Is anybody bothered

[David BASC]

Oh dear, the anti BASC propaganda has caught you out JRDS..

 

1. The CA did not have force themselves onto the lead shot working group, they were invited on.

 

2. BASC is opposed to small barren cages- and have been since 2005. The animal welfare Act of 2006 and the recent code of practice that have seen the light of day do not ban cage rearing! The Code of Practce helps give game farmers good guidance on how they can keep on the right side of the 2006 Act.

 

Although the Game Farmers Association opposed BASC view on the minimum size that a pheasant or partridge should have in a cage or indeed any other laying system, to the best of my knolwedge none of the GFA members use small barren cages..they all use systems, as far as I know, that in terms of size and enrichment for example already meet the standards of the code.

 

Some rather silly propaganda hit the media suggesting BASC were trying to ban partridge boxes, that pheasants could no longer have sex and so on...well honestly what rot! Regardless of your personal view of BASC, just think for a moment, why on earth would BASC do anything that would harm shooting in the UK?

 

By the way, I spoke with one of the three larger users of small cages at a recent show and asked them what they would do, the answer - 'we will buy larger cages'.

 

3. Lets keep an open mind on NTS and lets remember that regardless of our personal views about NTS, the law is the law. Having said that, from a users point of view, I found the early steel shot not too good at all, but the new stuff and the fibre wad stuff seems loads better. Having said that I still have some bismuth left that I bought almost ten years ago...

 

4. The BASC policy on lead shot restrictions has been published for ages, i notice that as recently as Friday evening some who are making noise in the media about their robust defence of lead...don't have a written policy on their web site as far as i could see.

 

Just for the avoidence of doubt: BASC is opposed to any further restrictions on lead shot in the UK.

 

The CA (an indeed NGO) agree though that if there is robust scientific evidence to support restrictions then that is what we must accept - no one is going ot roll over. I can assure Al4x and others that the evidence will not just come from the RSPB! Logically lead is innocent until proven guilty!

 

David

[CharlieT]

It is not a coincidence, the CA had to force themselves on the panel.

 

Which organistaion fought against the rest of the Shooting Community for a ban on nearly all Cage Rearing?

 

Which Organisation is in bed with the RSPB and DEFRA.

 

Which organisation quotes in its latest magazine that people opposed to non lead shot are prejudiced.

 

Which Organisation is most likely to agree to further restrictions after going through the motions of the Panel?

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

 

Whilst I agree with your concerns and totally agree with the debate your antagonistic attitude and approach towards BASC does your organisation, the NGO, of which I am proud to be a member no good whatsoever and could even lose them members.

[JRDS]

Whilst I agree with your concerns and totally agree with the debate your antagonistic attitude and approach towards BASC does your organisation, the NGO, of which I am proud to be a member no good whatsoever and could even lose them members.

 

I am only a member of the NGO, nothing else so my views have nothing to do with theirs in any way.

 

I am not trying to be antagonistic at all but am making people aware of things as I see them, I am only asking people to draw their own conclusions from the facts as I understand them. This is a forum is it not where issues like this can be discussed??

 

I hope 100% that my doubts are wrong believe me and that BASC do not have an unholy alliance with DEFRA and the RSPB and that they will fight tooth and nail to keep lead as we have it now.

 

Time will be the judge no doubt.

[David BASC]

Trust me, BASC will fight for lead as our lead policy says. i am sure the CA , GCWT, and GTA will fight for a common objective - keep lead unless there is scientific proof otherwise.

 

BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead

shot use.

 

Lets stop this inter organisation grumpy arguments- lets all just suport our chosen org (although i think BASC is the best) support / join one of us - and lets all stand together on this (and who knows other) issue.

 

I am very pleased that the NGO have a lead poicy on their web site, much the same as BASC's. but as of yet i cannot find a lead policy of the CA or GCWT or GTA website....

 

Lets agree that regardless of which organisation we choose to be a member of (a bit like which foorball team we choose to support) we have a common objective - keep shooting safe!

 

David

[Christopher Graffius]

Two things I just wanted to put on the record.

 

The CA - contrary to what has been said by one shooting publication - did not "force" themselves onto the Defra lead advisory group. Their presence at the table was suggested by BASC.

 

Participation in the Defra Lead Advisory Group was discussed by ALL live quarry shooting organisations before the creation of the Committee, in response to a letter from Huw Irranca-Davis, the Defra Minister, asking for input. The organisations - which were already all involved in discussing the future of lead ammunition - were unanimous that shooting should be involved in the process and supportive of John Swift as Chairman.

 

All the organisations wished to be on the high level group. It was not possible, without creating an unwieldy committee, for that to happen, but it was made clear that sub-committees would seek to include all points of view. I do not think it would be possible to consider the issue of target shooting without including the target shooting organisations, including CPSA, at that point.

 

Given the above I can't make up my mind whether some of the conspiracy theories aired here and elsewhere are either laughable or sinister. The attitudes of other organisations, their statements or lack of statements, are also worth considering in the light of this.

 

Christopher

[Dr Tom]

Probably a bad idea but can I take a mo to make a couple of longish points that might be relevent after reading all 16 pages of this very interesting forum debate.

I might not cover them all and as I have learned to spend less time on forums, I probably wont reply to responses.

 

PREAMBLE

These are informed but personal opinions. I disagree that a lead shot ban is unlikely, but I agree that the evidence for its effects on human health is currently weak. But that does not mean that a link between lead ammunition and human health does not exist. But there is a great deal of research in the pipeline that when published in peer reviewed journals will increase the evidence in favour of a ban on human health grounds, even if it is technically through the backdoor (via EU legislation). I agree with CG comments on the importance of the UK shooting industry as a vital part of the economy and that this should be taken into account. But as some french and almost all dutch and danish commentators have said, that a lead-ban would affect this is likely to be unfounded as it has not proven to be the case elsewhere.

 

THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF A LEAD SHOT BAN ALLREADY

The most astonishing point of the lead shot ban, which I had further personal experience of at the BASC fowling conference, is how shooters from all backgrounds expect BASC or the "legislators" or commentators to shove a reading list through their pigeon hole on how to catch up with the evidence for the effects of ammunition derived lead in ecosystems. It's not like this happens when a new drug comes into use or a particular toy is deemed unsafe, it just happens. Those who want to know more go and find the information. If YOU are someone who wants to know more about the published evidence on the effects of lead in ecosystems get orf yer lazy back end and get down to the library or internet and conduct some research. You could start with the mailing lists or posting of recommended reading from the BASC research dept which often provides titles if not abstracts of papers which have been published that are relevent to shooting. The abstracts and full contributions of the research presented at the peregrine fund conference are freely available online but dont stop there. The WWT has an online list that lists all of their publications since god knows when that will point you in the direction of relevent papers and off course there are several meta-analyses allready in print which summaraise the effects of ammunition derived lead. Finally all the research on other shot types is happening all the time and is published by peer reviewed journals that cover areas such as human health, wildlife toxicology and environmnetal toxicology.

 

And dont dare anyone respond to this by saying "show me", I and others (including BASC) have on previous forums and on previous articles and on previous reports. If you are on here you have access to the WWW. All the evidence is available via the net.

 

 

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT LEAD IS NOT TOXIC TO WILDLIFE

A few on this forum and on others have asked that BASC or other agencies stand up and defend lead shot. With what? There is nothing to defend it with. Lead is toxic! And while the evidence for direct links between lead and reduced human health are weak and conditional, we have banned other materials on less and been happy with it, especialy medicines for sub-lethal side effects.

 

SO YOU WANT SOME RESEARCH DO YOU, AND YOU EXPECT BASC TO PAY FOR IT

A standard research council 3 year grant that includes basic and applied research has an FEC of about £300,000 + overheads of about 40%. This does not include higher end methodologies of molecular, biochemical or genetic material costs which are usually much higher and could increase the cost of the grant by £200,000 and substantially more. On a typical grant such as this you would expect maybe one FT researcher and some technical support. How many BASC memberships would that take. How relevent to the wider UK public is lead ammunition to suggest that taxpayer foots the bill for research aimed at showing the evidence for lead toxity issues in UK wildlife when 1, they have allready been addressed albeit with some caveats in the UK and 2, they have allready been addressed globally without caveats. I have thought about this a great deal and I do not think any UK research council would fund such research. If they did they the WWT and collaborators would alllready be applying for it.

 

Would it not be cheaper for any organisation to ask if there is a "suitable" alternative, which there is (notice I said suitable), and say it is not worth the money or effort trying to prove lead is not toxic when the likelihood is that it is toxic. And the bad press that would come from trying to prove lead is safe to use on human and wildlife health grounds would be astounding. I would expect the RSPB and the like to lay it on real thick. And why shouldn't they!

 

Finally on this point. If new research is required. Why should BASC pay for it. Why not the CA, or the NGO, or the SSF?

 

 

OTHER PROBLEMS OF LEAD SHOT POISONING

Work throughout northern and southern Europe (non-US!!!) has shown that birds other than waterfowl are ingesting lead from ammunition. This is not new research. Some of it was reviewed by **** Potts of GCT fame and he concluded that lead shot ingestion by gamebirds was a threat to gamebird health and required further attention. It has been known for decades but as it was birds like doves and pigeons and gamebirds there was little incentive behind it. Yes it is predator poisonings which are driving the current debate. But that is besides the point. Doves and pigeons, partridges and pheasants deliberately target small seeds and insects lying on top of field margins and have been shown to directly ingest spent lead shot. What we do not know is whether this has an effect on them as individuals or as a populations. Some estimates on the effects of direct ingestion on mourning doves in the US has been published and it is thought to be about 15million additional deaths on top of the 20 million killed and eaten by hunters. Mourning doves, like waterfowl, feed gregariously in places with high shooting volume.

 

When caught during moult by a norwegian research group and x-rayed a very large % of waterfowl are shown to have embeded lead shot in their flesh and gut. For some this will be fatal but for most this will result in them having a long-prolonged death. Or more likely to be susectible to predation and parasitism. And of course if it is predation then raptors are more suseptible to lead poisoning that other species. So it is not just lead shot ingestion but the effects it can have on food chains when lead shot gets into animals but does not kill them. THIS HAPPENS A LOT. The incentive goes that we need to reduce the number of birds with embeded shot but if we switch to non-lead shot it is likely that the food-chain effects are likely to be far less. With lead...unaceptable losses...without lead = acceptable losses.

 

We could look at the Human food chain as CG suggested. There are concerns there. Blood tests are inconclusive but suggestive of higher lead concentrations in hunter families. Levels should not affect healthy adults but as there is no safe lead level perhaps we should err on the side of caution.

 

Time and time again there is research on "wild" birds in the US that showed throughout the pre-ban era that hunter shot birds had a higher incidence of "ingested" lead shot in their crops than non-hunter shot birds (only birds that had no holes in their crops could be included in these types of analyses). This is in part because birds shot by hunters were from areas where there was more lead shot in the substrates, being consumed as seeds. But also because the sub-lethal effects of lead poisoning in waterfowl include muscle wastage and poor decision making (hungry birds willing to fly at decoys!). So not only does lead poison quarry but the effects of that poisoning can result in greater consumption of birds with lead fragments from the shot that was fired to kill the bird and dissolved lead in the blood, organs and bones on birds from shot they ingested some time ago. Whether this is something that happens with gamebirds and pigeons? I dont know.

 

Lead in the blood is not really a conservative measure anyway as it has also been shown to peak early after ingestion and then get absorped into the liver, kidney and bone marrow. Once it gets there it is accumulated over time. As the effects of lead are sub-lethal and often sub-clinical, it is potentially a source of susceptibility to other conditions. Do you really wish to advocate the dragging out of a process where the stakes are so high.

 

I take great pride in how I hunt, kill and cook food for my table. I think the hunting gets great PR from this image. If Sainburys decide not to take the risk anymore and stop stocking lead killed game, what kind of PR can would be opened. What if some of your comments about other shot types are enough to put into place a doubt that no shot type can be said to be "safe"?

 

CPSA

I could be wrong but I think the main focus at the moment is lead for game shooting due to, as mentioned above, its affects in ecosystems. And aside from the water framework directives which might affect clay shooting directly, as far as I am aware the incidence of lead shot ingestion by wildlife or lead shot shooting of wildlife on clay shooting ranges in the UK is negligible. CPSA are probably best to keep their head low on this one as the human health issue is likely to not be relevent to them at present.

 

ANTI BASC COMMENTS

No shooting organisation can magically present evidence that does not exist. The new lead working group will review the evidence that is in place, allready published, from a variety of science disciplines. BASC are not "in with" the RSPB on this, but I hope they are working with them and I hope they are "in with" DEFRA.

 

I have some concern but appreciate how easy it is that CG says "look how many shooters are on this panel" compared to conservationists. BASC is an organisation who remit is to safegaurd shooting. Not the shooting industry. And unlike the other sporting agencies it is supposed to be a conservation organisation. Therefore I expect BASC, as a member and a vocal supporter, to place my quarry and my safety as a higher priority than the shooting industry. As CG said, the industry that matters (those that manufacture guns and ammo) are more than ready to supply us the stuff we need to kill and eat game if and when the time comes.

 

One comment on here was that BASC beleives that anyone who thinks NTS does not work is prejudiced. Well from some of the evidence allready posted on here, you might think they are right. And I believe that from their article in S&C, the prejudice was quite clear, especially from the magazine editors. But nothing new there (SG excluded of course ). As I have said about the lead over wetlands ban (as it should be in England and Wales but is not!) before, if any sporting organisation stood up and fought against the past or future lead ban unequivocally and as as some have said in the past...to the death.... then they were pulling a publicity stunt. I have never seen in the past or the present any decent leadership on any controversial issue from any shooting organisations other than BASC.

 

Got to go.......

[al4x]

come on Dr tom who are you thats a little too informed a post to just be your average shooter?

[MC]

I see BASC are getting another kicking in the ST today, they are becoming a bit rich in my opinion and I don't think I will subscribe anymore. Why keep kicking the ONLY organisation who is really going to do anything about it? Unless of course Mr Balmain has shares in a steel shot company.

[al4x]

thats before you get to the inane experts on the readers letters pages, they're about 5 years too late in the HMR for fox debate and as for the comments on game shooting and how it can never be safe to shoot foxes I was ready to burn it after reading the last one. Still got to go to Heathrow to collect someone tonight and the delay keeps getting longer so I may welcome the read

[MC]

The problem is the shooting times is becoming more like the sun or the news of the world. And you can't use them as toilet paper as you would wipe more on.

 

You would have thought that maybe one of the most read shooting magazines may actually get behind BASC and help fight this one, but then that probablt doesn't sell magazines.

 

I suppose they will be running a feature on Jordan and Peter go game shooting, or sponsoring Big Brother.

[al4x]

I have a little trouble working out how the story started other than there was no BASC statement saying they would back leads use the party line always had a load of tripe attached to it that left it open for copping out.

[MC]

I have a little trouble working out how the story started other than there was no BASC statement saying they would back leads use the party line always had a load of tripe attached to it that left it open for copping out.

 

 

How do all tabloid stories start?

 

From an over imaginative journalist making things up.

[Dr Tom]

Can I just follow this up by saying for the record that Alastair Balmain of Shooting Times is a populist **** (Tuppence-giver Without Adequate Thought)?

 

No..ok sorry

[mudpatten]

As with the bearer of all potentially bad tidings, it is the messenger who is most likely to be shot.

 

And the undemocratic and irresponsible Shooting Times is doing its level best to ensure that that happens to BASC.

 

BASC has come in for some severe stick over this whole issue, much of it originating from the rubbish printed in that newspaper. The valuable time of a number of senior BASC staff has been wasted, time that might better have been spent actually dealing with the underlying issue of this discussion, defending arguments who`s root lies, in my opinion, in the scurrilous and inaccurate reporting by a once great paper.

 

In my opinion, there are direct parallels between threads on this site and what appears in print in the ST which leads me to believe it highly likely that its staff poach ideas and topics form here.

 

Therefore they visit this site. So, Shooting Times lurker, what exactly are you trying to achieve? Why are you constantly trying to damage BASC? What is your real agenda? Is there any truth in the rumour that you are funded by the anti`s?

 

These are all questions that we need answered.

[Popgun]

As with the bearer of all potentially bad tidings, it is the messenger who is most likely to be shot.

 

And the undemocratic and irresponsible Shooting Times is doing its level best to ensure that that happens to BASC.

 

BASC has come in for some severe stick over this whole issue, much of it originating from the rubbish printed in that newspaper. The valuable time of a number of senior BASC staff has been wasted, time that might better have been spent actually dealing with the underlying issue of this discussion, defending arguments who`s root lies, in my opinion, in the scurrilous and inaccurate reporting by a once great paper.

 

In my opinion, there are direct parallels between threads on this site and what appears in print in the ST which leads me to believe it highly likely that its staff poach ideas and topics form here.

 

Therefore they visit this site. So, Shooting Times lurker, what exactly are you trying to achieve? Why are you constantly trying to damage BASC? What is your real agenda? Is there any truth in the rumour that you are funded by the anti`s?

 

These are all questions that we need answered.

You are spot on stick with the BASC they are the only ones who have any hope of fighting this

[crimthan]

I do hope all those that are posting criticising the BASC have read these two posts very carefully and noted the following.

 

"BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use".

 

"If we buried our collective heads in the sand or refused to join the debate and howled our opposition from the sidelines we'd leave the asylum to the lunatics. Do we really want a Committee chaired by an anti and with members drawn from the anti, animal welfare world?"

 

Those two statements make sense to me and I am happy to keep faith with BASC representing my interests as a shooter.

 

 

I will second that.

[Pinkfooty]

I wish to hell that I knew whether "Dr Tom" was Dr Tom W. or Dr Tom C.

 

Does anyone know.?

 

It would certainly shape the level of politeness with which I replied!

 

But seriously, this is all about how the wide and varied range of advice that BASC Council gets from its advisory committees, staff and many other soureces is then translated by the elected Council into BASC policy.

 

Do not lose sight of the fact that, despite the committee minute leaked by a mole to Shooting Times, BASC Council policy is still to oppose any attempts to further restrict the use of lead shot.

 

That is why it is so crucially important to elect to BASC Council the sort of people who will listen to your views and fight for your rights.

 

It is still not too late to vote this year. Even if you have lost the ballot paper that came with the last issue of Shooting and Conservation, you can still vote online on the BASC website.

 

Please do so and vote for Lee Freeston and David de Gernier. Neither of those guys will allow the wool to be pulled over their eyes by a load of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.

 

Please vote now!

[crimthan]

I am beginning to suspect that there is an orchestrated campaign to malign BASC. If we read some of the nonsense that has appeared in ST over the Game Rearing cage issue, and now comments, both from editorial and feature writers ( I use the term writer loosely here ) in regards lead shot and trying to rabble rouse against BASC, who let's face it are the only organisation representing shooting who have the professional skills and profile necessary to do the job properly. It beggars the question. Who would benefit from BASC being shown in a bad light? Which organisation would hope to recruit new members from people who leave BASC? I say to all shooters, be careful whom you form an Alliance with and as for the Shooting Times, I have cancelled my subscription.

 

A lead shot ban may happen at a future date. And no matter how hard BASC fights to make sure the voice of shooting people is fully heard, I am sure that they will get blamed for not fighting hard enough. However, at least they are doing something constructive, they are involved in rational negotiation and putting our views over. NOT standing on the sidelines throwing **** as others are doing.

Edited April 14, 2010 by crimthan

[crimthan]

I wish to hell that I knew whether "Dr Tom" was Dr Tom W. or Dr Tom C.

 

Does anyone know.?

 

Dr Tom C. I would think Eric.

[al4x]

having now read it I do have an idea why their knickers are in a twist and pinkfooty who is usually in robust defence is definitely sounding slightly less robust than usual and almost like there is going to be a fight to make the BASC stick up for this issue. The leaked advisory notes that were in Shooting Times did put a different slant on it for me and one which I've had this niggling feeling all down the line that the official line is to prepare people for a ban as they feel the evidence is there rather than fight for it hence the articles extolling the virtues of non toxic shot in their magazine and no doubt the next one will be full of more propaganda. Obviously membership is their livelihood and this is putting them in a bad light hence the slight turnaround to saying they will fight to keep it. Obviously Dr Tom I assume is one of their scientific advisors in some capacity and he seems pretty keen on a ban, hopefully the BASC council will help to push that this is an important issue and it isn't signed and sealed but it does appear with certainly the cages issue that once the decision is made it is not going to change. Really it puts me undecided about whether there is a justified campaign by the Shooting Times or not there were certainly some good points of view in it certainly as far as Pheasants from France were concerned that actually hit home a little as to how many different views and implications there are of all sorts of decisions.

[David BASC]

There has been no 'turn around' at BASC

 

The BASC policy, as set by Council has been to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use. This was the policy set by Council years ago and has not changed.

 

Council, thats the Council that you, the members elect, set policy.

 

David

[CharlieT]

In this day and age when very many organisations and public bodies publish the minutes of there meetings on line, police firearms committee meetings for instance.

 

Has the time not come for BASC, for the sake of transparency, to do the same.

[David BASC]

We publish the council minutes already - and as it’s the Council that make the policy decisions I think this is the important bit.

 

David

[Simon Clarke]

For the sake of transparency, BASC council minutes have been published since 2004. You can see them here.

 

Advisory committee minutes are not published, as ultimately they feed into council which will decide on what action to take. It is council, and not its advisory committees which take policy decisions.

 

Does anyone know if any other shooting organisation has the same degree of transparency in its governance?

[David BASC]

Inaccurate and alarmist reports have appeared in the shooting press and on email concerning BASC's position on lead ammunition. They misrepresent BASC’s position and the current situation.

BASC would like to take the opportunity to put the record straight.

 

The facts of the matter are:

 

• BASC is firmly opposed to any unwarranted attempts to further restrict lead shot.
  
• All other shooting organisations support this position.
  
• BASC and all other shooting organisations agree that the shooting community must be involved in discussions on the future of lead ammunition. Not to be involved is to lose our voice and influence.
  
• All the shooting organisations have been discussing the latest evidence on lead shot for some time.
  
• All the shooting organisations agree that shooting should be involved in the lead ammunition advisory group being established by DEFRA to examine scientific evidence on the use of lead ammunition in the UK.
  
• All the main shooting organisations are supportive of John Swift, the CEO of BASC, taking the Chair.
  
• The shooting organisations form the largest group on the lead ammunition advisory group. They include BASC, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Gun Trade Association and the Countryside Alliance. Other organisations will be asked to contribute in specialist areas.
  
• The natural conclusion from this is that shooting is well represented and is united on this issue.
  

 

What does this mean for the future of lead ammunition in the UK?

 

Defra has chosen the lowest level of committee, unofficial and industry-driven, to give advice.

 

• No political party in the UK has any plans to further restrict lead shot
  
• The current position of the Food Standards Agency is that the consumption of shot game is not sufficient in the UK to become a public health issue.
  
• There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that some birds can be poisoned by feeding on shot animals or taking up lead shot as grit.
  
• The group has been asked to assess the relevance of research for the UK.
  
• Nothing will happen in the UK for the foreseeable future.
  
• Please forward this to anyone you know who is involved in shooting.