Is anybody bothered

[Salopian]

anser2,

Thank you for your balanced reply to my post.

This is probably the problem that we as shooters have to contend with.

I had no issue at all with all the points that you answered that I had raised in my post. It seems that we are both passionate about our sport.

Where we differ is that you have adopted steel shot and abandoned your classic English guns and all the history and pride that is associated with them.

I have not.

You have embraced change because you are being forced to by people who are legislating against Lead shot for ulterior motives and by stealth.

i.e. To reduce the amount of guns in the public domain.

Interestingly you mentioned that lead is cheaper than steel shot, so where is the economical, viable alternative to lead that BASC said they would embrace as an alternative to Lead?

 

Gentlemen, could I close by saying that the case against Lead shot has not been proved, there is in my opinion no viable economic alternative to Lead at this moment, Lead is not as harmful and as dangerous to the environment as some would want us to believe. Until that time could we please retain the status quo, but continue to improve our image and our sport by being responsible sportsmen.

[Highlander]

Banning Lead Shot

 

It’s just another nail in the field sports coffin! We think we’ve beaten the anti’s (more registered shooters/less LACS memberships etc etc) BUT they along with various lunatic organisations who need a full reality check and others such as the RSPB are still there working away behind the scenes to extinguish our sport by this and other nefarious means as I do not believe the so called ‘research’ proves that lead (especially from shooting) is that damaging the environment. Unfortunately BASC seem hell bent on helping them instead of standing up to them. Having a ineffectual chinless wonder (as my Dad would have called him) like John Swift as chairman of the debate is rather like having Lord Longford chairing a debate on hanging...you know the outcome before it starts!

 

We should wake up to the fact that we’re at war with these people and get stuck into the fray NOT sit down with them to debate a subject that they will NEVER EVER change their minds about. We will soon be shooting (if at all) with steel or some other less than perfect cartridges (personally I think steel cartridges are s****! Why should I have to alter my shooting methods to make do with an inferior product? When ever does evolution take a backward, retrograde step which is what’s happened here? The cartridge manufacturers had to make an alternative to lead and came up with all sorts of options...steel was one, so much for progress!) and then what...another debate about the length of seasons, or the damage steel shot does to trees or rusty water courses etc etc. There’s plenty of ways the anti’s will think up and bring to bear to make field sports too expensive, too troublesome, or just plain too difficult for many and when the old stalwarts only number a few thousand we’ll lose the rights entirely. By then of course BASC will be long gone as they won’t have had the membership to sustain any more debates and poor old Stanley Duncan (who unlike some on here did bother) will be turning in his grave at such a wasted effort!

 

Why oh why do the shooting organisations such as BASC continue to sit down and discuss with the likes of the RSPB about lead shot when it’s clear all these groups are against shooting and a ban on lead shot will simply assist their cause to ban shooting first then other fieldsports. When are we (fieldsports enthusiasts) going to say, enough is enough and stand up for our rights because it’s certain if we don’t at some point in the (not too) distant future we’ll lose the sports we love!

 

I continually read in the shooting press, often BASC own magazine, about the time, effort and money the shooting fraternity put into conservation (private money, private time and effort which maybe as much if not more than the likes of RSPB do) and yet it doesn’t get a wider press. The public at large need to be informed of our efforts that benefit wildlife and the countryside in general often in places the public never get to see (unlike the RSPB who centre their efforts in those areas where they’re most likely to encourage the public to part with their money).

[anser2]

Highlander if you want to lose shooting for all you are going the right way about it.

 

“quote , We should wake up to the fact that we’re at war with these people and get stuck into the fray NOT sit down with them to debate a subject that they will NEVER EVER change their minds about “. It seems you are in the same mind set and you will NEVER EVER change your mind.. We live in a country shared with people many diverse idea’s , but if shooting is to continue its going to tread the middle course and be prepared to bend a little. If BASC do not get involved with the lead talks there will be only one outcome a ban on lead and if that ban is ignored then shooting is at severe risk of being lost. We cannot afford to be at war with what you call these people. If we do go to war with them we are doomed. Less than 2% of the UK population shoot so what chance do we stand. Better to come to agreement and then our sport stands a very good chance to carry on so our children and grandchildren will be able to pursue it. Stop thinking about now and think 40-50 years ahead.

 

“quote , personally I think steel cartridges are s****! “ Have you used the new gamebore or American steel shells. If you have then you are entitles to your opinion , if you have not then you do not know what you are talking about. The difference in performance between the new steel shells and lead is marginal . The Steel costs between £5.40 and £7.50 a box for 32 – 36 gr loads. That’s a bit more than lead , but not a lot. Top quality lead can cost you £6.00 a box though you can get it down to £4.50 a box in my area. Of course both are cheaper when bought in bulk.

 

There is a lot of worry about steel in English guns , but few of use 2 1\2 inch chambered guns and steel can be shot through a 2 3\4 inch chambered English game gun.

 

I use lead a lot , but this talk about a lead ban being the end of shooting is just wrong for all , but a small minority of short chambered 12 bore users. If a ban ever comes in I am willing to bet the cartridge makers will bring down the cost of steel shells ( economics of scale ) and develop loads for short chambered guns. And in any case there are other non toxic loads available now ( Bismuth ) for short chambered guns , at a price too , but when compared to the cost of a days game shooting the cost becomes manageable for most.

[xav]

True, the issue on lead ban is the antis' dream trojan horse to impose further restriction on shooting and ultimately ban it completely. Yes it's impossible to ignore the present debate but we can't ignore the fact there is at the present time no evidence of the alleged dangers of lead. Some European countries still allow lead shot for waterfowl, until there is a clear consensus at EU level, I see no reason why this focus group should investigate the matter further.

 

If a lead ban went ahead, a lot of people would give up the sport (driven shooting would become too expensive, many wouldn't bother replacing obsolete guns etc..). Rough shooting would be affected too: many syndicate would not tolerate the possible dangers of steel shot and the wads used are a danger for livestock. As a result sgc applications would fall and that, combined with the fact that steel pellets can be dangerous and often wound birds could be the beginning of the end for a weakened, divided and dispirited shooting community.

 

A lot has been said on the role of BSCS in that issue. There are a lot of things that BASC is doing well (providing shooting opportunities for members and facilitating sgc applications are two of them) but I can't help thinking that it's at risk of creating a schism. It's the last thing we need at the moment.

[al4x]

Cost wise it'll never affect driven shooting as the cost is peanuts in comparison. Highlander has a few very valid points and only time will tell what the outcome will be, its an important issue and hopefully the bad PR the BASC has received will make it keen to stick up for its members wishes. Its obviously caused issues behind the scenes which is why the information about its scientific advisors advising educating members about non toxic and breaking it to them gently in the run up to a ban got leaked. Hopefully they have realised which side their bread is buttered on and will fight what is in the face of it pretty poor evidence. However the RSPB etc are going to keep drumming up research to try and proove lead is an issue so to an extent it is good to have shooting working on the same committee however you do sense there is only one outcome that the RSPB will agree on and its not a good one. Only time will tell if the shooting times etc were right though I do like the fact they made it an issue as it has definitely brought this out as a major issue for shooters

[Highlander]

anser, I’m not into appeasement and I’ll stand by what I said; we are at war with people who it seems have a sole purpose in life, to interfere with other peoples way of life, in this instance shooting and more generally with fieldsports. Talking with people who’s minds are made up and who will NEVER alter their stance is a waste of breath IMO. We (by that I mean our fieldsports organisations such as The CA & BASC) would do better to win the hearts and minds of the general public by showing them what we’re all about. Stop hiding behind ‘we’re a minority’ and stand up for what we do in a loud voice. Isn’t that what the new BASC comms centre is all about...getting our message across ONLY IMO it’s a waste of resources talking to groups that are hell bent on ******* us over. And if you think there’ll be any other outcome, think again.

 

One the issue of ‘alternative’ shot, I use bismuth and have done so from well before the ban came in for shooting wildfowl with lead and apart from the cost I don’t have any problems with it. My point was that steel shot is a retrograde step. Guns and ammunition have progressed forward for centuries to the present day but now we’re being asked to go back a step and use, what to my mind is, an inferior option i.e. less range, less killing/put down power, less all round!

 

Oh and just in case anyone interpreted my rant(?)as being against BASC let me say I’m a staunch supporter of the organisation, I simply have cause for concern of late due to their stance on the lead issue and rearing cages!

[Whitebridges]

I'd like the BASC to ask each member for their views before they start to shape recommendations for DEFRA. Don't tell DEFRA what they want to hear. Tell them what the membership actually thinks.

 

Never truer words from Salopian and Highlander. For years we've used lead. Very "green" estates welcome the use of lead for game shooting. Why? Because it's the best bet for the job in hand. There is minimal contamination with lead - fact.

 

There is no need for any mandatory change. I do not want to be stopped from using something I have total faith in. If you choose to shoot steel then that's individual choice.

 

We don't have to follow American ways, they don't always get it right do they?

[Christopher Graffius]

It's interesting that the recent posts on this thread are based on the most pessimistic reading of the facts.

 

Think about it another way. Let's suppose you're a dyed in the wool anti, determined to see the end of shooting. You think you've got the ideal weapon in a potential health scare - why worry about the evidence - about lead shot. You reckon if you can get the government scared enough they'll ban lead shot and thus damage shooting. You welcome the creation of a DEFRA Committee to make recommendations to Ministers.

 

Then you discover that the largest group on this Committee is made up of members of shooting organisations. The Chairman is the Chief Executive of the UK's largest shooting association. When you read the published minsiterial letters you see that the Labour Minister who created the Committee was "not aware of any new research that has been conducted that shows that lead ammunition residues or spent lead shot is a real threat to the conservation of wildlife in general in England." When you check the terms of reference of the Committee you find that "The Chair (the CEO of BASC) will provide a single point of contact for the formal disclosure of advice from the Group to Defra/FSA. Individual group members must not disclose advice outside the Group".

 

I think you could be forgiven for thinking that the deck had been stacked against you.

 

Christopher

[Whitebridges]

Excellent Christopher. Phew, we are in safe hands then. Lot's of fuss about nothing.

I'm watching out for the fast ball left field.

[Christopher Graffius]

Excellent Christopher. Phew, we are in safe hands then. Lot's of fuss about nothing.

I'm watching out for the fast ball left field.

 

Balls from left field are always a possibility and no one can predict the future. It's also a fact that if you nail your colours to the mast and publicly proclaim your firm belief in lead shot and refusal to consider any other view the chances of you being taken seriously on any Government committee vanish.

 

But, if the Committee decides that lead shot is not a serious danger and should continue to be used, and that is the advice that goes to government, then lead shot will probably be safe in the UK for a generation. If that is the outcome, I wonder if the shooting world will realise how their interests were defended and protected?

 

Christopher

[mudpatten]

Lets not forget though that we still have the CA knight on his white charger rushing about and crashing into things.

 

I`m sure he`ll come to our rescue if things get a bit sticky.

 

Just like he did when the government banned lead for wildfowling.

 

Sorry! That was unnecessarily sarcastic but I notice that some pro CA and anti BASC contributors still try to lay the loss of lead in wildfowling at the door of BASC.

 

Pray tell, what was the CA doing whilst BASC was fighting to retain it?

[al4x]

the simple answer is the committee won't decide unanimously lead shot is not a serious danger and that is because the RSPB etc will not back down, they already have a limited scientific study done with the result they want with presumably more to follow. So from there you end up with either a stalemate. At best we are going for a draw at worst we have a problem hence all the wording from the BASC leaving room for a climbdown this issue is far from over IMHO They know they are in a very bad place from a PR perspective on this one hence reeling out the "big guns" on here and a fair few forums but we shall see lets just hope for the best as there is not a lot else we can do

Edited June 2, 2010 by al4x

[Pinkfooty]

Don't tell me this thread is still running!

 

I thought we had very clearly established four things, despite all the #### being spouted in the more sensational shooting comics. (I was glad to see that the editor of SS had finally seen the light and admitted it in his blog.)

 

1. There is no government proposal to ban lead shot for game shooting and it was not suggested by any of the main political parties at the recent election.

 

2. Suggestions by RSPB and WWT that lead shot might be harmful to human health or wildlife were sidelined by DEFRA by remitting them to an advisory group for consideration.

 

3. That advisory group is heavily weighted in favour of shooting interests and led by the Chief Exec of the country's biggest and most powerful shooting organisation.

 

4. BASC, who successfully delayed the ban on lead shot over wetlands for 20 years, have restated their policy of fighting any unwarranted attempts to further restrict the use of lead shot.

 

 

So, why the hell are we still chuntering on about whether lead substitutes are suitable for English game guns, whether driven shooting would be doomed if lead was banned, etc., etc..... ad nauseum??

 

By all means let's keep gathering the data to defend lead shot if is ever is attacked politically at some time in the dim and distant future - but for Christ's sake let's get rid of the paranoia about a threat that currently does not exist.

 

A much more insidious threat at the present time is the way that NE keeps talking about "disturbance" from wildfowling when considering consents on SSSIs, SPA,s etc. Now that is a threat that we really do need to hit on the head and BASC should urgently be commissioning the research needed to do so.

[Mr_Logic]

A fair point. I am all in favour of playing the political game. However, when I did various management training courses, one of the things they touched on was negotiation - you should always know the point at which you will walk away. So in this case, I'd talk all round it but basically my walk away point is any lead ban! The antis can stuff off - it looks like that's what's happening, but BASC must make sure it does.

[poontang]

How did the meeting go on 27th/28th May?

[Sinistercr0c]

I wondered about actually posting this up given the riot of replies it might unleash, but what the hey, its all fuel for the fire:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/10241647.stm

 

Anyone still prepared to argue that lead isn't dangerous......