stagboy

This is the second season I've used them, mainly on driven pheasants, in an English side by side. They're great. The wads are made of organic compounds. True, they could take a long time to actually break down, but that's not the key parameter, because they don't release toxins.

They currently offer legal expenses for certificate issues as part of their package. Now, however, it seems they are about to either pull out of the legal expenses element, or only make it available for an extra fee. In other words, they seem to be about to go down the same route as most shooting organisations already have. I expect this is because the cost of the insurance has rocketed.

Correct. I am astonished at the number of people who can't get their heads round this simple concept. A couple of weeks ago the NGO placed a recruitment advert in Shooting Times, trumpeting that they were going to fight a "blanket ban" on lead. A lead-head, known for making bizarre claims about steel, wrote in the next week congratulating the NGO for changing its position! It hasn't. Neither has BASC.

I meant no difference in performance, of course. Which is a major point, I'd have thought. But if petty semantics keep you happy, well, fine. Read the research yet?

Not it's not. Steel is different, yes, but in the correct (larger) size, it gets just about the same results and that's what counts. That's why the hunters in the study couldn't tell the difference between steel and lead. I suggest you read the study. It is very detailed and based on observed data provided by hunters who were actually shooting live quarry. People who keep wittering on about how steel inevitably creates more wounding (a claim disproved in the Texas study) are simply creating soundbites for the antis - as well as being factually wrong, of course. Their claims will come back to haunt them when lead is no longer available for most shotgun shooting; will they then simply give up, or carry on despite having branded themselves as inhumane by virtue of the fact that they use steel?

A few years ago, the biggest field study ever conducted into lead vs steel found what many of us have found out for ourselves ie for most shooters, most of the time, there is no difference. TPWD releases dove lethality study findings (samrayburn.com)

Seems to be some confusion about eco wads and PVA. There are several properly biodegradeable shotcups - including those made by Eley and Bioammo, to name just two, for use with nonlead shot. These wads are made with vegetable material, such as corn starch, and they break down into organic molecules which are harmless to the environment and livestock even if chewed (or even ingested). Naturally, the manufacturers don't want to advertise the precise recipes to their competitors, as opposed to the authorities. Partly because of the commercial incentive created by the announcement of a voluntary shift by all main shooting orgs two years ago, every major cartridge manufacturer has been rushing to get newer and better bio wads into production. If they weren't, we would be completely stuffed by the inevitability of legal restrictions on lead. (Some sort of legal restrictions are coming, whether we like it or not. Sticking our heads in the sand was never a long-term option.) In years to come, one might conclude that it is as well that all the main shooting orgs - supported by GWCT scientists - had the courage to grasp the nettle rather than simply appeasing a minority of shouty old leadheads and keyboard warriors with too much time on their hands, as happened in the past when BASC suffered from a temporary spasm of weak leadership. (Apologies if that sounds offensive to anybody - but that's how many see it!) The time these new biowads take to actually disappear physically varies widely, not least because of local conditions. But then, how long do you think fibre wads take to disappear? I have found mainly intact fibre wads on pasture long after the end of the season. The key point about is that the constituent materials of both fibre wads and the new biodegreable shotcups are natural and, unlike synthetic plastic, and do not release toxins even if chewed by livestock. Furthermore, they breakdown in a reasonable timescale, whereas synthetic plastic takes 450 years! I am surprised at the number of pigeon shooters who still fire single-use plastic wads out over pasture and arable crops; I wonder if the landowner knows? For organised game shooting, most estates banned plastic wads years ago - it's been in the Code of Good Shooting Practice for as long as I can recall. Personally , I think we need to get away from our overweening dependence on lead, because it has become increasingly clear over recent years that lead has no future. Deer stalkers are already ahead of the curve on this. Proper biowads are an important part of securing a future for live quarry shooting with shotguns. Danish hunters - who have used steel for 25 years and wouldn't want to go back to lead - are actually proposing a legal ban on plastic wads because they say there are now some good alternatives that can be used with steel.

Let's face it, lead is going, it's just a matter of when and how fast. Continuing to deny that lead ammunition is a problem is is a futile rearguard action that merely makes us look ridiculous and divided. If we don't switch voluntarily, a legal ban will be imposed on us. In fact, it might be imposed anyway - and we'll have to fight hard for any exemptions for muzzleloaders and small bores. The cartridge manufacturers have already produced some good alternatives for game shooting with various biowads etc, and more are in the pipeline. Whether we will have enough quantity available before a legal ban comes in is another matter. There are global shortages of all types of ammunition and components. As for CF rifles, stalkers are already changing and have plenty of choice, with more coming onstream. (Sadly, I have yet to see a really effective non-lead option for the .22RF. perhaps the advent of the .17 etc has finished it anyway). Every estate I stalk on now insists on non-toxic, as does every state landowner that I know of. It's the shotgunners who are still overly dependant on lead. If we don't get away from our over-reliance on lead, live quarry shooting will follow lead down the plughole. Time is running out. The Danes got rid of lead more than 20 years ago and danish hunters have actually asked for a legal ban on plastic wads. They have a thriving hunting community, with driven shooting, rough shooting, wildfowling and stalking. If they can do it, so can we.

You can have as many policies as you want, but you can't claim on all of them for the same incident. The idea of insurance is that it puts you back to where you would have been before the incident which is the subject of the claim. You are not allowed to make multiple claims for the same incident, ie to profit from it. NGO insurance is what they call "last resort", which means it won't even entertain a claim if you have any other insurance that might. Not sure about Gunplan. I am a member of both NGO and BASC. The latter provides first resort insurance - ie they will handle the claim, and NGO won't get involved. I know this, but I am still happy being an NGO member as well because I want to support them for all sorts of reasons. As for legal cover for certificate issues specifically (as opposed to public liability etc), I personally have never heard of it actually achieving a satisfactory result. Even BASC, with its financial clout, dropped it after just three or four years after trying it out because it simply didn't achieve results that the in-house firearms team couldn't, yet it precluded them getting involved and started costing a fortune in excesses once claims stated being made. All too the insurance company wriggles out, citing one of the many exclusions - and remember, the solicitors are working for the insurance co, not the member. Successful cases may exist, but if so, they must be pretty rare.

This is the same Gamebore Cartridge Company Ltd, company number 01181347, whose "strategic report" filed with its accounts at Companies House for the year ending December 31, 2018, highlights the legislative risks to lead and stated: "Gamebore has been at the forefront for the past 25 years in alternative non-toxic/biodegradeable products, and we remain committed to investing in the future to continue the business success the company has reported. This report was approved by the board of director and signed on 3 September 2019 and signed on behalf of the board by: PD James, Director." Remember, that was for the year ending December 2018. The strategic report in Gamebore's most recently filed accounts, for 2019 (signed off on 21 September 2020) repeats much the same forward-looking sentiments about the company's investment in non-toxic alternatives, and burbles about the new Bio Wad and Quad Seal components. (Oh - and the profit before tax was £2.3 million, slightly higher than the year before.)

"I thought we had to have eco wads as well as non lead shot ." "The eley ones that were introduced last year don't work .as the wad breaks down inside the unfired cartridge within 3 months of manufacture ." I have been using Eley pro ecowads (with steel shot) for about 18 months. No probs whatsoever. Just opened some of my original batch to have a look - perfect.

You could try having an exploratory chat with Jon Snowden of Greenlee Deer Management, based near Haltwhistle, Northumberland. Very friendly. Runs all sorts of courses.

The Danish shooters proactively got rid of lead years ago, and have actually lobbied to get rid of plastic wads within the next three years. Thanks heavens the UK shooting orgs collectively took the decision to start removing our own head from the noose a year ago. Everybody could see how the legislation was going to go over the next few years, whether originating in the EU or UK. The direction of travel was clear. Just imagine the panic we'd be in right now if UK shooters hadn't already started a voluntary transition, and the manufacturers ditto. We'd have been caught on the hop, as would the cart makers, and we would be seen as desperately trying to defend the indefensible. The antis would have had a field day.

But the majority of the GWCT's support comes from shooters anyway. Well done BASC. Dare we hope other orgs might do the same?

deleted

My son, who lives in Scotland, discovered while digging that the pipe connecting his house water supply to the water main under the street seemed to be made of lead. He emailed a special lead alert number for the water company, who said it was a very serious matter if it was indeed a lead pipe. He got an immediate response and the water company ordered him to use bottled water only. They turned up the next day, established that it was a lead pipe, and left with water samples from an indoor tap. Within three days they had dug up the road and replaced the lead pipe - all at their own expense.

Behind a paywall, but here is a synopsis. It is directed at the new BBC director general, who has recognised that the BBC needs to be more neutral. After accusing the BBC of being "woke" and out of touch, citing recent research, Lord Botham says the the corporation is losing the trust of the countryside in particular Packham as just one example. He says Packham uses his BBC platform (funded by the licence payer), to promote his own views, in contravention of the BBC's rules and the DG's recent stipulations. Some excerpts: He even has his own lobbying company, Wild Justice, which regularly attacks the well-thought-through ways the countryside has been traditionally been managed. His vitriol is extraordinary. He has called those who work on grouse moors "satanic", "evil" and "psychotic", and yet he claims that he "would never voice an anti-shooing agenda". Huis BBC influence allows him to push his extreme anti-countryside agenda, and he has forced gamekeepers and farmers to change how they look after nature. One gentleman told me that Mr Packham "is the greatest threat to song birds and ground nesting birds the UK has ever seen." Mr Packham has more impact on rural policy than any government minister. He is a politician dressed up as a presenter. His power comes not from being elected, but largely from his BBC role. This is wrong and it is costing the BBC its reputation. Without its patronage, he would not have anything like the influence he has today.

Botham in today's Telegraph Demolishes BBC and Packham. Worth a read.

Slightly misleading, because in practice if the TV is in a condition to receive live broadcasts they will use this as evidence for a prosecution. Sadly, over-worked magistrates tend tend to accept such evidence as being compelling. Prosecutors simply say: "If you didn't intend to use the equipment, why was it plugged in to the antenna?" The key bit of the primary legislation (Communications Act 2003) states: (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who— (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence.

Presumably the sporting estate in question is planning to sue the virus.

Spot on.

Unfortunately, the Liddle piece in the SUN was a personal opinion column. So it won't be caught be any complaint about accuracy.

Anybody who persecutes raptors is doing the antis' work for them.

But he can spell and punctuate...

Cracking work, BASC.