WWT Lead Shot Plans

[al4x]

As its a DEFRA sponsored survey could there be anything submitted along the lines of a freedom of information enquiry to get the facts. If they sourced from gamedealers then they really should be able to tell which shoot and when they were collected etc. But of course it depends whether it was done correctly or to achieve their aim.

[poontang]

As its a DEFRA sponsored survey could there be anything submitted along the lines of a freedom of information enquiry to get the facts. If they sourced from gamedealers then they really should be able to tell which shoot and when they were collected etc. But of course it depends whether it was done correctly or to achieve their aim.

 

It does seem odd that to carry out a 'robust and credible' survey the WWT were looking for £125,000. In the end they secured £63,557, half what they required.

 

Can we assume then that the survey is neither robust or credible?

 

Alex, yes, as public money was used a FOI request can be sent to DEFRA, asking for the FULL survey and report (not just the conclusions).

[al4x]

you'd assume BASC has done this and asked for a bit of traceability on the birds tested rather than relied on an assurance by WWT but no doubt David can clear that up.

[David BASC]

I do not know if the provenance of the ducks has been checked, but i dont think there is doubt (is there?) that X% of the ducks tested contained lead shot. If you look at the letter from the RSPB / WWT provenance or compliance was not the issue, OK compliance is not as high as we would have liked inland, but compliance is not the issue that WWT/RSPB have gone into bat with.

 

If you look at the letter from the WWT / RSPB that resulted in DEFRA setting up the LAG, 'compliance' was mentioned just once in an 850 word document, and was all but brushed over. The big message in the letter, that was repeated, was on lead in game and its risks to humans, and spent lead shot on the ground and its risks to wildlife.

 

The LAG is now looking at new evidence in the areas of investigation - risks to human health / environmental impact as we know. You can see an update on the work of the risk assessment groups on the LAG web site.

 

David

[Scully]

I do not know if the provenance of the ducks has been checked, but i dont think there is doubt (is there?) that X% of the ducks tested contained lead shot. If you look at the letter from the RSPB / WWT provenance or compliance was not the issue

 

David

As you have constantly referred back to 'non-compliance' being an 'issue',I would have thought it prudent in the least for BASC to have checked the provenance of claimed lead shot duck in the report.I would regard this as a major matter of importance,and not something easily overlooked.

This is akin to one political party taking as 'granted' information placed in the public domain as fact,by an opposing political party.

[Scully]

....only if he is alleging that they were shot on the moon.(Where, intriguingly,the non tox regs do not apply.)

Another helpful contribution mudpatten!

Incidently,as gunsmoke hasn't alleged they 'were shot on the moon',doesn't your post infer his post is factual?

[David BASC]

Compliance is an issue I agree, after all we must comply with the law, by ignoring the law we do ourselves no favours at all.

 

BASC will keep stressing this to members and of course shooters in general too, that the law must be complied with and good standards in shooting must be maintained.

 

On the provenance issue; some have said that maybe some of the ducks came from Scotland or indeed overseas so were exempt from the restrictions on lead, and hence does not show a lack of compliance. However, as I say, it was not compliance with the restrictions on lead shot that the WWT / RSPB went to Defra about, it was that ducks etc are on sale and contain lead, and that lead shot is deposited on land and they repeatedly questioned the risks to human health and the environment.

 

Hence the LAG are focusing on the risks to human health and the risks to the environment and not compliance.

 

David

[al4x]

and spent lead shot on the ground and its risks to wildlife.

 

 

 

And once again the WWT wouldn't have such an argument if lead couldn't be used over wetlands, ignore compliance ignore any feeble intimations to risk to human health and the WWT remit is ducks and wetlands, where entirely legally we can go and shoot vermin and gamebirds with lead. Take that argument away from them and do a bit of research into lead from game affecting UK shooters and suddenly there is no argument. We could do with a bit of evidence that shooters are not being slowly poisoned by lead and its really not that hard to proove. Simply get some volunteers from within the membership to submit to testing, being people that eat game and see what the results are.

As for the indifference to the provenance of the ducks tested well that shows quite what a fight is being done on our behalf the answer is naff all.

 

The simple fact is lead is most dangerous to wildlife when it is doing in excess of 1000 fps in their direction, after that its of danger to waterfowl who pick it up from feeding in mud after that has anyone ever heard of anything on land thats been poisoned from picking up pellets?

Edited May 25, 2012 by al4x

[David BASC]

It’s important to understand there are two separate issues here.

 

Compliance with the law on the use of lead shot:

Compliance is very very high in the wildfowling community, but not so high inland. This needs to be worked on and improved as it’s important that shooters are seen to comply with the law and show good practice, but compliance is NOT the main issue that WWT are concerned about.

 

Risks from lead shot:

The WWT’s attack is on the risks of lead contamination duck meat and other game meat sold as food in England, and the risks from lead shot being deposited on land, it makes no difference therefore where the ducks that were sold in the shops came from in this context, just how many contained lead and therefore, in the opinion of the WWT posed a risk.

 

That is why the primary evidence groups within the LAG are looking at UK evidence for human health issues, as well as UK environmental risk issues and not compliance.

 

David

[Salopian]

David,

al4x makes some very good points in his previous post.

Common sense points which seem to be lacking by the WWT and BASC in their defence of the use of Lead.

This has debate has been going on for over 15 years now and you do not need reminding that BASC stated that they would support the phasing out of Lead if an economic, readily available and ballistically efficient equivalent could be provided. To date that has not happened. Neither has the detractors of Lead come up with any hard statistical facts that the consumption of game shot with Lead has fatal consequences.

The cartridge manufacturers have vested interests in their chosen alternatives and do not work effectively and efficiently together to source a viable alternative. Why not a concerted effort to produce cheaper Tungsten Matrix? Why not a concerted effort to find a suitable alternative for use in classic game guns without the necessity to purchase a Super steel proofed gun and use steel loads that are injurious to use?

[David BASC]

You are correct that BASC delayed the initial introduction of the lead shot restrictions to try and give the cartridge makers time to develop alternatives. Otherwise the lead shot ban would have come in many years before it did in England and there would not have been any alternatives at all.

 

I think its also fair to say that some of the alternatives have got better over the years.

 

John Batley from the GTA is on the LAG looking at all the issues from a trade perspective, and what work is on going or planned within the cartridge industry I do not know, but John B is the best person to ask. But the cost of the shot will depend on the costs of the raw materials and the costs of turning them into shot of course.

 

Its not a matter of lead being so toxic that it will lead to fatalities, severe acute lead poisoning can and does kill , but we are talking massive blood levels of lead, way higher than you would get by eating some pheasant or venison or a pigeon or two!

 

But there are limits on the amount of lead allowed in many foods and in water. The LAG is looking at how much lead is in game, and thus what if any threat there could be to health. If there are any issues then the LAG will look at how those could be over come.

 

David

[al4x]

and again what on earth has human health got to do with the WWT??

 

If it isn't the way they think they can achieve a lead ban by doing it via the back door so to speak. Personally I'd be annoyed if the charity I supported to look after ducks and wetlands were spending their donations looking into something totally unrelated. Unless of course it wasn't and was being done to achieve a lead ban over wetlands and to stop perceived poisoning of ducks.

Either BASC are very naive in this respect or they are doing what they can so the membership don't think they are rolling over on this one.

Edited May 26, 2012 by al4x

[Graham M]

I raised this topic a couple of years ago and was shot down for insinuating that BASC were not working hard enough to protect lead.

It was after John Swift wrote an article in a shooting magazine in which he put forward the dangers of burying our heads in the sand over the use of lead shot. He went on to say how we needed to show that we were conscious of the dangers of lead and that as shooters we should be seen to “Do the right thing”.

 

Remember that David???

 

The whole context of the article was aimed at showing how we should eventually be moving towards a complete usage of non-toxic shot, but it was worded in such a way as to make it look as though BASC would be doing so only because that would be what responsible shooters would want.

 

Statements like we must take notice of scientific testing, or we will oppose the banning of lead unless scientific testing proves that lead is dangerous, just shows that BASC is sitting on the fence over this.

 

Politicians are very skilled at making promises about something but will always word their promises so that they have some “wiggle room” when they have to change their minds.

BASC will make noises about looking after shooting, but will keep their options open...

…...just in case someone in the gubmint accuses them of not protecting the environment. At which time they can always point to Mr Swift's statement in which he pointed out that they always intended to “Do the right thing”.

 

And what of rifle bullets??? Nosler are already charging stupid money for their 308“partitions” (£80+ per 100 for bullets alone). So I'm pretty sure the bullet manufacturers would only be too pleased to introduce new all-singing-all-dancing copper bullets @ £150 per 100 (don't imagine that the present copper bullets will remain at their current prices)

 

And as for .22rf....... I used shoot Tenex until they went up to £12 a box; I now shoot Match @ £8.50 a box because I can't afford it any more.

Could you imagine having to pay £15 a box for Eley HP

 

Lead WILL eventually be banned, and BASC will take the credit for moving shooting into a new non-toxic era where we can all benefit from the new healthier food that is now being drawn into the food chain..............

 

And we will all be grateful to them for their “In depth” talks with the government that will allow us to carry on with our shooting, albeit at a huge increase in cartridge costs. But then again why would anyone quibble about paying £25-£30 a box for non-toxic shot.

After all, we would be doing the right thing, just like paying £8.00 a gallon for petrol so that we can lower emissions and protect the planet (whilst the rest of the world carries on regardless).

I do look forward to the day when I can go pigeon shooting and know that it will cost me over £250 for a day on the farm.

 

G.M.

[David BASC]

Yes GM, I remember it well. And as I have said before, we have a significant number of BASC members who need to use non toxic shot, hence we have kept testing non toxic and reporting on this on our mag etc.

 

But some have taken this to mean that BASC is anti lead – of course we are not, why on earth would we be as the majority of our members can use lead.

 

Human health has nothing at all to do with the WWT / RSPB but that’s exactly what they used to target their approach to Defra, people will no doubt, have read the WWT/RSPB letter on the LAG web site.

 

So we wait to see the results of the primary evidence groups work.

 

We will, of course keep representing our members interests to the very best of our ability.

 

David

 

PS I am on holiday this week with very limited access to a PC so please dont think I am ignoring this issue if I dont post back quickly.

 

D

[Livefast123]

I'll get my coat :yp:

Edited May 26, 2012 by Livefast123

[mudpatten]

Livefast,It might help to re read David BASC`s post no 259.

[Salopian]

This is a post that I have received via Linkedin, where David's BASC colleague Nick Glazbrooke is fighting the corner on behalf of BASC.

It does now appear that many people are very concerned at the unwarranted attack upon shooters and are increasingly concerned about BASC's apparent lack of concern and inactivity. There have been many instances where we British have sat back and said 'let's wait and see' one of the most memorable was Neville Chamberlain sitting back while an Austrian called Adolph told him a pack of lies.That little fracas nearly cost us very dear. Let us hope that BASC get motivated before it is too late.

From, LinkedIn by Richard Taylor.

• This is one of many issues that impact upon shooting and while it seems to generate plenty of heat, as a non-scientist I would be interested to know more about what the core issues are and the science around them. As anyone who has read Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, or worked in the media (as I have) knows the reporting of science-related issues is of such a low standard (for a host of reasons) that having 'superior science' makes little difference in swaying either the media or public debate.

 

There is I think a legitimate debate to be had about BASC's communications strategy, both internal (amongst members, shooters and supporters) and external (amongst key stakeholders inc. local, regional, national and supra-national governments and their agencies). In my view they could be far more strategically proactive and make better use of members skills and connections rather than relying on the board and small number of committees. Part of the problem seems to be poor intelligence, odd for an organisation with so many ex-military staff. As an example BASC had no knowledge that an online animal welfare project targeting UK schools was run by PETA and that this key battle ground (education) needs a proper strategy and resourcing. If you look at any animal charity from PETA, to LACS and the RSPB, RSPCA and WWT, you will see schools and education are at the heart of their short and long-term strategies. The WWT even say that 'WWT will continue to develop first class formal school education whilst also focussing on non-formal learning for all ages through improved information panels, publications, website and increased numbers of activities and demonstrations led by conservation and wildlife experts'.

 

I know a little about this having owned an educational MARCOMS agency (sold to EdComs who built the CA's Countryside Investigators webs site) and having sat on the (now defunct) BASC Shooting Standards Committee.

 

I have just looked at the WWT's documents at the Charity Commission website http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SIR/ENDS84%5C0001030884_SIR_20110331_E.PDF

 

This makes for interesting reading for those like me who would like to try and derail their planned campaign. What this information shows is:

1. – WWT they have more members than BASC (200,000)

 

1. – WWT’s 2011 was almost £26m

 

1. - WWT have £33m of reserves inc. £6m in cash and investments

 

1. - The important role of their subsidiary WWT Consulting

 

1. - Number of children reached directly 66, 512 (2011)

 

1. - 1.1m visitors to WWT sites

 

These few statistics show the scale of the 'opposition' and just how weak BASC are in many key areas, e.g. BASC's 2011 surplus of £684k whereas the WWT's was £4.4m with their investments gains being as large as BASC's total surplus! Similarly BASC's publication, 'Shooting the facts for journalists' is so poor even a council member agreed it is 'a hopeless joke'.

So to end this epistle, lead is a serious issue and we will need more than a reactive approach, based on 'good science' to win this battle (let alone the 'war against shooting'). We also need is a different approach from BASC who need to break out of their insular, old-fashioned, reactive organisational culture. If they can't then they and we will all lose!

[Graham M]

Bloody hell, what a cracking post.

G.M.

[David BASC]

For sure the WWT / RSPB letter has set hares running, if you read it, that’s what it was designed to do, i.e. force DEFRA to look at lead shot.

 

As I have said many times, the Primary Evidence Groups on the LAG are looking at what, if any, problems there are and what could be done about it.

 

It is via this scientific group that the evidence you speak of Salopian will be gathered. Any strategist, military or otherwise, will tell you its foolish to go into battle without good intelligence.

 

Turning to involving members, as I said earlier, BASC is a members organisation, there is nothing at all stopping any member getting in touch on this issue and giving their thoughts.

 

Of course we will always keep members and other shooter up to speed with what we are doing through our web site, our magazine and of course the shooting press; although some, as you have seen on this thread simply say this is only preaching to the converted!

 

I agree that educating the young is important and as you know we do several large schools events every year in front of thousands of children, let alone our Young Shot days which are being more widely advertised to non members though local press for example, if we had more resources I know we could do more.

 

As I said before a few posts ago, the environment we live in means that BASC has to be involved in a mix of proactive and reactive work, we must wait until the results of the LAG work is completed before we can decide exactly what the best course of action on lead in food or lead deposited on land will be.

 

David

[utectok]

Whilst I doo not condone breaking the law the law must be fair and based on good evidence the lead ban as far as I know over wetlands is based on feeble evidence and the species variation in England is simply bonkers. It should be reviewed. Secondly I do not Belive compliance or lack of it has got us in this mess there are vested interests that want to ban lead and would want to regardless IMHO next they will want to bann shooting altogether I expect. I expect shooting bodies that are supposed to lobby for us are already accepting lead will be banned on sparse evidence seems a shame to me but there you go

[guest1957]

I would like to see a statement from some of the shooting bodies that species based differentiation is insane. It needs to be location based before compliance improves as then people will see the sense behind the law. Can anyone give a good reason (apart from the obvious legal requirement) why a duck shot over a field needs to be done so with ntx?

[utectok]

I'd say you make bonkers laws people will ignore them fox hunting etc etc. lord knows why the so called lobby bodies let through spieces variations on shot types. I've lost any confidence in our representation over lead..... I'm just gonna have to get my OU steel proofed I suppose Edited May 29, 2012 by utectok

[gunsmoke]

Hi all, I'm back

 

Been in Northern Ireland working at the Moria Country Fair, over the wekkend, great show. very nice people and they have been following these postings.

 

They are upto date with most of what is going on. One of the visitor even have my private Emails post to the Face UK group. He that them on his iPad.

 

At lest we are now talking but I still need to find the anwsers to my questions. Please let me know if I mist the post.

 

How much did BASC get paid for their part in the WWT/BASC survey?

 

Has anyone seen the covering letter BASC set to BASC members with the survey?

 

The duck tested could have been shot legally? DavidBASC siad in one post that the game dealer told the buyer from WWT that they where shot locally. That is not proof. He should know that. One again misinformation for BASC.

 

The shooter at the Moria show where very interesting in my barrel damage by steel shot. YES! a barrel damaged by steel shot. The shot size used was AAA in a 2 1/2" chambered standard proofed gun. Silly yes, non-recommend by this gunsmith but it only show that steel is not a very good type of shot to used in a shotgun.

[mudpatten]

Sorry mate, it does`nt show that "steel is not a very good type of shot to use in a shotgun."

 

It just illustrates that the person who did that is a moron.

 

I presume it was`nt you that did it? Was it?

 

Now you`re back, perhaps you can give us the broad brush outline of the scientific experiments that you conducted which concluded that steel does not work.

 

To paraphrase your own quote "Once again,misinformation from the anonymous Gunsmoke."

 

And finally, and you keep dancing away from this one,do you have any connection with any group that purports to represent countryside workers?

 

If you do,without declaring it, it rather puts a different spin on your attacks on another membership organisation since one could be forgiven for thinking that your attacks are solely intended to damage a competitior.

[David BASC]

Several thousand people saw the covering letter Gunsmoke, all the BASC members that we sent the survey! As I said several posts ago that it made clear the object of the survey reference to the WWT.

 

Twice now you have accused me of misinformation, once when I repeated what the Proof Master says about steel shot in Damascus barrels ie the Proof Master does not recommend it how is that misinformation from BASC? Now when I repeat what it clearly says in the WWT research report that they say they checked that ducks purchased were from England again how is this misinformation from BASC?

 

You keep making these inaccurate statements , backed on occasion with personal insults and it is not acceptable what so ever, and I would like an apology .

 

If you use cartridges that produce more pressure than your gun in proofed for of course you are risking damage, regardless of what the shot type is.

 

But back you your main thrust, lets assume, for sake of argument, that ALL the ducks tested were shot in Scotland, and that all the BASC members who said they sometimes or never complied with the non tox regulations lied, and that in fact they ALL comply with the law ALL the time so compliance is 100%. Does it make any difference? No. I think you may have missed the very important point that the main thrust of the WWT / RSPB attack both in the original letter to Defra and the leaked WWT committee minutes is on lead contamination of game and the environment and not compliance.

 

This is why the LAG are doing risk assesmens on lead in game and spent shot in the environment and not on compliance.

 

David

Edited May 29, 2012 by David BASC