Rewulf

Oh , I've got to answer the question , despite how daft it is 😂 Just the one Conor. What leads you to think otherwise ? Another daft question, why is that relevant, or of any issue ? The fact I quoted directly from it on the last thread should give you the answer.

Oh dear , do you suspect its not only just a 'handful' it's just me myself and I questioning BASC 🤣 Don't be ridiculous, where was the vote on the transition ? Where was the vote on dropping legal cover ect ect It's not a democracy , it bears no resemblance. Conor , this is old ground, you can't argue against a ban on something you have continually stated is TOXIC , harmful to humans who eat lead shot meat , poisons wild birds before they can be shot, and is detrimental to the environment in general. This. Is where we disagree.

Got ya, if you dont listen to BASC updates or podcasts (which I do) youre an anti , glad you cleared that up for us (handful) You get a regular beating on the SD , probably a worse crowd than on PW TBH 😄 No doubt you wont recall that though ? Dont be so hard on yourself.

Seriously , a handful ? There are far more people on here , and on other forums , criticising BASCs transition, than there are supporting it, but you at BASC live in this bubble where EVERYONES on board with it Why dont you do a membership poll at BASC , I dare you. Trying to compare the mindset of antis , with dedicated shooters and field sports enthusiasts is pretty laughable, as are your attempts to justify BASCs position. You arent trying to save shooting, youre trying to preserve BASC , badly. You arent the voice of shooting , because you dont listen to what your members, or anyone else who shoots, wants, which is for BASC to fight against the encroaching restrictions. Not once have you acknowledged there may be a problem with BASC s strategy in this, when its clear you can blow holes in the argument.

I notice you didnt mention your membership, or shooters across the board... Ah , I see where youre going here, if you dont support BASCs 'transition' that they just decided on without consultation , you are antis , the 'enemy' If youre not with us , youre against us mentality ? Sound strategy from BASC , alienate the vast majority of the UK shooters who want to continue using lead

The 'right thing' by who ? The birds, or your members, who pay your wages ? Or people who shoot in general, who WILL be affected by this ridiculous farce ? And no Conor , its not been a success, how you could make that statement is beyond belief. As long as you only use lead shot at clay grounds, because no one would ever dream of using cheap clay cartridges to shoot live quarry Oh and BASC say itll be fine, the HSE wont ban clay loads, as long as the ground pick up all the spent lead shot afterwards... Give me strength 😆

I dont support the 'voluntary' transition , because it wont be voluntary for long, plus the point of it, as you keep reminding us, is for the 'benefit of the birds' Some of these birds have been bred to be shot, some may even end up on the table, and while you could never put a figure on how many are poisoned , you could put a rough figure on how many are laid down for game shoots of all sizes. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-021-01508-z#:~:text=By sharing the mean estimate,5.6–12.5 million) and 2.6 Larger shoots From the SSBS2017 classification of shoot sizes and based on APHAPR2020 release data, 313 large shoots make up only < 9% of UK shoots, yet they appear to release 64% of the birds. In the GOPSOC 2017, it is reported of the distribution of their data that “just over 7% of shoots accounted for half of the total number of birds put down and shot”. How can you plead for the lives of a fraction of a percentage point , while encouraging the 'healthy market for game meat' that BASC has invested time, a considerable amount of members money, and the future of shooting with lead on ? Its blatant hypocrisy, and while I dont criticise others for whatever they want to do with their guns and time, the general public will, and does. The idea that some birds are harmed by ingesting lead shot = BAD , but shooting them for sport/food = GOOD ,wont make sense to most people who dont shoot, and we live in a world these days where people get offended for the most simplistic reasons... As Ive said, Packham et all , have these people as a captive audience, they can out finance us easily, they have the numbers, we cannot win in the long run. But what we dont need is BASC ect holding aloft the 'Peace in our time' note and hoping appeasement will win the day. We need to make a stand, this is why I asked about the fighting fund in another thread, and whether BASC was going to use it to fight , or just roll over. Which if Im not mistaken, it has been doing since 2020.

I have some spaghetti to knit, it will be a far better use of my time Heres another interesting study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935116309458 A multiple linear regression analysis (containing the covariates sex, age, hunting, wine drinking, game meat consumption, tobacco smoking, shooting range, and occupational exposure) found an association with hunting (Pb-blood almost double in hunters) and wine drinking (40% higher in drinkers) but not with consumption of game meat or other parameters. Whether the higher Pb-blood level was due to inhalation of lead fumes while shooting with lead ammunition, to handling lead ammunition or both could not be ascertained. I dont think anyone doubts that there a few birds that suffer death or ill health due to lead shot ingestion, although we cant put a number on it, or any real context, as no one can find these birds to examine them or decide what actually killed them. Like I said, why dont we do a study on some chicks, in a controlled environment , with some lead 'minefields' around them ? But even so , the numbers , whatever they are, pale into insignificance when other deadly factors are introduced, fox, raptor, badger and domestic cat predation, must account for 100s of millions of wild birds every year. Wind farms and game hunting, millions more... Its a peculiar argument to seek to control something, that perhaps accounts for what could be a few thousand lead poisonings , against a backdrop of game shooting where countless birds are shot , the justification of which is 'We are going to eat them all' I dont believe it , the antis dont believe it, the general public wont believe, and most of all Conor , you dont believe it either.

A chick eats a pellet, it is killed by a predator shortly afterwards, and Conor would apparently attribute the death to sub-lethal effects of lead poisoning. No consideration of whether predation occurred two minutes, or two days, or two weeks after the pellet was eaten. Hmm. ANY chick that eats a lead pellet will die....... Why dont we get some evidence for this outlandish claim ? It shouldnt be hard to 'prove' that this is so , should it ....? And also , I keep hearing this 'cumulative' effect of lead , whilst not doubting that lead can stay in the body for decades perhaps, what about the vegetables we eat, and the water we drink, the air we breathe , all containing minute quantities of lead, and accepted as 'safe' but then we are told there is no safe level of lead ? An interesting thing I read the other day was accepted blood levels of lead within the EU. Blood lead levels should not exceed 5 ug/dl ( 5 micrograms per decilitre) in children, but adults do not exhibit symptoms under 50 ug/dl, a high level is considered to be 60+ ug/dl. The children at the centre of the Flint MH 'poisoning' scandal tested +/- 1 over or under the 5 ug/dl . Basically, even though the people of Flint consumed water and vegetables with a higher concentration of lead than other areas , their blood lead levels were still not excessively high. This study on the consumption of game meat also shows that there is little difference between those who eat it regularly, and those who dont eat it at all. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780142/

I thought there was no safe threshold ?

Using the advice of people like you, experts in their field ? What exactly is your job at BASC if you dont mind me asking ?

I have a slightly different take on it. The 'assault' whatever it was, being dealt with by a caution, COULD have been a minor obstacle , depending on the force area , and nature. But 'a history of depression' would have alarm bells going off in the head of the FLM when coming to the final decision, when combining the 2 together , and the inherent mindset of SOME force areas to not take any risks in issuing firearms certs..... My opinion of the possibility of the OP being granted an SGC is very low.

Why did you state that you wanted members to be respectful (to you) yet it's proven time and time again that YOU are not?

🤣😂 Don't you believe me (again) Conor ? Do you think I'd just make it up? https://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/433342-do-you-trust-basc/page/13/#comments I would have thought you wouldnt want to revisit that highly embarrassing thread.

Yes, it's the one entitled 'Do you trust BASC ' The one where you flatly refused to answer any questions. It should be compulsory reading at Marford Mill.

And next time you are asked a straightforward question, perhaps you might consider answering it, without resorting to evasion and err, disrespectful comments , while playing victim to the gallery ?

I would imagine that it depends on how naive and fragile you were feeling , and whether you really did need some big boy pants ? Generally speaking , we are big strong men, who go out into the wild and shoot things with guns, so no , I wouldn't think it disrespectful. You are of course entitled to your own views , it doesn't necessarily mean we have to adhere to them.

'unfortunately that is the intention of some (not all) of the ex-BASC members with various real or perceived axes to grind from the past posting in this thread. It is divisive and hateful stuff and very wrong in my book at the very time when we all need to get behind all the shooting organisations. However, there are some BASC members posting in this thread challenging the antis (and let's be clear - some of the trolls may shoot but they are antis nonetheless in what they are doing) ' Yet you thought this was OK? And all because I questioned the BASC stance on lead. Oh and asked about the fighting fund, which appeared to be a VERY touchy subject 😄 I also posted this , which you never countered or commented on, but in my mind was an extraordinary confliction on what BASC said then , and what they are saying now. This press release from last year (2022) demonstrates the wishful thinking that BASC has been using since it announced its 'phase out' https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-uk-reach-lead-ammunition-consultation/ This section is the killer blow. 'There is clear evidence of risk of primary poisoning of birds from lead shot and of the human health risk from exposure to lead in game meat. Having assessed the evidence, we concluded that restrictions on the sale and use of both lead shot and expanding lead rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting would be effective at eliminating those proven risks.' They have agreed 'lead is bad' and the die is cast , yet seem to think that 'some' lead can still be used ? 'To support our position, we have submitted a series of technical reports. These demonstrate the need for raising the threshold of ‘small calibres’ within the UK REACH dossier to include any calibre below 6.5mm. This would provide a longer transition period for calibres such as .243. ' 'We maintain our view that airgun ammunition should not be restricted as the risk to human health can be managed through existing sector guidance on game meat handling. We have also prepared a technical report demonstrating the inherent unsuitability of existing lead-free airgun ammunition for live quarry shooting.' Apparently clay pigeon shooters should be OK with lead though !! Clay pigeon and target shooting 'The evidence presented by the HSE on secondary exposure to birds, plus lead exposure pathways to livestock and other animals, soil, soil organisms, plants, and surface waters, is not conclusive.' Really ? I thought it was ? 'BASC believes that lead shot could continue to be used for clay pigeon / target shooting at venues where risks of primary exposure to birds is managed. We also advocate that lead rifle ammunition (non-expanding) can continue to be used on ranges. We believe that current legal and regulatory frameworks are effective and further regulation risks the unnecessary ‘gold plating’ of environmental directives.' Confused? Yeah me too . How do you 'manage' lead shot fallout on clay grounds ?

Do you think its disrespectful to to call a fellow member an 'anti shooting troll, who spreads disinformation' A yes or no answer would be fine 😄

I agree that generally they are not the same people, the average anti likely never considered that lead shot would poison a bird, they were more concerned with the vast numbers of deaths occurring during them getting shot , by anything ! Yet now we have given them another axe to throw at us, not only are we shooting 'innocent animals' we are poisoning them too, and if we dont give lead up willingly, we are doing it as 'deliberately' as shooting them. The issue I have is that before the voluntary transition, this probably never occurred to them.... The handful of academics and naturalists that noticed the tiny possibility of secondary lead poisoning were also a small voice, but by getting behind them and AGREEING with them , you have also given them ammunition, and a bigger voice. Can you not see the problem ? Exactly.

Eating meat , period, is a key argument from those that seek to ban live quarry shooting, and I really dont think they care what its shot with. The same people will use the same argument against steel shot getting stuck in the gizzards of birds eventually.... Agreeing with the antis on ANYTHING is not a sound strategy, because they will never agree with us that shooting is 'sustainable' or humane. We are evil murderers according to them, and it doesnt matter whether we use lead, steel, copper, or just throw rocks at animals.

Price reduction £700 ono

You said Blair was a great bloke too though. We are not the same

I dont think you get it , labour IS the hard left, red flag waving, quasi communist entity its always been , just that sometimes it wears tory clothes so it can get a stint in power, before eventually getting put back in its box again, after its messed up the economy, and society. No doubt the first order of the day will be to give the vote to 16 year old woke conditioned kids , and any asylum seeker with right to remain, thus ensuring they can stay in power as long as possible ? They are already talking to the EU , trying to set up a working group.... The net result will not be the 'new' tories you think itll be, that come back to try and rectify the mess, it will be the hard right we are all taught to fear. The same play will happen across Europe, as those disenfranchised seek recourse. They say you dont get the government you vote for, you get the government you deserve, so get ready to reap the whirlwind