MartynGT4 Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Just noticed this.. WWT Secret Plans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 But at the same time it’s important to note this: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/pressreleases.cfm/prid/EF58BE00-1F04-407B-95395510F06CCE4F This was also reported in the same issue of Shooting Times, this week. A united defence is certainly the way forward. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Now, obviously, absolutely no one is going to be at all surprised at this other than, perhaps, by the name of the instigators. What is of concern is that tucked away inside the report is, "the compliance report the WWT conducted on behalf of DEFRA shows that there is little compliance with lead shot bans". It is to be hoped that BASC will be demanding in the strongest possible terms that the WWT put up or shut up and produce the evidence for this. It is coincidental that this has come to light just now when the 'BASC' titled thread is active and which relates to the very subject. Once more, in view of the fact that this (WWT) report states that alternatives to lead are available. Again BASC should forcefully point out that this is not all together true and highlight the economic aspect as one particular failure. However, perhaps this will be seen for what it really is; an attempt to sway the verdict/conclusion of the LAG which one would hope that they are able to resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Research into compliance was conducted in 2009 /10. A survey was sent to inland and coastal shoots, the results are valid, and checked by Defra’s people. It showed a very high level of compliance within wildfowling clubs. It showed a very low level of compliance among inland shoots. Non compliance will damage all of us; we must comply with the law. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted April 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Non compliance will damage all of us; we must comply with the law. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 [quote name='David BASC' timestamp='1335367018' post='1764867 It showed a very high level of compliance within wildfowling clubs. It showed a very low level of compliance among inland shoots. David Oh dear! There is a song, "Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative". We need the BASC choir to start singing - loudly. Still, perhaps this will make the non conformists realise that their attitude will adversely affect themselves should they continue to act irresponsibly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Research into compliance was conducted in 2009 /10. A survey was sent to inland and coastal shoots, the results are valid, and checked by Defra’s people. It showed a very high level of compliance within wildfowling clubs. It showed a very low level of compliance among inland shoots. Non compliance will damage all of us; we must comply with the law. David Any chance of a link,or a pointer to where I can read the results regarding the above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Asking the WWT to put up or shut up with the evidence of non compliance is not a very good idea since all they will do when challenged is to produce the statistics from their recent purchases of shot duck from gamedealers. Almost all of them contained lead. All those game shooters who thought it would be fun to ignore the ban on the use of lead for ducks/geese can now sit back and watch all their lead chickens come home to roost. If the whole thing does not go well for the retention of lead for all other forms of shooting,please remember that BASC can only defend the case for compliance with the ammunition that we, collectively, have given them to fire. Every duck that some of you have shot with lead reduces the strength of our defence and hastens the demise of lead shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Fully agree with mudpatten. Every duck shot with lead is just another nail in the coffin of lead shot use across the board. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075 The report and summary are contained in the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Asking the WWT to put up or shut up with the evidence of non compliance is not a very good idea since all they will do when challenged is to produce the statistics from their recent purchases of shot duck from gamedealers. Almost all of them contained lead. All those game shooters who thought it would be fun to ignore the ban on the use of lead for ducks/geese can now sit back and watch all their lead chickens come home to roost. If the whole thing does not go well for the retention of lead for all other forms of shooting,please remember that BASC can only defend the case for compliance with the ammunition that we, collectively, have given them to fire. Every duck that some of you have shot with lead reduces the strength of our defence and hastens the demise of lead shot. Agree entirely as your post is a combination of David's reply to my post and mine/his. I do concede that I was unaware of the extent of the illegal use of lead. I should be able to say that I'm totally shocked but..... Whilst there are no mitigating circumstances, the fact remains that somewhere along the line someone has reneged upon the "ecomomic" criterion which was one of the original criteria for the specifications regarding the suitability of any proposed alternative (non toxic) shot material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 Can't say I'm too surprised about the amount of non-compliance regarding the use of non-toxic shot(I've witnessed it countless times)and as it's a deliberate flouting of legislation does us no favours whatsoever, and although it is most definitely a black mark against us, does nothing to strengthen claims that eating game shot with lead poses a significant risk to an adults health,which is the WWT's aim. Despite claims by them to the contrary,I regard this as 'back door' legislation;nothing more nor less,and it is this,coupled with the apathy of British shooters,which will do for us.If the WWT were pushing only for the non-use of lead for that food which is bound for release to the general public,and advocating its use for that which is eaten by the shooter,then I may believe otherwise,but to push for a complete ban throughout leaves me in no doubt as to the agenda being pursued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted April 25, 2012 Report Share Posted April 25, 2012 The WWT may have 'secret plans to ban lead shot' but last time I looked they weren't in government and a position to ban anything. They also admit that they are the only organisation taking a lead on this. I'm not suggesting complacency but let's get this report into perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 ALL of the main shooting and trade organisations are opposed to further restrictions and always have been. The big issue is that all the main shooting and trade organisations are working on the lead issue at a European level as one through FACE. See these weeks Shooting Times Page 5 or the BASC web site or more details; http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/pressreleases.cfm/prid/EF58BE00-1F04-407B-95395510F06CCE4F At the UK level the Lead Ammunition Group are looking at the fact based evidence of lead shot. Admittedly WWT are part of that group but DEFRA will take report from the group as a whole and not from individual noisy members! The level of non compliance is not helping shootings case. I hope all the other organisations will be joining BASC in telling its members and others (yet again)that compliance with the law is vitally important. There are threats to lead for Europe and the UK,now more than ever there is the need for a united front. The cost of ammunition of course is down to the manufacturers of course by the way. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 the compliance report of the WWT, was with the help of BASC and CLA. The LAG has not meet for the year, chaired by John Swift. We now have the Face UK group looking at lead shot chaired by John Swift. Its time for all good shooting men & women to stand up and say NO! to a wider lead ban. Please see my article on the reports that the LAG are looking at. www.ianthegun.blogspot.com The LAG will not take my report on lead shot as it has not been pear reviewed. I was only looking at the very reports the LAG are looking at. My article for Countrymans Weekly was a commentary on those reports. The conclusions in the Quy report show that the distinction between background lead levels and abnormal lead levels is not well-defined and obviously buried well within the small +/- measurement tolerances of the measuring equipment used. Then it says [Quy report] “it seems reasonable to assume” This is assumption, whether reasonable or not, this is not Science. Costly studies and even more costly consequences of those studies, to the Nation and its Citizens, when any assumed benefits obviously can’t even be measured, does not appear to be a sustainable approach to what is now obviously a non-problem. There is NO hard scientific proof that lead shot is the cause of any lead poisoning of birds, mammals or humans. That is my conclusion of the obvious from reading the scientific papers. Some of the scientists looking at lead shot research on the LAG and its subgroups have written or been involved with some of the very papers they are reviewing. Is this really an independent review body? Isn’t it looking rather more like climate-gate and the revelation of buddy-gate that so badly corrupted the peer review process? The Sneddon report could not find any evidence of lead accumulation in earthworms and small mammals as an aside, what could possibly be more sensitive to accumulations from any presence of lead, than an earthworm?. It says in its conclusions “It is concluded that managed game shooting presents a minimal environmental risk in terms of transfer of elements such as Pb, As, and Sb, to soils and their associated biota in both shooting woodlands and shooting pastures.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 I'd suggest the non compliance shows the law is an *** as far as inland shooting goes. If it made more sense and was enforced then I can see it might stand more chance. Take our duck ponds with woods adjoining and ducks and pheasants in numbers you could shoot the same drive and legally use lead for one species but not the other. Vice versa we do a mainly duck drive then the guns turn round and we do a pheasant drive back where a lot of the lead fallout drops in the lake. Here it has no impact that I've ever noticed and I can be fairly sure the level of compliance with non toxic on ducks is low. Now with traceability as it is you could stop it immediately by simply getting game dealers inspected and either refusing any ducks with lead or going for fines on the shoots in question. Easy to do but not done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 at some point could game dealers be fined for accepting lead shot duck? wouldnt surprise me at all if it came into legislation. thats the way i can see game dealers being hit. it will hit the game dealers hard could there be actually people to inforce the current legeslation? i`ve heard of no-one being checked for lead shot. they do in the states, but with the ammount of nontoxics available, its not going to bea clear toxic / nontoxic. even some shooters havent even heard of the new nontoxics. i found a new one that came out a year ago. they cant test for all, if they do take a shell to test, i`d want compensation ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 John Swift does not chair FACE UK. The LAG is looking at a range of issues in relation to what if any risks there are from lead shot. There is, as I am sure you can understand allot of research to do. I suspect there is little point in meeting when the research is still going on, but if you want to check then ask the LAG As I said above, ALL the main shooting and trade associations are opposed to further restrictions. Now more than ever is the need for a united front. I am afraid that there is no defense in law by saying you don’t agree with the law! Failure to comply with the law will simply increase the risk of further restrictions. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) I'd suggest the non compliance shows the law is an *** as far as inland shooting goes. If it made more sense and was enforced then I can see it might stand more chance. Take our duck ponds with woods adjoining and ducks and pheasants in numbers you could shoot the same drive and legally use lead for one species but not the other. Vice versa we do a mainly duck drive then the guns turn round and we do a pheasant drive back where a lot of the lead fallout drops in the lake. Here it has no impact that I've ever noticed and I can be fairly sure the level of compliance with non toxic on ducks is low. Now with traceability as it is you could stop it immediately by simply getting game dealers inspected and either refusing any ducks with lead or going for fines on the shoots in question. Easy to do but not done. My game dealer will not take duck shot with steel. he told me he was buying duck from the EU where they use lead. One country in the eu has banned lead on land but they still use lead shooting from boats. I have sold lead cartridges to are EU friends and they make a killing selling it to other shooters other there. Could we not be selling duck shoot in the EU and not the UK with lead? The lead ban for shooting all comes from Agenda 21 from the UN. They are lowering the use of lead in solder and in fuel. Its all part of the big game to control our lives. Now it shooting's turn. Please find attached my lead shot article for Countryman's Weekly. lead shot article.doc Edited April 26, 2012 by gunsmoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 a law that isn't enforced and where the alternatives aren't as good and more expensive don't exactly encourage compliance though. Thats without it being nonsense in inland situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 Any chance of a link,or a pointer to where I can read the results regarding the above? I hope this helps. I have attached the WWT file in text only. WWT Document.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 I hope this helps. I have attached the WWT file in text only. Many thanks gunsmoke.I have in fact read several official reports over the years,and found,like you,many instances of the use of phrases like;'it can be assumed';'estimates suggest',and in one case a sentence along the lines of 'in about one third of cases tested trace levels were of a level so insignificant as to be untraceable'. I admit to being blatantly bias and exceedingly sceptical about this whole affair,but will continue to abide by the law as it stands,but would just like to add that both of al4xs' posts make valid points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 Wildfowling club members have demonstrated a massively high compliance levels much to their credit. They have not ignored the law because some of the alternatives to lead are more expensive, or that no one was inspecting their bag as they come off the marsh! And they have found the alternatives to be effective for ‘fowling. The point that some seem to have missed about the use of lead shot inland, is that it is a case of self regulation. It is down to shooters to know what the law was and abide by it. The people who enforce self regulation are the likes of you me, clubs and syndicates. If we had self regulated then those who oppose us would find many of their arguments seriously compromised. But if we fail to self regulate then others will regulate and enforce for us, and who will moan the loudest, I suspect those that have been ignoring the law! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 How much did BASC get paid for working on the WWT report? It is the use of all lead shot they want to ban not just wildfowling. Some people are even talking about rifle ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 come on David people flouting the rules are not exactly why the issue has arisen this whole issue didn't start with using lead for wildfowl but for other species. Wildfowling I can see the reasons for high compliance, in a situation where you are shooting in the same direction over the same pond and can use lead for Pheasants and Partridges and meant to use non toxic if a duck appears I can see why people don't comply its a dogs dinner of a piece of legislation and poses no good to anything wildfowl or otherwise. It needs sorting out so it makes sense for starters, though the simple facts are that everything points to the law having worked and far fewer wildfowl poisonings and yet most people aren't complying. just possibly that shows a thing or two as to the sense of the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted April 26, 2012 Report Share Posted April 26, 2012 The cost of ammunition of course is down to the manufacturers of course by the way. David David, when the matter of non-toxic shot was first broached here in the UK, all parties agreed that several criteria had to me met before any one material would be deemed acceptable. One of these was that it would have to be economically viable. I know this; you know this; we all know this to be the case. OK, one such material has achieved this objective but not all of us can use it. Are you now saying that BASC has interpreted this particular criterion to mean that the manufacturers can charge whatever they like for the others? From your remark above, it seems so to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts