crimthan

Done, and local MP supportive of shooting as noted on BASC site and from previous reply I had from him on other shooting lobby pre election. Well done again BASC.

"can't see them getting much BASC advertising for a considerable time" or maybe never again??? Why should BASC membership funds be handed over to help finance what is becoming an increasingly anti BASC publication. BASC's S & C reaches 135,000 members. These are good targetted customers for any company selling shooting / field sport related goods and an increase in the number of issues would seriously compete with ST — in regards both trade advertisers and readers — and lead to a further fall-off in ST's circulation figures. I know of 10 people personally who have cancelled their subscriptions to ST over the recent anti BASC tirades. I, being one of them.

Nice to hear that you had a good response at Catton. Re/ " spent a very pleasant weekend exploring a new part of my local river with my trout rod!" Lucky man Christopher, have not had a chance to cast a fly yet.

"I see you and crimthan are very recent members," JRDS I joined this forum recently, yes. But, I was already a member before this thread was started, or the ST article on BASC and lead came to the fore. So NO, I did not just join pigeon watch forum to push BASC policy on lead ammunition.

"I do wonder if the new ST editor is attempting to plough his own furrow, and follow one of his predecessors into a cushy job at the CA." I am glad I am not the only cynic here trying to figure out ST and CA involvement in all this.

"I see you and crimthan are very recent members, are you more BASC's employees " Not me. I am however a BASC member. Using your reasoning, am I to assume then, that you are a CA or ST employee, as you are doing your best to mis-represent BASC views and are advocating the CA as being a viable alternative to BASC ? The reason I am a BASC member is because IMHO BASC are the only organisation with the ability to represent my views in a calm, professional and able manner. As to your putting forward the CA to chair the meeting. I see some merit in that idea. It would do them good to get the experience of actually doing something constructive, rather than standing on the sidelines jumping up and down, and it would also actually make them come up with some alternative policy, rather than just decrying BASC policy. Re the CA "at least they only have one agenda!" That is so true. But do you know what that agenda is? Or at least what their MAIN agenda is? I cannot help but feel that since they came into being, their overtures towards shooters and wildfowlers have been rather blatant recruitment ploys, rather than evidence of real concern with representing our views.

End off?? Grow up. Who would you suggest should chair the committee? Or would you rather no one attended it from shooting interests? "ST article clearly shows their real stance" Nonsense. ST article gives selective snippets from leaked minutes of an advisory committee. It does not mention BASC's actual stance at all. That is the problem with it.

JRDS. Read back over previous posts. Read BASC web site. Read every statement BASC has made on this issue, rather than keep spouting and cutting & pasting ST's selective mis-reporting of it. But to save you going back to top of thread, here is BASC's position. Once again. "Inaccurate and alarmist reports have appeared in the shooting press and on email concerning BASC's position on lead ammunition. They misrepresent BASC’s position and the current situation. BASC would like to take the opportunity to put the record straight. The facts of the matter are: •BASC is firmly opposed to any unwarranted attempts to further restrict lead shot. •All other shooting organisations support this position. •BASC and all other shooting organisations agree that the shooting community must be involved in discussions on the future of lead ammunition. Not to be involved is to lose our voice and influence. •All the shooting organisations have been discussing the latest evidence on lead shot for some time. •All the shooting organisations agree that shooting should be involved in the lead ammunition advisory group being established by DEFRA to examine scientific evidence on the use of lead ammunition in the UK. •All the main shooting organisations are supportive of John Swift, the CEO of BASC, taking the Chair. •The shooting organisations form the largest group on the lead ammunition advisory group. They include BASC, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Gun Trade Association and the Countryside Alliance. Other organisations will be asked to contribute in specialist areas. •The natural conclusion from this is that shooting is well represented and is united on this issue. What does this mean for the future of lead ammunition in the UK? Defra has chosen the lowest level of committee, unofficial and industry-driven, to give advice. •No political party in the UK has any plans to further restrict lead shot •The current position of the Food Standards Agency is that the consumption of shot game is not sufficient in the UK to become a public health issue. •There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that some birds can be poisoned by feeding on shot animals or taking up lead shot as grit. •The group has been asked to assess the relevance of research for the UK. •Nothing will happen in the UK for the foreseeable future. •Please forward this to anyone you know who is involved in shooting. "

I find the post above funny. I find nothing funny at all about Shooting Times. As to "their stance on Lead has been blown wide open by ST and you find it funny" Surely you meant Shooting Times and others mis-representation of BASC's stance.

"When, further up this thread, a Sporting Gun writer called the editor of Shooting Times a "****" I really smiled."

"Perhaps of more concern to us all is the death of the steel industry in Britain as an engineer I am very concerned at the poor quality nuts, bolts, and steel products coming from India." Could not agree more Salopian. Why did BASC not stop Magiie Thatcher closing down the Steel Works?

"Then you sir are a little naive. Press releases and statements made by each side of the debate are carefully drafted and state only what they wish you to know and hear." BASC's position on this is not a "press release". It is a statement of BASC's position on the issue and articulates the official BASC Council position as it has been for a long time. It has been published and had wide circulation long before this current mischief making came to the fore in the shooting media. John Swift's response, linked above, gives a factual statement in regards the formation and remit of the new group. I see nothing naive in accepting the stated position of BASC Council or CEO. What is naive however, is to blindly accept the rumour-mongering and scare tactics of people with a hidden agenda despite being given the factual information necessary to form an informed opinion of your own.

Could someone please tell us the truth about what BASC are up to? I get very worried when someone protests their innocence so vehemently. Hello Salopian I think that the BASC statement and John Swifts response http://www.basc.org.uk/filemanager/root/si...ition_group.pdf give the facts and truth of the matter.

BASC's statement and John Swift's first class response will hopefully nip in the bud what seems to me a well orchestrated attempt to mis-represent BASC, and cause trouble between BASC and their membership. Ask yourself, who hopes to gain from such scurrilous tactics by sections of the sporting media and representatives of other shooting organisations? Any right-minded person will make up their own minds about the facts of the issue, but as can be seen from comments made, there are always those who let themselves be led around by the nose, and swallow the media's tripe readily. I would also like to thank Christopher Graffius, David Ilsey and Simon Clarke, for their sane voices of reason here, and to commend them on not rising to the severe baiting they received from certain quarters.