WWT Lead Shot Plans

[MartynGT4]

I have said several times in the last 24 hours that the information in the moneys paid are available to BASC members

 

I'm a member, so how exactly do I go about getting this information? I'm guessing I won't be asked to sign an NDA?

Edited June 7, 2012 by MartynGT4

[David BASC]

Martyn GT4,Thanks, i certainly don't think you are a basher at all. Just PM me with your membership number or e-mail me david.ilsley@basc.org.uk, happy to give you the numbers as I said yesterday..no NDA required!

 

I agree the main UK threat from the WWT et al is lead in food as their minutes clearly state that’s their main line of attack. Of course this is nothing new, the FSA were looking at lead in foods with a report published in 2007 for example.

 

Currently game, and indeed some other foods, are excluded from lead limits, but there is pressure from the EU to drive down human exposure to lead in foods across the board.

 

This brings me on to another point of course, although the WWT antics are of course a threat, as is shooters ignoring the laws, the bigger threat is Europe and the ECHA inquiry looking at lead shot restrictions across the EU.

 

 

Al4x you have missed the target completely I am afraid, we have been over this and evidently you missed it - the comments made were by a couple of people expressing their personal views on a committee and were NOT endorsed or taken forward by Council as BASC policy. But there are plenty who ignore this very important point and assume it was BASC policy. Its not, and it never has been, the elected members would never allow this.

 

Our policy on lead is clear. I have made these points clear time and time again ignore them if you want to.

 

David

[al4x]

 

 

Al4x you have missed the target completely I am afraid, we have been over this and evidently you missed it - the comments made were by a couple of people expressing their personal views on a committee and were NOT endorsed or taken forward by Council as BASC policy. But there are plenty who ignore this very important point and assume it was BASC policy. Its not, and it never has been, the elected members would never allow this.

 

Our policy on lead is clear. I have made these points clear time and time again ignore them if you want to.

 

David

 

 

The story broke and whether it was policy or not you were being advised by your own committee in that direction, the wheels were not moving in a lets fight this hard and get a tender in so we do the research. It was only media and member pressure that stoked things up but that took time.

[David BASC]

Al4x,

 

As discussed at some length earlier, advisory committees are just that, they give advice, make suggestions and so on; they don’t make the decisions about how BASC is run. It’s the elected members of Council that make the final decisions on BASC policy.

 

Council’s opinion was, and is very clear; BASC will vigorously oppose any unwarranted restrictions on the use of lead ammunition. The full policy is on the BASC web site.

 

David

[al4x]

back to Poontang though you were still being advised and voting etc while the WWT were putting in and winning their tender. You must see in this case because the way you work you were too slow to react and thats because you were still making your mind up at that stage which way to go on it. If there was a steadfast we will do all we can to protect the use of lead then there would have been no committee advising you that it was dead in the water.

 

Putting that to bed and the use issues of lead you must see that it would be worth a campaign to bring the use of lead in line with Scottish law which effectively gets rid of most of the WWT's arguments and stops them having to campaign for a ban through the back door so to speak. Compliance would be far higher if the law made sense, I know you will come back and try and blame everyone else but that is a step that could be made and effectively puts the birdies in a position that is hard to defend as their remit is birdies not humans. They are only focusing on humans to get a ban on using lead over wetlands which effectively we can still do as its entirely legal to shoot non waterfowl over water.

[David BASC]

As I said I will answer Poontag asap. Two of the people I need to check with are not on site today. I hope Poontag will understand.

 

The BASC policy on lead was already in place when this research committee met, its been in place for over a decade so there was no voting or making minds up as you suggest.

 

Its very important to remember that the WWT arguments are principally based that lead shot contamination of game and venison, and spent shot in the environment not compliance, see their leaked committee minutes and their letter to the Minister in 2009.

 

So how will changing the law in England to match the law in Scotland make any difference to that? it won't.

 

As I have said before, compliance is important, and its no excuse I am afraid to say that people aren't going to comply because they think it does make sense. It may make no sense to me that I cant do 100mph on an empty motorway at 2.30am, that’s no defense in law. If we don’t comply we will be judged and criticized for if, so lets get it right.

 

And you statement that it’s entirely legal to shoot non wildfowl over water is not quite correct. Remember that in Scotland, N Ireland, for example, the use of lead shot over wetlands, foreshore or inland, to shoot any species is now prohibited.

 

The definition used for wetlands under this law covers:

Flowing water such as rivers and streams, whether permanent, seasonal or intermittent.

 

Standing waters are also included; such as permanent or seasonal ponds, pools, lochs and lakes.

 

Fens, marshes and swamps are covered if water is permanent or if they are flooded seasonally.

 

Peatlands, such as bogs and mires, with visible standing water, such as bog pools.

 

So what would you prefer… not to be allowed shoot anything over water or wetlands in England with lead at all (your proposal) or continue with the English system and still be able to use lead for almost all your inland shooting of anything apart from wildfowl?

 

David

[BlaserF3]

I just cannot believe that you are involved with a charity :blink:

[al4x]

I just cannot believe that you are involved with a charity :blink:

 

 

I know I hear the labour party could do with a new leader with the ability to spin questions this well

[mudpatten]

We seem to have veered away from the original topic and become utterly mired in the pointless question of how much BASC was paid to do some research. For those of you who are not professional BASC baiters I would ask that you stop and think for a moment about actually how important that figure is.

 

For some, the fact that this sort of arrangement in business is quite common has become lost in the fog of war.

 

As I predict it, whatever the amount concerned, BASC will of course, be in the wrong. If it`s a small amount of money, that won`t matter because they will be condemned in the same way as if it was a large sum.

 

Whatever BASC does in regard to disclosing this sum it will be victimised, so they have been between a rock and a hard place right from the outset, whilst being faced with the additional hamstring of fiscal confidentiality on an open forum.

 

I would welcome the views of contributors on what effect either 1)a large sum or 2)a small sum will have on the relevance of this entire part of the discussion which, since it is the principles involved which appear to be important rather than the actual amount, can continue without ever knowing the actual figure.(Which IS available to BASC members.)

 

I would also be interested to know how many contributors give credence to the idea propounded by Gunsmoke, that there is some correlation between the size of this sum and the degree to which BASC is beholden to the WWT. i.e. if it is a large sum, then BASC has sold it`s soul to the WWT and is forever in their pocket. Or if it`s a small sum then they are still beholden, but to a lesser degree. I know it sounds bizarre, but that`s what you are signing up to if you persist with the notion that the actual figure is at all important.

 

David BASC, as we all know, represents BASC. It is clear in his title and he is frequently held to account for the accuracy of his comments.

 

I feel it necessary to point out that,in my opinion,Gunsmoke,many of whose posts have been, to say the least,disingenious,is, I believe, a committee member of the Union of Country Sports Workers, and, as such has a clear motive in spreading alarm and despondency amongst BASC members, namely that of falsely discrediting that association and thereby potentially recruiting members so disaffected.

 

I have asked Gunsmoke to stop hiding about this but he has elected to avoid answering the question. Something that he is especially vitriolic about when BASC,in his opinion, does the same thing!

 

So gentlemen,if you are,or were, still sitting on the fence about this whole issue, please be aware that one of BASC`s main critics on this thread has, in my opinion, a hidden agenda which is not, if you are a BASC member, in your best interest.

[gunsmoke]

Davidbasc: said “We have our own evidence for the level of compliance based on our membership survey of course, which I would trust over and above the WWT research, where 45% admitted they did not comply sometimes”.

 

David, I’m sorry but you did not make it clear that the WWT report was based on the BASC survey. You said, you had your own evidence and that you would not trust the WWT research.

 

Thank you for agreeing with me, at last. The WWT report cannot be trusted. YES we agree!

 

However: The survey in the WWT report was run by BASC. Where does that leave BASC?

 

I’m only trying to put the record straight. NOW Davidbasc and Gunsmoke agree the WWT/BASC report cannot be trusted.

 

 

From the WWT report:

Acknowledgements

 

First and greatest thanks go to Drs. Alison Loram and John Harradine at BASC for their significant contribution to the project. There would have been little understanding of the issues surrounding waterfowl shooting and compliance with the Regulations without their major endeavours and it is much appreciated.

 

We are extremely grateful to the Country Land and Business Association (CLA) for

supporting the Shoot Provider Survey and distributing the survey on BASC’s behalf to a sample of CLA members.

 

Introduction page i & ii

4. Summary of findings from the questionnaire surveys

 

BASC member survey: Overall, precise understanding of the specifics of the

Regulations was poor but understanding of the ‘spirit’ of the Regulations was good i.e. if members complied with what they understood the Regulations to mean, this would, by default, mean that they complied with the Regulations as they would be ‘over-applying’ rather than ‘under-applying’ the Regulations and potentially using non-lead where they could legitimately use lead.

 

Of those legally obliged to use non-lead, 45% indicated that they sometimes or never

comply with the Regulations.

[mudpatten]

Incredible! It`s as if my post just does not exist!

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke,

 

The WWT survey was only based on looking at how many ducks, purchased from around the UK had lead shot in them, in essence a repeat of the 2002 study.

 

It is not for me to assess the viability of the WWT research, but I think you will find it was gone over with a fine tooth comb by Defra.

 

I clearly said in my post that the BASC survey found 45% did not always comply, I have every confidence in the accuracy, validity and impartiality of the BASC report, and I belive we get a very good indication of the level of and reasons for non compliance though asking people, I think you get a very good indication as to the level of lead in shot ducks by taking samples and testing them in a lab, simple as that.

 

Yes BASC were subcontracted to do our survey of members and the CLA their survey of shoot owners and their knowledge and attitudes towards the lead shot regulations, that has never been in dispute.

 

Al4x,

What spin on what questions please explain?

 

You Al4x say you want BASC to campaign for the same lead shot laws as in Scotland to apply in England, you seem to think this would increase compliance. That’s exactly what you said in your post 355.

 

I am asking if you are fully aware of the lead laws in Scotland and how restrictive they are compared to England, in the context of how many MORE species would thus be caught up in the lead shot ban inland as so many inland habitats are excluded for the use of lead shot in Scotland.

 

For example, on the shoot I beat on there are 9 drives in total, all but 2 having streams and ponds. At the moment under the English regs we can use lead on all our drives to shoot the pheasants and partridge, in close season we beaters can shoot the pigeons and rabbits.

 

Under your suggestions 7 of the 9 drives would be classed as wetland habitats and would be excluded for the use of lead shot.

 

So let me again ask you the question , what would you prefer… not to be allowed shoot anything over water or wetlands in England with lead at all or continue with the English system and still be able to use lead for almost all your inland shooting of anything apart from wildfowl?

 

 

David

Edited June 8, 2012 by David BASC

[BlaserF3]

David,

 

Why did you become involved with the WWT when they are just a charity. Was it compulsary or did BASC have the wool pulled over their eyes?

[David BASC]

Blaser

 

We have worked with the WWT for decades, as you know they were set up by a wildfowler and we had allot of common interests over the years.

 

Why would we not want to contact our members to ask their views on lead shot regulations and compliance, after all wouldn't it have been great if the results had come back that 98% complied!

David

[al4x]

 

Al4x,

What spin on what questions please explain?

 

You Al4x say you want BASC to campaign for the same lead shot laws as in Scotland to apply in England, you seem to think this would increase compliance. That’s exactly what you said in your post 355.

 

I am asking if you are fully aware of the lead laws in Scotland and how restrictive they are compared to England, in the context of how many MORE species would thus be caught up in the lead shot ban inland as so many inland habitats are excluded for the use of lead shot in Scotland.

 

For example, on the shoot I beat on there are 9 drives in total, all but 2 having streams and ponds. At the moment under the English regs we can use lead on all our drives to shoot the pheasants and partridge, in close season we beaters can shoot the pigeons and rabbits.

 

Under your suggestions 7 of the 9 drives would be classed as wetland habitats and would be excluded for the use of lead shot.

 

So let me again ask you the question , what would you prefer… not to be allowed shoot anything over water or wetlands in England with lead at all or continue with the English system and still be able to use lead for almost all your inland shooting of anything apart from wildfowl?

 

 

David

 

spin on pretty much every question asked David its very rare to get a straight answer.

 

Ok on the habitat question are the WWT going to stop their quest for the total banning of lead while people can still use lead over wetlands?

If we can still use lead in all these circumstances quite frankly we may as well not bother with a ban as we will still allegedly be poisoning wildfowl, how exactly does shooting ducks with non toxic shot then using lead in the same habitat help in the quest for not poisoning waterfowl? The whole argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, you are going to oppose the WWT to try and keep the use of lead over inland water and they are going to go for a total ban on lead to stop lead entering water sadly I get a feeling I know who will win.

[David BASC]

Give me specific examples please Al4x of questions I have been asked where I have not given a clear answer.

 

I note you are avoiding my direct question on your desire for BASC to lobby to have the 'Scottish' legislation in England...why? I am interested that as a BASC member your are advising we take this path.

 

In my view the WWT are likely to keep pushing for a lead ban regardless of habitat.

 

I do not agree that because we do not have the same habitat limitations as in Scotland, that the England restrictions should not be followed.

 

Yes we are going to oppose nay further restrictions on lead shot, that’s exactly what our lead shot policy says.

 

David

[Salopian]

After following this thread from day one, I think it has run it's course.

If you read the BASC Policy on the use of Lead shot you will see that it has carefully been reworded over the years to actually say very little positive to give the Lead supporters any reason to believe that we are in safe hands.

We have 130,000+ members in BASC, but of course many of those members may well oppose killing in any shape or form.

The more I read, the more I see, and more I experience I think that I am a guardian of a toothless tiger. Sadly I think that in a few short years we will see a banning of Lead shot without a suitable efficient alternative being found.

[RossEM]

Steel is a suitable efficient alternative.

 

All this anti-BASC guff is a waste of everyone's time and energy. If lead is to be banned, it will be as a result of EU-wide legislation, which NO pressure group has a hope in hell of influencing.

 

David, with regards to Scottish lead regulations, within what distance from a wetland is it illegal to discharge lead from a gun?

[utectok]

All this anti-BASC guff is a waste of everyone's time and energy. If lead is to be banned, it will be as a result of EU-wide legislation, which NO pressure group has a hope in he

Edited June 8, 2012 by utectok

[al4x]

Give me specific examples please Al4x of questions I have been asked where I have not given a clear answer.

 

I note you are avoiding my direct question on your desire for BASC to lobby to have the 'Scottish' legislation in England...why? I am interested that as a BASC member your are advising we take this path.

 

In my view the WWT are likely to keep pushing for a lead ban regardless of habitat.

 

I do not agree that because we do not have the same habitat limitations as in Scotland, that the England restrictions should not be followed.

 

Yes we are going to oppose nay further restrictions on lead shot, that’s exactly what our lead shot policy says.

 

David

 

David you have numerous posts pointed at you in the last 25 pages of answering something other than was asked.

 

So we have your view on WWT, can you answer whether there is any proof waterbirds are poisoned by lead shot from wetlands? Yes or no will suffice.

 

If the answer to that is yes can you see why us using lead on other species over the same wetlands is going to be an issue for the WWT and really it matters not if a shot taken at a duck is with lead or non toxic if the following shot at a pheasant is with lead that then falls on the same wetlands.

 

Of course if you believe ducks aren't poisoned by lead then that is an altogether different thing.

 

I'm sure you'll come back and moan about non compliance and try and twist things but the facts are there and it is science based lead in wetlands kills ducks according to most birdy organisations. You're trying to defend the use of lead in these circumstances don't you see its really not helping our cause.

The lead ban was another badly thought out and written law compliance is high amongst wildfowlers as they see the benefits however inland it makes no sense whatsoever and makes little difference to lead entering wetlands.

[Salopian]

Can we get agreement on the following very important fact please?

Steel shot (soft iron) is not a suitable alternative to Lead shot. Fact. Period. End of Debate.

Alternative shot material is capable of harming quarry at suitable distances.

Rice can kill a pigeon if loaded into a cartridge and shot at close range.

But to say that soft iron is a suitable efficient alternative is not strictly correct.

If you shoot birds such as pigeon with soft iron it is possible/ likely that the pellets will pass straight through the bird without mortally wounding it, are you comfortable with wounding quarry?

If you load soft iron and increase the velocity beyond CIP recommendations such as is available from the US you can kill wildfowl at 40 & 50 yards but you are subjecting yourself and your gun to unknown dangers that only you have responsibility for.

Since we were subjected to restrictions upon the use of Lead shot, the cartridge industry have not come up with a suitable efficient, affordable alternative to Lead that can be used in British classic gameguns and wildfowling guns that were manufactured in the era when we were regarded as the finest manufacturers of small arms in the World, we have not safeguarded the future of these historic artefacts.

The industry can not supply a suitable economic alternative.

BASC did say that they would support the phasing out of Lead shot PROVIDING a suitable economically priced efficient alternative could be provided.

For more than ten years now we have had representation by BASC but I have yet to hear of BASC's grave concerns that sufficient scientific evidence has not been forthcoming upon the dangers of Lead shot use and the supply of an economic efficient alternative.

We have been very quick to embrace soft iron as an alternative when clearly it is not.

[David BASC]

No specifics then Al4x? Just want to know so if there are any I can answer them that’s all.

 

Yes there is evidence that waterfowl can be poisoned by lead.

 

Yes i understand your point, that’s why I said its my view that the WWT will campaign to ban lead regardless of habitat.

 

So back to my question to you, do you want to see further restrictions on the use of lead in England?

 

 

Salopian,

 

Others like I have found steel effective.

 

Shot kills by causing critical damage to vital tissues whether its left in body or not is irrelevant in the context of mortality.

 

Any shot type can wound

 

No one should be comfortable with wounding, and everyone should make sure they shoot within their and their gun cartridge combinations limits.

 

David

[wymberley]

Can we get agreement on the following very important fact please?

Steel shot (soft iron) is not a suitable alternative to Lead shot. Fact. Period. End of Debate.

Alternative shot material is capable of harming quarry at suitable distances.

Rice can kill a pigeon if loaded into a cartridge and shot at close range.

But to say that soft iron is a suitable efficient alternative is not strictly correct.

If you shoot birds such as pigeon with soft iron it is possible/ likely that the pellets will pass straight through the bird without mortally wounding it, are you comfortable with wounding quarry?

If you load soft iron and increase the velocity beyond CIP recommendations such as is available from the US you can kill wildfowl at 40 & 50 yards but you are subjecting yourself and your gun to unknown dangers that only you have responsibility for.

Since we were subjected to restrictions upon the use of Lead shot, the cartridge industry have not come up with a suitable efficient, affordable alternative to Lead that can be used in British classic gameguns and wildfowling guns that were manufactured in the era when we were regarded as the finest manufacturers of small arms in the World, we have not safeguarded the future of these historic artefacts.

The industry can not supply a suitable economic alternative.

BASC did say that they would support the phasing out of Lead shot PROVIDING a suitable economically priced efficient alternative could be provided.

For more than ten years now we have had representation by BASC but I have yet to hear of BASC's grave concerns that sufficient scientific evidence has not been forthcoming upon the dangers of Lead shot use and the supply of an economic efficient alternative.

We have been very quick to embrace soft iron as an alternative when clearly it is not.

 

 

The problem with forums is that you don't set out to write a thesis. When writing one is aware of all the ifs and buts but you simply can't cover all the points. Unfortunately, the reader usually will pick up on your omission(s) and often jump all over you.

 

It is easy to criticise some of the points raised here when taken in isolation exactly as David has done. However, when taken in context and reading the post as a whole, it is an accurate assessment of the situation.

 

Thankyou, mate, a good post and well said.

[andrewluke]

 

Others like I have found steel effective.

 

Shot kills by causing critical damage to vital tissues whether its left in body or not is irrelevant in the context of mortality.

 

Any shot type can wound

 

No one should be comfortable with wounding, and everyone should make sure they shoot within their and their gun cartridge combinations limits.

 

David

 

at what sort of ranges have you found steel effective and what length,weight and shot size of cartridge were you using where you would usually use lead?

 

the cartridge pigeons i would normally use for pigeons would be lead,30 gram,65mm or 70mm in size 6,what would you recommend i would use in steel which would be it's equivalent?

 

andrew

[Salopian]

David,

Please don't be coy, I did say that Rice will kill at appropriate ranges on suitable quarry.

Soft iron is not equivalent to lead, I know that and you know that. Many many pigeon shooters have maimed birds with steel shot cartridges that is a fact. You as a scientist know that it is the shock to vital organs caused by the dissipation of energy that kills and the deformation of Lead does that far better than steel needles passing through the body at 400mph.

Let's face facts, none of the shooting organisations have put up a robust defence of Lead on behalf of the shooting fraternity.

If steel shot is so acceptable as a Lead alternative why have numerous clay shooting grounds banned it's use, and why have the CPSA issued a directive highlighting the dangers of soft iron shot (Steel) ricocheting?

On that particular point, why if Lead shot is so harmful do many shooting grounds throw clays that are shot over and into water? One leading magazine last month carried an article on how to shoot clays over water. A magazine that BASC works in conjunction with. Lead can't be that bad can it??