Is anybody bothered

[Christopher Graffius]

Four hours since my last post and none of the critics of BASC's work for shooting has answered my question about the evidence. Nor has anyone yet offered any evidence for the notion that the available science is all anti propaganda.

 

Here's another question. What makes people so sure that there will be a ban on lead shot?

 

Consider the facts.

 

No political party in the UK has policy on this.

 

It can be argued that the evidence is slight.

 

There's a need to balance any welfare or health argument against the massive contribution of shooting to the economy and the environment and there's no acceptable substitute, as yet, for fibre wad lead cartridges.

 

BASC has never said there will be a ban. Others talk about fighting a ban that nobody serious is currently proposing.

 

So why do forum members believe we're facing a ban?

 

Could it be that some of you have been taken in by alarmism and propaganda?

[mudpatten]

I think Anser is quite correct in reinforcing the point that steel now works well enough. After all, it is probably the least expensive non toxic shot medium and the one that most of us will elect to use when the toxic heavy metal that is lead, is eventually banned.

 

It was generally predicted that the change over to non toxic shot was going to sound the death knell of wildfowling. It did`nt. Seems to me that this whole issue is more of a problem in certain peoples minds rather than in reality. There is no reason why the effect on inland shooting should be any more dramatic than it has turned out to be with fowling?

 

I most certainly don`t advocate giving away the ability to use lead but I have yet to hear one of those who wants to "fight" everybody to retain it actually give a coherent long term political strategy as to how they intend to achieve their aim.

 

Simply standing outside the corridors of power in Westminster and stamping your feet and shouting "No!" is`nt a long term political strategy.

 

BASC is doing precisely the right thing.

[Salopian]

This whole debate is flawed, because the BASC representatives are toeing the party line.

We can only use US data as a reference, sadly the Governing bodies rushed headlong into a lead shot ban for waterfowling based upon flawed scientific papers used in the US to bring about a ban due to the failings of Condors and Bald Eagles on the western seaboard flyway for migrating wildfowl.

Now they are overrun with Condors to nuisance proportions and the Lead science papers have been found to be falsified.

I would like to ask the BASC Conservation department 'Have you been inundated with emaciated lead fouled waterfowl?'

For Christopher Graffius to say that BASC will speak to wildfowlers about steel shot is laughable, Christopher we all know that Steel is effective in large, high velocity amounts.

But how do you propose to provide an effective 7/8 or 1oz load that can be shot through the majority of shotguns used for clays and game?

Firstly establish beyond any doubt with accurate findings on the effect of lead pollution in the UK wildlife. Then we should have the debate.

 

With the poor representation by BASC over the caged bird fiasco, organised pigeon shooting, Non toxic shot debate, the foisting upon us of the Communications Centre at God knows what cost, I am very surprised that members are not leaving the BASC in droves.

Perhaps they should.

[mudpatten]

BASC staved off the GOVERNMENT imposition of non toxic shot for over 20 years. This I know because I played a part in that fight.

 

The GOVERNMENT, not BASC gave us non toxic shot.

[Christopher Graffius]

This whole debate is flawed, because the BASC representatives are toeing the party line.

We can only use US data as a reference, sadly the Governing bodies rushed headlong into a lead shot ban for waterfowling based upon flawed scientific papers used in the US to bring about a ban due to the failings of Condors and Bald Eagles on the western seaboard flyway for migrating wildfowl.

Now they are overrun with Condors to nuisance proportions and the Lead science papers have been found to be falsified.

I would like to ask the BASC Conservation department 'Have you been inundated with emaciated lead fouled waterfowl?'

For Christopher Graffius to say that BASC will speak to wildfowlers about steel shot is laughable, Christopher we all know that Steel is effective in large, high velocity amounts.

But how do you propose to provide an effective 7/8 or 1oz load that can be shot through the majority of shotguns used for clays and game?

Firstly establish beyond any doubt with accurate findings on the effect of lead pollution in the UK wildlife. Then we should have the debate.

 

With the poor representation by BASC over the caged bird fiasco, organised pigeon shooting, Non toxic shot debate, the foisting upon us of the Communications Centre at God knows what cost, I am very surprised that members are not leaving the BASC in droves.

Perhaps they should.

 

If the evidence isn't there then what better way to demonstrate it then with a committee chaired by the CEO of Britian's largest shooting organisation and with a committee membership in which shooting interests form the largest group?

 

In Britain wildfowlers have, in general, complied with the lead shot ban when shooting wildfowl and waders so we're unlikely to be innundated with lead poisoned wildfowl.

 

Where did I say that I'd speak to wildfowlers about steel shot?

 

I'm not proposing to provide any alternative load - I'm not an ammunition producer and I don't yet accept that lead is dead.

 

There wouldn't be any pigeon shooting in the UK if BASC hadn't sorted the derogation from the Birds Directive and the introduction of the general licence in 1991. You wouldn't be able to sell shot pigeon or shoot them in Wales if BASC hadn't ensured that the wording on the English licence was changed this year and the Welsh licence was actually issued. Where's the poor representation? As for the other issues you mention - as normal despite the bogus alarms about the death of shooting and the destruction of the sport you are likely to find that BASC has opted for the best way to actually preserve the sport. Perhaps that's why the membership numbers go up every year.

 

By the way - the latest Home Office figures - for 2008/9 - show firearms ownership at its highest levels in England and Wales since records began. Which organisation's firearms team's lobbying and work with the police, licensing departments and Home Office do you put that down to?

 

I'm quite prepared to accept criticism and BASC doesn't always get it 100% right, but if possible I'd like the crticism to have some basis in reality.

[Pinkfooty]

BASC has never said there will be a ban. Others talk about fighting a ban that nobody serious is currently proposing.

 

So why do forum members believe we're facing a ban?

 

Could it be that some of you have been taken in by alarmism and propaganda?

 

Christopher,

 

I think that this hare might have been set running by your old friend the editor of a certain weekly shooting magazine.

 

Grrrr!

[wymberley]

Could I, please, ask David or Christopher a question? One aspect of any alternative to lead (if, indeed, one becomes necessary) is affordability. When attending a meeting or series thereof which has/have an agenda one's case can be prepared in advance. Based on todays prices what does BASC deem to be affordable for ,say, the equivalent to a box of 25 11/16oz of No6.

Thank you

[Christopher Graffius]

Could I, please, ask David or Christopher a question? One aspect of any alternative to lead (if, indeed, one becomes necessary) is affordability. When attending a meeting or series thereof which has/have an agenda one's case can be prepared in advance. Based on todays prices what does BASC deem to be affordable for ,say, the equivalent to a box of 25 11/16oz of No6.

Thank you

 

That's a piece of string question, and a bit like asking the RAC the price of an affordable car - it varies from person to person. I think the key is that ammunition should be a price that doesn't bar people of whatever level of income from shooting. Unfortunately that's not up to BASC but more a matter of commodity prices. I certainly think that affordability, let alone the practicality of any suggested alternative is a key factor in the forthcoming debate.

 

A point to bear in mind is that no government wants to take a large slice of the £1.6 billion that shooting contributes to the UK out of the economy. Shooting must remain accessible to a broad range of people if the country is to reap the economic and environmental benefits.

 

Christopher

[Christopher Graffius]

Could I, please, ask David or Christopher a question? One aspect of any alternative to lead (if, indeed, one becomes necessary) is affordability. When attending a meeting or series thereof which has/have an agenda one's case can be prepared in advance. Based on todays prices what does BASC deem to be affordable for ,say, the equivalent to a box of 25 11/16oz of No6.

Thank you

 

Eric, I couldn't possibly comment!

[Guest topshot_2k]

There is a lot rubbish talked about steel shells. In the past they were not that good , but in a steel proof gun modern steel shells are almost as good as lead. Its only when you are realy pushing your range that you will find lead has the edge. I often use steel in 4s and 3s ( Gamebore ) while pigeon shooting and am very impresed with the results. Keep your range under 45 yards and use larger shot sizes than you would in lead and they will do the job fine. Shooting steel need a rethink about the way you shoot. Its fast , faster than most lead. The old rule about pattern gives out before penertration is reversed. To counter this use big pellets. And think about super chokes if you need to take long shots. I find a 3.5 inch load of BBB with a turkey choke does a very good job on high geese. If you get poor results its most likley its the guy behind the gun thats the reason. The only reason I do not use it all the time is cost. I pay about £4 a box for lead no 6s and £5.50 for steel.

 

As for clay shooters , the range problem is simple . Move the traps a few yards closer.

 

steel, tungsten etc are not and never will be a good replacement for lead. they are too hard, damage trees, ricochet of water/wood/hard ground and cant be used in the majority of guns in use. They also have plastic wads making them no good for shooting where livestock is kept. I'd rather take my chances with lead poisoning from shot birds than attend a shoot where people are using steel etc.

Edited April 2, 2010 by topshot_2k

[Cranfield]

anser2,

 

May I suggest that you take the time to read what has been posted, then wind your neck back in.

 

This is not about steel shot it's about the possible ban on lead shot.

 

Why do you always get one

 

anser2's comments are very valid, most of the concerns about lead being banned are due to the perceived lack of an acceptable alternative.

He is making the point that steel could be an acceptable alternative.

[Guest topshot_2k]

anser2's comments are very valid, most of the concerns about lead being banned are due to the perceived lack of an acceptable alternative.

He is making the point that steel could be an acceptable alternative.

 

Apart from steel etc isnt a suitable alternative for game/pigeon shooting - see my points above.

[anser2]

Blaser , I do not know about winding my neck in if lead is banned steel is the obvious replacement for most shooting. Steel does not quite have the edge lead does , but once you learn to shoot it properly is does a reasonable job. I still use lead for most of my pigeon shooting , but we should not all go around thinking its the end of shooting as we know it if it gets banned.

 

Its time the shooting community takes its head out of the sand and sees what way the world is moving. If our children are going to continue shooting we are going to have to realise that we share our country with a wide section of society. A society ranging to pro shooters , anti shooters and a major section that are fairly indifferent to what we do. There is no escaping lead is a poison. read the US research papers and you will find all sorts of birds from raptors to doves , waders , wildfowl and even song birds have been found to have died from lead poisoning. Some say where is the evidence of dead birds. Well try an experiment next time you shoot a few dozen pigeons. Scatter them around your shoot , mark the spots with a stick and come back a week later and see how many you can find. Foxes , crows rats and so on will have a field day and I suspect you will find remains of very few birds. That’s why we do not find many birds with lead poisoning.

 

 

 

 

Yes I use lead shot , but I do not think it is wise for the future of the sport if public opinion decides it does not want lead poisoning in our wildlife we defend its use to the hilt when we have alternatives to hand. If we do go out on a limb we play right into the hands of the anti shooting groups who will use the propergander to try and stop shooting altogeather. Use your head !!!!! If the shooting community keeps on saying I am going to carry on doing what I , my father and my granfather always did then shooting is lost. We have to adapt to a changing world if our sport is going to survive for another 100 years.

 

BASC is taking the right course of action , being in from the start of this review and being able to input the shooters angle before any desision is taken. Whats the alternitive. For them to turn their backs and say no only to find the govenment of the day imposes a ban over which we have no say.

 

I for one hated the introduction of a lead ban for wildfowling , but now after the dust has settled we have very good , indeed in some cases non - toxic shells that are better than lead ever was.

 

 

Salopian , where did you hear that the US was overrun with condors ? At one time there were less than 25 condors left in the US ( I think it was 17 ). To date following releases the wild population has reached 186 birds , only after lead bullets were banned in the areas they lived. I would not call 186 birds overrun when their natural habitat spans tens of thousands of square miles. I doubt in the distant past if their population ever reached the state where the countryside was overrun with them. They were always going to be a scarce bird being very high up in the food chain. The ban in the US was brought in mainly because waterfowl were dieing from lead posioning and the bald eagle problems were only a side point. The trouble is most shooter's never get to handle live birds in the wild. I used to ring thousands of waterfowl and over the years have caught a number of duck with lead posioning.

Edited April 2, 2010 by anser2

[wymberley]

That's a piece of string question, and a bit like asking the RAC the price of an affordable car - it varies from person to person. I think the key is that ammunition should be a price that doesn't bar people of whatever level of income from shooting. Unfortunately that's not up to BASC but more a matter of commodity prices. I certainly think that affordability, let alone the practicality of any suggested alternative is a key factor in the forthcoming debate.

 

A point to bear in mind is that no government wants to take a large slice of the £1.6 billion that shooting contributes to the UK out of the economy. Shooting must remain accessible to a broad range of people if the country is to reap the economic and environmental benefits.

 

Christopher

Thank you. You say that ammunition prices should not bar a broad range of people of whatever level of income from shooting so that the country can continue to enjoy the economic and environmental benefits that our activity provides. In spite of the fact that I clearly stated "today's prices", you chose to side step that element. With regard to the RAC (putting aside the probable average income of their membership) and the piece of string. If I were a lowly staff member tasked with pricing an affordable car, I would have a look at the minimum and average wages and see if I discover a happy medium. Then I would do something absolutely amazing; I would consult my membership. I would ask those who fell in the happy medium what they paid for their current vehicle and at what price above that could they not economically afford. Again the happy medium, and you have a figure that may not suit all, some may have to curtail their fuel expenditure a bit. However, you have a figure which is probably fairly accurate. Attending a meeting with this figure in mind is like going to an auction knowing you have a maximum price which you are not permitted to exceed.

A few posts back you criticised (in effect) a member for not answering your question. Please don't tell me that BASC will go to a meeting where affordability is on the agenda with no pre-conceived idea of what that should be.

An answer to the effect that,"of course we do but it is considered imprudent to reveal it at this stage", would be totally acceptable.

Cheers

[Christopher Graffius]

Thank you. You say that ammunition prices should not bar a broad range of people of whatever level of income from shooting so that the country can continue to enjoy the economic and environmental benefits that our activity provides. In spite of the fact that I clearly stated "today's prices", you chose to side step that element. With regard to the RAC (putting aside the probable average income of their membership) and the piece of string. If I were a lowly staff member tasked with pricing an affordable car, I would have a look at the minimum and average wages and see if I discover a happy medium. Then I would do something absolutely amazing; I would consult my membership. I would ask those who fell in the happy medium what they paid for their current vehicle and at what price above that could they not economically afford. Again the happy medium, and you have a figure that may not suit all, some may have to curtail their fuel expenditure a bit. However, you have a figure which is probably fairly accurate. Attending a meeting with this figure in mind is like going to an auction knowing you have a maximum price which you are not permitted to exceed.

A few posts back you criticised (in effect) a member for not answering your question. Please don't tell me that BASC will go to a meeting where affordability is on the agenda with no pre-conceived idea of what that should be.

An answer to the effect that,"of course we do but it is considered imprudent to reveal it at this stage", would be totally acceptable.

Cheers

 

Sorry, can't agree with you. I'm always rather dubious of extrapolated figures because the variables are so massive that they tend to be highly unreliable. For example, there's an enormous variation in the number of cartridges people shoot. We do consult the membership - BASC is the only organisation that regularly surveys the mebership on a host of topics, and of course, as an Industrial and Provident Society with a democratic system the membership can always tell us if we're missing a trick. I'm not in the office today but I'll ask when I'm next in what data we have on cartridge use - I'm next in on Thursday. In any event, in a negotiation I wouldn't want to be trading prices with the opposition. I'd stick by the principle of affordability for all and the dire effects if that changed.

 

Christopher

[Vince Green]

When I was a lad I used to go fishing on a piece of the canal near my home. An old boy who fished there showed us how to get rid of the swans on that secton of the canal. He took a piece of lead shot and wrapped it in a piece of bread and fed it to the swans. He said it gave the swans a belly ache and they would go elsewhere.

I realise now that he was poisioning the swans. Later a ban on lead shot for fishing was put in place. I have often wondered since how many ducks and swans were intentionally poisioned by anglers in order to get them off their reach of water. was this practice widespread?

The same goes for raptors in areas where they compete with gamekeepers for chicks and game birds. Lead from shooting is not the problem. I believe that a lot of birds that are killed by lead poisioning are intentionally fed the lead rather than ingesting it in the normal course of their lives.

 

I have always believed that no animal or bird will intentionally pick up lead shot and eat it. The exception may be some wading birds who forage for seeds on the bottom but the numbers and the species are limited.

 

Lead shot for clay shooting and most game/vermin shooting is not a problem but the antis and the environmentalists are on a crusade and only a total ban will satisfy them. Meanwhile, serious studies should be undertaken. I'm given to understand that the original ban on lead shot on wetlands in the US came about because of autopsies on three birds. How many were tested and found to be clear has never been told.

 

The reaction lead = toxic = ban it is a knee jerk reaction and should be resisted at all costs. Otherwise it is just playing into the hands of people whose intentions are far from unbiased.

 

Many houses still have lead water mains coming into the house. Mine does! Does this constitute a health risk to the public ? If so it is many times more serious but that doesn't get mentioned. The percieved wisdom is that lead pipes soon get lined with a layer of calcium and ceases to be toxic. Lead shot that falls to ground soon gets covered with a protective layer of oxide and similarly becomes inert. Musket balls from old battlefields lie in the soil and don't degrade even after centuries.

 

Look at the old WW1 battlefields of Northern France and Belgium. Literally millions of lead cored bullets and lead scrapnel balls in the ground there. Crops are grown and cattle are grazed with no hint of contamination. The cattle drink the water from the streams and becks ( as they are called) and don't get poisioned. They don't even have raised lead levels.

 

Its all hype.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Vince Green

[wymberley]

Sorry, can't agree with you. I'm always rather dubious of extrapolated figures because the variables are so massive that they tend to be highly unreliable. For example, there's an enormous variation in the number of cartridges people shoot. We do consult the membership - BASC is the only organisation that regularly surveys the mebership on a host of topics, and of course, as an Industrial and Provident Society with a democratic system the membership can always tell us if we're missing a trick. I'm not in the office today but I'll ask when I'm next in what data we have on cartridge use - I'm next in on Thursday. In any event, in a negotiation I wouldn't want to be trading prices with the opposition. I'd stick by the principle of affordability for all and the dire effects if that changed.

 

Christopher

 

[/quote

Similarly, I can't agree with you. For example, extrapolated figures are also known as statistics which of course as a press chappie you never quote.

However, I really would be quite happy to have you trading prices with the opposition on behalf of BASC: After all, you really are good at trading words.

Enjoy your weekend,

Cheers

[Christopher Graffius]

[/quote

Similarly, I can't agree with you. For example, extrapolated figures are also known as statistics which of course as a press chappie you never quote.

However, I really would be quite happy to have you trading prices with the opposition on behalf of BASC: After all, you really are good at trading words.

Enjoy your weekend,

Cheers

 

Thanks for the compliment Wymberley, and a Happy Easter to you too!

 

It's an interesting post from Vince Green. One of the allegations in the Idaho conference papers is that raptors are particularly vulnerable because they're going into wounded/dead carrion via the wound channel. Those shot with shotgun ammo will have small fragments of lead along the channel. In the case of deer they found visible lead fragments up to nine inches from the entry wound. Of course raptors are an iconic species so one can understand that bird watchers would get upset - particularly when they read that (from memory) 25% of German sea eagles are fatally poisoned by ingested lead. Of course these are overseas and not British studies and I haven't checked the sample sizes recently.

 

Christopher

[Pinkfooty]

I have always believed that no animal or bird will intentionally pick up lead shot and eat it. The exception may be some wading birds who forage for seeds on the bottom but the numbers and the species are limited.

 

Just a wee factual comment on that. I agree that it is unlikely that many birds would pick up lead pellets and eat them as food. That has never been stated as part of the problem.

 

Birds can ingest lead shot in two main ways:

 

1. By picking the pellets up with grit. Birds need grit. They don't use it as food it but it gets used in their crops to grind down food. Lead pellets amongst that grit get ground down themselves and the lead residues get into the gut and, hence, into the bloodstream. Tiny amounts of lead in the blood can be fatal.

 

2. By eating carrion that is carrying lead pellets, e.g. rabbits that have been shot an left (Lesson: never, never leave any shot animal carcass where it can be found by a scavenger) or pheasants, woodpigeons, ducks, etc., that have been wounded, not retrieved and later die.

 

There is no doubt whatsoever that both these causes can lead to fatalities in birds. What we need to be able to show, by sound research, is that the numbers being killed by lead poisoning are insignificantly small and do not endanger the conservation status of any species.

 

When the Greg Mudge et al research was used to justify a ban on lead shot over wetlands, my recollection is that it only proved that some water birds were dying as a result of having lead shot in their gizzards. If there is a move to place further bans on lead ammunition, we need more rigorous research and, as I say, only accept further restrictions on lead ammunition if it can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, that the conservation status of species are threatened. (On the basis of observation, I doubt if it is - the most likely species to be affected by eating lead shot with carrion is the buzzard and their numbers are increasing, not decreasing.)

[Boromir]

So we been using lead shot for hundreds of years and only now they decide its dangerous.

 

Pinkfooty: Pheasants eat alot of grit do you ever here of them dieing of lead poisening. Maybe we shouldnt eat Pheasants because of this.

 

I can just see the outcome. Lead banned the best alternative is steel

[Sinistercr0c]

Firstly let me apologise to those I am about to offend by this post on the topic, but having read the entire thread I have this to say:

 

Jesus Christ on a bike! In order to influence any debate you have to be part of that debate. This is so obvious that I actually find it offensive myself reading some of the narrow minded uninformed rubbish that has been written by other posters regarding the BASC's position re. lead shot.

 

As has been said previously, the battle over the long term future of lead is one that I suspect will not be won. Does that mean we should stand on the sidelines and allow others with an opposing agenda to walk unchallenged to the winning post? Or should we arm ourselves (sic) with the best political minds, who understand the way that UK and Euro bureaucracy works, and allow them to fight on our behalf to ensure that whatever the eventual outcome, it is as close to our wishes and demands as it could possibly be?

 

My concern is not that lead will ultimately be banned, but rather the commitee responsible for assessing and guiding any decision (based on the scientific facts, political will and lobbying from all relevant sides) might be accused of bias toward our own way of thought due to the weighting of individuals representing shooting sports who are on the commitee.

 

This would be my warning to the BASC and its associates. Beware, or you will stand accused of serving your own interests should the fight become bloody (which it almost certainly will).

[mossy835]

if it comes in, then a lot of shooters will give up.because of the cost

[Mr_Logic]

Ultimately there will be a fight because of those who would ban EVERYTHING! They don't understand it, so ban it! Some folks in the RSPB want to watch a raptor which THEY SAY might die as a result of lead shot and/or lead bullets.

 

There has to be a debate, but since in a debate both sides end up giving a bit from their original position, our original position needs to be 'stuff off', and we can go from there.

 

If this is a move that comes from the EU, like so many stupid bits of law, then they too need to be told to stuff off. Personally I'm fed up with the lot of it, so ASAP, I'm off somewhere else in the world...

[mudpatten]

With so much wringing of hands, gnashing of teeth,weeping into their beer,foot stamping and teddy throwing from the manic depressive section of the shooting community, many of whom appear to have given up on the fight before it has even started, all I can say is;

 

"Thank goodness for BASC".

[anser2]

If anyone doubts the potential of lead posioning in birds below are a small sample of the research done into the problem in with Water and Upland birds. Some of the papers document lead posioning in pheasants , partridges , pigeons as well as waterbirds. very little of the work had been done in the UK simple because few have seriously looked into the problem here , but is their any reason why our water and upland birds react differently in this country to abroad ?

 

The big problem in the UK is we just do not see evidence of lead posioning because the layman simply does reconise the evidence because without an autopsy its hard to find and as i have already pointed out most dead birds in the open countryside simply vanish. After all every year millions of birds die on farmland from natural reasons , but how many do we ever find. I am not saying its a major problem rather we just do not know what the extent of the problem is

 

http://www.peregrinefund.org/Lead_conferen...107%20Mateo.pdf

 

http://www.turi.org/content/download/4410/...20-%20Tufts.pdf

 

 

http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/fact..._birds_2009.pdf

 

http://www.biodiversityinfo.org/casestudy....sure&id=142

 

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/311303__902523408.pdf

 

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a4c999f55a76665

 

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3798133

 

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6v7qr8071287m14/

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...5bfa4208c501fc0

 

 

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/36/1/180.pdf

Edited April 3, 2010 by anser2