Konor

I’m very much aware of the threat that exists now in 2024 to the continuation of our sport . Giving ground to those who oppose us and defaulting immediately to concession is not a strong position to put yourself in. I know that personally from experience negotiating wildfowling conditions on one of the largest LNRs in the U.K.

Not a point of view I’ve expressed and not relevant to the points I have made So an assumption based on a generalisation Are you prepared to be restricted in your sport on the basis of a precautionary principle that is open to being politically driven But you are making the assumption by generalising that those outspoken against BASC’s stance are of an age to have been campaigning against the handgun ban. Are you quite willing to accept every change against your best interests.

Is it seriously your belief that unless people spend time writing on the forum about what they do in their free time to support shooting then it is not happening. There’s a generation that are not obsessed with discussing their lives with strangers on forums and they are usually to busy doing stuff rather than trying to create an online persona

That handful are representative of a far greater number of PW members as witnessed by the lack of support you gather and quite frankly the quality of posts that do so. Sweeping generalisations as witnessed in udderlyoffroad’s post interlock perfectly with selective answering of questions. Of course the PCC elections is a major issue it’s politics and politics is considered by yourself to be your strong point. Well we all have strong views on politics and politicians and I’m sure an Irishman will appreciate that more than most. Whatever

There’s an even smaller minority to the one you suggest ( and incidentally there is little opposition to the points made on this and other threads to back up your minority assertion)who make sweeping generalisations with no evidence to back them up. How do you know how much effort and work people that have expressed their opinion on this thread contribute to the future of our sport perhaps some of them do a significant amount more than yourself. Any data to back that assertion or just a baseless assumption to strengthen your case It was a decision made that should have involved prior consultation with its membership. “People” are moving on. They are facing the present likelihood of total lead ban and on the basis of there being no scientific evidence to support such a ban are voicing an opinion against it. Not a point I can remember raising ,in your opinion is that a widely held view by all those who are in disagreement with the way BASC is handling the lead shot issue and it’s toxicity stance while opting to insist that a voluntary move away from lead is sustainable. I’m alright for ties I’d prefer a more realistic approach on lead shot use though rather than see a blanket ban. Is that the basis for your insistence that we follow BASC et al’s lead on this issue. Despite our misgivings ? That we should sheepishly follow in the interests of a united front that we don’t support ? Sorry but I wont be going down that road. I think you’ll find that by far the majority of those you are criticising are not saying there’s no future for shooting they are saying that shooting is yet again facing further restrictions and there has been no scientific data to justify those restrictions. As a consequence they are choosing to disagree with an emotive laden case put forward by BASC that the toxicity of lead shot in an inland environment is so great that it’s use should be halted all while having no evidence that that is occurring. That is a big difference from your black and white over generalised interpretation. Your disagreement seems to lie to a great extent on the older generation’s views on the thread and I wonder if that is the root of your problem.

👍 Two failed comics

Those estimates and modelling however should be seen in context/ proportion and not used to justify the tabloid statements that you have been responsible for to make a point. “Minefields of lead for those poor wee partridges to eat then die” if memory serves me . Comments like that are not justifiable from the scientific data you had available and play into the hands of those intent on the destruction of fieldsports. As a result they threaten the future of fieldsports for the next generation. I don’t share your optimism regarding the altruism of scientists or that they are free from bias. Placing your faith in the belief that scientific research is beyond questioning as it searches for the “truth” is a bit too trusting. It can be just as prone to manipulation and political pressure in order to support an agenda. I think the average scientist would concede that is true. The nature of the path that fieldsports take is governed by politics ,making the wrong political decision can have far reaching consequences. It’s imperative that BASC et al make their decisions based on scientific fact and not be open to accusations of political expediency. No Science No Change ,BASC got it right the first time the only thing that has changed is the politics surrounding the woke green activist culture and the availability of the monster that social media has become and of course the willingness of our organisations to represent the views of their members and not to dictate policy. The last point may explain the fall in grace of our shooting organisations in the eyes of the average fieldsports enthusiast. It may all be explained away by claims of not appreciating the bigger picture but that is asking that you place your trust in organisations that unfailingly are open to bias and continual political pressure whereas the average fieldsports enthusiast’s only concern is the protection of his sport. Readers of this thread and others will be aware of the continual attempted portrayal of any opposition to policy as a small number of unrepresentative troublemakers , belligerent BASC bashers and trolls rather than honest fieldsports enthusiasts holding BASC et al to account for their questionable decisions, their independence allows them a clearer perspective and the ability to express that unhindered. Be wary who you place your trust in and have confidence in your own judgement rather than over rely on others doing your thinking for you.

It is now that I oil finished it it was very plain before that. The newer stock is straighter grained and in the flesh looks a good bit better. Below is a picture of the game stock before I oil finished it. Quite a difference.

Good result and a good memory for Stuart to log away. You’ll be pleased he managed a fish on his first outing, early success is a great help to encourage going out again. Well done 👍

I agree with you regarding the interpretation of the statistics and feel that, as is widely acknowledged , statistics can be manipulated to promote a pre determined conclusion. I’m just not on board overall with the evidence that claims to support the justification for the extent of the proposed changes . I fear the far reaching consequences that those changes will bring about I acknowledge to a younger generation of shooters starting out those fears may not be so great.

I concur with that Rewulf. Once one objective is reached then it’s on to the next. It’s a fight that I’m sure many activists would state is only over when sporting shooting ceases to exist. If that were to happen another goal will be set. Any concessions play into their hands and should be minimised as a matter of course. Hopefully they will be tied up with obstacles that can be put in their path to restrict them but that is more easily achieved with the full support of our national organisations. Anti fieldsports activism is a hobby, more than a hobby to many. People don’t want to give up their hobbies. It’s like Hunt sabs hunting hunts ,great fun for the weekend. Add in a shovel full of self righteousness and you’re away.

That you Rewulf the reliance on probable , estimates and difficult to quantify sums up the flimsy nature of this “evidence”and calls into doubt the reliance of classifying it as conclusive . In fact it could be considered insulting to present it as such. Just when I thought we were moving forward I’m forced to admit that my initial conclusion that there is no evidence quantifiable or otherwise and that these changes and proposed changes are politically driven may have been correct from the start. Bureaucrats require bureaucracy and all the time and money required to produce it its little surprise that there should be such a move to have it increased. Perhaps there should be a move to decrease that bureaucracy where there is no scientific evidence to substantiate it before we are overrun with restrictions that achieve little other than providing a career for those who would seek to overwhelm us with it.

In summation I don’t think my questions have been answered 1 The data provided was reliant on wildfowl and wetlands and GWCT seemed to confirm that they had no data relevant to inland habitat. 2. While I am aware that there are a growing number of products on the market to increase the feasibility of a voluntary move away from lead shoots are not moving away from the use of lead shot in any appreciable way (93% estimated non compliance) and you failed to answer why the voluntary move etc should continue to be permitted when you appear to have made such a strong case for the toxicity of lead in an inland non wetland environment. 3. Hopefully common sense will prevail where science has failed and we will have a more proportionate response to the perceived problem of lead shot deposition inland

I remember BASC David posting. It was my attempt at humour which I should have followed up with an emoji to indicate. On reflection I hope the poster involved ,Scolopax I think ,was not not offended by my remarks.

The question should then have been proposed restrictions. I acknowledge the potential of birds within a wetland environment having the potential to be poisoned by lead shot especially in locations such as flight ponds which are heavily shot over. I am not convinced that lead shot is a problem on non wetland areas and have seen no figures to convince me that it is. If BASC et al are convinced that lead shot use is a significant threat to wildlife inland then I propose that threat should be greatest on ground that is heavily shot over. The ground most likely for this to be the case is commercial shoots and I am sure there are bag records and rearing statistics that would confirm this. I think that if your assertion is that lead deposition is creating a significant impact on inland habitat then all commercial shoots as described should cease to have the use of lead shot as an option. GWCT should then study whether this cessation of lead shot use has resulted in any measurable benefit and whether that benefit justifies the restrictions. That there seems to be no base line figures to allow this to be carried out is a problem that may be resolved by not restricting some commercial shoots and carrying out a comparison to illustrate any differences resulting from use/non use of lead shot. Perhaps this should have been carried out 4 years ago even if it meant the organisations footing the bill for steel cartridges as an incentive it may have been worth the investment if meaningful data could have been obtained.