Scully

Try your local sewing/haberdashers shop, they should be able to help. Thats where I go for my new zips, toggles etc.

Mentioned this to my OH, who said the only time she feels threatened by me is when I’ve had a few IPA’s, as the resultant ‘wind’ can be horrendous! 😂 On a more serious note, I’m assuming the local plod will be round to confiscate the cutlery if/when they discover an abusive husband, partner etc. And on an even more serious note, what happens to the wife/partner in the abusive relationship once it has become known to not only the police, but also the abuser that she is the reason his renewal was turned down? Or indeed when a new applicant goes ballistic with his wife/partner because he has been turned down? Even if she manages to convince him she didn’t say anything, who is anyone of that demeanour going to take out his disappointment on? I totally agree 100% that anyone prone to abusing his partner shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near firearms, but victims rarely want it known they are. Yet another attempt at an aris covering exercise which will only work with the compliance of the person who has the most to fear. Remember, when seconds count the police are minutes away.

Will have to give that a watch. Sounds good. 👍

The ‘voluntary transition’ only relates to live quarry shooting, and is in response to the HSE’s proposed ban of lead ammunition ( both shot and other lead projectiles ) in accordance to EU REACH proposals, which includes lead shot and lead ammunition used in shotguns, rifles and airguns. Amazingly, and for reasons which apparently cannot be easily explained given part of the reasoning behind the ‘voluntary transition’ as it relates to the environment, none of this applies to trap shooting! As far as I’m aware, the CPSA wasn’t consulted and isn’t a signatory as it isn’t concerned with live quarry shooting. So, if you’re a trap shooter, relax and carry on! 🙂

Unfortunately this response, as much as it comes as no surprise, says much more about you and BASC, whom you represent, than it does about the choices I and others ( the vast majority apparently ) have made. People will draw their own conclusions regarding the deliberate avoidance of straight forward questions.

Oh come on Conor, for crying out loud! You’re an adult! You’re using one statement such as that which you’ve quoted to accuse me of blaming BASC alone for the entire ‘voluntary transition’ ( which has obviously turned out to be anything but ) in a clear attempt to avoid answering questions, then ironically accuse me of disappointing comments! If the HSE hasn’t proposed a ban on lead shot or indeed lead projectiles if you prefer, then I wonder what our phone conversation was about, or the consultation I completed last year? Can you tell me? I also assume there are no ammunition manufacturers developing non-toxic .22rf Ioads for live quarry shooting? I take completely and have never avoided, my responsibility for my choice of shot used during my live quarry shooting, and the impact it has on the various species of birds I shoot, and also on the various species of birds I don’t shoot while shooting clays, because as we all know, lead is toxic. It is still noted you have avoided to answer my questions.

😂

Have you tried your local agricultural merchants? Ours charges about a tenner.

No, I’m not conflating anything Conor. ‘BASC etc’ is a term used to indicate BASC and our other shooting organisations involved in the ‘voluntary transition’. What else could it possibly be mistaken for? What did you think it meant? There are several organisations involved in the ‘voluntary transition’ but no others have posted on here the decision arrived at by those organisations. If the NGO for example had done so instead of BASC, and I was addressing a spokesperson of that org’ my comments would be addressed ‘NGO etc’. I haven’t singled out BASC at all. We appear to be going round in circles rather than backwards. The reason I continue to defend the use of lead shot by myself and to others is because as I’ve stated on here many times, it isn’t banned. I’ve mentioned more than once that Avery, Packham etc shouldn’t be surprised to find lead shot in dead game because it isn’t actually banned, so how you can come to the conclusion I’ve mistaken a ‘voluntary transition’ for a ban is beyond me! Don’t forget, the ‘voluntary transition’ was a decision made by BASC etc without consulting their respective membership; you can hardly be surprised when that membership refuses to abide. I get the impression you’re being deliberately evasive and frankly more than a little condescending. It hasn’t escaped my attention ( and won’t have others ) that you haven’t answered any of the questions I asked in my last post. Excellent post.

You’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise. 🙂

Brilliant! 😄👍

🙂 I think if you google the term troll, you will find it is much more relevant to the actions of you. You constantly make inflammatory accusations and comments on various topics, which we all do at times, but when asked to elaborate or explain, you simply run away and hide. 🤷‍♂️

Jesus h! This has to be one of the worst marketing strategies I’ve ever known! We all KNOW why this campaign has been started Conor, but why oh why couldn’t BASC etc be honest with its members? Shall we start again? Right. 1. Has the HSE proposed a lead shot ban for live quarry shooting? 2. What will happen if BASC’s voluntary phase out fails, as it inevitably will? Like we’ve said, we’re over four years into it now and there’s been no significant take up at all. If BASC etc had been honest with its members from the start you could have done much to avoid a great deal of criticism and possibly gained a stronger following from day one. We all know that we ( both as individuals and in general ) should be eating what we shoot for sport, ( not harvesting Conor please…we’re adults, not six year olds ) otherwise the practice is unethical and morally wrong and we have no right doing it. In a wealthy western society the trend for being ethical and morally superior ( or woke ) is the latest trend, and in a world where we kill things for sport, which is morally and ethically abhorrent to those of that growing trend, shooting has ( if it wants to survive ) to be sustainable or ‘green’ if you like, as is possible. Killing to eat is still on the whole, acceptable, but as we know there is a growing campaign to change that also. We have to fight that each and every way we can; it’s simply a matter of freedom of choice. In light of all this, as bunkum as it may be, if game dealers cannot sell to eat what we shoot to the general public then they ( game dealers ) won’t buy it, and therefore we cannot justify shooting them. I know of at least one commercial shooting estate which accepts a pittance from game dealers to buy their birds as pet food. Is this acceptable, ethically or otherwise? Sustainable? That’s for the individual to decide, but at least they’re used. Some game shooters apparently believe it is acceptable to dump the bag, as has indeed been shown to be the case on this very forum, but it isn’t, and that way lays just about the quickest way to the demise of driven game shooting and as a consequence all live quarry shooting. We have enough enemies outside without those within. We may scrape by with the justification for driven shooting, but understandably not if we then dump the proceeds. Decoying is different in that although we shoot pigeons/corvids for sport we can justify that as pest control, and indeed that’s the only justification for doing so as set down in the GL’s. This however, is also prone to change, and still doesn’t address the fact of a toxic substance being scattered over the landscape, a practice which goes against the reasons for the proposed legislation. Knowing all this, will I still volunteer to phase out lead shot for live quarry shooting? Well it certainly makes sense if I want to ensure the future of live quarry shooting ( for now ) but it also makes sense that it will continue anyhow, when lead is eventually banned, as it will be. Cartridge manufacturers are still developing lead loads for the trend of ‘extreme’ driven bird shooting ( these loads are driven by demand Conor, so your message clearly isn’t getting through to those making the loads nor those shooting them ) but that is simply a matter of tweaking what is currently available, and a far cry from developing entirely new wads, cases, projectiles and in some cases propellants and providing a whole wedge of money to cater to something totally dependant on a ‘voluntary’ basis for uptake! Why would cartridge manufacturers do that when it is blatantly clear the demand isn’t there? The answer is plain for all to see. Like I said, we ain’t six.

Good write up! Enjoyed that. Fabulous countryside up there. 👍

So you don’t see it as a forerunner to a ban, but in the third paragraph state the HSE’s proposals to ban lead shot for live quarry shooting. Is it me? Am I missing something here? So therefore you are suggesting that a voluntary phase out of lead will prevent a ban? Do you expect anyone to believe that? Seriously? Earth to Conor! Very very few want to make the transition from lead to non-toxic, voluntary or otherwise! How long have we been banging on about this now Conor? Have you not read the reports on the percentages of lead found in shot game birds following this seasons end? If I recall the percentages are only 1% lower than last year, and are still in the 90% range! That isn’t a reduction of risk Conor, by any stretch of the imagination! I repeat, any suggestion that trap loads be exempt from the impending ban makes a complete and utter mockery of the legislation, and exposes it for what it is, especially if live quarry shooters just make the transition from lead game loads to lead trap loads. 🤷‍♂️ Remember, lead is toxic; even the HSE has stated there are no safe levels of exposure apparently, a claim which your organisation has repeated, but phasing out lead shot for live quarry would leave trap shooters to carry on unaffected. You think this is acceptable?

These are much under-rated shotguns. They come up to the shoulder very reminiscent of a 101. Excellent value for money.

Eh? A ‘voluntary transition’ is the forerunner to an outright ban! If it’s not then what are we talking about? If it’s voluntary ( meaning I have a choice ) then I’ll choose to use lead indefinitely, as would every single shooter in the UK if they were honest. It’s cheaper, it kills better, it is suitable for ALL guns through ALL chokes and it’s readily available! If .22rf isn’t covered by a voluntary transition then indeed, I won’t stop buying it. But lead is toxic so therefore it has to be phased out or we’re back to two tier legislation which makes a mockery of the entire policy. What sort of fools are we being taken for here?

Mate has one of these. He’s a farmer and has owned it from new for many years. It is a proper tack driver and has accounted for more foxes than I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot! Fabulous kit. Good luck with the sale.

Thats a good question. I could support a transition away from lead and single use plastics period, but it rankles that it’s just for live quarry because that is totally illogical. If the ban is for the stated purposes of toxicity then a two tier ban simply defeats the purpose and makes a mockery of any legislation. We continue with lead shot and single use plastics for trap shooting, but not for live quarry shooting? Even on the same land? Really? That doesn’t make sense at all, so I suppose the answer is no, I don’t support the lead ban as it is proposed. I’ll continue shooting live quarry and clays with lead shot for as long as I can, simply because manufacturers are still making the stuff; it suits me and it suits my guns. Not only do I have some very desirable ( to me ) trap guns very tightly choked, I also have a rather expensive collection of full chokes of various makes such as Teague, Briley and Muller which will likely be rendered obsolete. I note there has never been any mention of compensation for those with such tightly fixed chokes, to cover the expense of opening up trap gun chokes or indeed the necessary need for reproofing as a result, but even if there were, it STILL leaves me and others with obsolete expensive collections of tighter than half chokes! I only use steel for rabbits which I intend to feed to my ferrets, because as we all know lead is toxic; not toxic enough to kill a human or even make them ill in the doses the FSA once recommended ( I remember the days when shooting organisations were singing the praises of the merits and health benefits of eating wild game! 😂 ) but will certainly kill a ferret or a raptor, and millions of ducks apparently, although no one can find them! Here’s another thought. .22rf lead ammunition is still being made, and although I have a large quantity of that to get through, do I stop buying that when I get close to running out Conor? If so what do I buy in its stead? As you well know, ‘good reason’ is a prerequisite for owning S1. If I stop buying ammo for S1 what happens if and when my FEO queries why at next renewal? Lots to discuss Conor, but I doubt we will.

I have no idea.

Thanks. If clay shoots are exempt, then I can’t see how any party could make a case thus. The logic is puddled.

None of that answers the point I raised unfortunately. If clay shooting is to be exempt, am I right in believing that sim driven days and charity clay shoots held on shooting estates, will be allowed to use lead shot?

In what way?

Lead is toxic; the entire point of the ban is to prevent it being scattered all over the countryside. Unless you’re shooting clays, and then it doesn’t matter apparently.

Possibly. But that’s not a ban is it? Lead shot is either toxic or it isn’t; the fact that driven game estates, farmland rough shoots or whatever, wouldn’t be able to shoot game with lead, but hold simulated game days or charity clay shoots ( we attend three of these outside the game season ) on the same ground, makes a bit of a mockery of the pending legislation, doesn’t it?