Konor

It wouldn’t surprise me given the nature of the replies to the concerns raised that it is less a reflection of BASC’s position but more a reflection of personal opinion from a frustrated employee in need of support. Perhaps a toxic environment within BASC and a lack of strong leadership has led to the confusing and contradictory stances taken by staff. A straightforward defence of any threat to shooters activities and their ability to carry out those activities would be welcome rather than trying to appease our opponents in what seems to be an effort to ingratiate themselves either with the government or those that oppose our sport.. Strong leadership in defence of our sport from BASC would surely result in much more support than is witnessed on both this and the Stalking Directory forums. The seeming lack of willingness to oppose restrictions to what for many is a way of life rather than a hobby is disappointing and is the source of the perception that we are being let down. That we should be represented by individuals who rather than strive to lead are content to spectate as we face possibly the largest threat to our sport is not an illusion or a product of paranoia . The numerous argumentative threads that involve BASC’s defence of our sport are a product of genuine concern that “the voice of shooting” is not listening.

I fail to see any evidence of paranoia however when supposed representatives of BASC choose to post opinions that contradict official BASC policy ,as explained in its Mission statement ,it’s time to question their motives and more importantly have those responsible explain that contradiction without them resorting to changing the subject or throwing baseless accusations around. From your posts it seems your main interest is the protection of commercial shooting, the same commercial shooting that by its excesses fuels much of the opposition to the sport. It would be refreshing if your posts reflected more support for the more sustainable branches of our sport that portray shooting in a much better light. The more sustainable branches of our sport are more vulnerable to restrictions aimed at reducing shooter numbers. After all there will always be monied guns to support the commercial big bag shoots but young lads and lassies coming into rough shooting are more vulnerable. Having to pay increased fees for certificates, providing cabinets for security ,paying increased costs for ammunition due to restrictions on which ammunition is considered suitable to have our sport continue all before sourcing affordable shooting opportunities impacts disproportionately on young shooters robbing them of the opportunity to make memories that my generation took for granted. It should be remembered that not all youngsters have middle classed parents willing to subsidise their sport. You may see your paranoia accusations as justifiable ,I just see it as a weak excuse to avoid giving a straight answer to a straight question, yet again.

Rather than being offended by your gauche remarks. I’m quite happy that you choose to demonstrate your character. Perhaps you could concentrate on answering points raised on the forum regarding your failure to act in the best interests of shooters that you claim to be the voice of rather than opting instead to deflect from your lack of credibility by insulting fellow forum members.

I find it disturbing that you choose to mention a PW members Twitter account activity which has no relevance to the NCA thread being discussed

Happy to share ,reluctant to question. It appears from your comments that you are more comfortable having others take the lead in opposition. Leading by example and questioning the appropriateness of highlighting what seems to be scaremongering regarding the acquisition of firearms by criminals when no statistics are offered to substantiate the claim might prove a more successful tactic in acting in the best interests of shooters. It would be better if our representatives showed more willingness to question the motives of others rather than assume that threats to our sport has its roots in paranoia . If a united front was shown for example in opposing further restrictions on lead shot use, perhaps in turn you would see for example an increase in support for any restrictions proposed in driven grouse shooting. One can hardly complain about the lack of support for driven grouse shooting when you yourself have shown no support for the continuation of the use of lead shot inland. We must unite together against all opposition or we are destined to be weakened by only supporting the interests of our own branch of the sport.

A reported surge in firearm certificate fraud accepted as such but no figures to put into perspective the threat or specific cases to show the nature of the frauds committed.A call to discontinue the use of lead shot with highly emotive content designed to sway opinion but with no figures to show the extent of any detriment caused by lead shot inland away from wetlands to support such a move. There’s a common thread here that demonstrates an inability/reluctance by representatives of BASC to act in the best interests of shooters in contravention of the declared aims of BASC. Now that Wild Justice have had their lawyers contact the Secretary of State to have the findings of the HSE report acted upon ASAP the folly of having BASC’s representative working on their behalf by highlighting their support for further restrictions on the use of lead shot demonstrates is crystal clear. Instead of ranting about perceived conspiracy theories would time not be better spent fighting the threats to our sport after all its what BASC representatives are being paid to do. Is there a conflict of interest being shown here between privately held views and BASC policy ?

I don’t personally find it hard to justify the use of lead shot as you say it’s probably near the peak of its development and as such gives a wide range of options for effective use in a variety of situations with a variety of guns.Until evidence is forthcoming on any detrimental effect of using it I will continue with a clear conscience. I think it’s important not to signal acceptance of legislation that you consider unjustified in case it is used as an argument that portrays that even shooters agree that there should be a lead ban ,even they think its use is unjustifiable. Own goals like that only embolden our opponents and do little to contribute to the defence of our sport. As has probably been stated already appeasement won’t decrease the threat to our sport those against shooting just move on to the next attack.

The absence of any measurable detriment proves that there is no impact ie as I have stated ad nauseum there is no scientific evidence that quantifies the negative effect of lead shot inland on bird species. Don’t you think if there was any proven quantifiable detrimental effect the argument would hinge around the extent of that detriment and whether it justified a ban ?

That reply makes no sense at all ,so you would accept any legislative change despite there being no actual evidence to support that change.

Direct quote above ,my response why should taking a stance opposing further lead restrictions cost any more money. Does that clarify ? i think that you are forgetting that BASC has already stated that it is against any further restrictions on lead shot inland . Meanwhile Conor has in the past gone to great lengths to highlight the perceived threat to grey partridges wading through “ minefields of lead” and you are happy to give up using lead shot despite there being no scientific data to show any detrimental effect. This conclusion was reached years ago after the Lead ammunition Group report and both BASC and the government found no case had been made for further restrictions. Fast forward to now and despite there being no new evidence we are being asked to accept that there is a cast iron case for not only banning lead shot for inland sport shooting but also clay pigeon shooting and .243 and above deer stalking. You seem more than happy to accept this ,I am not. As an aside if I may say it is yourself that is out of alignment with BASC stance, as far as I am aware they still oppose further restrictions on lead shot use but how that ties in with BASC’s representatives views is a mystery. Will you therefore be supporting BASC in that opposition ? As yet there is no proposed legislation so prior to any legislation being passed there is ample opportunity to highlight the lack of substance in the calls for a ban which has no scientific basis.

It’s good to know that there are steel loads that will bring birds to bag at the ranges that most game is shot over to be fit for the pot should we have to go down that road however the presence of those steel loads is no good reason to support a ban on the use of lead shot inland if there is no scientific evidence to show that lead shot is measurably detrimental.

You’ve given up the fight so for you there’s no fight fair or otherwise. But if there has to be change then that change should be brought about by strong scientific evidence to show its necessity.

Opposing further restrictions needn’t involve a legal battle after further legislation has been passed ,it merely needs a commitment to oppose further restrictions without the scientific evidence that proves the extent of harm caused by lead deposition.

Why should taking a contrary stance “empty the war chest”

Thanks Rewulf