I didn't say it was all collected. I merely stated it could be. On areas related to food production. Because that is what this all about lead in the food chain.
I'd like to see your legal argument for removing my property without paying me. It's called stealing. At no time did I mention compensation. Merely the removal of my property.. if they want my house for a road project they have to buy it .
Yes, they do. However, that is completely different to them banning something and then
having to pay compensation to those affected. That’s not correct, it’s simply not true, despite you wanting it to be.
I’m not sure why you’re saying that at no time did you mention compensation…you did. I merely responded to your comment that “
And you don't have to compensate all the gun owners like you would if you just banned shooting.” This isn’t about banning shooting, but even if it was, there is no legal requirement to compensate those affected by a ban brought in by the government.
You mention food production, but this isn’t all about food production. There has been a large push against lead shot for decades by the ecological and wildlife groups. Nothing to do with it entering the food chain, and all to do with the potential damage to wildlife.
You didn’t originally say that it ‘could’ be collected in areas of ‘food production’. Your comment suggested that it was collected and sold. That’s incorrect. Most shot is left in the environment, in concentrated amounts, in quantities far exceeding any lead found naturally, and readily accessible to wildlife etc.
Lead shot for fishing was first banned (certain sizes) in the U.K. in 1987, even though many believed (with some evidence) that it was mainly the shot from shotguns that was affecting the wildfowl, particularly mute swans. This ban has been on the cards since then and I’m surprised it’s taken nearly 40 years to happen.