving on the group.

There's no doubt that Swift has a good grasp of the language required for this sort of thing. Here's a sample: "The group is tasked with identifying any significant threats as well as any perceived threats that are not significant. The group is to advise on options for managing any risks, knowledge gaps and communication issues. It is essential that the sub-groups are as inclusive as possible and balanced and fair in their investigations and findings. At the end of the first year a written progress report will be submitted to Defra and FSA. Our scope is limited to England but the devolved administrations will be kept informed and FSA has a UK-wide remit."

Most of the wildfowlers I know would respond to questions about lead shot rather more succinctly.

And they wouldn't stand any better chance of stopping this runaway train. Fact is, lead shot is on borrowed time. The EU wants to stamp it out. It's already banned in Denmark, Holland, Norway and parts of Belgium.

Swift says that "No political party has proposals to further limit the use of lead ammunition". Well they will have, once this advisory group shows them how to do it.

UPDATE: Shooters tend to cry "show us the evidence". Don't waste your breath. The CIC (the international organisation that supports the 'sustainable use of wildlife' - ie they're pro-shooting) has already raised the white flag on our behalf. Read their in-depth hatchet job on lead shot here.

Indeed, the CIC had a meeting in Rome in February with the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities and FACE-EU to discuss the end of lead shot "with the prime objective to protect human as well as environmental health and security". The 3 organisations are now enthusiastically drawing up what they call a "road map" to Non-Toxicsville.

FURTHER UPDATE: It seems the Countryside Alliance have no intention of being surrender-monkeys. They tell me the lead shot group has been formed with "undue haste", and say that Defra set the process in motion following pressure from the RSPB and WWT (I hate to say 'I told you so' but...). CA head honcho Simon Hart says: "the Alliance has now been invited on to the group and will robustly represent the shooting community. If incontrovertible and peer-reviewed UK evidence of relevant environmental and health problems were to emerge, we would of course all act responsibly in seeking the adoption of high quality non-toxic humane and affordable alternatives. Until such time the status quo should prevail."

MIKE YARDLEY COMMENTS: "There is a feeling, justified or not, that some of our representative organisations are rolling over too easily on the issue of lead. The potential banning or further restriction on the use of lead has huge implications for the sport... There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that lead shot harms human health and there is much debate concerning the animal impact too."

RSPB switching to 'non toxic' ammo

The RSPB's Mark Avery has announced that his organisation is switching to non-toxic (ie non-lead) ammunition on its reserves. His approach is set out in a blog post here, illustrated with an x-ray of a roe shot at their Abernethy nature reserve, speckled with white dots which he says are lead particles (although I suspect at least some will be fragments of the copper jacket).

Avery grudgingly admits that foxes and deer are shot on RSPB reserves, and goes on to say that the RSPB feels that moving to non-toxic ammo is "a responsible and precautionary move for the good of people and wildlife".

Remarkably he states categorically that "there are perfectly good non-lead alternatives to most ammunition which we have tested or are testing on our sites". I'd be interested to see that data.

And he drops the hint again about "representative shooting bodies with whom we have had detailed and frequent discussions on this subject over the last 14 months or so".

The 'phasing out' of lead shot has been a growing theme on this blog - click here to see all the related posts. From my own discussions with individuals at organisations like BASC it's clear they believe that lead shot and bullets are on borrowed time.

I'm still unconvinced by the science behind it all, but in the end I don't think it will make the slightest difference. Lead is going, and we'll just have to get used to it.

I've used non-toxic shotgun ammo, and found it either inferior or considerably more expensive or both - but it still works. As for non-lead rifle bullets, I've no personal experience but I know that some US hunters are having to use them. I think it's time I started taking more of an interest in how well (or not) they work. After all, I'm thinking about buying a new centrefire rifle, and I'd kick myself if I got something that proved to be unsuitable with non-lead ammo.

More sniping at lead

UPDATE: The RSPB's Mark Avery is now drawing attention to the story linked below, and dropping heavy hints that "we will hear more about this". I suspect he, and others, may know more than they're letting on.

The BBC is reporting new findings on lead from a study at the University of Bristol. Apparently even 'safe' levels of lead cause poor educational achievement, antisocial behaviour and hyperactivity. And they've 'taken account of factors likely to influence the results', so it must be true.

This piece has to be a candidate for Bad Science. At best it demonstrates a correlation, not cause and effect - a point completely lost on the Health Protection Agency and the BBC reporter who unquestioningly repeated their propaganda and thereby bolstered its credibility.

Never mind the truth, expect a renewed campaign to ban lead in shotgun cartridges and rifle bullets soon.

Lead shot update: a heavy hint from the RSPB

Call me paranoid, but when the idea of doing away with lead shot & bullets is 'top of mind' with someone like the RSPB's Mark Avery, and he's dropping heavy hints - like "we know that a variety of organisations are talking about this as an issue that needs to be addressed" - then can legislation be far behind?

Scotland's deer & non-lead bullets

Shooters are still trying to work out whether they're for or against the latest document on Scotland's deer, wDNA: Scotland's Wild Deer, A National Approach [downloadable as a pdf here]. At least it appears to recognise the value of wild venison to the rural economy. On the other hand, there are some alarming comments - not least (as Andy Richardson pointed out to me) this reference on p7 to 'assessing the effectiveness of non-toxic bullets':


Do they know something they're not telling us?

Threat to lead shot & bullets

I'm hearing rumours of an imminent threat to the use of lead shot and bullets in Britain. My sources suggest there may be moves to set this one rolling in parliament sooner rather than later.

Perhaps it's coincidence that I've recently had a press release from CIC, the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, announcing that the council has adopted a recommendation to phase out the use of lead shot. This is a strongly pro-hunting organisation, and they're waving a white flag over our use of lead for shooting.

There's no doubt that an attempt to ban lead is coming, as I've mentioned before here and here. One Deborah Pain (insert wry comment here), of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust at Slimbridge, presented a paper at the recent Peregrine Fund conference in the USA on the 'Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife & Humans'. This is a well-funded gravy-train for hundreds of scientists and delegates to whip up a scare about lead residues in shot game, then put themselves forward as the solution. For some of them, it will see them comfortably into retirement and beyond, all the while patting themselves on the back for being the next Erin Brockovich. Their campaigning has already led to an all-out ban on lead ammunition across the range of the Condor in California and adjacent states. Yank hunters are finding the copper-based alternatives less than satisfactory. Actual benefits to wildlife, humans and the environment are hard to spot.

It's not hard to spot where Ms Pain is coming from: "birds eat lead from ammunition or ammunition fragments, suffer sub-lethal effects and mortality from lead poisoning - in their millions," states her commentary [pdf here] from the conference proceedings. She continues: "To guarantee a significant reduction in the risk to birds a phase out of the use of lead with the goal of complete elimination is needed."

And did she come home to Slimbridge and promptly forget all about it? I somehow doubt it. Trust me, this one is coming to bite us sooner or later. Are our shooting organisations ready? I hope so.

Non-lead rifle bullets

Earlier this year, Arnold Schwarzenegger (of all people) banned the use of lead rifle bullets in California, to protect condors and other scavengers.

I've been following how the ban has been working out for hunters there, because mark my words this one will reach Britain sooner or later.

It seems they've adopted all-copper bullets, which give "a very high-quality, humane kill". And life - and hunting - goes on.

I found this comment by California hunter Anthony Prieto interesting. It reveals a very grown-up attitude to the whole issue - in stark contrast to some of the mouth-frothing rants we've seen in the UK from those who think all talk of non-lead shot is the work of subversives and antis.

Shooters can take the moral high ground in any debate on conservation. We do more for the environment than just about any other group. But we shoot ourselves in both feet if we stubbornly refuse even to consider that lead might be a problem. American hunters have taken this on board. Sooner or later, we will have to.

Why did the chicken...

...eat the lead shot - or was it pushed?

The lead-eating chickens story is beginning to smell fishy.

Apparently the post-mortem shows that one of the chickens had 58g of lead shot in its gizzard. Think about that for a minute. That's 2oz of lead - two whole cartridges full. And this bird is supposed to have picked that lot up just scratching around its field next to a clay shoot. I don't buy it.

So how's this for a theory... Just suppose I ran a chicken farm, and I was getting cheesed off with those pesky clay shooters making a racket next door, putting my hens off laying. Being an honest sort of chap, I wouldn't be tempted to ram a few spoonfuls of lead shot down the necks of a few poor layers, now, would I?

Meanwhile, everyone involved is stonewalling. The truth will come out eventually - but by then all the public will remember is some vague association between lead shot and dodgy eggs.

Another blow for lead shot

Waitrose has recalled thousands of free-range organic eggs because they're contaminated with lead - after the hens picked up pellets from a nearby clay shoot. Story on the BBC website here »

The Daily Mail reports: "Free-range birds from one flock wandered on to a field being used for clay pigeon shooting and ate lead shot. A vet was called after some of the chickens became ill and it was discovered they had higher than normal levels of lead in them."

Another nail in the coffin for lead shot? Time will tell.

Lead ammo under attack

If you thought the debate over lead shot was over, think again. In the US, conservationists are organising a conference on Ingestion of Spent Lead Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans, starting 12 May.

Basically they're saying that shooting animals leaves small amounts of lead in the meat. Rare birds (eg condors, eagles, ravens) eat the meat and offal, and get lead poisoning. Maybe humans could get sick too.



This conference is all about lead residues from shooting deer with rifles. But the argument holds true for shooting rabbits, foxes, etc too, since they may end up as food for corvids, raptors and others. And you can bet it won't be long before lead shot cartridges are in the spotlight too.

Packages of venison, with alleged lead fragments circled. Apaprently North Dakota
state health officials recently ordered food banks to discard donated venison

The American Bird Conservancy has put out this press release showing x-rays of venison meat containing lead fragments, and claiming that "new studies suggest that humans who eat game shot with lead ammunition may be at risk". It goes on to make wild guesses at what the effects might be: "Recently published research suggests that even very low levels of lead exposure in children can cause learning disabilities, and in adults may increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease and death from stroke or heart attack. Lead is also associated with impaired visual and motor function, growth abnormality, neurological and organ damage, hearing loss, hypertension and reproductive complications."

Deliberately emotive stuff, and sufficiently vague to give lead a bad name without actually proving anything. It's the old trick of flinging mud at the wall, so some sticks.

Is lead really a danger to wildlife and humans? My view is that in the end the truth won't matter. If people believe it's a danger, that will be enough. We won't win the argument by shouting "prove it" – especially if it turns out they can!