Visit www.bds.org.uk for its "report"! My response that I've sent to some of the shooting press is this:

So the British Deer Society is yet again pronouncing on banning types of guns and methods of shooting that it does not approve of in the lawful killing of deer. Its basis for this is a very limited series of trials that appear flawed and prejudiced against the firearm and ammunition subjected to that test. And that are anyway so incomplete as to omit entirely one major type of ammunition specifically allowed by the Deer Acts. Hardly the basis to support any reasoned claim.

Let us look at the facts of the Deer Acts. The legal use of shot guns to kill deer is highly restricted. To a mandated calibre of shot gun - 12 bore - with a minimum size of shot and specified type of projectile - AAA or SSG or Slug - by a restricted class of persons in a legally defined limited circumstance. That is the law. To use anything else not listed or in any remit outside of those noted is unlawful.

None of the BDS pattern tests with lettered shot loadings were conducted at ranges of less than twenty metres. Indeed the upper parameter of the test was fifty metres. A range at which most sensible shot gun owners would not believe it common sense to use any standard 12 bore gun at any quarry furred or feathered let alone any cloven game.

So what was the point? To already prove what most of us already know that at fifty metres a normal 12 bore gun is "out of range" because it is "out of pattern"? Why no tests at fifteen metres instead? The distance a roe deer might perhaps be commonly encountered at if cornered in enclosed land?

It is noted that in fact at twenty metres the use of AAA in a properly choked gun seems more than adequate to achieve a kill on the targets. At less than twenty metres a distance that BDS chose not to test it at that lethality could only have been greater.

The use of Special SG, 10% larger in size and 25% less number in the cartridge (eleven count as against fifteen count) than the Deer Acts' SSG, should be enough to render any further judgement reached in the efficiency of SSG as invalid. Who would decide to conduct pattern and lethality tests of No6 shot on high pheasants, substitute on the day No 4 shot, because No 6 weren't available, and expect there to be any coequal result ?

And nowhere at all are tests carried out on Slug. Nowhere. Not a mention or even a test of the German Brenneke, or Italian Solengo, or French Sauvestre or American Foster or the modern "Sabot Slug"! Yet the BDS concludes, "The results obtained from compiling this report indicates that the use of shot guns on deer cannot be guaranteed to produce humane kills under most circumstances".

A flawed finding for these reasons. Only one sort of the types of the projectiles allowed - that of AAA and SSG - tested and 50% of that trial arguably faulted as a different, larger size with less pellet count was used. And with no testing at all at ranges of less than twenty metres. And slug? Not even considered, tested, or trialled!

Our continental cousins who daily in season use large lettered shot and slug successfully within the choking and distance limitations of their shot guns to take cleanly one hundred kilo wild boar might think us mad! Or maybe our roe and muntjac are armour plated!

Enforce the law as it stands and educate the use of the gun and ammunition within its capabilities. That is all that is required. It used to say as much, "Hints for a Clean Kill", on the back of the old Game Licence! Not more legislation. Or is there a hidden agenda?

(I say nothing in my letter of all the other nonsense about "moving quarry". For surely a shot gun is compared with a rifle more not less efficient at shooting a moving target?)

ES - Your points are all well made.

I can understand the concern that Muntjac are starting to be driven as a means of control.

If suitable ammunition and shooting practices are observed - this would seem to be a sensible manner of reducing numbers of a rapidly expanding species.

If I have a concern, it is that soon, Muntjac and other small deer are regarded as 'ground game' in the course of a driven shoot. As such, there is the very real chance of inappropriately loaded rounds being used as a chance shot presents.

I appreciate your reply to the BDS - but dread the day when deer are relegated to the status they 'enjoyed' prior to the 62 Deer Act.

rgds Ian

I have reservations concerning this study.
Firstly, its too broad-brush in format. If I were being asked to manage down a Muntjac problem in a woodland area, it could very possibly be at ranges below twenty metres and at moving targets - outside the scale of this study! It seems to me that the BDS has implicitly placed humanity of control above environmental and conservation concerns and, if as they suggest, shotgun control were disallowed, how would we protect such areas? There doesn't appear to be much consideration given to the use of the second barrel either. Its rather as if the study focusses on what can be easily measured rather than field situations.

Secondly, I have reservations from a statistical perspective. I'd suggest that a considerable number of cartidges needs to be fired at each distance in order to confidently say what effect might be achieved at that range. This study seems very light in that area.

Driven muntjac is an effective means of control. Whilst some may argue about its ethiccasy. None can argue that it is not an efficient way of population reduction.

I have not witnessed muntjac or roe being regarded as "ground game" on a driven winged game shoot for over 20 years. I see little to suggest that such a situation would re-occur even if muntjac population control drives became more numerous. Changes in attitudes, education, and increased awareness of the fact that we need to be seen to be doing the right things will see to that.

I believe that deer will never return to their pre '62 Deer Act status, and rightly so.

What is a major concern is the despite the 2004 Hunting Act deer especially the smaller species are still considered to be legitimate and worthy quarry for lurchers, longdogs, bullX terriers etc etc etc . There are a number of "ex dog men" (if a dog man can ever be considered to be an ex dog man) now in the fraternity of legitimate deer stalkers who openly profess their support for this barbaric method of taking deer. With ever increasing deer populations the unenlightened and callous dog men will find increasing opportunities to practice their despicable hobby.

Well done to the BDS.

This work proves that the Shotgun is not an effective tool for deer management the results would have been even more damming had it been moving targets.
Hopefully this will be the final nail in the coffin for the use of shotguns on deer and confine it to the pre 1960,s dark ages of deer management.

Every reasonable Deer Manager who have anything to do with the roe deer drives of the pre 1963 days admits that the were terrible for welfare and often very inhumane. Roe are much easier to kill than muntjac so for anyone to suggest that deer drives with shot guns for muntjac are a good thing obviously do not give a hoot about deer welfare.

One place where I stalk it is unusual to skin a Muntjac and not find shotgun pellets lodged under the skin, for me that is enough proof that the shotguns for deer should be banned for everything except humane dispatch.

I feel that further legislating and claiming that it will reduce already illegal behaviour is a flawed argument often used by those that want publicity or to put themselves in a position of "advisor" to the legislator.

We had the same argument about .22's for deer where they claimed it would increase the lampers who shot deer. Those that choose to lamp deer will do so regardless as they are already breaking the law.

Thse that shoot munties, (and Roe) on driven shoots will do so anyway and so will the dog men continue in their ways.

Surely the use of a shotcgun for shooting munties in a pest control situation has much to applaud it. SSG's and slugs are used on boar at close range so in the right responsible hands I don't see that they are a bad tool for a specific purpose.

Rgs,
FB

I don't think this work proves anything much at all.
It looks like science, it sounds like science, it uses some of the language of science but it isn't science.
I'm disappointed to see a body such as the BDS putting this document out under such a guise. It makes their position weaker and not stronger.
This is some sort of position paper serving another agenda in my opinion.

quote:

This work proves that the Shotgun is not an effective tool for deer management the results would have been even more damming had it been moving targets.

No it does not, as ES and TD have already demonstarted

quote:

Every reasonable Deer Manager who have anything to do with the roe deer drives of the pre 1963 days admits that the were terrible for welfare and often very inhumane. Roe are much easier to kill than muntjac so for anyone to suggest that deer drives with shot guns for muntjac are a good thing obviously do not give a hoot about deer welfare.

Comparing pre 62 deer drive to today's Muntjac control drives, is like comparing 1962 Grand Prix tennis racing to today's Wimbledon. Trying to claim the ethical moral high ground is also equally ridiculous.

quote:

One place where I stalk it is unusual to skin a Muntjac and not find shotgun pellets lodged under the skin, for me that is enough proof that the shotguns for deer should be banned for everything except humane dispatch.

Basing you views on just one isolated example is flawed from the very start. We can all provide masses of anecdotal evidence to support our opinions. But it is fact and fact along that really matters.

Dave,

Please enlighten me on the deer welfare benefits of allowing the continued use of shotguns for deer managment.

quote:

Surely the use of a shotcgun for shooting munties in a pest control situation has much to applaud it. SSG's and slugs are used on boar at close range so in the right responsible hands I don't see that they are a bad tool for a specific purpose.

Exactly. If you can drop a running boar with them you can definitely drop a Muntjac.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
I don't think this work proves anything much at all.
It looks like science, it sounds like science, it uses some of the language of science but it isn't science.
I'm disappointed to see a body such as the BDS putting this document out under such a guise. It makes their position weaker and not stronger.
This is some sort of position paper serving another agenda in my opinion.

Absolutely!

You would expect them to more concerned with the state of the deer on the LACS Baronsdown sanctuary than with trying to suggest that shotguns with the legally determined ammunition are unsuitable for deer control.

quote:

Originally posted by H5:

Comparing pre 62 deer drive to today's Muntjac control drives, is like comparing 1962 Grand Prix tennis racing to today's Wimbledon. Trying to claim the ethical moral high ground is also equally ridiculous.

So what has changed,
same shotguns,
same ammo,
Same type of people who care nothing for the deer or there welfare as long as they kill some of them, and wound many more or leave them to long painfull deaths.

To advocate deer drives in 2008 as an effective way of managing muntjac shows a fundamental lack of understanding of deer welfare and management, at least pre 1962 the participants could claim they didn’t know any better.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Visit www.bds.org.uk
And nowhere at all are tests carried out on Slug. Nowhere. Not a mention or even a test of the German Brenneke, or Italian Solengo, or French Sauvestre or American Foster or the modern "Sabot Slug"! Yet the BDS concludes, "The results obtained from compiling this report indicates that the use of shot guns on deer cannot be guaranteed to produce humane kills under most circumstances".

The German Brenneke, or Italian Solengo, or French Sauvestre or American Foster or the modern "Sabot Slug" none of which can be fired from a shotgun in the UK

quote:

Originally posted by DJM:
So what has changed,
same shotguns,
same ammo,
Same type of people who care nothing for the deer or there welfare as long as they kill some of them, and wound many more or leave them to long painfull deaths.

Whats changed.

same shotguns. Nope. Pre 63 drives most shotguns would have been SBS or singles. Where as today we prefer either SA or O/U

same ammo. Nope. Pre 63 is was what ever was at hand and as large as possible. Today we use AAA, SSG, or slug

Same type of people. Nope. The people now days are better informed, better equipped, and understand the complex interconnectivity of species management, methods of control, biodiversity, integrated habitat management, sustainability, and the law.

quote:

To advocate deer drives in 2008 as an effective way of managing muntjac shows a fundamental lack of understanding of deer welfare and management, at least pre 1962 the participants could claim they didn’t know any better.

Still trying to play the old ethics card I see. Dead is dead! Is there any difference between pulling the trigger on a Muntjac at 25m using a choked shotgun and SSGs or slug and rifle .270 at 180m. Both will ensure death if the person pulling the trigger does their part competently, both can ensure wounding if not. Lack of population control is more detrimental to deer welfare than any modern well conducted deer drive.

DJM,

Most estates have a vermin day at the end of the season with some fox drives. Now I don't shoot foxes with small shot but a 40g load of BB's AAA's or SSG's stops them in their tracks anything out to 25yds. No one wants to ban fox drives...

The reality is that a cowboy with a rifle can be just as dangerous as a cowboy with a shotgun, and getting overemotional about your quarry doesn't lead to objective thinking. at close range and in specific circumstances the shotgun is an effective tool for culling. It would be wonderfull to go out and stalk traditionally the population down to a manageable level, but perhaps this isn't always an option.

I agree that in the wrong hands it can create problems but then so can a 243...

FB

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
No one wants to ban fox drives...

Not exactly strictly true.

But then we don't have what is portrayed as being a national representative body advocating their cessation either.

What the BDS are trying to do is to remove the "farmer's defence" that was written into the Deer Act at a late stage to ensure that it passed through the Upper House without undue ammendment or opposition.
We have come so far in the way that we manage deer, the standards of welfare and professionalism that we attain and expect from ourselves and each other, surely we can enshrine that in law?
Would any of us really miss the option to shoot deer on enclosed land with a shotgun? On one area where I manage the impact of deer there is an increasing muntjac problem; while I might consider shooting at night under licence I would never consider using a shotgun. Just because some of our continental partners shoot wild boar with shotguns does not mean that it is appropriate or acceptable for us to do so on boar or deer. Personally, I support the BDS position on this, the Society is a deer welfare organisation first and foremost and is doing a better job now than it has for a long time.

quote:

Please enlighten me on the deer welfare benefits of allowing the continued use of shotguns for deer managment.

As previously stated, deer welfare isn't the only consideration and indeed was only a small component of my argument. It didn't seem to be much of yours either.
Certainly, it is a consideration but must rank alongside conservation, ecology and other considerations.
If there is a wish to conserve native plants and animal species in an area of woodland that is overrun by an invasive species such as Muntjac are, then the consequence of prioritising their welfare in a bid to be humane in our killing methods could lead to a failure of control. That failure of control could lead to the loss of other species. By being overtly humane to the one species do we do the Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of our responsibilities to the others just because the issues might get clouded beyond the comprehension of an ITV soundbite?
Is anyone at the BDS seriously arguing that the rifle is a better and more appropriate control tool in close woodland?
No and in fact, many of the included arguments against in their document become safety benefits in a woodland setting.
Its all very well for the BDS to produce a high minded document such as this and seek to hold the moral high ground. In general that is not hard to do.
However, once your travel from the general to the particular, it becomes obvious that their concerns are airy and not grounded in practice. They probably won't translate into general benefits either. As others state about the baggage that has been sucked into this thread, no new legislation is likely to deter those who already flout the law either with guns or dogs.
There is no doubt that UK deer populations of all species appear to be generally on the increase. This is likely to create more and not less conflicts of interest. Whilst I would as a matter of principle always wish to see the most humane control option being used where possible, I recognise that there are situations where the luxury of time and and space aren't available and quicker and dirtier methods are needed and should be kept to hand.
When the BDS to glibly state (without any supporting evidence) that shotgun hunting of deer is on the increase and then, on the basis of 48 shells on a range suggest banning its use, it suggests to me that they are out of touch with the very issues that should be at the core of their concern.
It seems to me that they are using this shotgun story as a stalking horse for another agenda entirely. I'm wondering whether this is not something to do with Natural England who seem to be obsessive about humaneness too.
Being humane is an important and admirable quality but it ranks lower in my book than the tougher decisions about conservation and the environment which aren't so easy for politicians to understand.
As far as your query is concerned, managing deer numbers down to a sustainable population in any location so that its environmental impact is more in balance with the other stakeholders is a welfare benefit. The methods must be chosen to suit the circumstances. Simple solutions aren't always sensible ones.

Trapper why not bring back the snaring of deer as well?

"Trapper why not bring back the snaring of deer as well?"

Not really on-topic enough to warrant a detailed reply.
Not really an argument either. If you're attempting to suggest that in not supporting the BDS's view I must perforce be endorsing all sorts of cruelty then that's a poor ad hominem approach too.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:

As previously stated, deer welfare isn't the only consideration and indeed was only a small component of my argument.

If there is a wish to conserve native plants and animal species in an area of woodland that is overrun by an invasive species such as Muntjac are, then the consequence of prioritising their welfare in a bid to be humane in our killing methods could lead to a failure of control.

I recognise that there are situations where the luxury of time and and space aren't available and quicker and dirtier methods are needed and should be kept to hand.

Your words not mine!

And I didn't think Snaring was considered cruel

quote:

The German Brenneke, or Italian Solengo, or French Sauvestre or American Foster or the modern "Sabot Slug" none of which can be fired from a shotgun in the UK

Really? Why can't they be fired from a shot gun in the UK?

As any sg cartridge with less than 5 shot is section 1 and therefore as soon as you chamber them the shotgun they are chambered in ceases to be a shotgun and becomes a Section 1 Firearm

It does raise an interesting question though can slugs be used in a semi auto in the UK?

quote:

as soon as you chamber them the shotgun they are chambered in ceases to be a shotgun and becomes a Section 1 Firearm.

And from whose interpretation of the Firearms Acts does that come from please?

What the Home Office Memorandum of Guidance says is this:

"The Deer Act also authorises the use of smooth-bore guns of at least 12 bore for
shooting deer, firing a non spherical slug of at least 350 grains to kill deer on cultivated
land, pasture or enclosed woodland if it can be shown that the deer were causing serious
damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or other property, that such damage
was likely to continue and that that action was needed to prevent this. This provision
was intended to allow farmers and crofters who own a shot gun but not a rifle to deal
with marauding deer. Shot guns for use with solid slug should be cylinder bored and fitted
with sights, if available. Solid slug is section 1 ammunition and so a firearm certificate
would be needed for possession and use. A suitable rifle would be more appropriate
for a regular need to control deer.

The phrase "so a Firearm Certificate would be needed for possession and use" relates to the ammunition. Not the weapon through which it is intended to be fired.

quote:

Originally posted by DJM:
It does raise an interesting question though can slugs be used in a semi auto in the UK?

Provided that it complies with o/a & barrel length - YES! The consideration is that it should have a smooth bore to avoid being in effect a semi auto rifle!

Rgds Ian

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:

quote:

Please enlighten me on the deer welfare benefits of allowing the continued use of shotguns for deer managment.

As previously stated, deer welfare isn't the only consideration and indeed was only a small component of my argument. It didn't seem to be much of yours either.
Certainly, it is a consideration but must rank alongside conservation, ecology and other considerations.
If there is a wish to conserve native plants and animal species in an area of woodland that is overrun by an invasive species such as Muntjac are, then the consequence of prioritising their welfare in a bid to be humane in our killing methods could lead to a failure of control. That failure of control could lead to the loss of other species. By being overtly humane to the one species do we do the Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of our responsibilities to the others just because the issues might get clouded beyond the comprehension of an ITV soundbite?
Is anyone at the BDS seriously arguing that the rifle is a better and more appropriate control tool in close woodland?
No and in fact, many of the included arguments against in their document become safety benefits in a woodland setting.
Its all very well for the BDS to produce a high minded document such as this and seek to hold the moral high ground. In general that is not hard to do.
However, once your travel from the general to the particular, it becomes obvious that their concerns are airy and not grounded in practice. They probably won't translate into general benefits either. As others state about the baggage that has been sucked into this thread, no new legislation is likely to deter those who already flout the law either with guns or dogs.
There is no doubt that UK deer populations of all species appear to be generally on the increase. This is likely to create more and not less conflicts of interest. Whilst I would as a matter of principle always wish to see the most humane control option being used where possible, I recognise that there are situations where the luxury of time and and space aren't available and quicker and dirtier methods are needed and should be kept to hand.
When the BDS to glibly state (without any supporting evidence) that shotgun hunting of deer is on the increase and then, on the basis of 48 shells on a range suggest banning its use, it suggests to me that they are out of touch with the very issues that should be at the core of their concern.
It seems to me that they are using this shotgun story as a stalking horse for another agenda entirely. I'm wondering whether this is not something to do with Natural England who seem to be obsessive about humaneness too.
Being humane is an important and admirable quality but it ranks lower in my book than the tougher decisions about conservation and the environment which aren't so easy for politicians to understand.
As far as your query is concerned, managing deer numbers down to a sustainable population in any location so that its environmental impact is more in balance with the other stakeholders is a welfare benefit. The methods must be chosen to suit the circumstances. Simple solutions aren't always sensible ones.

TD

Nice one!

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:

It would be wonderfull to go out and stalk traditionally the population down to a manageable level, but perhaps this isn't always an option.


FB

Its the only legal option! But it requires a dedicated stalker with a reasonable amount of land.

Most stalkers are not dedicated to population control and most end up with too much land and cherry pick there hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:


Its the only legal option! But it requires a dedicated stalker with a reasonable amount of land.

Sorry But you are wrong on both counts.

quote:

Originally posted by 1894mk2:Most stalkers are not dedicated to population control and most end up with too much land and cherry pick there hunting.

Thats one hell of a sweeping statement!

What evidence do you have that would back it up?

quote:

Originally posted by H5:

Driven muntjac is an effective means of control. Whilst some may argue about its ethiccasy. None can argue that it is not an efficient way of population reduction.

H5 when you are using a shotgun at close range and in thick cover at a small and fast moving (Muntjac) target just how do you tell if it is an old buck, a young buck, a young doe, a heavily pregnant doe or one that has just given birth and has a denpendant fawn?


Selective, ethical and welfare driven Deer Management? I think not!

and no you do not look bothered about deer welfare at all!

I am beginning to think you suffer from selective blindness.

Just for your benefit I'll repeat my earlier comment.

"Driven muntjac is an effective means of control. Whilst some may argue about its ethicasy. None can argue that it is not an efficient way of population reduction."

As has been stated numerous times. Sitting back and waving the morality flag does not get the job done, does not alleviate the problem, does not provide the solutions or the population controls necessary.

Selectivity can be achieved using shotguns to the same degree as you would achieve using a rifle.
What methods do you use in your doe selection criteria to determine her suitability for culling? Bearing in mind she's pregnant at7-8 months and is covered within days of giving birth through out her life cycle. Please don't use the old clichéd and laughable response about dependent fawns and signs of heavy pregnancy.

Ethically deer drives are as ethical as any other legitimate population control mechanism.

Welfare wise they are as good as any other legitimate population control mechanism.

Being blinkered to the realities of deer control and blinded by the delusion that only "stalking" is ethical, and ensures the welfare of the chosen quarry. Has made you assume an entrenched but indefensible position in this matter. I can only hope that eventually you will discover the errors of your assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by H5:
What methods do you use in your doe selection criteria to determine her suitability for culling? Bearing in mind she's pregnant at7-8 months and is covered within days of giving birth through out her life cycle. Please don't use the old clichéd and laughable response about dependent fawns and signs of heavy pregnancy.

And the problem with not shooting 'skinny' does and looking for signs of heavy pregnancy are?

Please enlighten me as I am a bit of a novice and have not seen, studied or shot many muntjac, but I have read up about them.

Is not the point of this all that for the farmer or smallholder who has ONLY a shot gun and does not want to buy a rifle; buy a telescopic sight; be "bullied" into having DSC 1; a land inspection; etc., etc., that a shot gun within its limitations using either buckshot or preferbaly slug held on a co-terminous FAC is the cheapest, most available option.

I'm not taking the bait of the emotive imagery of some who should know better of roe deer drives.

The issue is should a farmer or smallholder be denied the ability to kill, in limited circumstances, a deer repeatedly marauding in his orchard or similar. Simply because the BDS are concerned about deer that have been found to have been illegally shot at with a shot gun?

The whole world are not all millionaires and for some they simply can't afford a stalking rifle to maybe shoot one deer perhaps once a year. If they have the rifle with them at the time. Nor do they want to have the bother and the legal hassle of having a s1 rifle with expanding ammunition that can only be bought over the counter or sent by s5 carrier to a RFD. Unlike lettered shot that can be sent by carrier direct to the purchaser.

Have the BDS actually costed how much it costs to have expanding ammunition sent by s5 carrier? The RFD won't bear that it will be passed as an "on cost" to the customer. As against lettered shot ammunition or s1 slug by normal carrier which may be passed on but will still be less. Not everybody now in this "gun free" modern times is twenty minutes drive from a gun shop.

Just how much does a decent s1 rifle cost nowadays? With a decent 'scope and mounts...or would the BDS be happy for that expense to be done with and the farmer to use open sights?

And how many rifles today have truly usable open sights that can be easily zeroed and stay zeroed? Indeed how many have open sights at all?

And how much for the cartridges? How much are Federal? £30 a box of twenty? And the time to zero? And the fact that unless specifically you are out after deer a rifle is pretty much a useless encumbrance.

Compared with what? A box of ten slug for say £20 and a co-terminous certificate? This is the real world there is a recession and it isn't realistic!

Years ago when it was needed people used a cheap Greener GP for this sort of thing! Rugged a sort of sighting system and dependable and "farmer proof".

quote:

And the problem with not shooting 'skinny' does and looking for signs of heavy pregnancy are?

Please enlighten me as I am a bit of a novice and have not seen, studied or shot many muntjac.

Discerning skinny from pregnant is often problematical sometime nigh impossible. Well feed does often look remarkably heavily pregnant even in the early stages of their reproductive cycle.
A doe on her own is no guarantee of cull suitability, orphaned fawns as young as 6 weeks old have been known to survive shepherded by the resident buck, and do spend time away from their dam.

If you have the luxury to spend the many, many hours necessary in spotting, observing and determining does for cull suitability, with out any guarantee of success or correct selection you obviously don't have a population control problem.

As has been said earlier, method and practical solution have to be decided subject to the need and circumstance.

Thanks for posting it an interesting short study. it does show how pattern falls off at longer ranges and penetration at 30 metre isn't adequate, but at 20 metres the pattern looks far better and we they don't tell us what the penetration is.

The problem is that it only shows a very limited picture.
If you fired a couple of dozen cartridges at each range and then produced a statistical average of the spread, it might be a little more useful.
If you repeated that with a few shotguns of different length it would be even more useful.

As it is, it seems that the intention was simply to illustrate the worst case.

Where a shot does penetrate a vital area, it is described as "lucky".
What kind of language is that to be using in a quasi-scientific report?