What is the law

[BLACK-GUN]

HERE WE GO LADS, A FARMER HAS A FLIGHTLINE OVER HIS LAND, WILDFOWL GOING INTO WELNEY WILDFOWL RESERVE, HIS LAND IS NOT MARSH OR WETLAND WITH NO PONDS . SO CAN HE SHOOT DUCKS AND GEESE FLYING OVER HIS LAND ON THIS FLIGHTLINE OVER LAND WITH LEAD SHOT.

 

i have my tin hat on for this one. thanks joe.

[mpk]

Not sure about shooting them but if it's his land probably. Definitely not with lead though non-toxic only

[sako751sg]

Not in England,if in Scotland and no water source close then yes,i think.

[poontang]

HERE WE GO LADS, A FARMER HAS A FLIGHTLINE OVER HIS LAND, WILDFOWL GOING INTO WELNEY WILDFOWL RESERVE, HIS LAND IS NOT MARSH OR WETLAND WITH NO PONDS . SO CAN HE SHOOT DUCKS AND GEESE FLYING OVER HIS LAND ON THIS FLIGHTLINE OVER LAND WITH LEAD SHOT.

 

i have my tin hat on for this one. thanks joe.

 

He can shoot them in season (1st Sept - 31st Jan) but he MUST use non-toxic shot.

Canada Geese can be shot out of season as long as he follows the stipulations set down in the OGL, but he must still use non-toxic shot.

[BLACK-GUN]

his land is half a mile away from any water, and he says he shoots game and pigeon flying over his land with lead, so why does he have to use non toxic shot on wildfowl when he is not shooting over water or wetland or ponds. and when he picks them up on his own land they are dead and he dont sell them.

 

 

i dont know anything about this law on no lead shot.

 

he said WHAT IS THE REASON OF USING NON TOXIC SHOT OVER DRY LAND

Edited August 26, 2011 by BLACK-GUN

[mpk]

Any wildfowl MUST be shot with non-toxic have a look on basc website plenty of info on the laws and uses of non-toxic

[chrispti]

his land is half a mile away from any water, and he says he shoots game and pigeon flying over his land with lead, so why does he have to use non toxic shot on wildfowl when he is not shooting over water or wetland or ponds. and when he picks them up on his own land they are dead.

 

 

i dont know anything about this law on no lead shot.

 

he said WHAT IS THE REASON OF USING NON TOXIC SHOT OVER DRY LAND

 

Because a law was put into place with out it being thought through properly

[mpk]

Because a law was put into place with out it being thought through properly

 

funny because non-toxic still is toxic it's just not lead. Silly really !

[anser2]

The reason non toxic shot has to be used anywhere in England is so a check can be made to see if anyone is using lead. Otherwise a shooter killing wildfowl over a wetland with lead could just claim he shot somewhere else earlier on and any court case would fall down. In addition lead shot will travel about 250 yards for no 6 and a lot further if its BB shot and though the shot is taken in the middle of a dry field it may still land in a boundary ditch to be later picked up by waterfowl or the field may flood later in the year and feeding wildfowl pick it up.

 

Iknow the fens around Welney quite well and I cant think of any fields that are 1\2 a mile away from water. Almost all have a boundary ditch full of water in winter much closer than 1\2 a mile.

Edited August 26, 2011 by anser2

[chrispti]

An article in Augusts Sporting Gun;

 

I have been shooting for 50 years and still do. In this time I have eaten a great many game birds, wildfowl,hares and rabbits.

So over the years I have no doubt ingested a great many pellets.

 

I recently had an MRI scan and was told I had a number of lead pellets inside me (I had eaten a pheasant a few days earlier).

 

I was told by the Doctor had the pellets been steel the scan would have caused me severe internal damage!

 

All I can say is that wildfowlers who have used steel shot should be careful as you never know when you may need a scan!

 

:blink:

[Dekers]

his land is half a mile away from any water, and he says he shoots game and pigeon flying over his land with lead, so why does he have to use non toxic shot on wildfowl when he is not shooting over water or wetland or ponds. and when he picks them up on his own land they are dead and he dont sell them.

 

 

i dont know anything about this law on no lead shot.

 

he said WHAT IS THE REASON OF USING NON TOXIC SHOT OVER DRY LAND

 

The truth is there isn't a reason, other than the fact the law was put together by idiots who took the simple route!

[vulpicide]

Yes legal in Scotland but not in England.

[Grandalf]

This was the biggest screw-up that BASC ever committed in all their history.

They should have gone absolutely ballistic about this regulation but rolled over without even a wimper.

The bunny huggers and anti's slipped in this beautiful googly without anyone noticing untill it was to late.

This law IS an ***.

[worthy130]

I don't know why everyone gets in a huff over the lead ban for wildfowl. I am a wildfowler and i don't mind it. Most of the time steel is cheaper than lead anyway and as long as your taking ducks at around 30-40 yrds (which is far enough even for taking fowl with lead shot on a flowing estuary) then the kill ratio is very good. Alot of people say they are rubbish without even trying it.

[Dekers]

I don't know why everyone gets in a huff over the lead ban for wildfowl. I am a wildfowler and i don't mind it. Most of the time steel is cheaper than lead anyway and as long as your taking ducks at around 30-40 yrds (which is far enough even for taking fowl with lead shot on a flowing estuary) then the kill ratio is very good. Alot of people say they are rubbish without even trying it.

 

 

............ and remember it is NOT applicable in Scotland...... Pigeon, Pheasant, Partridge, etc ???

[Piebob]

............ and remember it is NOT applicable in Scotland...... Pigeon, Pheasant, Partridge, etc ???

 

Yes, we can use lead to shoot wildfowl as long as we are not over water/watercourses.

 

We must also use non-toxic shot to shoot pigeon, pheasant, partridge if over water/watercourse.

 

Scots law is location dependent (no lead over water), England & Wales is species dependent (no lead on any wildfowl).

 

You guys can fill the local pond full of lead shot if on a pheasant shoot, which kind-of defeats the whole intent of this dodgy law given the "evidence" for the ban seemed to be about lead shot ingestion by wildfowl.

[BLACK-GUN]

Yes, we can use lead to shoot wildfowl as long as we are not over water/watercourses.

 

We must also use non-toxic shot to shoot pigeon, pheasant, partridge if over water/watercourse.

 

Scots law is location dependent (no lead over water), England & Wales is species dependent (no lead on any wildfowl).

 

You guys can fill the local pond full of lead shot if on a pheasant shoot, which kind-of defeats the whole intent of this dodgy law given the "evidence" for the ban seemed to be about lead shot ingestion by wildfowl.

 

christ, this law is a total shambles what was the BASC doing for shooters when this came out. its about time they tried to sort this out for the shooters. :yp:

[mudpatten]

"What was BASC doing for shooters when this came out?"

 

Well, the effort put in by BASC throughout this issue is the sole reason that lead shot was not banned in the 1980`s.

 

The stirling efforts of BASC fought off the introduction of non toxic shot for a further quarter of a century.

 

Some people wilfully forget that it was the Government who introduced the legislation,not BASC.

 

BASC can lobby politicians but it does not make the law. The ignorant seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

 

Another contributor suggests "BASC should have gone ballistic over this."

 

Please elaborate on this tactic. Should BASC have screamed and shouted at MP`s, slapped them around the head, beaten them up,kidnapped their children?

 

What on earth does going ballistic mean in the real world of democratic government? Explain please how it works.

 

An organisation like BASC could have a single hissy fit with Government which would still not influence its decision making process. And after that it would never be taken seriously or listened to again.

 

Is that what members want?

 

Just to amuse yourselves, take a look at what other fieldsports alliances did throughout the passage of this issue through Parliament.

 

I`ll save you the job of looking. The answer? Absolutely nothing!

 

If people really want to rail at someone for the introduction of NTX, throw stones at the CA who stood by and did nothing about this issue for twenty years and are truly the real villains of the piece.

[Dekers]

christ, this law is a total shambles what was the BASC doing for shooters when this came out. its about time they tried to sort this out for the shooters. :yp:

 

 

[Dekers]

Yes, we can use lead to shoot wildfowl as long as we are not over water/watercourses.

 

We must also use non-toxic shot to shoot pigeon, pheasant, partridge if over water/watercourse.

 

Scots law is location dependent (no lead over water), England & Wales is species dependent (no lead on any wildfowl).

 

You guys can fill the local pond full of lead shot if on a pheasant shoot, which kind-of defeats the whole intent of this dodgy law given the "evidence" for the ban seemed to be about lead shot ingestion by wildfowl.

 

 

Precisely..... there are more than a few "shooting" Laws which are ill considered and just plain dumb!

[BLACK-GUN]

"What was BASC doing for shooters when this came out?"

 

Well, the effort put in by BASC throughout this issue is the sole reason that lead shot was not banned in the 1980`s.

 

The stirling efforts of BASC fought off the introduction of non toxic shot for a further quarter of a century.

 

Some people wilfully forget that it was the Government who introduced the legislation,not BASC.

 

BASC can lobby politicians but it does not make the law. The ignorant seem unable to grasp this simple fact.

 

Another contributor suggests "BASC should have gone ballistic over this."

 

Please elaborate on this tactic. Should BASC have screamed and shouted at MP`s, slapped them around the head, beaten them up,kidnapped their children?

 

What on earth does going ballistic mean in the real world of democratic government? Explain please how it works.

 

An organisation like BASC could have a single hissy fit with Government which would still not influence its decision making process. And after that it would never be taken seriously or listened to again.

 

Is that what members want?

 

Just to amuse yourselves, take a look at what other fieldsports alliances did throughout the passage of this issue through Parliament.

 

I`ll save you the job of looking. The answer? Absolutely nothing!

 

If people really want to rail at someone for the introduction of NTX, throw stones at the CA who stood by and did nothing about this issue for twenty years and are truly the real villains of the piece.

 

GOOD JOB I KEPT MY TIN HAT ON

[anser2]

Deckers and Black Gun the law over steel shot like all laws is a compromise. On the one hand there in the conservation lobby taking the view there are problems with waterfowl and other birds ingesting lead shot and being poisoned and on the other hand the shooters wanting to use a like for like balisticly superior load and at that time cheaper lead shot

 

Unless you have a blanket law banning toxic lead in all situations for wildfowl , how do you insure the law is being kept? Do you want some warden running out to beat your dog to a kill and then take it away to a lab to test it to see what it been shot with ?

 

As the law stands in England if you have a lead shot duck you are in the wrong and no wrangling out about shooting it away from water , which may or may not be true. A clean clear law , no ifs or buts. A law which by and large is kept to by the wildfowlers these days , though sadly not so well followed by game and vermin shooters. If you want to shoot a duck or goose use a non toxic shell . If your gun will not handle steel use ITM or Bismuth. If you cant afford these latter two non toxic shells , buy a gun that is steel proof.

 

If you do not want to shoot non toxic shells then do not shoot waterfowl.

 

End of story

Edited August 27, 2011 by anser2

[Dekers]

Deckers and Black Gun the law over steel shot like all laws is a compromise. On the one hand there in the conservation lobby taking the view there are problems with waterfowl and other birds ingesting lead shot and being poisoned and on the other hand the shooters wanting to use a like for like balisticly superior load and at that time cheaper lead shot

 

Unless you have a blanket law banning toxic lead in all situations for wildfowl , how do you insure the law is being kept? Do you want some warden running out to beat your dog to a kill and then take it away to a lab to test it to see what it been shot with ?

 

As the law stands in England if you have a lead shot duck you are in the wrong and no wrangling out about shooting it away from water , which may or may not be true. A clean clear law , no ifs or buts. A law which by and large is kept to by the wildfowlers these days , though sadly not so well followed by game and vermin shooters. If you want to shoot a duck or goose use a non toxic shell . If your gun will not handle steel use ITM or Bismuth. If you cant afford these latter two non toxic shells , buy a gun that is steel proof.

 

If you do not want to shoot non toxic shells then do not shoot waterfowl.

 

End of story

 

Look, this is wondering a bit, and frankly my view is clear, it is an ill considered law, ................. anyway ......

 

NO LAW should be enacted for ease of enforcement, on your reasoning why have different speed limits in different areas, it would be much easier to catch everyone if there was a blanket 30mph everywhere!

 

Over and above, just where is the evidence of all the deaths/poisoning of all the Waterfowl and people, yes the law is a compromise, a law to appease the people who have no understanding of shooting and given a chance would ban it ALL.

 

Regardless of whether there is some merit in the poisoning argument, that is NOT the way to construct any law!

 

ATB!

Edited August 27, 2011 by Dekers

[big bad lindz]

Some food for thought on this.

 

Say just for instance you have permission or its your own land and you were shooting duck or geese inland on a stubble field in Scotland or on a bit of a rough walked up shoot and the birds came down across the border :unsure:

I know its not an exact line drawn on the ground but

 

I know there a good number of different laws rules and regulations that we all have to abide by and they also differ between Scotland & England. I also know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

 

The wildfowl season starts next week and like a lot of fowlers I am really looking forward to it. I shoot both on the foreshore and over decoys on stubble. I therefore have to be very careful as to what cartridges are in my bag or jacket pockets before I go out. When its dark & dusky when loading the gun you might see what you are loading but as the colour of the casings are mostly red you might not know if it is steel or lead, toxic or non. I must admit that I have on the odd time when I am packing up from the shore in full daylight, picked up the spent casing and then only found that I have used a lead shot cartridge :o as I am sure many of us have done

 

The laws being diffrent between Scotland & England can I am sure cause some concern. If it was the same for north & south it would not cause hassle.

As I have only been shooting fowl and game for 4 years or so I cant say that I have seen much diffrence between the diffrent types only the fact that I wont pay for the more expensive non toxic loads.

 

Good hunting to all for the coming season I am sure we will all have stories to tell or further topics to discuss

 

Cheers,

 

BBL

 

PS I do live in Scotland

[Grandalf]

I have been a 'fowler all my shooting years. I have nothing but agreement for the ban of lead shot over wetlands.

But - I live miles from anything that could be remotely declaired wildfowl habitat. If, using lead cartridges, I stand in a field and shoot a pigeon with the right barrel - that's OK. If I then, without moving my feet, shoot the duck that gets up from a stubble-field because it is startled by the shot I would break the law if I pulled the trigger the second time.

That is crazy. As someone has already stated, you don't legislate so that you can enforce the law. You make laws because they are sensible and just. If it can be done in Scotland it can be done in England.