Rewulf

No consultation, no real transitional uptake. All talk

I think youre missing the point, whether the 'evidence' is conclusive or not, is irrelevant. We could say that burning fossil fuels is conclusive evidence that global temperatures are rising (slightly) So we need to move away from using fossil fuels, or they will be banned ? We could say that these tiny temperature rises make bad weather more prevalent, but does it ? We could say that western governments dont like private firearms ownership, so they will seek to remove those rights over the course of time, but I digress. No one doubts lead is a toxic to life element, yet there is very little evidence that it causes detrimental effects in normal usage, otherwise every single lead risk would have to be removed from the environment. Lead exists in nature, its in our soil, our water and air, but the emphasis appears to be on ammunition use, because that kills 2 birds with one stone, it restricts those private firearms users from using the best tool for the job, while saving a few birds that no one actually cares about really. If they had threatened police and military with a lead ban, something easily achievable as they control it , then I would be more amenable to the 'reason' But the main point is this , if you believe that upending shooting sports in this country is a worthwhile price to pay for a few birds poisoned (despite the fact we shoot or wound a massive amount already) or 'a healthy market for game meat' then thats your right to opinion, mine differs somewhat. What I dont agree with , is the minority opinion being forced on the vast majority, which again, you never put to the test.

Agreed, for all those that insist its as good , if not better than lead, have either deluded themselves, or havent actually used it. Ive used it, its not terrible on clays at sensible ranges, but high bird shooting just isnt feasible, as attested to in the article.

I think youve hit the nail on the head, I fully agree we need a united front, but united in regards to what ? How did BASC et al decide what the 'united front' wanted, did they do surveys, and the majority wanted to phase out lead ? Did they do ANY research on what the take up on a possible 'voluntary' transition would be ? No , THEY decided whats best for us (or them) and moved forward relentless, and any dissent is classed as a 'vocal minority' How do they know ? The take up on steel shot for game is minimal, theres the answer to how united we are, and thats no doing of mine , or 'the handful' Personally I think it needs discussing, without the name calling and accusations of being on the side of the antis. The shooting orgs who we trust to look after our interests, have time and again bottled it in the face of new encroaching legislation, what exactly is the point of them ? In the lead debacle, they played their hand too soon, they should have waited till the HSE fielded the consultation, THEN asked the membership to move away from lead, and more importantly WHY this was important. Instead we have mixed messages about birds ingesting shot , or to create a market for lead free game meat. Neither of which lack any weight with the majority of shooters. Think about it , a person who only ever shoots clays, never eats game, or cares too much about the odd wildfowl who dies of lead poisoning before someone shoots it, is now going to have the extra expense and aggro of the impending ban.

Why propose something that was voluntary in the first place ?

With a body like mine , MEAT is the only option

Were not told anything, until theyve decided its going to happen ? At least the HSE put out a couple of consultations first, then it will be voted on through parliament. BASC calls itself a democratic organisation, when was the last time it put a vote on direction to its members about anything ? Absolutely. Ready for the ban they tell us they didnt see coming ? They tell us (now) that its voluntary, use lead , or not, until you cant, its a conflicting message. I would much rather the orgs said, 'Look , leads going to get banned in the next 5 years, we know this from our contacts in HMG , so people, get yourselves into non toxic sooner rather than later, its up to you' Rather than 'BASC is opposed to any further restrictions on lead ammo' You mentioned it ! Like I said , anyone who fought the pistol ban would have been labelled with the same sort of mindset of the perpetrator of Dunblane, so 'Im alright Jack' doesnt really come into it. The only reason I mentioned what I do , was in response to some vitriolic comments about me being anti shooting, otherwise I wouldnt have mentioned it. Im sure there are plenty of others who just quietly do their thing without needing any recognition for it.

So you are saying that only female shooters with high blood levels can be beautiful and healthy, thats very sexist, AND youre assuming their gender , which is transphobic/genderphobic (new word I invented) Ill have you know that I eat a hearty breakfast of lead shot meat EVERY morning, and Im beautiful and healthy, and very very clever. This is my attempt at humour BTW.

Its not a vocal minority, BASC just want you to believe that, I would contest that the large majority of shooters would just like to carry on using the ammunition they choose to. Have BASC screwed us over ? No, but the simple fact they didnt consult at least their own membership first before announcing the transition, should tell you all you need to know about what the results of any vote WOULD have been. That simply isnt true is it ? Maybe one person mentioned it , but the context is completely different. Well BASC would tell you different , they regularly release a can of whoop *** on government bodies , FORCING them into U turns and such. At least thats what they tell you. That aside , if government doesnt pay any attention to shooting orgs, then what was the point of the voluntary transition anyway, if it was always going to be forced on us legally. Ive asked Conor many times if they knew it was coming , he always said BASC had no idea ? Do you seriously believe ANY united front would have stopped the pistol ban ? The weight of public opinion after Dunblane was solidly behind it, but this time , banning lead shot for (for starters) is different , the public have little to no knowledge of it , and couldnt care less either way. Telling the non shooting average consumer that lead shot meat is going to kill them, isnt going to make them eat more is it ? Telling them it WASNT shot with lead is just going to raise an eyebrow and ask , 'What was it shot with then ?'

It does, but it caused many to give up shooting altogether, or change the way they shoot. Heres a couple of perspectives. https://www.scribehound.com/cartridges/s/non-toxic-shotgun-cartridges/living-with-steel-in-denmark https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/how-have-other-countries-coped-with-the-lead-shot-ban-111374/ Its interesting to note that, once a lead ban for game shooting comes in , there invariably follows a ban on ALL lead shot (and often bullets) for target disciplines also. You may think this is inevitable, but the evidence for the bans (wild bird poisoning) can be controversial , and even 30 years on in Denmark , birds are allegedly still being poisoned by lead shot ? Ban the ammunition for starters, if that doesnt work, ban the gun... 'Tighten a dogs chain a link at a time, will it notice when it eventually cant move ?'

Arent they just , Ive had my SWAT for 8 years now , still brings a smile to my face when I shoot it

Final price reduction £600 ono

No 'they' dont. No one doubts there are predators. They need controlling. The streets are full of them Thats because they dont shoot ! Ask a general member of the public whether shooting live quarry is OK , most will tell you its cruel, the reserve of toffs in tweed, they dont understand its accessibility. I spend a lot of time getting ordinary folk into shooting sports, the usual exclamation is that they didnt realise how cheap it was. Thats why anything that makes shooting more expensive is a bad thing, the pool of people who can afford it grows smaller. Yes you are. Or more accurately, what research benefits your own interests ? They HADto change ammunition, or they would be breaking the law. Did they accept it as necessary? No, many still moan about it to this day. At least no fowl die of ingesting lead shot lately do they ? Oh, I thought it was voluntary ?

Not only that , but some datasets that they used, go back to the 70s , long before the lead ban on waterfowl. Also by their own admission, newer datasets, post ban , are tainted by their own conclusion that some lead shot could remain a hazard for 10-100 years. What does this mean in practice ? That even if lead shot for live quarry voluntary 'transition' or ban came about tomorrow, they would still be able to produce 'evidence' that birds were still being poisoned by lead (whether they are or not) leading to further criticism and restrictions. The likes of pacman/WJ ect , arent interested in lead poisonings, their primary target is ALL hunting sports, lead is just a useful tool to make that aim a reality. You only need to look at the fowlers, who are constantly targeted, decades later, because a tiny proportion of them still use lead (allegedly)

Its all good , the GWCT scientists have used 'estimates' and computer modelling to conclusively state that 'some' birds are affected by lead ingestion, and 'perhaps' some even die from it. To back this up , they have used studies from RSPB funded scientists , and the famous Californian condor study, that has has cost $45 million so far , and needs a further $5 million a year to keep 150 birds in the wild. Theyve banned lead use in their hunting grounds years ago, and the birds still lose at least 10 % of their numbers each year , because theyre starving ! So they breed them in zoos and keep reintroducing them, the funniest bit is that they have requested hunters to go out there and shoot more animals so the condors can feed on them , using copper of course....