lead shot campaign

[wymberley]

I treat as I find, I am blunt and make no apology for that

David,

I know steel works - as I also found out when the manufacturers asked me to test their zinc shot. However, the ongoing question remains to what degree. If you find some pattern tables antiquated, have a look at what I've just posted under the Lead and Steel Shot Sizes thread on the Bullets, Cartridges and Reloading sub-forum - there's an awful lot of holes here too. They relate to current CIP criteria.

 

Re the above quote, blunt is fine provided it remains courteous as one knows where one stands. Sometimes, though, one wishes that all members were created equal when it comes to certain topics.

Edited January 19, 2016 by wymberley

[David BASC]

CIP has been an issue I agree, but some of the new powders are making alot of difference

[wymberley]

CIP has been an issue I agree, but some of the new powders are making alot of difference

Are you saying therefore that CIP are going to change their ground rules in view of these new powders? If they're not, then will anything more potent and thus outside of the CIP spec's be available for purchase here in the UK? I ask because, as said, those tables relate to the current CIP figures. Don't forget CIP spec's don't only just relate to pressures, but velocities/momentum as well and the only way you can improve steel (or anything else for that matter - provided it doesn't make things worse by blowing the patterns) is to make it go faster - much faster.

[David BASC]

That i honestly do not know, but some of the cartridges by Gamebore for example look very promising, using some USA powders, and Eley also have some faster cartridges. None of which, to my knowledge have caused any problems with guns sold and used in the UK

 

Your tables make interesting reading, and indeed show that you need to increase shot size by 2-3 to get the same penetration as lead.

[Cranfield]

We have closed similar threads that end up being the same few people haranguing the BASC , made even more unacceptable as they freely admit to not being members.

This thread opened with a post requesting members to sign this, http://leadshotcampaign.org.uk/ .

So, lets get back on the original topic, or it will be closed.

[Salopian]

Received this earlier.

 

HEGEMONY THY NAME IS BIRDLIFE

February 24^th 2016

Birdlife co-ordinates the work of partnership, and individual partner organisations, around the world. It is the hub of around 50 birder conservation societies. They have a ‘partner society’ in every EU country. It is the Opus Dei of the Corporate Conservation universe providing the glue of systematic deceit at EU level. The RSPB is its prelate by virtue of being its largest funder, founder, and most creative strategist.

BIRDLIFE provides the RSPB with supra-national powers in line with the EU Commission’s policy of cultivating, and utilizing ‘civil society’ as a policy-making resource. Thus, Birdlife struts its stuff in the EU Commission committee rooms at will, often in priority over Government officials and Ministers. Individual UK voters have no access to this invidious cakewalk. The classification ‘civil society’, is a euphemism for ‘democratic deficit’, it is the fuel in the Commission’s tank. By these collaborative means, the RSPB and the WWT et al bypass the self-governing democracy of UK voters, Parliament, and in particular, the English Shooting Public.

Birdlife says: ‘BirdLife works in Brussels to influence EU decision-makers, and gives advice and training to help BirdLife partners deal with EU Policy related issues in their countries’.

‘... is a global partnership of national conservation organisations that share common objectives and work together in advocating and carrying out priority conservation actions’.

The RSPB says: ‘As well as being the UK partner, we are also the largest organisation within the partnership. We are strongly committed to the principle of mutual assistance and co-operation that underpins BirdLife and we work with, and in support of, local partners in all our international efforts’.

The RSPB contributes around 10% of Birdlife’s annual turnover. The UK Government and the EU contribute around another 10% (taxpayer’s money). The balance comes from the 50 odd international and EU ‘partners’ at around, 1.5% a piece.

We now turn to the subject of Lead: The EU’s REACH regulation regime (introduced in 2007) places responsibility on industry to manage the risks from chemicals and to provide safety information on the substances:http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm

In the case of Lead (Pb) REACH accepts and understands that it is not a chemical. It is a naturally occurring Element (a native metal). It sits alongside the likes of, Gold, Silver, Iron, Chrome etc. in the Periodic Table.

There are no ‘conditions’ placed upon native metals by the EU REACH programme for the very obvious reason that they are not chemicals. REACH is centred upon the risks or hazards that ‘chemicals’ might present. Lead (Pb) is a native metal not a chemical. However for example, tetraethyllead (CH₃CH₂Pb) is an organo-lead based chemical that was used in petrol in the past. Tetraethyllead is not Lead it is a combination of a number of different substances combined together by a stable chemical bond to create a chemical. As such,Tetraethyllead falls with the REACH remit.

So what did Birdlife et al do? They lobbied the EU REACH regime for Lead to be re-classified as a chemical rather than a native metal. Their thinking was/is that if Lead were classified as a chemical it could then be prohibited from use in any manufactured product as a toxic chemical, including Lead ammunition, as that also is a manufactured product. At a stroke, they saw a backdoor swing open to prohibit the manufacturing of Lead ammunition (throughout the EU). A strategic coup without one shot fired, leaving its enemy (Shooting) bobbing in its wake.

Imposing their anti-lead anti-shooting ideology, the WWT, RSPB and (John Swift’s BASC?) sidelined the normal democratic UK parliamentary process by going direct to the EU Commission via Birdlife, but they hit a snag.

The bureaucrats at REACH were not the same shoo-in as the bureaucrats at the EU Birds Directive office. They understood science. The EU REACH regime refused to re-classify Lead as a chemical for the obvious reason that it was not a chemical, and wished to avoid becoming a serious scientific laughing stock. Birdlife were not political priority for REACH, but that could change.

Birdlife was rigid with shock. It mustered the full force of its moral indignation and put out a petulant press release (Brussels – 4th February 2016) headed, ‘European Commission fails to ban toxic ammunition’. It quoted the poisonous Oxford Symposium on Lead (100,000 UK ducks dead from lead lie), and the 70% English non-compliance with the ‘Lead regulations libel’ (launched by WWT/BASC 2010 report), and dead raptors. Birdlife blew its top. Read the attached Pdf or link: http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/news/failure-ban-toxic-ammunition-putting-bird-lives-risk it’s a bundle of stiletto assertions calculated to deceive, kill shooting, and persecute gamekeepers.

 

Few of the English Shooting Public know about this. The absolute silence on the matter by the English Shooting organisations (in particular the CA & BASC), and the stalwart English Shooting Press, indicates how out in the cold they are.

Since 2013, the full exposure of the John Swift/BASC Lead betrayal, it has become increasing clear that English Shooting was sleepwalking to its own demise, for 30 years or more. It is uncertain if it now possesses the ability, intellectually or otherwise, to turn this around.

The RSPB, architect of Birdlife International, harnesses the full political opportunity presented to it by the EU Commission. The RSPB and the WWT lobbied for, and drafted much of the EU Commission European Directive 1979/409/EC and Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, an Act of Parliament, was fully amended to comply with the WWT, RSPB, EU Commission Directives.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was rewritten to enshrine EU Directives, thus DEFRA (and Natural England) became the local office directly responsible to the EU Commission. It is charged with the implementation, and enforcement of, EU Directives Nos. 1979/409/EC & 2009/147/EC. Liz Trust has no say in the matter, she is purely ‘front of house management’, on behalf of the EU Commission. Remember, the previous DEFRA Minister was Owen Patterson who was removed by No.10 because of his robust (unacceptable) anti-EU stance and replaced by Liz Trust (pro-EU stance). One Minister paid the price of honest independence the other was selected because of a lack of independence (i.e. a safe pair of hands).

http://www.face.eu/ John Swift (ex CEO of the BASC) is still the Treasurer of FACE EU. He was a ‘Founder’ member (he claims). FACE EU was concocted (and funded) by the EU; its key claim to fame is that it introduced the AEWA agreement to the EU at the EU’s behest. The AEWA is responsible for the campaign to ban (all) Lead ammunition. The creator of the AEWA is the UN. FACE EU is a founding sponsor and agent of the AEWA agreement. It urged the UK (Labour) government via BASC/WWT/RSPB to sign up to it. The AEWA grasp of science is as propaganda laden as that of Birdlife; avoid empirical scientific proof at all times, facts should not exist.

FACE EU is the (Shooting) gateway to the EU Commission. No member of the English Shooting public or English shooting organisations can approach the Commission direct, and expect any result or even be heard.

Both FACE and BIRDLIFE receive funding from the EU. The EU Commission played a formative role in the setting up of these 2 organisations. As such, you will not gasp in surprise to hear that FACE EU and Birdlife have a strongly drafted, formal ‘partnership agreement’ - see attached Pdf.

The so-called FACE UK, when chaired by Lord Gardiner (now Ex CA Board), allowed John Swift full scope to ensure that the flawed and libellous WWT/BASC 2010 report on the English compliance with the regulations on the use of Lead ammunition to be submitted directly to the EU Commission despite being fully aware of its fatal flaws.

The WWT/BASC report claimed mendaciously that 70% of English shooters did not comply with the DEFRA regulations. It based its false allegations on tests carried out on birds whose provenance could not be established. The birds in question were ‘oven ready’ had gone through the meat trade, and were of unknown age (previously frozen?). Were as likely as not to have originated in southern Ireland, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or elsewhere within the EU from areas where it was perfectly legal for wildfowl to be shot with Lead ammunition. DEFRA funded the report to £65,000. The best that can be said about it is that it was useless. John Swift was CEO of BASC at the time of its involvement with this report.

REQUIRED READING: http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bull****/. Those who read and understand this dissertation will know that the so-called ‘Oxford Symposium on Lead’ published by the WWT & RSPB is in fact garbage, and that the entire Conservation Industry is guilty of this kind of malpractice. It has little choice, as it could not exist without it.

THE LINKS BELOW RELATE TO THIS NEW-LETTER AND PROVIDE CONTEXT

http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/news/failure-ban-toxic-ammunition-putting-bird-lives-risk

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm

www.birdlife.org/sites/.../birdlife_europe_press_release_04.02.16.pdf

http://www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/international/birdlife.aspx

BirdLife International

http://www.rspb.org.uk/forprofessionals/policy/agriculture/capolicy/policy.aspx

NATURE FAKING: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-surprisingly-sticky-tale-of-the-hadza-and-the-honeyguide-bird

BirdLife International

http://www.rspb.org.uk/forprofessionals/policy/agriculture/capolicy/policy.aspx

http://www.unep-aewa.org/

Pdf ATTACHMENTS: 1) EU-REACH LEAD pact_rmoa_lead_en -2) face BIRDLIFE agreement_en -3) Bird life ENDS25_0001042125_SIR_20131231_E
– 4) HEGEMONY THY NAME IS BIRDLIFE

The UK corporate conservation industry and its army of activists and volunteers are still licking their wounds at the loss of a Labour government. If they lose the EU Commission, they will become suicidal. With nothing left to shield and nurture their ideological mania, under the gaze of a wiser UK public, they could become very dangerous.

Arnold Chapkis ©2016

This News email is sent privately to a number of recipients. Feel free to pass it on to those of like mind.

Please send your email address if you wish to be added to the mailing list or wish to comment.

news@ac-ac.co.uk

[panoma1]

Why am I not surprised?

[Scully]

Very very interesting. If true it stinks to high heaven.

I wonder if any of the national media would be interested in the above?

Thanks for posting.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Scully

[Bangbangman]

Signed

[wymberley]

If we think it's all over...............It isn't yet.

[poontang]

I'm pretty sure I covered the link between FACE and the phase out of lead shot a few years ago in another of these debates. Of course it was shot down at the time, but I've yet to see anything to change my mind on the issue.

FACE are, in my opinion, as complicit as Swift and Harradine in pushing for the phasing out of lead ammunition in all areas, not just wetlands.

[Guest stevo]

http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-joins-face-uk-to-lobby-meps/

[wymberley]

If true it stinks to high heaven.

 

I also received this and having now ploughed through the additional references supplied, it looks very much as though it is.

[David BASC]

I believe the agreement between Birdlife and FACE was back in 2004 and relates to the Sustainable Hunting Initiative, or is it something else that's being referred to?

[Scully]

I believe the agreement between Birdlife and FACE was back in 2004 and relates to the Sustainable Hunting Initiative, or is it something else that's being referred to?

I've been reluctant to respond to this lest I'm accused of BASC bashing, but it's been niggling away at me and if I'm banned for it then so be it, but while I can't speak for others, the part I was referring to as stinking, is the fact that bird charities lobbied to have a metal changed to a chemical to further their agenda. It really beggars belief in my opinion. Is lead now officially regarded as a chemical rather than a metal in the periodic table or wherever metals chemicals feature? Am I the only person who finds this staggering?

I was totally unaware of this underhanded behaviour throughout the entire campaign. I don't know if our shooting organisations were aware of this but given the position of one senior member I find it hard to believe they weren't, and seemingly did nothing or said nothing about it.

The only positive I can see is that it is now patently obvious where Swifts allegiances laid, for reasons best known to him ( which will undoubtedly surface eventually, as deceit inevitably does ) and the indisputable fact ( if it ever were in dispute ) that the campaign to ban lead shot had absolutely nothing to do with human health issues but everything to do with shooting.

If the lead shot ban had taken place what would have been next; the campaign to have iron as used in steel shot, to be reclassified as a chemical rather than a metal? It certainly makes one wonder.

If anyone feels it necessary I'll start another thread to continue this. The lead shot campaign was never something I signed up to anyway; I'm an adult perfectly capable of abiding by law and not one who feels the necessity to sign up to a meaningless poll to prove it.

[David BASC]

REACH regulations have been in has been in place since 2007, REACH stands for Regulation Evaluation and Athorisation of Chemicals and is based on the idea that industry itself is best placed to ensure that the chemicals it manufactures and puts on the market in the EU do not adversely affect human health or the environment. AFEMS are on the panel looking at lead in the context of lead ammunition - plenty of information on the REACH site.

 

It was not a lobbying process that reviews lead ammunition it was a industrial / scientific review, and AFEMS were very much best placed to represent the interested around lead ammunition. emotive lobbying in this area will fall on deaf ears

 

Dragging us back to the real theme of this thread, the lead shot campaign is part of the important strategy of doing all we can to ensure shooters are aware of and comply with the law

[Scully]

I'm not talking about the lobbying process that reviews lead ammunition; I'm talking about the fact ( unless I've misunderstood ) that until agenda led groups lobbied to have lead changed from a metal to a chemical, they were unable to lobby against lead ammunition at all. Their case against lead was at a dead end as the remit of REACH only applies to chemicals and not metals, so two bird welfare organisations lobbied to have lead re-classifeid as a chemical rather than a metal.

I can only assume our shooting organisations found this acceptable, and still do.

[David BASC]

REACH's remit is clear, just look on their web site

 

No, you have misunderstood the position. Birdlife have already made their position clear re lead shot over wetlands and migratory species - this was covered in the FACE / Birdlife agreement in 2014, that also agreed that the Birds Directive is the best instrument to conserve wild birds and their habitat and and support the Sustainable Hunting Initiative and they will undoubtedly continue to lobby on this basis regardless

 

You cant stop people lobbying, whether you agree with their point of view or not, this can hardly be seen as shooting organisations finding what others lobby for acceptable!

 

Back to the point of this thread - well you've heard it before so I am nor going to repeat it, but I dare say others will keep trying to drag us away from it....

[Scully]

You're missing the point David, but never mind; I give up.