Is anybody bothered

[MC]

I would fiercely oppose any further lead ban, and I sincerely hope that BASC will be doing so. Lead is the only viable material for shot. Unless someone can come up with a cheap alternative then a ban on lead shot will effectively mean a ban on shooting. As has already been said noone will pay £25 a box of cartridges to shoot pigeons or clays.

 

Steel is fine for close stuff and with 3 1/2" cartridges it is OK on the marsh and I do not mind paying £15 - 17 a box to shoot ducks and geese as I don't use that many. However I do shoot about 10,000 a year at clays and pigeons and I certainly couldn't afford to do it at £15 - 17 a box.

 

Yes lead is toxic, so are a whole load of other things. Lead was banned in paint years ago due to lead poisoning but you still would want to drink it would you? Lead pipes were banned in houses yet I lived in a house with lead pipes and although that has since been refurbished and copper will have been used I bet the lead still runs out in to the main pipes.

 

Lead occurs naturally in the ground, the shot is only going back where it came from. Banning lead shot will not stop lead deposits from ending up in the watercourse.

 

As Al4x has said elsewhere what about lead flashing on houses? that is designed to push water away and into the watercourse. What about leaded light windows? Again they get wet everytime it rains and where does that water go?

 

Just out of my office window I can see several square feet of oxidised lead which will be transfered in to the water when it rains. I bet there is hundreds of times more area of lead flashing and pipes still in use than there is lead shot fired anually.

[utectok]

OK here is the link guys

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/about-basc/basc-...-ammunition.cfm

 

What worries me is there is no citation of scientific studies and the subtext seems to be rather clearly in favor of non lead shot.

That the way I read it anyway.

[wymberley]

Well, damn me! Sporting Gun has just landed on the doormat and attached is a free 24 page bonus booklet entitled, 'Start Shooting'.

Fat chance; what with?

Cheers

[Blackpowder]

However, anyone who says or thinks that lead is not not toxic and not a threat to the environment is crackers!

 

OK name me a pheasant shoot, or indeed somewhere where pigeon have been pursued with lead shot where spent shot has been found to damage wildlife?

 

As a plumber who started work in 1956, I have handled more than my fair share of lead and lead based sealants, at 69 I am still working, still shooting, stil sh----ng, still fishing and not on any prescribed medication, still eating animals and birds killed with lead pellets or bullets. So I should be a prime candidate for being crackers in a lead environmet. Not so! Well if I am my friends are obviously much to polite to tell me.

 

Blackpowder

Edited April 1, 2010 by Blackpowder

[al4x]

Lead is a naturally occuring substance hence you can mine it in this country, you talk about the evidence David lets see some, shooters with dangerously raised lead levels should get all of us worried if they exist!

The document published by BASC clearly states their position and is a backside covering one that doesn't say they will stick up for lead use and their representative on here sounds scared of Lead, though I'd like to hear whether his house and the new media centre use alternatives or the real thing for flashing as obviously its so dangerous I'm getting more ****** that I'm a member and pay them to destroy our sport all the time.

[Christopher Graffius]

No one's rolling over. Read what the BASC policy says at point 10 : “BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use. Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate. Debates about possible restrictions must fully involve shooting interests.“

 

There is an international debate going on about lead ammunition. You can find the details - and they're worth reading to understand what's happening now - here: http://www.peregrinefund.org/Lead_conferen...Proceedings.htm. There is a campaign underway from conservation and welfare organizations who are lobbying government for action. There is concern among government bodies such as the Food Standard Agency. This debate is happening whether or not we're involved.

 

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?

 

When Defra decided to convene a Committee to advise government we ensured that shooting was well represented - with the BASC, the CA, the GWCT and the GTA all members with BASC's CEO as Chairman. The Conservation side has three reps, animal welfare one. I call that a result for shooting.

 

Christopher

[Simon Clarke]

BASC's policy on lead shot is very clear: (point 10) "BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use. Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate. Debates about possible restrictions must fully involve shooting interests."

 

An advisory group has been brought together because of increasing international scientific evidence on the potential effects of lead shot. BASC will be chairing the group which has been asked to examine that evidence and advise Defra. It includes the gun trade association, the GWCT and the countryside alliance. Shooting's interests are well-represented. BASC will oppose any changes to the use of lead ammunition which are not backed by solid science.

 

The group will look at all the evidence and particularly its application to the UK.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Simon Clarke

[markm]

Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate. b]

 

 

 

YES - We all know lead is a dangerous substance than can cause blood and nerve problems (the science is there), don't make us all out to be stupid.

 

So is beer and tobacco a problem, science shows this, in fact even my toast I had this morning is carcinogenic (in fact just about everything I have today will be.)

 

AND??

 

I bet the CA are clapping their hands, hope your mortgage on your posh office is a small mortgage, what will its use be in a few years when there is no shooting left?

[al4x]

judging by the findings on that report we're all knackered and should all be suffering lead poisoning.

 

From the largest shooting organisation have you any plans to commision your own scientific reports or are you going to rely on US led research funded by people involved with raptor preservation?

Edited April 1, 2010 by al4x

[Christopher Graffius]

judging by the findings on that report we're all knackered and should all be suffering lead poisoning.

 

From the largest shooting organisation have you any plans to commision your own scientific reports or are you going to rely on US led research funded by people involved with raptor preservation?

 

If the government agreed with you about the findings of the report there wouldn't have been any need to call a Committee together to assess the evidence as it applies to the UK. Given that the government has yet to make up its mind its crucial to the future of the sport that we are playing such a major role in the advice offered to government.

 

I look forward to receiving your donation towards producing a study!

[Wesman]

I look forward to receiving your donation towards producing a study!

 

No offence mate but you're talking out of your ***** and have a bad attitude. If you're a representative of Basc, you shouldn't talk to the people funding your organisation in such a way.

[al4x]

If the government agreed with you about the findings of the report there wouldn't have been any need to call a Committee together to assess the evidence as it applies to the UK. Given that the government has yet to make up its mind its crucial to the future of the sport that we are playing such a major role in the advice offered to government.

 

I look forward to receiving your donation towards producing a study!

 

 

so my already fairly generous £64 a year or so does nothing to help support my sport, not what I keep being told in your marketing material From the sounds of that we have to fund research to protect our sport rather than paying our yearly subs which personally I thought went towards these things. Thats if the general concensus isn't right and an amount of rolling over is to be done. Scientific research usually ends up basing its findings depending who is paying the bill, if anything my experience of it at degree level is you can find most things if you concentrate hard enough in the right places much as someone else with different funding will find something else. So I can take it from your comments that the research you're going to have this group review is going to come from a US raptor preservation group basing its research on the activities of US hunters in the USA

[Christopher Graffius]

so my already fairly generous £64 a year or so does nothing to help support my sport, not what I keep being told in your marketing material From the sounds of that we have to fund research to protect our sport rather than paying our yearly subs which personally I thought went towards these things. Thats if the general concensus isn't right and an amount of rolling over is to be done. Scientific research usually ends up basing its findings depending who is paying the bill, if anything my experience of it at degree level is you can find most things if you concentrate hard enough in the right places much as someone else with different funding will find something else. So I can take it from your comments that the research you're going to have this group review is going to come from a US raptor preservation group basing its research on the activities of US hunters in the USA

 

No, the group will review all available research including research undertaken by BASC. It will also take into account the experience of shooters who've used non-toxic shot. This is particularly important because that experience is poorly covered by the scientific literature but is crucial.

 

As far as I am aware the Peregrine fund did not fund the research papers delivered at their conference. Do you have any eveidence to suggest otherwise?

 

Wesman, an exclamation mark indicates humour.

[geordieh]

I use steel shot so no problems with ban here.

 

 

:blink:

 

nope. why should i be? as i said, bothered = annoyed and irritated. theres plenty of things in life that i dont agree with, but if i let them all bother me i'd have a stroke, or at least a bad case of high blood pressure

Hi all

Do you two muppets realise that this will include rifle and airgun ammunition aswell it may not bother you but it should,but you may be one of these people that take up a hobby for five minutes then get bored with it and move on to the next one (good luck with your crocheting and kite flying)

Geordie

[groach1234]

If the government agreed with you about the findings of the report there wouldn't have been any need to call a Committee together to assess the evidence as it applies to the UK. Given that the government has yet to make up its mind its crucial to the future of the sport that we are playing such a major role in the advice offered to government.

 

I look forward to receiving your donation towards producing a study!

 

Christopher you have had many of our donations in the forms of membership fees and as head of press releases why not do what it is clear we want you to do and release a statement defend our right to use lead shot to the end as has been said there are many more hazards releases of lead into the water ways so defend lead to the end or i will have to find a new organisation when my membership expires in the next few months as many more will

 

George

[Wesman]

Wesman, an exclamation mark indicates humour.

 

No it doesn't.

[al4x]

Christopher you have had many of our donations in the forms of membership fees and as head of press releases why not do what it is clear we want you to do and release a statement defend our right to use lead shot to the end as has been said there are many more hazards releases of lead into the water ways so defend lead to the end or i will have to find a new organisation when my membership expires in the next few months as many more will

 

George

 

 

they've gone too liberal in their approach to being politically correct these days, you won't get a statement supporting lead shot. All thats going to happen is they'll sit round a table and convince themselves what nasty stuff lead is and start drip feeding us how good non toxic shot is. Thats why they are being slated in the shooting press over the matter, and are on here and presumably other websites trying another damage limitation exercise. I think we all know lead will be banned its just a case of how much longer we can use it for at the moment.

[Ozzy Fudd]

Hi all

Do you two muppets realise that this will include rifle and airgun ammunition aswell it may not bother you but it should,but you may be one of these people that take up a hobby for five minutes then get bored with it and move on to the next one (good luck with your crocheting and kite flying)

Geordie

 

nope, been shooting for nearly 18 years, cant see me giving it up soon. now if youd like to go back and read what i said -

 

if you read the title it says "IS ANYBODY BOTHERED, Lead shot ban" so i answered a simple question - no, i am not bothered, assuming that bothered means its annoying and irritating me. now if the title had read "do you support a ban on lead shot" i would have replied no, as i dont agree with it.

 

you will see that i dont agree with lead restrictions. however, every week on this forum (or it seems like it) we have another major catastrophe which is going to affect shooting, the same as reading the papers every day tells me that the earth is about to explode/immigrants are going to stab me in my sleep/drinking water has riddled me with cancer, etc.

 

now, it is my choice whether or not i buy into all the hype and start jumping around like a maniac venting my spleen, or if i sit here thinking that theres really very little that i can do about it now, so decide not to let it bother me as i have more than enough to worry about. and considering that at the moment its still in the early stages of being looked into, by a group which is full of representatives of the whole shooting industry (not just basc) i doubt ill have too much to worry about when the findings come out; but if i do, then THAT is the time to be bothered, not now when they havnt even announced anything!

[groach1234]

they've gone too liberal in their approach to being politically correct these days, you won't get a statement supporting lead shot. All thats going to happen is they'll sit round a table and convince themselves what nasty stuff lead is and start drip feeding us how good non toxic shot is. Thats why they are being slated in the shooting press over the matter, and are on here and presumably other websites trying another damage limitation exercise. I think we all know lead will be banned its just a case of how much longer we can use it for at the moment.

 

I wouldn't care if only there was a cost efficient and effective substitute it but i like most don't have the sort of money to through at bismuth or hevishot for pigeons and my gun is almost 40 years old and not steel proofed i would certainly make shooting a whole lot harder for me at very least.

 

George

Edited April 1, 2010 by groach1234

[leaseone]

Has anyone at BASC been to see the Orange woods at Dornesburg in Germany where they are looking to shoot Lead again

due to the mess Steel has made.

[Cranfield]

No one's rolling over. Read what the BASC policy says at point 10 : “BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use. Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate. Debates about possible restrictions must fully involve shooting interests.“

 

There is an international debate going on about lead ammunition. You can find the details - and they're worth reading to understand what's happening now - here: http://www.peregrinefund.org/Lead_conferen...Proceedings.htm. There is a campaign underway from conservation and welfare organizations who are lobbying government for action. There is concern among government bodies such as the Food Standard Agency. This debate is happening whether or not we're involved.

 

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?

 

When Defra decided to convene a Committee to advise government we ensured that shooting was well represented - with the BASC, the CA, the GWCT and the GTA all members with BASC's CEO as Chairman. The Conservation side has three reps, animal welfare one. I call that a result for shooting.

 

Christopher

 

 

BASC's policy on lead shot is very clear: (point 10) "BASC will continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use. Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate. Debates about possible restrictions must fully involve shooting interests."

 

An advisory group has been brought together because of increasing international scientific evidence on the potential effects of lead shot. BASC will be chairing the group which has been asked to examine that evidence and advise Defra. It includes the gun trade association, the GWCT and the countryside alliance. Shooting's interests are well-represented. BASC will oppose any changes to the use of lead ammunition which are not backed by solid science.

 

The group will look at all the evidence and particularly its application to the UK.

 

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.

[Christopher Graffius]

Just for the avoidance of doubt.

 

I use lead shot, It kills cleanly when I'm shooting. I support the use of lead shot in shooting, where it is legal to use it, and will continue to do so.

 

If, in the future, it is shown that as with lead in petrol, paint and pipes that lead shot is damaging people and particularly pregnant mothers and children, then I will change to a substitute - I already use steel for my fowling.

 

In the interim I have two conditions. Firstly I want to be sure that shooting is inside the committee rooms of government influencing the decisions rather than outside conplaining but having no impact. Secondly, if there is to be change, I want shooting to be as prepared as possible with decent, practical and affordable alternatives available.

 

Having influence and being prepared are not accomplished by burying our heads in the sand and waiting for the antis to kick us where it hurts.

 

Christopher

[al4x]

the crucial words are unwarranted and in another phrase "safe" use of lead, we already have David posting about how dangerous it is which implies the statements both amount to not backing its use

[Cranfield]

Of course lead is dangerous, I don't need DavidBASC to tell me that, but there are degrees of risk and acceptabilty where the alternatives may themselves be "dangerous".

 

The important facts are that no government has stated that it intends to ban lead shot (apart from the current wildfowling situation) and BASC have prime positions on this Committee that has been set up to produce a report for Defra.

That to my way of thinking is the best situation we could be in, considering all the circumstances.

[arjimlad]

BASC is not about banning lead. It is about having the voice of shooting heard around the table where banning lead is discussed.

 

I am

• 
  

pleased that they are involved in the debate,

[*]impressed that the BASC chief exec has secured the chair of that committee, but

[*]profoundly depressed that some people are using it as a divisive point-scoring exercise between organisations which profess to have the same interests at heart - protecting shooting - when they ought to be working together on it.

 

Dogmatically saying "ban lead over my dead body" without addressing the evidence will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.