Is anybody bothered

[CharlieT]

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

 

 

My apologies, shows how little notice I take !!!

 

Charlie

[David BASC]

No problem Charlie.

 

My best wishes

 

David

[mudpatten]

Is it just me that finds it curious that, as the weekly circulation of the Shooting Times declines so the headlines and populist anti BASC diatribe become more hysterical.

 

We`ve seen a few times in recent years how, particularly in respect of the financial markets, the hysteria created by the press over a theoretical difficulty has actually translated into a real life problem.

 

Whatever the future holds for the continued use of lead shot, and its future is certainly in the balance, would`nt it be ironic if the verdict of history was that the division and panic created within the shooting community and the damage caused to BASC, which will strengthen our opponents hand, was tilted in the wrong direction by..... The Shooting Times.

[crimthan]

Is it just me that finds it curious that, as the weekly circulation of the Shooting Times declines so the headlines and populist anti BASC diatribe become more hysterical.

 

We`ve seen a few times in recent years how, particularly in respect of the financial markets, the hysteria created by the press over a theoretical difficulty has actually translated into a real life problem.

 

Whatever the future holds for the continued use of lead shot, and its future is certainly in the balance, would`nt it be ironic if the verdict of history was that the division and panic created within the shooting community and the damage caused to BASC, which will strengthen our opponents hand, was tilted in the wrong direction by..... The Shooting Times.

 

 

BASC's statement and John Swift's first class response will hopefully nip in the bud what seems to me a well orchestrated attempt to mis-represent BASC, and cause trouble between BASC and their membership.

 

Ask yourself, who hopes to gain from such scurrilous tactics by sections of the sporting media and representatives of other shooting organisations?

 

Any right-minded person will make up their own minds about the facts of the issue, but as can be seen from comments made, there are always those who let themselves be led around by the nose, and swallow the media's tripe readily.

 

 

I would also like to thank Christopher Graffius, David Ilsey and Simon Clarke, for their sane voices of reason here, and to commend them on not rising to the severe baiting they received from certain quarters.

[Salopian]

The following is a post from Angelfire on www.claysporting.com

This, taken from the minutes of BASC's Research Advisory Committee Meeting, 18 November 2009.

 

Quote - "Philip Guard felt that a three stage process would be appropriate, namely a ban on the manufacture of lead ammunition, followed by bans on sale and, eventually, use. Compliance and enforcement, however were also considered important factors in the success of any such process."

 

"It was agreed that the following recommendation be given to Council.

In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the Committee believes that the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalking is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As a result of the growing and external pace of change the Committee recomends that Councill prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The Committee also recommends that the Deer Committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets"

 

 

John Swift BASC's CEO to head the Lead Ammunition Advisory Group meeting(s). Like a Turkey voting for Christmas.

 

I am well pleased I am not paying any kind of sub to BASC, they have betrayed the hand that feeds them.

 

Perhaps Angelfire should change his pen name to 'NoSmokeWithoutFire'

 

Could someone please tell us the truth about what BASC are up to?

I get very worried when someone protests their innocence so vehemently.

[crimthan]

Could someone please tell us the truth about what BASC are up to?

I get very worried when someone protests their innocence so vehemently.

 

 

Hello Salopian

 

I think that the BASC statement and John Swifts response http://www.basc.org.uk/filemanager/root/si...ition_group.pdf

give the facts and truth of the matter.

Edited April 15, 2010 by crimthan

[mudpatten]

Salopian, since you are not a member of BASC, who speaks for you at national level?

[CharlieT]

Could someone please tell us the truth about what BASC are up to?

I get very worried when someone protests their innocence so vehemently.

 

 

 

Hello Salopian

 

I think that the BASC statement and John Swifts response http://www.basc.org.uk/filemanager/root/si...ition_group.pdf

give the facts and truth of the matter.

 

 

Then you sir are a little naive.

Press releases and statements made by each side of the debate are carefully drafted and state only what they wish you to know and hear.

Usually the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

I think what people wish to hear and know is that their representative body is working for the grass roots membership and listening to and taking into account their views even if that membership view was in conflict with the views of some scientific or advisory committee. What does not go down well is behind the scenes deals and hidden agendas.

 

Now I am not saying deals are going on or there are any hidden agendas. In my view debates such as this and articles in the ST will go a long way to ensuring that there is transparency in BASC's chairmanship of the committee, that there are no hidden agendas, that we shooters get a fair deal and the outcome we and the environment deserve.

 

 

charlie

[David BASC]

As Simon posted above, advisory committees give advice, it is Council that makes the policy decision.

 

And shock horror, people on advisory committees sometimes have differing views on an issue!

 

The BASC policy on lead shot is in the public domain and has been for ages - unlike some who make allot of the 'right noises' about supporting lead but you try and find anything published by them that supports their claims.

 

However, as you will have seen the CA and the NGO both have the same view as BASC's published position on lead shot, i.e. we are all opposed to any unwarranted attempts to further restrict lead shot.

 

All we can do at BASC is publish our policy and position on lead shot - why anyone would not believe what we publish, or accuse us of all sorts of things is beyond me!

 

So lets ask a question, what is the benefit to the future of shooting from all this accusation, and ‘leaking’ of documents, and publishing of leaked documents, and publishing edited highlights of what people have written elsewhere? I must be missing something cos I can’t see what good it is doing our sport.

 

David

[crimthan]

"Then you sir are a little naive.

Press releases and statements made by each side of the debate are carefully drafted and state only what they wish you to know and hear."

 

BASC's position on this is not a "press release". It is a statement of BASC's position on the issue and articulates the official BASC Council position as it has been for a long time. It has been published and had wide circulation long before this current mischief making came to the fore in the shooting media.

 

John Swift's response, linked above, gives a factual statement in regards the formation and remit of the new group.

 

I see nothing naive in accepting the stated position of BASC Council or CEO. What is naive however, is to blindly accept the rumour-mongering and scare tactics of people with a hidden agenda despite being given the factual information necessary to form an informed opinion of your own.

[JRDS]

BASC has not denied any of the text featured in this weeks ST was false, caught with pants down IMHO :

 

The UK’s biggest shooting group backs the use of lead shot - but behind the scenes does it believe lead’s time is up?

 

Has BASC given up on lead shot?

"In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the committee believes the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalking is becoming increasingly unsustainable."

 

The committee in question is BASC’s Research Advisory Committee and the quotation is taken directly from the minutes of its meeting on 18 November last year.

 

Whether or not you, the UK’s shooters, are similarly fatalistic about the use of lead shot (or realistic depending on your point of view), no doubt there will be a degree of concern that the Research Advisory Committee of the UK’s largest shooting organisation should arrive at such a conclusion.

 

The subject of lead shot has hit the consciousness of the wider shooting public in recent weeks following the announcement last month that DEFRA has established a Lead Ammunition Group to investigate issues surrounding its use.

 

That group will be chaired by BASC’s chief executive John Swift, and the first meeting takes place later this month on 26 April.

 

In public, the UK’s largest shooting organisation has been staunch in its support of lead ammunition, telling its members and the wider shooting community that it will "oppose any unwarranted restriction on lead shot", adding that "restrictions must be science-based and proportionate".

 

The association has also highlighted the fact that the Lead Ammunition Group includes a number of pro-shooting representatives from BASC, the Countryside Alliance and the Gun Trade Association.

 

So far so positive. However, those who believe in lead’s superior ballistic performance, use an older non-steel proofed gun and have been eating lead-shot game for years should note that DEFRA’s group also includes representatives from bodies not warmly disposed to lead.

 

These include the RSPB, which recently banned lead ammunition on its reserves, and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust.

 

A PRAGMATIC POLICY

BASC’s policy on lead shot is pragmatic rather than defiant. It hasn’t adopted a Charlton Heston-style hard-line strategy - the last traditional game cartridge in the country won’t be prised reluctantly from John Swift’s cold, dead hands - but conversely there is increasing evidence BASC has effectively accepted that lead ammunition is on borrowed time.

 

In the minutes from the aforementioned Research Advisory Committee’s meeting - leaked last week to Shooting Times by a concerned BASC member - the committee agreed the following recommendation should be made to BASC’s Council:

"In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the committee believes the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalking is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As a result of the growing and external pace of change the committee recommends that council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The committee also recommends that the deer committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets."

 

Within the same document it is recorded that the chairman of the committee, Michael Alldis, owner of Essex Shooting School, wisely urged "caution with regard to political implications of changing from lead ammunition, including effects on the membership, and urged BASC to proceed with care."

 

It is also recorded that the committee "generally felt that more information needed to be given to members through the magazine (Shooting & Conservation) on issues relating to lead ammunition, including contamination of game."

 

As an action point arising from the meeting it was recorded that the committee’s chairman should "recommend to Council in January [2010] that bans on lead ammunition are anticipated sooner rather than later and that members should be prepared for early change."

 

The minutes of the Research Advisory Committee, including their rather stark statements on the future of lead shot, were noted by BASC’s Council at its meeting on 21 January this year.

 

The Council minutes don’t record whether the association is now acting on the Research Advisory Committee’s advice and preparing members for an inevitable switch to non-lead shot.

 

In the March/ April issue of BASC’s in-house Shooting & Conservation magazine, however, the association’s director of research Dr John Harradine, who sits on the Research Advisory Committee, wrote an article on non-toxic shot titled Price and Prejudice.

 

That article explored the substitutes for lead and how to get the best out of them.

 

A timely coincidence?

 

And if UK shooters are being groomed to enjoy their sport without lead shot, what evidence of lead’s unsustainability is being employed to justify that decision?

 

SCIENCE FROM ABROAD

BASC is correct that there is increasing pressure relating to the use of lead shot. Ingestion of lead by wildlife and humans as well as the impact of lead on the environment are the subjects of a growing body of scientific work.

 

Most of it, however, has been conducted overseas - notably in the US - and defenders of lead shot point to the fact that the majority of the science is driven by an anti-lead agenda.

 

If readers would like to see for themselves much of the science that will inform the discussions of the Lead Ammunition Group, visit www.peregrinefund.org/Lead_conference

 

There you will find the proceedings of a conference convened by the Peregrine Fund, a US-based raptor conservation group.

 

The conference took place in Idaho and drew delegates with an interest in lead shot and conservation from all around the globe.

 

These included BASC’s John Harradine, the RSPB’s Mark Avery and the WWT’s Deborah Pain - all of whom will sit on the Lead Ammunition Group.

 

BASC has rightly stated it was important for a shooting representative to attend the conference in order to keep abreast of the science being debated - no other UK shooting group sent a delegate.

 

A question remains though.

 

Given what shooters have seen in recent publications from BASC, and given the recommendations of BASC’s Research Advisory Committee, has the body of existing scientific evidence on lead and the proceedings of a conference entitled Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans left BASC convinced a total ban on lead ammunition is now inevitable?

 

In short, will BASC truly put up a real fight - or has it bowed to the inevitable?

 

 

BASC response to this article:

"Shooting Times (14th April) asks 'Has BASC given up on lead shot?'.

 

The answer is no.

 

Our position is clear and has been public for more than a year: 'BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot. Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate. Debates about possible restrictions must fully involve shooting interests'.

 

BASC's council - elected from its membership - takes in many viewpoints before setting policy, including the advice from unelected advisory committees.

 

On any issue in such a large organisation there can be wide-ranging opinions.

 

Concentrating on one misrepresents the process and can actively damage the cause you claim to support.

 

It is a shame that Shooting Times did not speak to BASC on this issue before rushing into print with superficial allegations based on leaks."

Simon Clarke

Head of Press Relations

BASC

[David BASC]

At the risk of repeating myself and (justifiable censorship) let me reiterate:

 

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.

 

David

[Salopian]

Simon,

 

Are you now saying that despite the Research Advisory Committee's recommendations to move toward Lead alternatives at the earliest opportunity, the Council will deliberate and make up their own minds? Not much point in being advised then is there? At what cost in expense claims and mileage fees does this advice cost the membership? How many thousands of £'s?

[Sinistercr0c]

Salopian,

 

Have you ever sought financial advice, or perhaps asked a friend or associate their opinion on a subject (car, house, job?) and then used that information to form the basis of your decision, even if that decision did not ultimately reflect the advice offered? Of course there is a point to being advised......it allows you to make an 'informed' decision

Edited April 15, 2010 by Sinistercr0c

[Pinkfooty]

So lets ask a question, what is the benefit to the future of shooting from all this accusation, and ‘leaking’ of documents, and publishing of leaked documents, and publishing edited highlights of what people have written elsewhere? I must be missing something cos I can’t see what good it is doing our sport.

 

David

 

 

David,

 

At the BASC Wildfowling Conference last month, BASC staff were being totally open and honest about their intention that "Shooting and Conservation" would soon become a monthly magazine produced totally in-house. That was news to me but presumably the "competition" have been aware of it for some time.

 

Think about it..... a top quality monthly shooting magazine with a circulation of 135,000 copies a month (more than 4 times that of any other shooting magazine). And you ask "what is the benefit to the future of shooting from all this accusation, and ‘leaking’ of documents, and publishing of leaked documents, and publishing edited highlights of what people have written elsewhere?" Change "benefit to shooting" to "benefit to other magazines" and I think you may have answered your own question.

 

Cynical?

 

Me?

 

Let's face facts. BASC is driven purely by the interests of its membership. Commercial publishers are driven by profits and the interests of their shareholders. When, further up this thread, a Sporting Gun writer called the editor of Shooting Times a "****" I really smiled.

[Salopian]

Who was it that said 'Methinks thee protesteth too much" or something similar?

Let's get back to basics, there is not a suitable alternative to lead shot that is comparable in price and performance.

BASC staff more or less to a man extol the virtues of steel (soft iron). I will re-iterate, Steel is not viable in Classic English guns, it is a poor substitute or alternative to lead.At closer ranges necessary for effective dispatch of live quarry it spoils the meat.

Bismuth and ITM are possibly too expensive.

Why are we even debating this possible ban when we have no scientific papers highlighting concern about the environmental and damage to wildlife or wildfowl in the British Isles.

If there is concern and research has been carried out and we do have a problem let us sit down and debate it and find a solution.

Perhaps of more concern to us all is the death of the steel industry in Britain as an engineer I am very concerned at the poor quality nuts, bolts, and steel products coming from India.

Guest Keen & Nettlefold must be turning in their graves along with Stanley Duncan.

Edited April 16, 2010 by Salopian

[David BASC]

If people (for what purpose?) make false allegations about BASC, then of course I will post to put the record straight, as would you, so lets stop with the ‘who protested the most’ mumbo jumbo!

 

Just because I reiterate an article from Shooting & Conservation about NTS some of you jump to the conclusion that this means I and others at BASC have turned our back on lead? 2+2=5?

 

Making informed decisions is very important, it gets more people involved in the decision making process and in my view ensures the demands and needs of the membership are met.

 

No one is debating a lead ban, anyone who thinks that has been caught out by the media hype! The group is there to review if there really is a problem, as you say. IF and it’s a big IF there are any issues then, again as you say, the group will give guidance to find a solution.

 

We are where we are, and the shooting organisations are standing together on this issue, so lets not let the ‘divide and conquer’ brigade damage this, and lets hope that the media get the same message too, I am pretty sure most have. So regardless of which organisation you support, you can rest assured that they too will fight along side BASC for lead

 

I think the rather cowardly e-mail campaign that seems to have been launched this week accusing BASC of failure and complicity in all sots of things is a rather childish and crude attempt to discredit and damage BASC, but to be honest I think that who ever started this e-mail campaign has mis-judged their audience, I do not think shooters are really going to be taken in by childish ranting.

 

David

[MC]

Well I have just received an e mail from BASC and with it a link to John Swifts response to the ST and all the hype. I have to say it is well written and should stop all the doubters in their tracks.

 

However as you see time and time again on these forums BASC can never do anything right in some peoples eyes and I am sure these people will find fault. It is a real pity that all these armchair experts don't stand up to be counted when it matters and put themselves in the firing line.

 

I will not post the e mail as the main content has already been posted by DavidBASC and if you want the link then join BASC and sign up to the e mail newsletters.

[crimthan]

"Perhaps of more concern to us all is the death of the steel industry in Britain as an engineer I am very concerned at the poor quality nuts, bolts, and steel products coming from India."

 

Could not agree more Salopian. Why did BASC not stop Magiie Thatcher closing down the Steel Works?

[crimthan]

"When, further up this thread, a Sporting Gun writer called the editor of Shooting Times a "****" I really smiled."

[al4x]

Have you found who leaked the Advisory comitee minutes yet David? Its all rather confusing, so to get the gist of it your own advisory commitee sees the days of lead as being numbered. The council is ignoring this and so a group is being formed at DEFRA's request to look at evidence which presumably your advisory committee already have done hence their recomendation. You can see where even the most naive person begins to get a sneaking suspicion we don't stand a chance.

 

Or are the committee leaked notes fabricated by the ST

Edited April 16, 2010 by al4x

[Beardo]

Well I have just received an e mail from BASC and with it a link to John Swifts response to the ST and all the hype. I have to say it is well written and should stop all the doubters in their tracks.

 

However as you see time and time again on these forums BASC can never do anything right in some peoples eyes and I am sure these people will find fault. It is a real pity that all these armchair experts don't stand up to be counted when it matters and put themselves in the firing line.

 

I will not post the e mail as the main content has already been posted by DavidBASC and if you want the link then join BASC and sign up to the e mail newsletters.

 

received it as well and couldn't agree more with you MC.

[Christopher Graffius]

Have you found who leaked the Advisory comitee minutes yet David? Its all rather confusing, so to get the gist of it your own advisory commitee sees the days of lead as being numbered. The council is ignoring this and so a group is being formed at DEFRA's request to look at evidence which presumably your advisory committee already have done hence their recomendation. You can see where even the most naive person begins to get a sneaking suspicion we don't stand a chance.

 

Or are the committee leaked notes fabricated by the ST

 

There's a big difference between doing the science, deciding what it means and opting for a policy as a a result. Even scientists can be alarmed and recommend a course of action that goes beyond the state of the evidence. Policy is a matter for an elected body who have to weigh up a wider range of considerations not an unelected specialist advisory group.

 

Leaks of this sort are rather like taking someone's words out of context - you don't see the full picture of the years' worth of discussions that have gone on at BASC you just see what the leaker wants you to see.

 

With any leak you have to ask what the motivation was. I suspect that with this one it was aimed to damage BASC, not to protect shooting. Making private documents public in this way can only undermine shooting's position in the forthcoming discussions.

 

Have we identified the leaker? There's limited benefit in any leak enquiry - and we haven't started one. There are more important things to do. That doesn't mean that - as with most leaks - people don't have a fairly shrewd notion of the identity of the culprit.

 

Christopher

[al4x]

The other way of looking at it is the person that the leak originated from thought it important enough that it should be in the public domain, why someone who must believe in the BASC to be employed by them in some capacity would set out to deliberately damage them if they didn't think it important is beyond me.

[Christopher Graffius]

The other way of looking at it is the person that the leak originated from thought it important enough that it should be in the public domain, why someone who must believe in the BASC to be employed by them in some capacity would set out to deliberately damage them if they didn't think it important is beyond me.

 

I do not believe that it was leaked by a member of staff, for the reason you mention - among others.

 

For your first point to be credible the leaker had to think that publishing a document of this kind was more important than revealing internal discussions, which could damage shooting, to the antis. It's possible, but only if the leaker was thick as well as a person that breaches trust.

 

Christopher