Rewulf

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....

I think youre being very harsh on Conor here, hes not been THAT bad The original question was WHY didnt BASC give their membership a vote ? This is a straight forward question, and please dont refer me to a link or BASC page, I want YOUR opinion, as you have stated you are 'just another member' on here.

Are you stating for the record , that you never said this ?

All you have ever said was 'BASC doesn't work like that' And that Conor, isn't an answer.

As has been pointed out , and totally ignored by your good self, the 4 years of consultation (which hasnt at all been any form of consultation) came after you announced the transition. So , why you keep repeating this ad nauseum is a bit strange. Its like having a Brexit referendum 4 years after we leave the EU, except in that case we had to do it the other way round Why didnt you at least give BASC membership a vote on this direction, or do you still believe the majority would have voted to bin lead shot ? Because if you do , Ive some magic beans to sell.....

Sorry Conor , I don't report to BASC, that's your job. Tel them how great you are doing at creating support within the shooting community, I wouldn't use this as your evidence though if I were you.

You're scaring me now Conor, please don't turn up with your attack partridges and boil my bunny

Experience eh ?😉 Newspaper ? Relevance ? The daily sport if you must know 😍 Also my inside leg measurement 32 inch , and I weigh 13 stone, dark hair, dark eyes and devilish smile, anything else you need to know ? That's right Conor , you're being stalked 😃 all of 2 visits , trying to find out your job description at BASC , because you flatly refuse to answer that STRAIGHTFORWARD question. Yes I completed the pointless survey , with its weird multiple choice questions on what type of shooting I did, and did nothing whatsoever to give a voice to the disenfranchised. I'm beginning to think you like asking questions, rather than answering them. There's no comments on it Conor because no one can be bothered to listen to it ! And no , I won't be starting any negativity on it , because that's not what I'm about, I ask questions on what I consider relevant topics, you duck and dive and try your best not to answer them , then you start the 'anti' spiel and insults to get the thread locked.

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?