Jump to content

lead shot campaign


chrispti
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 293
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Motty,

I found all of it interesting to read.

It destroyed a lot of myths about the efficiency of steelshot as an alternative to Lead.

You may be interested to know that Tom Roster has supplied much of the data used by Dr.John Harradine of BASC to promote the use of Steel as an economic, efficient, alternative to Lead shot.

I will post any information at my disposal to support the continued use of Lead shot as the most efficient effective material for the humane dispatch of quarry species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I found all of it interesting to read. I did too. Thanks for that.

It destroyed a lot of myths about the efficiency of steelshot as an alternative to Lead.

You may be interested to know that Tom Roster has supplied much of the data used by Dr.John Harradine of BASC to promote the use of Steel as an economic, efficient, alternative to Lead shot. ​It still makes one wonder why any shooting organisation would pursue this path rather than fight the case for an already proven efficient, effective and relatively cheap method of humane dispatch.

I will post any information at my disposal to support the continued use of Lead shot as the most efficient effective material for the humane dispatch of quarry species. Good for you. I will too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motty,

I found all of it interesting to read.

It destroyed a lot of myths about the efficiency of steelshot as an alternative to Lead.

You may be interested to know that Tom Roster has supplied much of the data used by Dr.John Harradine of BASC to promote the use of Steel as an economic, efficient, alternative to Lead shot.

I will post any information at my disposal to support the continued use of Lead shot as the most efficient effective material for the humane dispatch of quarry species.

I really don't want to see the end of lead shot, either. I would still use lead for perhaps 80% of my shooting. Despite any 'evidence' to the contrary in that article, steel shot remains a very effective alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to the question about BASC's response to this...well our position is this, and its been on the BASC web site since the end of November:

 

BASC research shows that the EFSA guidance, coupled with Swedish data, reveals that:

  • There is no risk to those who do not eat shot game meat more than once a week throughout the year
  • There is no risk to those eating small game if the pellet and pellet channel are cut out
  • There is no risk to those eating large game if meat is cut out 10cms either side of the bullet channel and from around bullet fragments.

Research has also provided evidence that although individual waterfowl can be affected by lead shot deposition there is no impact on the overall populations of birds; their conservation status remains unchanged.

 

BASC is fully engaged with other shooting organisations in the UK and in Europe to ensure that decisions on lead ammunition are scientifically justified and necessary. BASC already briefs MPs and peers on a range all issues affecting shooting, including lead ammunition.

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have received an email telling me that the gov't are now considering the lead shot issue. This is the response to those who voted in the petition against banning lead shot:

 

Government responded:

The Government is considering the independent Lead Ammunition Group’s report and will respond as soon as possible. See:
.”

Lead shot has been prohibited for wildfowling since 1999 by the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. Those regulations introduced a double restriction: firstly, lead shot cannot be used, on any game, in certain areas – namely over the foreshore or over a list of named Sites of Special Scientific Interest; secondly, lead shot cannot be used anywhere for shooting certain species – namely ducks, geese, swans, coots and moorhens. These restrictions reflect the resolution made that year through the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement, to which the UK is a party.

To examine the continued use of lead ammunition in other forms of shooting, the then Government established the independent Lead Ammunition Group in 2010 with these

aims:

• To advise Defra/FSA on what the significant risks to wildlife from the use of lead ammunition are and what levels of risk these pose in the short, medium and long term. Also any perceived risks which the evidence indicates are not significant.

• To advise Defra/FSA on possible options for managing the risk to human health from increased exposure to lead resulting from the use of lead ammunition, notably in terms of food safety (including game shot with lead ammunition and spent lead shot deposited on agricultural land).

• To advise Defra/FSA of any significant knowledge gaps that may hinder the identification or assessment of risks, the development of technical solutions or the development of government policy.

• To advise Defra/FSA on any communication issues, and possible solutions, concerning the relaying of balanced information on issues surrounding the use of lead ammunition to the media, general public and stakeholders.

• To advise DEFRA/FSA of any significant impacts of possible advice or solutions on shooting activity and associated recreational, wildlife management, economic and employment impacts.

The Lead Ammunition Group reported in 2015, though by the time it did so five of its ten members had resigned, with four of those subsequently submitting a different set of recommendations.

The Government is considering its report.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very interesting to read that The Government will now consider the LAG's (flawed) report.

It is very noticable to me that BASC despite many requests have appeared to do very little .

Apart from issuing bland politically well worded statements saying very little about the lies that have been published and promoted by the WWT and RSPB, BASC seem to have done very little. In fact is it not true that for at least fifteen years BASC have actively promoted soft iron shot as the cheapest most effective alternative to Lead shot , when clearly it is not all it is purported to be.

There is no doubt in my mind that John Swift has done a great deal of damage to shooting and wildfowling whilst being paid by the shooting community.

I note that Richard Ali has been rather quiet in regard to John Swift , leaving the shovelling to Alan Jarrett , a Wildfowler.

Why has no one offered any reply or acknowledgement to Ian Summerill's taped interview?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh on the contrary, if you had bothered to look you will see BASC has taken each of the 4 key points that those who oppose lead shot use to attack us and successfully refuted each one, based on facts and research as opposed to theory and hyperbole

 

Again if you had bothered to look properly rather than make biased assumptions you will see that we have reported on the pro and cons of all the alternatives to lead over the years, but yes I do agree that steel is the cheapest.

 

BASC remains fully engaged with other shooting organisations in the UK and in Europe to ensure that decisions on lead ammunition are scientifically justified and necessary.

 

BASC already briefs MPs and peers on a range all issues affecting shooting, including lead ammunition.

 

Slating BASC is not going to help anyone or anything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I have looked, regularly and seen nothing ! In fact did BASC not sell a research article to WWT that has been used against us ?

I have not used biased assumptions about the pro's and cons of Steel shot , in fact I have provided pattern sheets to John Harradine showing how poorly steel shot is at the ranges often used by wildfowlers to shoot at wildfowl using CIP regulated steel shot loads , and shown them to be far inferior to the Super Steel loads used in America and then the figures have been screwed to show that steel is indeed efficient when honestly it is not. It is also in many cases not cheaper than a Lead alternative.

BASC remains fully engaged with with other shooting organisations such as the CPSA who are content to allow WWT and RSPB to foist their lies upon the general public.

Have a look at my complaint to the BBC and their response. Where is BASC's complaint from the'Media Centre' and BBC's reply to the BASC?

BBC already briefs MPs and Peers , yes we know , so do I and I can assure you on far more occasions than BASC representatives and we all know which way a Politician votes when it comes to the nitty gritty.

Some one has to get BASC off its backside to represent it 140,000 members to actively bring an about turn to a ban that is totally unjustified , totally flawed and promoted by our former Chief Executive.

As you and I both know BASC has changed drastically over the last few years and not for the better.

Is it not about time BASC spent some time and money to promote the use of Lead ammunition as the only truly economical, efficient material currently available?

I would have to agree that in fighting and slating BASC will do little good , but I and many many more members have for years asked BASC to vigorously refute these false allegations about Lead shot to little or no avail apart from bland website statements.

Ever since this started about steel shot it has effectively made English made SxS obsolete, ruined their value , and destroyed their sales market .

Edited by Salopian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, BASC did not sell its research to WWT - BASC and CLA researched its members attitudes and understanding of the law on compliance as part of the original DEFRA review. Compliance is a matter or all of us, and the enforcement of which rests with the police, and how many prosecutions have there been? That does not mean we need to comply with the law of course!

 

Shot powders have improved significantly over the years and especially in the last couple of years, so relying on old data is pretty pointless isn't it, many on this forum use alternatives an with good effect. Not withstanding that, have you not bothered to read, or perhaps you are not a BASC member, the lead shot briefing in the last S&C which made it very clear that lead shot is ballistically superior

 

As I have said, we have refuted, publically the points that those are opposed to lead are using, I don't know where you get the idea that the CPSA are content to allow lies to be foisted, perhaps you would be good enough to contact the CPSA directly with this accusation and post their reply?

 

I do not agree that BASC has not changed for the better, again perhaps you would be good enough to pose your questions in writing to our CEO ?

 

Where is the evidence for the English S/S market being damaged and the value of such guns falling to the point of being destroyed? Are they not still being use on inland shoots and most of them were always?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Just to enlighten you, my posts do not cause members to leave BASC.

BASC's constant avoidance of answering questions exasperates them and makes them realise that they can get better value for their money with other organisations.

 

Which organisation is currently doing just what you would like to see from BASC ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure Salopian will be happy to read that his posts are having that effect, I cant help but think he has some alternative agenda...sorry to hear that our very positive stance in the defence of lead, and working with other organisations on this issue is not good enough for you

It would be bad enough if this was a personal opinion but as it is representative of BASC, this post is an absolute disgrace and the author's subsequent one offers little or nothing in mitigation. This, to me, to such an extent that I would ask who has the alternative agenda. It should not matter to whom the comments are addressed for my remarks to be valid, but in this particular instance they are well out of order and it is apparent that David BASC has no idea who he has insulted. He would do well to try and find out but would have to go further back than the few years that he has worked for BASC. Back, indeed, as far as the initials GT and CB match up to staff of the Education Dep't should do it and then work forward. If he is successful, he will discover that the person in question has a boundless enthusiasm for BASC and whose loyalty is beyond reproach. Should the latter appear contradictory, then perhaps he might like to consider that in addition to the actions of Mr Swift, could not those whose misguided loyalty (or downright crass stupidity) or the 'yes men' have contributed far more than someone attempting to offer genuine constructive criticism of an inertia which has led to the disenchantment of so many members and the whole sorry state of affairs regarding this topic. Then, if successful, he could retract his comments in full and offer the most fulsome apology that he is able to pen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome to your view Wymberley and I know exactly who Salopian is, and I still question why someone who is allegedly so enthusiastic about BASC is so dismissive about our work , especially when they have not bothered to check the facts as printed in our latest mag or called to talk to someone here...

 

Now says that I / BASC have avoided answering questions...I am still waiting for the list, and claims part of the UK gun industry has been severely damaged , inferring, as I read it due to BASC, but can offer no evidence for this accusation.

 

So yes, when people make such unfounded accusations I get miffed, and this probably comes over in my posts, I treat as I find, I am blunt and make no apology for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are welcome to your view Wymberley and I know exactly who Salopian is, and I still question why someone who is allegedly so enthusiastic about BASC is so dismissive about our work , especially when they have not bothered to check the facts as printed in our latest mag or called to talk to someone here...

 

Now says that I / BASC have avoided answering questions...I am still waiting for the list, and claims part of the UK gun industry has been severely damaged , inferring, as I read it due to BASC, but can offer no evidence for this accusation.

 

So yes, when people make such unfounded accusations I get miffed, and this probably comes over in my posts, I treat as I find, I am blunt and make no apology for that

Ever since this affair started the response from BASC has been vague waffle to every question about what you are doing to defend your membership. Empty platitudes will achieve nothing and neither will burying your head in the sand. This is why I ended my membership 2yrs ago. The response from BASC continues to be pathetic, who would want you as their lawyer?

 

To be worth anything the BASC need to come out fighting and mean it.

Edited by sitsinhedges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So again I ask what questions have been asked that have not been responded to or what responses to this issue have been waffle?

 

All of them. Just read some of your past responses. It's also hard to believe you surveyed your members re compliance on behalf of the RSPB, effectively hanging them out to dry with the results. Effectively criminalising the membership wasn't supposed to be part of the BASC remit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'all of them' does not help, please be more specific

 

The survey on compliance was for DEFRA, the survey helped understand what parts of the legislation shooters did not understand, and helped formulate the on going project to help shooters get a grasp of the law, the need to comply etc, which is now supported by a wide range of shooting organisations and indeed was the very subject of this thread..

 

To say that this survey hung anyone out to dry or criminalised our membership is a total misjudgment, where is the evidence to back up this acusation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...