Savhmr Posted June 8, 2015 Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 There's another side to the coin though David, and that's whether compliance is evidenced (by and large) or not, it probably will make no difference to any campaign by those seeking a ban. You are most likely preaching to the converted on here RE compliance. Absolutely every shooter that I shoot with (myself included) are fully compliant with current restrictions and regulations. Whilst non-compliance may be used as an excuse to progress a total ban, I still think that unlikely with a proactively fought campaign on the part of the shooting and game conservation community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Savhmr Indeed I agree with much of what you say, and although the level of compliance is high in many areas, you are spot on when you say those who oppose lead will use non compliance as the key excuse to push for a total ban - i.e if shooters can not self regulate on lead shot then ban it entirely Edited June 9, 2015 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Savhmr Indeed I agree with much of what you say, and although the level of compliance is high in many areas, you are spot on when you say those who oppose lead will use non compliance as the key excuse to push for a total ban - i.e if shooters can self regulate on lead shot then ban it entirely Should that not be 'if shooters can not self regulate on lead shot then ban it entirely'? I've no doubt that those who oppose us will monitor compliance again in the future, and the above infers that with or without a ban that this will be so. Will the WWT and BASC again be involved with this monitoring or a truly independent body? It is to be hoped the provenance of shot ducks next time be 100% proven and beyond question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 perhaps we should campaign to get the lead shot law reversed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Yes it should! sorry for the typo and thank you for pointing it out, I have corrected it Yes I suspect there will be more checking on compliance, indeed we 'warned' of this on our web site and in our mag a season or so ago when noises were being made by other bodies that it was on the cards... BASC may well further research our membership on these issues, but nothing is planned at the moment over and above this joint compliance project with the other organisations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Should that not be 'if shooters can not self regulate on lead shot then ban it entirely'? I've no doubt that those who oppose us will monitor compliance again in the future, and the above infers that with or without a ban that this will be so. Will the WWT and BASC again be involved with this monitoring or a truly independent body? It is to be hoped the provenance of shot ducks next time be 100% proven and beyond question. So our shooting representatives accept the anti lead side 'monitoring' compliance? And more importantly accept without question their findings!....this is equivelant to setting a fox to guard your poultry, then being surprised when the hens end up eaten! Why are our shooting organisations not carrying out our own monitoring that I'm sure will show a high level of compliance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Please lets not loose site of the fact that this thread is about compliance with the current laws, lets try to stick this thread on this important point. there are two threads running on LAG already, there is no need to convert this into a third one which will inevitably end up simply recycling the points raised on the other two! But lets not forget that there are no proposals for further restrictions on parliaments agenda The fact that some European governments are reversing their stance on lead restrictions is very good news indeed, and has been reported on our web site for the last few months, it adds strength to our position on the defense of lead shot But this will come to naught if we cannot be seen to be complying with the present laws - simple, boring repetition, I know that's what I will be accused of, but its the truth. As I have said before, any news on further developments on this front will be on our web site, hot off the press! If you first paragraph is aimed at my comments in posting 123? My comments are not about the lead ammunition group, they are about the the fight relating to protecting shooting from further unneccesary restrictions on lead shot ie 'the lead shot campaign'.......which is the title of this thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) So our shooting representatives accept the anti lead side 'monitoring' compliance? And more importantly accept without question their findings!....this is equivelant to setting a fox to guard your poultry, then being surprised when the hens end up eaten! Why are our shooting organisations not carrying out our own monitoring that I'm sure will show a high level of compliance? This is a salient point. The whole way in which the monitoring done is open to misguided stats and not accurately representative as broad bush statistical results as all duck shot do NOT end up at the butchers for example; only a tiny proportion I'd expect. It could be a handful of shooters involved with results extrapolated to a majority which is ludicrous, and this should not be accepted as evidence of anything other than some duck may have been found containing lead shot but the number of shooters has NOT been verified. That's unsubstantiated evidence for extrapolation and should be challenged sternly. It would be thrown out of a court of law as "circumstantial" at best, so then to use it as an argument for changing the law is preposterous. If we can "prove" 95 or better still 99% compliance then that is plenty of evidence to support any reasonable test of compliance. Even 70% compliance is enough to win the environmental argument for heaven's sakes! Non compliance is a red herring and is actionable under the Wildlife and Countryside Act or whatever on an individual case by case action. The environmental consequences were what was originally used for a change in the law, so that same environmental test MUST be applied to any arguments to further things to a ban, otherwise be rejected out of hand, and fought that way. Every shotgun owner in the country who shoot or have shot duck over the past twelve months should now write to BASC and say so, stating clearly their compliance. That should add a little more balance to the argument. Edited June 9, 2015 by Savhmr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Why are our shooting organisations not carrying out our own monitoring that I'm sure will show a high level of compliance? We had that with the WWT/BASC report on compliance, look where that got us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 If you first paragraph is aimed at my comments in posting 123? My comments are not about the lead ammunition group, they are about the the fight relating to protecting shooting from further unneccesary restrictions on lead shot ie 'the lead shot campaign'.......which is the title of this thread! Don't get up tight about things, they just like to control the conversation. I Understood what you where saying. We have a bigger fight on our hands coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 So gunsmoke, for the benefit of all the organisations running this compliance campaign, how would you measure compliance? Remembering that the top recommendation of the wwt report which included the results of BASC asking its members about their knowledge understanding and application of the law...the top recommendation of which was was better promotion of the law by the organisations (which is what the campaign linked to this thread is all about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) A recommendation from the WWT to ask members to please comply with current legislation? It is the responsibility of individuals to uphold the law, and the WWT, last time I looked, are not policemen, although they and I'm sure, the RSPB would like police powers to "deal with "non-compliant" shooters". I would turn that on its head and demand hard evidence of widespread non-compliance. Truth is, there isn't that evidence, and I'll labour the point again, the current way in which compliance is tested is deeply flawed. If we can agree on that then why is anyone taking what the RSPB and WWT have to say seriously? Why is more not being done to simply rip shreds out of their flawed reports? It is not for us to prove compliance. It is for them and the law to prove widespread non-compliance and that evidence simply does NOT exist! If a little honesty was allowed from both sides, it is that a small percentage of the wild duck population has been found containing lead shot. I'm willing to put a gentleman's bet on it that the percentages involved are minuscule and certainly statistically irrelevant. Just because the WWT or whoever come out with "it's the best we've got" doesnt make it acceptable. Neither is non-compliance acceptable by the law abiding shooter. It should be for the law to pursue individual cases, and then perhaps butchers and other game dealers would be more careful about testing a percentage of birds sold to them before they decided to buy any batches of duck. If that were done, and legislation changed to make it an offence to sell duck containing lead shot, then you can be sure that shooters would comply as would game dealers and everyone is happy, no? The pursuance of a lead shot ban is not currently acceptable when there are far more sensible measures that could be taken, simple as. Edited June 9, 2015 by Savhmr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 9, 2015 Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 Savhmr Yes the recommendation was for the shooting orgs to keep working on pushing the compliance message You are correct that some conservation bodies would like to police the ban...this was proposed when the legislation came in and BASC fought it off I agree, poor evidence should be ripped to bits I also agree that its a relatively small number of shoots that need to get better at policing their guns (like the wildfowling clubs do excellently) i also agree that game dealers et al have a role to play, this was also a recommendation of the report And yes, finally I agree absolutely that there is no need for further restrictions as there are far more sensible and suitable options Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 This statement was in March 2013, this statement and the letter that when out said nothing about the WWT/BASC compliance report. JOINT STATEMENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW ON THE USE OF NON-LEAD AMMUNITION The use of lead shot over all foreshore, specified Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and for the shooting of all ducks and geese, coot, and moorhen, wherever they occur, has been illegal in England since November 1999. The Welsh Assembly imposed restrictions on lead shot, based closely on the English approach, in September 2002. Scottish legislation differs from that in England and Wales in that since 2004 it has been illegal to use lead shot to shoot any species or target, including game and clays, over wetlands. Similar restrictions banning the use of lead shot over wetlands were introduced in Northern Ireland in September 2009. In Scotland and Northern Ireland it is permissible to use lead shot to shoot any species outside wetlands. All members of the shooting community are legally bound to comply with the lead shot regulations, and to ensure that only non-lead shot is used wherever lead shot is banned under those regulations. It is the responsibility of every individual gun to comply with the law, whoever the ultimate consumer will be, and to make certain that lead shot is not used illegally. Its improper use cannot be tolerated. Compliance with the current restrictions is critical if there is not to be a further restriction, or a complete ban, on the use of lead for shooting in the United Kingdom. The organisations listed below jointly agree to make every effort to ensure compliance with the lead shot regulations in the United Kingdom. As joint signatories of the Code of Good Shooting Practice, they have already called for non-lead shot only to be used during any game or rough shooting that might otherwise result in spent lead shot being deposited into wetland areas used by feeding waterfowl. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW ON THE USE OF NON-LEAD AMMUNITION MARKETING CAMPAIGN MEETING - TUESDAY 19th MARCH 2013 MINUTES PRESENT Adrian Blackmore (CA), Christopher Graffius (BASC), Lisa O’Brian (CLA), Colin Richmond-Watson (UCSW), Jill Grieve (CA). APOLOGIES Mike Swan (GWCT), Tim Baynes (SLE), Robbie Douglas-Miller (WES), Amanda Anderson (MA), Charles Nodder (NGO), Alex Hogg (SGA). INTRODUCTION 1 AB thanked all those present for attending the meeting. At the last meeting of the Shoot Summit in November, the issue of non-compliance with existing legislation regarding the use of lead shot had been discussed, with various suggestions made as to how members could work to address this. These included the production of an agreed joint position statement, and a proper marketing campaign in order to raise awareness of the importance of complying with the existing regulations. JOINT POSITION STATEMENT 2 A joint Position Statement on compliance with the law on the use of non-lead shot had now been agreed by, and circulated to, all organisations. It is important that this is publicised by all organisations on their websites, in members’ magazines, social media sites, and in e-communications. When doing so, it is an issue that needs to be given priority; not one that is merely given lip service. It was agreed that organisations should ideally be looking at devoting two pages to the campaign for compliance with the law on the use of non-lead in membership magazines, and BASC kindly agreed to provide additional background material to help in producing articles. PRESS RELEASE 3. It was agreed that a Joint Press Release should be issued on Tuesday 18th June to coincide with the publication of the Countryside Alliance’s Summer magazine, and in advance of the CLA Game Fair. The Release will be produced by the Alliance, and it will contain quotes from the Executive Chairman, Chief Executive, Director General, or Chairman of each of the organisations that had signed the Joint Position Statement. Quotes should be sent to JG (jill-grieve@countryside-alliance.org) by NLT Tuesday 30th April, and copied to all other signatories in order to prevent duplication. The release will stress that it is the responsibility of all shoot owners and managers, in addition to individual guns, to ensure that that the law is upheld. It was hoped that all organisations would actively promote the campaign at the Game Fair. LEADING SPOKESPEOPLE 4. It was agreed that a joint letter, signed by the Executive Chairman, Chief Executive, Director General, or Chairman of each of the organisations, should be sent to a number of leading personalities who were recognised by the shooting community, asking for a quote giving their public support for the campaign for compliance with the law on the use of non-lead shot. Each person receiving the letter would be able to see the list of those to whom it had been sent. A proposed list of recipients is attached to the Minutes, and anyone wishing to add or delete names is asked to inform AB by NLT the 18th April. It was agreed that each organisation should accept deletions requested by another. TARGET AUDIENCE 5. The target audience includes all members of the shooting community, the shooting press, sporting agents, and cartridge manufacturers. The CLA kindly agreed to check the Shoot Assurance Scheme for the details of agents. The Game Dealers Association (Steve Crouch) would also be approached with a view to getting dealers to agree to refuse to take any wildfowl that had been shot with lead. LOGOS 6. BASC held a number of posters and logos from when the regulations for the use of non-lead shot were first introduced in 1999, some of which it may be possible to refresh for this campaign. CG would arrange for these to be sent to JG. It was agreed that the British Cartridge Manufacturers Association should be approached with a view to cases of lead cartridges displaying a no duck shooting symbol. ‘Getting your ducks in a row’ was suggested as a possible form of words to accompany any logo. Adrian Blackmore 21 March 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) The lead shot ban is in my opinion deliberately 'wishy washy, I believe the protectionists knew this at the time in fact their input was probably designed for it to be so! The police were never going to enforce it....so who independent was supposed to? Where in the law did it lay out how the people who sold lead shot ducks to the game dealer and the gamedealer for buying and selling them were to be traced and prosecuted? To my knowledge it didn't? It just demonised shooters!!! Unfortunately the shooting community couldn't then and still can't see any purpose in the ban except to restrict shooting! so with no enforcement, non toxic alternative being more expensive, the game dealers still buying lead shot ducks.....where is the imperative for compliance? The protectionists could probably predict this and "gave shooting the rope to hang themselves" then knowing the relevant authorities (Police) wouldn't do it, they started checking compliance themselves....surprise surprise they found ducks shot with lead at the game dealers! Well they would wouldn't they! The protectionists must have been delighted with the extra clause in the English lead shot ban which made the shooting of ducks etc with lead illegal (ie species specific) as this gave them the "foot in the door" to pursue a future total ban on lead shot using alleged and unsubstantiated claims of widespread non-compliance as the reason.....and this is where we are now! Conspiracy theory? Damn right! Edited June 10, 2015 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 As you will see when we had the meeting regard compliance the WWT/BASC report on compliance never come up. Thought you would like this one for the CA. "The Austrian decision follows the collapse of the UK Government’s Lead Ammunition Group (LAG), when Countryside Alliance executive chairman Barney White-Spunner and other members of the shooting industry resigned from the body over abuses of process!" CA So according the the CA the LAG finished! It also says: Barney White-Spunner said: “We are pleased that Austria is asking the right questions and researching areas that the chairman of the LAG chose to ignore. There is no scientific evidence that lead ammunition has a negative effect on the environment in the UK outside wetlands, where there are already restrictions on its use. Austria’s decision backs-up our move to leave the LAG.” Who says that "we will have lead banned if we don't compliance with the law." I have only every heard this from BASC staff. Where has this come from? Please show me what Government Minister has said this or organisation other that BASC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Lets not forget that there has yet to be any prosecutions over non-compliance too in the UK. The whole thing's a sham and the LAG are (hopefully) finished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 After my last comment on here a PW members has send me this. So there is a threat and its from the WWT and the WWT are using to Compliance report as proof of non-compliance. Who did the compliance report with the WWT, oh yes, that's right, the BASC. This is from the briefing note on the Lead Shot Campaign web site. On the issue of compliance we are extremely vulnerable. Provided we abide by the restrictions there is little immediate threat. But any lapse lays us wide open to claims that the law doesn’t work; that a partial ban is unenforceable and that the only solution is a total ban. Our opponents are deploying this argument to considerable effect. (See the WWT’s lead shot policy statement at www.wwt.org.uk and search lead policy). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Gunsmoke, I am pleased you looked at the lead campaign web site, have you signed? You will see the joint statement by the organisations involved in this initiative as posted, choose to ignore it if you will, but that will be a shame, choose to ignore the fact there have been other compliance studies, choose to ignore that there will most likely be others in the future...but that will not help anyone I know you want to lay the blame for all things bad at BASC's door, but I am afraid your conclusions are wrong but I also know you will not accept this, hence your repeated regurgitation of the same old points time and time again, thread after thread....none of which have been repeated by any other fieldsports organisation or other body involved in this issue, that should tell you something So lets stop this petty bickering and move on, face the facts that all the organisations are now following the same path on compliance, and the wider issues surrounding lead shot. Lets keep encouraging people to go to the web site and sign the peldge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) This is a salient point. The whole way in which the monitoring done is open to misguided stats and not accurately representative as broad bush statistical results as all duck shot do NOT end up at the butchers for example; only a tiny proportion I'd expect. It could be a handful of shooters involved with results extrapolated to a majority which is ludicrous, and this should not be accepted as evidence of anything other than some duck may have been found containing lead shot but the number of shooters has NOT been verified. That's unsubstantiated evidence for extrapolation and should be challenged sternly. It would be thrown out of a court of law as "circumstantial" at best, so then to use it as an argument for changing the law is preposterous. If we can "prove" 95 or better still 99% compliance then that is plenty of evidence to support any reasonable test of compliance. Even 70% compliance is enough to win the environmental argument for heaven's sakes! Non compliance is a red herring and is actionable under the Wildlife and Countryside Act or whatever on an individual case by case action. The environmental consequences were what was originally used for a change in the law, so that same environmental test MUST be applied to any arguments to further things to a ban, otherwise be rejected out of hand, and fought that way. Every shotgun owner in the country who shoot or have shot duck over the past twelve months should now write to BASC and say so, stating clearly their compliance. That should add a little more balance to the argument. Just to emphasise the type of protectionist zealots we are up against, magistrates in Northallerton have chucked out a case bought by the RSPB against a grousemoor keeper on the grounds that the RSPB abused process which would have denied the keeper a fair trial! Why should we be surprised at the abuse of process within the LAG? It seems to have become the protectionists modus operandi! Edited June 10, 2015 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 10, 2015 Report Share Posted June 10, 2015 Even more reason we must ALL stand together to protect our rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 Even more reason we must ALL stand together to protect our rights Yes I think you're right, it will be nice to see BASC stand along side all shooters, now that the back stabbers have gone. However you have a lot of making up to do first, before you can be trusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 13, 2015 Report Share Posted June 13, 2015 In many ways gents, it's not where we've been that now matters but where we need to be. The past is the past and those who we have had axes to grind against have no further part in our fight which is a positive thing. We have the opportunity to work together to fight this and other issues effectively. BASC members or not, we can all play our part. Perhaps it would be a good time to bury the hatchets and move on. Trust is a real issue and is something that needs to be earned but from what David has so far said, some slack is needed to allow that to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Thank you, a very positive post David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malkiserow Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Some positive words above and appreciated. Is the LAG officially disbanded and without influence? also, is their report (still in its 'draft' format) without credibility? I am concerned that it is not used and taken as the 'official' outcome before Sir B W-S resigned, by any Civil Servants or ministers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.