Jump to content

BrowningB7

Members
  • Content Count

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BrowningB7

  • Rank

  • Birthday 21/11/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • From
    Northants
  • Interests
    Game shooting
    Clay shooting
    Modern & Vintage sporting arms
    Most things shooting related
    Rugby

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would be supprised if the French hunters allowed anymore restrictions on their shooting. My dad has lived there the past two years and apparently they run things, historical rights allowing to hunt on any land they deem fit. Local police and majors side with them and not the landowners.
  2. Until the ECHA produce their report we don't know anything coming our way. Considering on their website they have already suggested a date of late 2022 for a restriction on lead use before any conclusions have actually been drawn, leads me to wonder if an unbiased and fair examination going into this process could be called into question (remains to be seen). When the report is produced we can then look and see how shooting contributes to the concerns of lead use, discrediting any evidence that includes fishing weights into figures, statistics etc. As it is calling on member states to contribute to the study, our representatives should be calling for a fair scientific test and contribute any evidence they may have. If we are not part of this process anymore due to Brexit, the final report will provide nothing more then valuable toilet paper to us. As a nation with some of the highest shooting etiquette and self-regulation (e.g. Restricted shooting when weather is putting stress on wildfowl and game) we should be able to look into the issue ourselves and conclude our own evidence.
  3. I don't understand the mentality of 'jumping' before being 'pushed'. The European research in lead use (maybe ECHA, I can't remember) was due to conclude in 2021. We don't know how long they would need to analyse the data to before providing a view ponit on it, maybe 2022,2023. With the virus situation now globally you could probably knock that back another year. Until a strong case is put forward against shooting sports, why are we running for the hills? Those that oppose shooting are not going to look at us and say: "you know what, those guys phased out lead on their own accord, maybe them shooters ain't that bad after all; let's back off them and give them a break"
  4. How can I stop focusing on the food angle, it's what we're being told. If it's more then that, why wasn't the phase out suggested for clay grounds that pump more lead into the sky then my little game syndicate ( correct me if this advise has changed in the past month or so since I originally looked into it)
  5. If anyone else wants to swap lead for comparable bismuth I'll be more then happy to convert and denounce the use of lead! Also, if certain shoots want to sign up with BASC and the British Game Alliance to supply Samworth Brothers ( the £1 billion annual turnover company who owns Ginsters and other business's ) with game for the up and coming contract with Waitrose - then just get them to shoot with steel as requested by Waitrose and let the rest of us use lead, why blanket everyone with it. I know I know, it's 'voluntary' not compulsory, but come on!!
  6. You are forgetting the bigger picture? Remind me, iv lost the trail
  7. Yes... Although, like after the general licence being pulled, I would hope enough of us (and our representatives) would kick up enough fuss to why lead should remain until all the evidence is gathered and points of view are considered.
  8. Why would there be an instant ban? Until their statement last month all the org's were in agreement with 'no evidence, no ban' or whatever the slogan was.
  9. I understand your point but must disagree. I do shoot for the enjoyment of pulling the trigger, as well as all the other benefits like using hammer guns and seeing friends etc. If I kill something it must be for a reason, putting it on a plate, protecting live stock etc, there must be justification (for me; this is how I was brought up). If I want a challenge for target shooting I'll shoot clays. If I'm on a syndicate with 8 guns and 4 beaters and it is known that no one will want more then a brace each, AND, the keeper or anyone elce could not pass them on, then I would insist that once we shot 24, we stop. I would be happy if I shot 2,4,6 or never pulled the trigger, that's game shooting. Its like those who shoot a woodcock but refuse to take it home, I wouldn't want them back on my shoot. If lead was banned would I stop putting birds down? I would have to consider why lead was banned. If it was due to evidence that game shooting with lead had major impacts on environmental issues or wildlife (not research from the past 20 years that also includes fishing weights and other lead found in water, or wildfowl found with lead on specific lakes - actual evidence of pheasant/partridge shooting on farm land) then I would probably move with it and buy a steel proof gun and continue. If lead was banned to protect those shooting more than they can eat and for those high up in org's to be invited and filmed on certain estates, then I would sell my collection of brownings and English guns (for what they would be worth!) and buy a little boat & get back into fishing. What would I rather lose lead or shooting? I suppose my above point sums it up. For the right reasons - lead. If lead was banned for the wrong reasons (encouraged by those supposedly meant to represent shooters) I would say **** it and walk away watching the anti's have a field day and those at the top take it down from the inside.
  10. In my view banning lead shot won't make shooting more justifiable! It's those that are claiming that we need to lose lead shot or lose our shooting. The Org's and certain people involved in big let days etc and arguing hard that if we do not get game to table, and start using steel it will be difficult to continue fighting the attacks on shooting and it will be lost forever. I and others have argued that we (those involved with smaller shoots) have never had a problem with disposing game, everything we shoot is eaten regardless of what it's shot with (hence justifiable) . This move to push out lead is to protect the big shoots and improve their image. Im not claiming shoots are dumping birds, this is the image the likes of Wild Justice and others are pussing on any media platform they can, out to the general public. This is the image shooting org's and big shoots want to move away from. It doesn't help though when shoots on one hand are putting on 300-500 bird days twice a week, then claiming dealers won't take the birds and cnt find any outlet for them. What are people supposed to think! If given the choice to phase out lead or not, I would argue not. Why: because (in the here and now) this is based on protecting the interests of those shooting big bird days, not based on any evidence of the 'direct' effects of game shooting with lead, here or in Europe. Oh, and protecting basc's £100k involvement in getting game into Waitrose. What's better for protecting game shooting, losing lead or losing big bag days? I would argue losing big bag days. Edit: after reading back my previous post it does come across that I claim big shoots are dumping birds. What I was trying to get across was the image being portrayed by anti's on game shooting, backed up with the industry claiming we don't have an outlet when we use lead, just like the misconception among most of the public that game shooting is undertaken by the wealthy or well off city folk.
  11. So the big shoots can (so they think) justify their shooting by claiming a market for the birds shot and not simply dumping them. They (the shoots and Org's like basc) know that if anything is going to put an end to shooting sports, it's the image of these days being carried out with birds being tossed aside, which the public will not stand for. That's why we are having this debate now in 2020. The thing I don't understand is; if they think by getting game into Waitrose will secure 'our' sport (through the use of non-lead shot), do that not think the anti's will simply question why game meat isn't farmed like other foods for supermarkets, instead of being shot out of the sky by rich city folk (the image portrayed by anti's and unfortunately believed by some).
  12. Can you not just have the D3 signed over to you and have it sent to an rfd in Italy? For the hassle you describe it would probably be best to find another, leaving the D3 available for your son for when he realises which is the better gun 😂, and you on the right side of the law. Plenty of C grades, D5's and others floating about in the UK if your over here often.
  13. Agree with the fixed choke 👍 find a cartridge you like and then any misses are down to you and you only. Out of interest what's a 30" C3 making in Italy in the last 12 months? Do you see many D1's around?
  14. No. Never had trouble with excess game.
×
×
  • Create New...