David BASC Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 I agree that those who oppose shooting will probably try any tactic to attack our sport. I also agree that we must do all we can to stick to the law, not just in the case of lead but in every walk of life as I am sure the vast majority of us do, and self regulation is the best way to go, and not further legislation However, its clear that some are still unsure of the legislation, hence the push by the shooting organisations to keep on spreading the word, although this is probably made tougher because we have different rules in different parts of the UK plus of course there are still a large number of active shooters who choose not to belong to any of the organisations I would council caution though over enforcement, accepting your point that its unlikely government agencies may not actively police this, there is a risk that others will offer to, indeed this was a very real threat when the current legislation first came in when there was an offer on the table from non government body to police the ban! This was successfully fought off by BASC at the time I am pleased to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) panoma1, thank you and I fully understand your point, I just council caution that any suggested change must be thought through carefully. I accept this is a personal view, but for example on the shoot where I help with the 'keepering, 7 out of 10 drives have a stream or pond within them, the shoot as a whole is 'blessed' with natural wetlands of this type and given the potential for shot to travel 250m or more,its not possible to simply adjust the positioning of the guns to prevent lead falling on to these features...I bet my shoot is not unique... So my question is, is having the ability to shoot a duck over inland habitats with lead sufficient grounds for potentially restricting the shooting of all other species over a range of habitats that are not necessarily key holding areas for duck / geese inland? David, (Or for that matter anyone who can answer) I thought I'd got to grips with the differing legislation, but obviously not. We could either move David's shoot over the Wall or, alternatively, say that England/Wales share the Scottish legislation. On David's 2nd drive there is a water course known as Jimmy's Riddle and the size of this is as you'd expect. Similarly, on the 6th there's a pond known as Sarah's Sample which as you'd imagine is not all that wide. Now, it's fairly obvious that neither of these are "key holding areas for duck/geese inland". At this point I'm somewhat confused as to what David is telling me. Is he saying that the Shoot (remember it's Scottish legislation) cannot shoot duck/geese in the 'immediate' area of these two water courses with lead shot? Because I was under the impression that - for the want of a better description - 'banned' areas had to fall into/be designated as Ramsar sites (for this purpose this includes all other sites which have a differing title but similar conservation status) and that all such sites are identified. It has been my belief if these two fictitious sites and any others are not so designated, then using lead shot is not a problem. Consequently, could I, please, be corrected if I'm wrong. David, should you answer, while you're at it and while no one is listening, come on , tell me, which was the "non government body"? Edited June 22, 2015 by wymberley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 To try and clear the confusion, the wetland areas do not need to be specifically designated, its simply the reference to the Ramsar definition of what is or is not a wetland that is used in the Scottish rules More details here is you want to read up on it, the pdf 'A practical guide to the lead shot regulations in Scotland' is especially useful http://basc.org.uk/lead/ So as you see, there is still some confusion among even long experienced shooters as to what the law says, hence the need to keep pushing the message As to which organisations put itself forwards to help police the regs...I give you three guesses...and i will tell you in the morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 To try and clear the confusion, the wetland areas do not need to be specifically designated, its simply the reference to the Ramsar definition of what is or is not a wetland that is used in the Scottish rules More details here is you want to read up on it, the pdf 'A practical guide to the lead shot regulations in Scotland' is especially useful http://basc.org.uk/lead/ So as you see, there is still some confusion among even long experienced shooters as to what the law says, hence the need to keep pushing the message As to which organisations put itself forwards to help police the regs...I give you three guesses...and i will tell you in the morning Thank you for clearing that up for me, David. I've well exceeded my 3 guesses and my brain is now addled - I can wait 'til t' morn'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Oh you have missed your chance, i was going to send you a bottle of malt for the correct guess! Well the offers closed now, never the less, if we ever meet at a show, i will but you a pint for trying Edited June 22, 2015 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 As to which organisations put itself forwards to help police the regs...I give you three guesses...and i will tell you in the morning WWT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 LACS? This is fun intit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 In fact it could have been just about anyone! The original enforcement procedures proposed by government would have given powers to local authorities to appoint whomever they saw fit to police the regulations. Imagine that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 In fact it could have been just about anyone! The original enforcement procedures proposed by government would have given powers to local authorities to appoint whomever they saw fit to police the regulations. Imagine that! I thought from your post that an organisation like the LACS or another of that ilk had preempted the proposed legislation (which failed to materialise) and had offered their services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 I have to say that after reading all of the above I need a wet towel around my head to concentrate on the complexities! And so, with one exception I'm glad I'm not a wild fowler. The exception is that on one eveninga year I am invited to join my permission shooting ducks over a small pond on one of his farms (arables). The origin of the pond is it is where the stone was quarried many years ago to build the farmhouse. It is not a natural pond formed by Mother Nature. The pond is bounded by trees on three sides and the way the shoot is set up there is never any prospect of shot falling anywhere other than on a field. in this set up is it a requirement of the law that we use non lead shot? Advice welcomed. Incidentally, he does require the use of steel shot and I see no reason to change. But my request for advice is therefore more academic in nature. Thank you. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Yes. non tox required as you are shooting at duck, if you were shooting pheasants or pigeon, then lead would be fine. In Scotland it would be non tox for all unless there was no pond then you could use lead for the ducks as well. I have to say that after reading all of the above I need a wet towel around my head to concentrate on the complexities! And so, with one exception I'm glad I'm not a wild fowler.The exception is that on one eveninga year I am invited to join my permission shooting ducks over a small pond on one of his farms (arables). The origin of the pond is it is where the stone was quarried many years ago to build the farmhouse. It is not a natural pond formed by Mother Nature. The pond is bounded by trees on three sides and the way the shoot is set up there is never any prospect of shot falling anywhere other than on a field. in this set up is it a requirement of the law that we use non lead shot? Advice welcomed.Incidentally, he does require the use of steel shot and I see no reason to change. But my request for advice is therefore more academic in nature. Thank you.Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 Many thanks Penelope. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett1985 Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Not everyone wants to abandon their best English guns and buy one which will 'handle quality steel', and neither should they be forced to. There are plenty of vintage and classic vehicles still around exempt to modern legislation, why should classic and vintage guns be any different? this was the point I made when this came up last time.... and i'll say the same now as I said then, if lead is banned then who will reimburse the owners that have to take the depreciation hit on all of their vintage guns? personally, I'm formally putting arnser forward to put his hand in his pocket as he obviously feels so strongly about the situation.... childish, I know, but some peoples "im alright jack/doesn't affect me" attitude is on par with my previous comment. its laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Brett I have already put my hand in my pocket and got rid of my old guns and bought steel proof weapons. Problem solved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 I put my hand in my pocket too lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett1985 Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Another "im alright jack" post... What about those that cant afford to buy another steel proof variant of their several thousand pound english game gun? Is it not unfair? Not to mention the amount of clay grounds that will not allow steel... what happens if they close? And the driven/syndicate shoots as previously mentioned? What do you suggest to the shooters on those shoots? Its all well and good that you can afford to lose lead... but alot cant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 There is no need to spend thousands of pounds to get a perfectly good steel proof gun. I sold my English s\s and spend £500 on a second hand Browning leaving me well in pocket. Nothing unfair about that. The writing is on the wall for lead , its a proven posion , the public does not like it and in time it will be phased out of most forms of usage. I have seen its effects first hand on waterfowl and saw the writing on the wall years ago so changed my guns. Even if the shooting comunity wins this round the issue will come up again and again until its banned. Fighting it gives the Anties a rich sourse of ammunition to bash us for years to come and for once the public agrees with them. The continued use of lead brings the day when shooting is banned a lot closer. Clay shoots are one of the worst offenders in using lead. I know of a clay ground where there is so much lead in the soil the plants take up leathal amounts and the rabbits and hares that are eating the grass have such high lead levels in their blood that they are not allowed to be sold even though the ground closed years ago ( Somerlayton). I guess its a question of choice , are you happy speading a known posion around the countryside that will last for years and years or are you forward enough thinking to change your guns , switching to a very good wildlife friendly amunition that does the same job and costs less. Its a no brainer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 There is no need to spend thousands of pounds to get a perfectly good steel proof gun. I sold my English s\s and spend £500 on a second hand Browning leaving me well in pocket. Nothing unfair about that. The writing is on the wall for lead , its a proven posion , the public does not like it and in time it will be phased out of most forms of usage. I have seen its effects first hand on waterfowl and saw the writing on the wall years ago so changed my guns. Even if the shooting comunity wins this round the issue will come up again and again until its banned. Fighting it gives the Anties a rich sourse of ammunition to bash us for years to come and for once the public agrees with them. The continued use of lead brings the day when shooting is banned a lot closer. Clay shoots are one of the worst offenders in using lead. I know of a clay ground where there is so much lead in the soil the plants take up leathal amounts and the rabbits and hares that are eating the grass have such high lead levels in their blood that they are not allowed to be sold even though the ground closed years ago ( Somerlayton). I guess its a question of choice , are you happy speading a known posion around the countryside that will last for years and years or are you forward enough thinking to change your guns , switching to a very good wildlife friendly amunition that does the same job and costs less. Its a no brainer. What an absolutely hilariously arrogant post. Links please to all the above claims regarding clay shoots being the worst offenders; the unsellable lead filled rabbits and hares and the authority which doesn't allow their sale and the link to 'for once the public agrees with them' source. Otherwise it's all just your opinion. Once again, no one is disputing the toxicity of lead, only its effect on our environment, its wildlife and the health of humans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Yeah, I put m hand in my pocket and bought a load of lead shot for my front stuffers yee harr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossEM Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 panoma 1 is correct, that the international agreement that the UK as well as many other countries signed is the reason we have restrictions over wetlands,and the probability of the UK reneging on this international agreement are slim. Compliance with the current laws are important, as we will not get laws changed by breaking them. BASC's position remains the same, we will defend the use of lead shot as clearly stated on our web site as we have over many decades. Whether pushing for the Scottish system, i.e. banning shooting lead on or over RAMSAR sites is a moot point, remember this would mean not being able to shoot any species or any clays over, of if the shot could land on, any wetland, ponds, streams rivers, bogs ect regardless if wildfowl were found there How many inland game shoots or farms where pigeon shooting, or rabbit shooting or corvid shooting take place, or clay shoots have wetlands on them? Most i suggest. So would that not be more restrictive? About 3 years ago I asked Christopher Graffius via PM on Pigeonwatch what the exact legal position was on shooting over wetlands in Scotland, as I was about to do so. He concluded that in theory I could stand on the side of a loch and shoot away from it and that would be fine. I'm not sure if I can access the PM but I will have a look. Still no reply to my PM then David? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossEM Posted June 24, 2015 Report Share Posted June 24, 2015 Apologies just found the PM - not CG, actually DavidBASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett1985 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Yeah, I put m hand in my pocket and bought a load of lead shot for my front stuffers yee haa just keep taking the medication fella... its obviously not kicked in properly yet.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 just keep taking the medication fella... its obviously not kicked in properly yet.... Lead poisoning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brett1985 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 Lead poisoning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted June 25, 2015 Report Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Scully I sugest you contact the Somerlayton Estate and the past owners of the gun club ( the clay shoot closed back in the 1970s ) for the full details. At one time it was one of the most important clay grounds in the country hosting the UK and Shooting Times championships. I used to live very close to it when it was active. Its a pity you cant view the subject with an open mind. Still if you keep your head deep enough in the sand you will not know when shooting has been banned because shooters were not flexable enough to move with the times. Edited June 25, 2015 by anser2 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.