poontang Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) The CPSA allegedly represent and are the governing body for clay shooting in this country. As such they represent the largest body of lead shot users in the country yet instead of insisting that they were involved in the LAG manoeuvres from the outset, they left it to the Shooting Sports Council to represent them.The CPSA's negative reasoning was that they felt sure they would be called upon to give an expert opinion if required by the LAG. Vic. Not sure about that, but the Shooting Sports Council have never been involved with the LAG as far as I'm aware. They certainly haven't attended any meetings. The CPSA were one of the original stakeholder groups mentioned in John Swifts letter to DEFRA. http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/shootingindustryletter.html Either way I still find it strange that clay shooters seem to have had no voice so far, and the group have been set up for nearly nine months. They're due to make a written progress report to DEFRA after a year, so only 3 months left!! Edited January 28, 2011 by poontang Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 The CPSA will, I am sure, be asked to help the LAG when they turn their attention to clay pigeon shooting, afar all who else is better placed than the CPSA to lend their input to this specific area of shooting. By the way, the John H was misquoted in that piece you highlighted, he has never said this! David Why would they 'turn their attention' to clay shooting? This is about the total banning of lead shot/bullets, in ALL areas of the sport. It's irrelevant where that shot/bullet comes from, be it a clay ground, pigeon roost or driven day. Surely ALL interested parties should have been in at the beginning? We often hear about the amount of money/jobs that game shooting creates, and I really hope that certain areas of the sport aren't going to be given 'preferential' treatment to the detriment of others?. I don't know if John Harradine was misquoted or not, but I'm surprised he's allowed such a damning statement to remain on the Peregrine Fund website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicW Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Not sure about that, but the Shooting Sports Council have never been involved with the LAG as far as I'm aware. They certainly haven't attended any meetings. The CPSA were one of the original stakeholder groups mentioned in John Swifts letter to DEFRA. http://www.cpsa.co.uk/feature-article/lead-ammunition-group Vic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Could someone explain to me why John Swift who is the head honcho of BASC can be the chairman of LAG? How can he be totally unbiased, when I would have thought that a group such as BASC, should be a watchdog for shooting, instead of joining in with a group that wants lead banned. They are only a foods standard agency and their current advice is that game shot with lead is safe to eat. There's something going on here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 http://www.cpsa.co.uk/feature-article/lead-ammunition-group Vic. Vic, I had read that in the past, however the LAG isn't just about lead levels in shot game. The RSPB/WWT are pushing for a complete lead ban for ALL forms of shooting. The WWT director, Debbie Pain took part in the Peregrine Fund conference on the use of lead ammunition in 2008, and is one of the main instigators of the LAG in this country. This is part of her summing up of proceedings in 2008: There were several components to identifying the problem, i.e. What, Where, When, Who and Why. The answers to these have been comprehensively covered over the last three days: What—birds eat lead from ammunition or ammunition fragments, suffer sub-lethal effects and mortality from lead poisoning—in their millions. Where—globally wherever lead ammunition is used for any purpose and where birds feed in areas of lead deposition, or prey upon or scavenge game or other hunted species. When—every year—constantly in some areas, temporally and spatially correlated to hunting season in others. Who—caused by anyone using lead ammunition for hunting or target shooting. So what are the options for seriously reducing this problem? On the first day, Barnett Rattner suggested that options included: (1) Restricting the use of lead ammunition in localities where it poses an unacceptable hazard, or (2) Phasing out the use of lead ammunition with a goal of complete elimination. I believe that phasing out lead ammunition where it poses an unacceptable hazard is not a practical option. First, what is ‘unacceptable’? Is unacceptable different in different circumstances, cultures, and for different species? After all, lead poisoning affects birds wherever lead ammunition is used and they are exposed, i.e. across much of the globe. Even within individual countries or states, do we really want to do detailed research to define the level of lead poisoning everywhere, and then argue about what is acceptable and what is not? This would certainly take a ‘totally unacceptable’ amount of time and resources, and the delays caused would result in considerable additional wildlife mortality. To guarantee a significant reduction in the risk to birds a phase out of the use of lead with the goal of complete elimination is needed. This would also have the advantage of solving the majority of other environmental and wildlife problems associated with the use of lead ammunition—and— importantly—would tackle the human health issues. Reading the CPSA letter to it's members it would seem they have been led to believe this is an issue involving only live quarry shooting?. It isn't. It involves anyone and everyone who uses lead shot/bullets, including target/clay shooters. Maybe it's time for the top brass at the CPSA to start asking questions and become a bit more proactive in proceedings, rather than sit back and wait to be told what's going to happen to their members? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicW Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Vic, Reading the CPSA letter to it's members it would seem they have been led to believe this is an issue involving only live quarry shooting?. It isn't. It involves anyone and everyone who uses lead shot/bullets, including target/clay shooters. Maybe it's time for the top brass at the CPSA to start asking questions and become a bit more proactive in proceedings, rather than sit back and wait to be told what's going to happen to their members? Thanks for that input. When Phil Boakes was CPSA CEO he said that a total lead ban was inevitable.With that kind of thinking it's hardly surprising that the CPSA appear toothless even after Boakes' demise. Vic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 After sitting through a seminar on Lead and its effect with regard to deer stalking. Its my beleif that lead will be banned. The only argument that stood up was that it had very little effect on humans who ate lead contaminated meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwb Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 After sitting through a seminar on Lead and its effect with regard to deer stalking. Its my beleif that lead will be banned. The only argument that stood up was that it had very little effect on humans who ate lead contaminated meat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.