Is anybody bothered

[David BASC]

Good morning,

 

BASC is run by the elected Council of members. The members elect the Council from within the membership, and every member is entitled to vote in the elections which are held each year.

 

Council meet, typically 10 times a year to discuss BASC policies. To aid in their discussion there are a range of Advisory Committees, each AC is chaired by a member of Council and the secretariat is provided by a member of BASC staff, typically someone from the department that is most closely linked to the discipline that AC is charged to advise on. A list of all AC’s and their membership, Council members, elections etc is on the BASC web site here:

 

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/about-basc/counc...d-constitution/

 

 

Council, based on their own experience and feedback from AC’s and any other data that they may require, then decide on the policy. This decision is taken by way of debate and vote. Council minutes are published on the BASC web site.

 

The responsibility for enacting that policy then falls to the executive staff, and Council then monitor the roll out and delivery at future meetings.

 

Over arching all of this Council is bound by the Associations 5 key Objectives,

 

So as far as the current debate over lead is concerned, Council were adamant that BASC should be represented on the DEFRA lead ammunition group to ensure that BASC is in a position to continue to oppose any unwarranted restrictions on lead shot use. Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate.

 

Hope that clarifies.

 

Best wishes

 

David

[al4x]

you were a tad unlucky in the Shooting Times David getting it from most of their contributors, I hate to say it but your first post on this thread was probably not a good one, I have to say it was good to hear you stand up and say you would carry on using lead and keep feeding your children game as that is what people want to hear that there will be a fight based on something other than information from the RSPB and a raptor group. They aren't really interested in the human health issue but it certainly pushes their argument a long way forward and gives it more clout even if it isn't a real issue. One point made was the most used rifle for bunny control the .22lr will be an interesting one to find an alternative for

[David BASC]

Thanks Al4x, although I think 'a tad unlucky' is putting it mildly!

 

I don't mind anyone repeating what I post, provided it is in context and not just edited highlights!

 

I was also miffed that it was claimed in ST that some of my posts were as a result of the article written by Graham Downing. That is simply not the case at all. I had no issue with Graham’s article at all, and have e-mailed him to say so.

 

My posts about ST were based on their claim that ‘the CA is the only group that has shown any spine on the subject’ and ‘For the sake of UK shooters why isn’t BASC saying the same’.

 

This made it sound as if BASC either had no position on the issue or a weak one, but the fact was that BASC have had a clear and consistent policy on lead shot for ages, as I would have thought ST knew that but did not bother to publish, after all they seem to spend time on this site so why not the BASC site, or even give us a call to ask...rather than making an assumption that BASC, the GTA or the GWCT were doing nothing – hence my call on here for PW members to take a look on the BASC web site to find out the facts that BASC oppose any further restrictions on lead rather than taking ST’s line as ‘gospel’ as far as BASC and lead was concerned.

 

I am very pleased that the CA shares, almost word for word, the BASC point of view, and I strongly suspect the GTA and the GWCTwill do too – we thus have a united front. I hope the other orgs will publish their position on lead ammunition as soon as possible.

 

Like I said I have no doubt that lead is toxic, as are many heavy metals, and I have no doubt it can be problem in the environment the scientific evidence is there to support that, as there is with many heavy metals. However as I said and as the DEFRA lead ammunition working group is there to find out, it’s a mater of fact and degree as to whether spent shot causes problems on inland shoots, or if the level of lead ‘contamination’ of shot game is a cause for concern. At the moment as far as I can see there is no evidence that it is a problem in the UK, but let’s wait for the results of the work of the group.

 

As to .22's indeed, I doubt copper is a viable alternative, is 22's are shown to be a problem but i stand to be corrected.

 

Also, what about airgun pellets.....

 

BASC’s position and for that mater mine also is still plain and simple;

 

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.

 

Best wishes to all,

 

David

[al4x]

to an outsider the fact that this gets posted after every statement isn't helping you David

 

"Restrictions must be science-based and proportionate"

 

In one way it makes sense in another it paves the way for giving in easily, its why the countryside alliance coming out and saying straight out that they would oppose a ban reassured shooters more. Now you've clarified the BASC position a bit it looks like 14 pages and countless other threads on the subject could all have been at cross purposes, as is a lot of the bad press.

[malkiserow]

Like I said I have no doubt that lead is toxic, as are many heavy metals, and I have no doubt it can be problem in the environment the scientific evidence is there to support that, as there is with many heavy metals. However as I said and as the DEFRA lead ammunition working group is there to find out, it’s a mater of fact and degree as to whether spent shot causes problems on inland shoots, or if the level of lead ‘contamination’ of shot game is a cause for concern. At the moment as far as I can see there is no evidence that it is a problem in the UK, but let’s wait for the results of the work of the group.

 

 

David

 

I am very pleased to see that this research is being undertaken. It is so easy to make ill-informed sweeping judgements about Lead toxicity (Number 2 on the ATSDR list) and assume that pediatric lead heavy metal poisoning (Roberts 1999) is as a result of ammunition. Ammunition is on the secondry (minor) list of uses of lead.

 

May I ask who is undertaking the research and will be results be accepted as independant by all concerned?

 

MS

[MC]

I have to add that I really would like to see some scientific unbiassed evidence to support this so called lead ban.

 

My inland flight pond is actually on a clay ground and is surrounded by woodland where I shoot plenty of game. I would guess that considering the position of my pond it is full of spent lead shot from the clay shooting. Yet I have to use non toxic when shooting ducks.

 

The clay ground has been there since about 1920 so there has been some shooting done and the ground must have so much lead shot spread all over it that anymore cannot possibly make a difference.

 

Al4x,

 

Of course they must be proprtionate, If there is only 1 bird per 10 Million die of lead poisoning then there isn't an issue is there?

 

I thought BASC's position was clear? Aren't they opposing a lead ban?

[al4x]

not in so many words MC its all getting clearer but the phrase we're opposing any ban hasn't been said straight.

 

In theory in your position your ducks should be dropping dead all over the place and in turn should be poisoning you, haven't been feeling funny recently have you?

[MC]

not in so many words MC its all getting clearer but the phrase we're opposing any ban hasn't been said straight.

 

In theory in your position your ducks should be dropping dead all over the place and in turn should be poisoning you, haven't been feeling funny recently have you?

 

 

Yes I have but that is not because of eating ducks.

 

My flight pond is geographically less than 1/4 of a mile from one of the largest resevoirs and wildfowl sanctuary's in the country and you don't see the birds on there dropping dead either.

[al4x]

it is very interesting now when you think about it that lead doesn't seem to being blamed on killing ducks any more, I know we shoot over ponds on the shoots I beat on where pheasant drives push birds back over ponds and I've never heard of a problem

[Ozzy Fudd]

stupid question, but if youre shooting over ponds (even if its only pheasants) should you not be using steel anyway?

 

i think thats what the NI law is now (unless i read it wrong)

[al4x]

nope not unless its a SSSI

[David BASC]

I take your point about the wording of my post Al4x and its alsways useful to get feedback like this 'from the grass roots' as it were.

 

Anyway just to be clear- BASC do oppose (and have done for ages) any further restrictions on the use of lead shot /bullets.

 

As to the research...no idea of the details yet but rest assured we will do all we can to keep people up to speed on the BASC web site, and I expect the CA, GTA, GCWT et al will do the same.

 

Best wishes

 

David

[shaun4860]

Now here's another take,

 

Our clay club has a fibre wad only restriction,

 

Steel as far as im aware has to be used in plastic cup type wads, so does that mean that if, in some hopefully far distant future that they ban lead, then they are closing down our club?

 

shaun

[David BASC]

Not wishing to be accused of being an 'advocate of non toxic shot' as I was earlier this week in a certain publication (I am only an advocate of NTS where MUST be used by law by the way, aren’t we all?) Gamebore do fibre cups for steel: http://www.gamebore.com/page.php?id1=2&id2=1

 

David

[al4x]

they do at the princely sum on just cartridges of about £280 a thousand so possible but going to be painfull for clays.

 

Out of interest wasn't there an issue on the single farm payment that you couldn't shoot clays over farmland or run the risk of the farmer loosing the payment? Presumably this is where the biggest threat lies if DEFRA or the EU said no lead over agricultural land on similar terms it could mean lead wouldn't need to be banned. While the issue is making this much press in the shooting world it can't be long before someone thinks its a good idea

[MC]

Yes they are expensive but the ones I had were 3" and were 1 1/4oz loads so they would have been dearer anyway. As I have said before I do not support a lead ban in any shape or form however if it should happen it will not be the doom and gloom that the ST etc would have you believe.

 

I remember reading a few years ago about a "Plastic" wad that was made from waste vegetable fibre. I would bet that if lead was banned for all shooting on 1st jauary 2011 there would be loads of viable alternatives in the shops by the end of the summer.

 

The only real stumbling block I see at the moment would be .22LR and I am certain someone already has an answer somewhere.

[al4x]

there is I believe a tin round available in the states made by winchester but thats pretty pricy over there so no doubt would be extortionate here.

[David BASC]

On SPS / Cross compliance, farmers – i.e. SPS claimants – are responsible for any deliberate cross compliance breaches (obviously the word ‘deliberate’ has important implications here) so were there to be a ‘deliberate’ cross compliance breach then the farmer could lose out on 3% of his single payment.

 

In terms of what the specific compliance issues are that the farmer must stick to will depend of the farm. But using non toxic shot for duck for example would break compliance.

 

David

Edited April 8, 2010 by David BASC

[mudpatten]

A14x,

 

You`ve had a good snipe at BASC for taking their course of action over this issue. But I can`t find any constructive suggestions from your good self as to how we might best proceed. What is your preferred strategy?

[al4x]

A14x,

 

You`ve had a good snipe at BASC for taking their course of action over this issue. But I can`t find any constructive suggestions from your good self as to how we might best proceed. What is your preferred strategy?

 

 

I think you'll find its a lot more than me sniping, and mostly when it sounded like there wasn't going to be any fight over the issue.

 

I'd like to see some proper research done in the UK whether that be testing of shooters for raised lead levels etc but something other than US research being pushed at us by the RSPB etc, lets face it its a matter that affects everyone and will hit us all hard in the pocket as well as probably making shooting less humane for our quarry so a fight is needed. I did then get told my subs didn't go towards that kind of thing but it seems that in the light that a lot of members are getting upset over it that seems to be changing. We can talk alternatives all day long but we come round to steel and frankly thats going to affect a fair bit of my shooting. So far this year I've done game shooting which is fine, then you have vermin days, a couple of hare days and they will be the ones affected as shooting ground game with steel with people about is not really going to be safe, so that leaves using something like bismuth for those days which is going to make them not worth having as no one will be able to afford to go on them.

Its fine leading an advisory group but that group has to review evidence, if all that evidence comes from anti shooting / the RSPB then we will loose the issue.

[David BASC]

I think to be fair Al4x and others were 'persuaded' by what has been published in some of the media that BASC was either taking a weak stance on lead or maybe no stance at all!

 

I hope this has been resolved and people now see that BASC had and still has a robust position on lead.

 

As for the info on which the group must debate, decide and recommend, I would agree 100% that it cannot possibly by a balanced analysis if all the data is provided by just one party!

 

David

[JRDS]

I cannot understand why the CPSA has not been involved in the group, why just BASC?

 

The sheer volume of cartridges shot just by clayshooters should have been one of the reasons for them to be involved.

 

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

 

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

 

Which Organisation is in bed with the RSPB and DEFRA.

 

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

 

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

 

Draw your own conclusions.

[MC]

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

 

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

 

Which Organisation is in bed with the RSPB and DEFRA.

 

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

 

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

 

Draw your own conclusions.

 

 

You seem very clued up, where do you get your information or are you just another one having a cheap shot at BASC?

[mudpatten]

JRDS,

 

Apart from the last sentence...... the organisation "most likely to agree to further restrictions after going through the motions of the panel" which is malicious speculation without any foundation or precedent, the other points you mention, if slightly exaggerated, are actually very positive.

 

BASC has no control over what the CA involves itself in.

 

BASC certainly represented my point of view on raised cages and took a principled and independent stand which,seeing that you seem to want to "fight" everybody else, surprises me that you are in apparent disagreement with. BASC manfully "fought" all the other wrong headed field sports organisations but you find this stance somehow wrong.

 

If you are not in bed with the RSPB or DEFRA, or any one else for that matter, how do you propose we influence the decisions they make? Beat up their members or firebomb their headquarters?

 

Most people who are opposed to non toxic shot have never given it a fair trial.

 

The conclusion I draw from all this is that BASC is once again,doing the right and sensible thing.

[BlaserF3]

anser2,

 

 

 

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

 

Funny how it's been twisted around isn't it.