WWT Lead Shot Plans

[David BASC]

Poontag

I will see what I can find out.

 

Scully

If the UK shooting orgnisations are not fighting this then what , in your view , are we all doing?

 

Salopian

There is research going on, through LAG, about how much lead is in game and how much does this contribute to the overall diet intake, and what the impact, if any, of spent lead shot in the environment is. I do not think spending members money to duplicate this research is needed.But as always we will be guided by our elected membrs.

 

Regards

 

David

Edited June 9, 2012 by David BASC

[Scully]

 

Scully

If the UK shooting orgnisations are not fighting this then what , in your view , are we all doing?

I have no idea what the other UK organisations are doing,but I know what BASC are doing,and it certainly isn't fighting.You know also David.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Scully

[poontang]

 

 

Yes I think the European issues are more of a threat than anything currently on going in the UK, which is why the united front though FACE of the main shooting orgnisations is so important.

 

David

 

David,

 

The European issue you mention, is that the ECHA REACH 2013 issue?

 

On 4th February 2010 FACE, CIC and WFSA met in Rome to discuss the way forward concerning 'sustainable' ammunition.

 

The 3 organisations agreed the steps to take in relation to the design and implementation of a 'road map' in the phasing out of lead ammunition.

 

Would that be a fair summary of what was discussed at the meeting?

[Guest cookoff013]

http://www.nssfblog.com/nssf-to-intervene-in-latest-lawsuit-against-traditional-ammunition/

[David BASC]

Poontag,

It’s the study by ECHA investigation into the costs of shot manufacture etc which could be used to review the economic impact of further lead restrictions across the EU, a bit more info in on the press release I posted the link to above.

 

I am sorry but I am not familiar with the detail of that meeting so I don’t want to give an inaccurate reply, so I will check and get back next week.

 

Scully,

Looking at the three UK threats in turn:

 

Compliance- we will keep stressing the need to comply with the law.

 

Lead in food- we will keep promoting game through our Taste of Game campaign and working with others to increase the sale of game through a range of outlets including supermarkets. We will keep abreast of any research into lead in game and advise accordingly as we have been doing.

 

Lead in the environment - we will again keep abreast of any research into lead in the environment and advise accordingly as and when any evidence is produced of a risk.

Any thoughts on what else could be done let me know.

 

At a European level we will keep working with the other shooting organisations on FACE to do what ever we can. Again, any thoughts on what else could be done let me know.

 

David

[Scully]

I'm well aware of the threats David,thanks.

If you want to know what else BASC can do,well they could make a start by bringing an end to this game of charades.

You and I both know that BASC are not committed to the fight for lead(there are bigger fish in charge here)and in persisting in this type of 'political' evasiveness you(BASC) are damaging,possibly beyond repair,this country's major shooting organisation,which in turn will damage the future of shooting sports in this country,which is my primary concern.

BASC are indeed united with other organisations in Europe,but the unification is not concerned with the survival of lead shot,but rather with its eventual phasing out.

You can deny it all you like David,but we both know it isn't just a possibility,it's a fact.

I'm not blaming you personally David;you're just doing your job,but to persist in this constant denial could eventually mean you don't have a job when the membership discover just how they've been lied to and misled,and for how long,by BASC.

[poontang]

Poontag,

 

 

I am sorry but I am not familiar with the detail of that meeting so I don’t want to give an inaccurate reply, so I will check and get back next week.

 

 

 

David

 

Ok David, I'll try and explain what I understand of recent proceedings. Some information is missing as a couple of meetings were held behind closed doors.

 

As I see it there are 3 main groups involved in this affair.

 

FACE (BASC CA and NARGC)

 

CIC (Richard Potts GWCT)

 

WFSA

 

Back in May 2009 CIC decided that there was growing pressure on the sustainability of lead ammunition. They decided to call for a workshop to look at what could be done.

 

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/index.php?id=508

 

In November 2009 the workshop was held in Denmark. The whole thing was geared to the phasing out of lead ammunition, not fighting for its retention (indeed even our old friends from WWT were in attendance). It's plain to see the intentions of the CIC and their collaborators (there words, not mine). The link below is quite long but makes interesting reading, particularly the parts about how to implement their proposals. It's worth checking out in particular section 6.5.3 to see a list of CIC 'collaborators'. Who'd have thought WWT could serve any useful purpose in helping to implement a ban. It's also worth checking out section 8.1 and 8.2 to see exactly where CIC stand on lead ammunition.

 

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/uploads/media/CIC_Sustainable_Hunting_Ammunition_Workshop_Report_low_res.pdf

 

It's interesting to note that only a few days later came the infamous BASC advisory meeting. Something I hadn't really noticed before was John Harradine wanting to set up a ballistics group, paying particular attention to 'Respect for quarry' programme. Something which had been brought up in Denmark a few days earlier. Coincidence?

 

Moving on, and Rome 2010 is the destination. A meeting between FACE, WFSA and CIC takes place behind closed doors. This is where I can only assume they were discussing the findings from the workshop in Denmark and deciding the way forward.

I'm assuming that's what they were doing because of the way the president of CIC reported the meeting in his newsletter. Bearing in mind CIC are pushing for a phase out of lead ammunition he seems quite happy with the outcome of the secret meeting. Indeed his comments on page 2 make very interesting reading.

 

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/uploads/media/2010_1_Newsletter_01.pdf

 

It looks very much to me like FACE have fallen in with WFSA and CIC and are actively helping in the demise of lead ammunition.

Of course it would be very easy to blame FACE and the CIC as nobody really knows much about them, or what they do, so we can all shout at them and they won't give a damn. Except of course John Swift is a vice president of FACE and that fact alone makes this whole thing very unpalatable.

 

Edit: correct links now added

Edited June 9, 2012 by poontang

[BlaserF3]

BASC have been opposed to restrictions on lead for decades, and for anyone to say there is no evidence of this must have missed everything we have ever published on our web site and our mag,etc.

 

BASC will keep resisting , thankfully now supported by other organisations, any lead ban simply because we see no evidence for any further restrictions or bans, this is clearly stated on our web site, and I am please tot say the web sites of some other organisations who have joined the fight since the LAG was formed.

 

I say again, it’s not unelected committees that set BASC policy it’s the elected Council. It’s the policy and views of Council that’s important.

 

As I say, there are no proposals in front of parliament for lead bans and BASC is not in the pockets of ministers supporting restrictions on lead. If you have any evidence to back up your accusations then post it on here please. I am sure the WWT would love you to bits if you could prove all this rubbish and thus help support that campaign to get lead banned!

 

David

 

I have had a look on the home page of BASC and the link about fighting for continued use of lead has gone. This http://www.basc.org.uk//en/departments/game-and-gamekeeping/game-shooting/lead-and-nonlead-shot.cfm has now replaced it.

 

If I'm wrong fair enough but I cannot find the original link about lead shot.

[Scully]

I have had a look on the home page of BASC and the link about fighting for continued use of lead has gone. This http://www.basc.org.uk//en/departments/game-and-gamekeeping/game-shooting/lead-and-nonleadin -shot.cfm has now replaced it.

 

If I'm wrong fair enough but I cannot find the original link about lead shot.

Noticed the comment that DEFRA is 'currently considering how to respond to findings of low compliance in inland shoots',despite serious reservations as to the accuracy of the CROMIE report.

Poontangs post,and relevant links make for some very interesting and enlightening reading.Done deal?Can there now be any doubt?

[poontang]

Noticed the comment that DEFRA is 'currently considering how to respond to findings of low compliance in inland shoots',despite serious reservations as to the accuracy of the CROMIE report.

Poontangs post,and relevant links make for some very interesting and enlightening reading.Done deal?Can there now be any doubt?

 

I put in a FoI request to DEFRA for the CROMIE report. I've asked for the FULL report not just the final summary which is all that is in the public domain. I've specifically asked for the information regarding the provenance of the duck tested and when they were shot, amongst other things. They have 20 days to respond.

 

I should have a reply in the next week or so.

[wymberley]

I have to concede that I'm slowing up and am firmly on a run down - at times it can feel like a full on bloody gallop. However, I do try to stay current-ish - on here and a couple of magazines. Is it just me that has absolutely no idea of what poontang is on about and if not, should we not have been made aware of it?

[Scully]

Must admit I get confused myself wymberley,and we're not alone,this is a confusing issue.

FOI is Freedom of Information Act,and the CROMIE report is the Compliance with the Environmental Protection-restriction on the use of lead shot.It is the report that the WWT submitted to DEFRA regarding compliance to lead shot restrictions.

From what I can gather, at the time the report was being compiled,it was still legal to shoot duck with lead shot, in parts of the UK and the EU,hence the doubt cast over the reports validity and accuracy,and the integrity of those involved.Does anybody in fact know where the ducks used in the survey were actually shot?

BASC must surely have known about the misleading elements contained within this report,but nevertheless allowed its contents to be placed in the public domain,and thereby regarded as fact.

Have a read through the links Poontang has posted;a long haul I'll admit,but well worth while.I think you'll find(amongst other things)the policy FACE have adopted regarding lead shot.Despite claims to the contrary,it isn't to fight.

[poontang]

I have to concede that I'm slowing up and am firmly on a run down - at times it can feel like a full on bloody gallop. However, I do try to stay current-ish - on here and a couple of magazines. Is it just me that has absolutely no idea of what poontang is on about and if not, should we not have been made aware of it?

 

That could be my fault. I put the wrong links in my original post.

 

If you look at it again with the correct links added it should make more sense.

[wymberley]

No, no, Guys, my fault. I was referring to the content of poontang's Post #407. I'm a little surprised that in view of the potentially serious implications of the pieces referenced by poontang (nice one, by the way) that this wasn't (to my knowledge) picked up and that subsequently we weren't made aware of it - I don't mean by poontang!

[David BASC]

Scully,

Thank you for your reply.

 

Firstly I can assure you that I have not lied. All I have done, or will ever do will be to give my honest view of any points raised when ever I can.

 

Secondly I can assure you that BASC is committed to the defence of lead, and the defence of shooting in this country, why wouldn’t we be? For literally decades, it was BASC alone that shood up and held at bay the initial lead restrictions, prevented a total lead ban and then got some of the initial restrictions banned.

 

All,

Looking at the WWT report, its my understanding that they did all they possibly could to check the ducks sampled were shot in England. I do not think there is any doubt about the number of ducks that were found with lead in them or the level of lead.

 

But I stand by what I said earlier, sampling ducks will give an indication of non compliance when the provenance is checked, but it does not give an accurate analysis of the level of compliance, hence the BASC shoot and shooter survey give a more accurate view of the level of compliance.

 

I am not aware of any ‘done deals’ in Europe, and there is nothing in front of Parliament to ban lead in the UK, nor am I aware of an active assistance by FACE in the phasing out of lead shot

 

But I agree with all of you that the bigger threat is indeed from Europe, not least of all how lead is classified.

 

As and when there are any changes I will do my very best to let you all know as soon as possible.

 

David

Edited June 10, 2012 by David BASC

[RossEM]

These attacks on shooting will only become more frequent and serious, and they reinforce the need for a single united shooting organisation. In the meantime, it's pointless to criticise BASC in all of this. Some of you are asking the impossible of them - do you really think any of the shooting organisations could block EU legislation? Our own government can't do that.

 

At the same time, it is UNTRUE to say that steel is not a viable alternative to lead.

 

I have used Express 24g Super Twenty 4's and Gamebore 32g Super Steel 4's for the past three years, and have found the lethality of these cartridges to be equal to lead at normal ranges.

These are standard, non HV loads which the manufacturers state are safe to use in any gun of appropriate proof, chamber and choke. I have shot geese, duck, pheasant, partridge, golden plover, snipe, woodcock, pigeon, foxes, rabbits and crows at distances from 20-60 yards. These were killed (or missed!) just as cleanly as when I have used lead on the same quarry at the same distances. And I am not the only person that has had successful experience of using steel cartridges.

 

That said, I do not want to be forced into using NTX on unsound evidence. I believe the WWT is trying to get shooting legislated out of existence. BASC should be fighting any further restrictions on this basis.

[David BASC]

Good morning Poontag,

 

The BASC Respect for Quarry project has been ongoing for many years, here is the link on the BASC web that describes what it’s all about: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/respect-for-quarry.cfm

Of course if we become aware of any information that impacts any of these areas we will investigate to see if our Respect for Quarry information needs to be updated.

 

The position of FACE on lead shot is that they want a phasing out of lead shot over wetlands only, and most certainly do not want a total ban on lead shot.

 

David

[al4x]

These attacks on shooting will only become more frequent and serious, and they reinforce the need for a single united shooting organisation. In the meantime, it's pointless to criticise BASC in all of this. Some of you are asking the impossible of them - do you really think any of the shooting organisations could block EU legislation? Our own government can't do that.

 

At the same time, it is UNTRUE to say that steel is not a viable alternative to lead.

 

I have used Express 24g Super Twenty 4's and Gamebore 32g Super Steel 4's for the past three years, and have found the lethality of these cartridges to be equal to lead at normal ranges.

These are standard, non HV loads which the manufacturers state are safe to use in any gun of appropriate proof, chamber and choke. I have shot geese, duck, pheasant, partridge, golden plover, snipe, woodcock, pigeon, foxes, rabbits and crows at distances from 20-60 yards. These were killed (or missed!) just as cleanly as when I have used lead on the same quarry at the same distances. And I am not the only person that has had successful experience of using steel cartridges.

 

That said, I do not want to be forced into using NTX on unsound evidence. I believe the WWT is trying to get shooting legislated out of existence. BASC should be fighting any further restrictions on this basis.

 

 

Ross its interesting you find they work well on foxes out of interest what range and size of shot?

 

personally I think the change may well lead to a loss of the main markets for game as pigeons shot with 4's really don't look apetising if anywhere near the middle of the pattern. I've shot pheasants with them as well but again the same issues of using large shot. Driven foxes has intrigued me as at the moment lots of people use 1's or bb's in lead, step up 2 sizes in a woodland setting and it should make life really exciting possibly requiring full body armour or letting most go in an effort to find safe shots. Lead SSG's ricochet off trees so I can only imagine how well steel must do it.

[al4x]

 

The position of FACE on lead shot is that they want a phasing out of lead shot over wetlands only, and most certainly do not want a total ban on lead shot.

 

David

 

 

so what happens when BASC fights with them to retain lead over wetlands...........

 

do they change their opinion and go for the other option

[gunsmoke]

so what happens when BASC fights with them to retain lead over wetlands...........

 

do they change their opinion and go for the other option

 

 

If they retain lead over wetlands because there is no evidence, where does that leave BASC?

 

There is no evidence for a wider ban on lead.

 

Let fight to remove the lead ban.

[poontang]

Good morning Poontag,

 

The BASC Respect for Quarry project has been ongoing for many years, here is the link on the BASC web that describes what it’s all about: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/respect-for-quarry.cfm

Of course if we become aware of any information that impacts any of these areas we will investigate to see if our Respect for Quarry information needs to be updated.

 

The position of FACE on lead shot is that they want a phasing out of lead shot over wetlands only, and most certainly do not want a total ban on lead shot.

 

David

 

Good morning David,

 

At the workshop held in Denmark it was noted that it would be helpful to have up to date ballistic information on all types of non toxic ammunition, along the lines of CONSEP, but paying particular attention to European game species.

 

I understand that the 'Respect for quarry' project has been a long term project, but I would ask why John Harradine, so shortly after returning from Denmark, would want to set up a ballistics group? Surely he'd been assessing ammunition without the need to set up a special group for many years beforehand?

Why the sudden need to set up a new ballistics group?

 

Of course the official line of FACE is that they don't want a total ban on lead, let's be honest if it ever came out that they were anyway complicit in the CIC phasing out process it could be catastrophic for their membership. To be honest a quick look around the FACE website shows them to be far more interested in conservation than hunting.

 

Angus Middleton, (FACE's CEO) doesn't really inspire confidence in me as the head of a hunting organisation supposedly fighting for the retention of lead ammunition.

 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/greenweek2010/content/angus-middleton.html

[David BASC]

I agree that as it stands there is no evidence for any wider restrictions on lead shot.

 

Poontag, I hope you don’t think I was trying to ‘teach grandma to suck eggs’ re the Respect for Quarry project. Just wanted to make it clear that this is a totally separate project to the debate on lead- BUT of course respect for quarry covers ALL quarry including those which must be shot with ntx.

 

Yes we have been assessing ntx for many years and regularly reporting on it in S&C for example, and to recheck the details from time to time is common practice, especially when the subject is being discussed in more detail.

 

A key issue across Europe and not just the UK is the strategy of sustainable hunting and biodiversity, as I know you are a keen wildfowler, it would be crass to say the least for me to wave that particular flag in your direction, as I know you are already like all wildfowling clubs, well on top of this; but because its so important we will find conservationists in the shooting / hunting organisations.

 

David

[poontang]

I agree that as it stands there is no evidence for any wider restrictions on lead shot.

 

 

 

A key issue across Europe and not just the UK is the strategy of sustainable hunting and biodiversity, as I know you are a keen wildfowler, it would be crass to say the least for me to wave that particular flag in your direction, as I know you are already like all wildfowling clubs, well on top of this; but because its so important we will find conservationists in the shooting / hunting organisations.

 

David

 

 

David,

 

You and I both know that there is plenty of evidence for the wider restriction of lead ammunition. Indeed it forms the basis of the LAG.

 

What I don't see however is any evidence being introduced to counter the claims of those who would see lead banned.

 

The workshop in Denmark is a case in point. The first part of the workshop was given over to the very people who want a total ban, which was then followed not by counter arguments but by finding ways of accommodating a phase out of lead ammunition. Indeed it's plain to see that the CIC have adopted a policy of phasing out lead ammunition as soon as possible, it's there in black and white, there's no disputing that fact. The worrying thing to me is that they seem to have got FACE involved in the process.

 

You're quite right of course in saying that conservation has a very important part to play in shooting/hunting, but there has to be a balance and I feel that the balance is tipped too far on the conservation side of things for FACE to be a true hunting organisation.

 

Let's be honest if we were to look at the biographies of the staff on the BASC website and they were all about bird preservation and saving raptors we'd probably expect them to be less enthusiastic about shooting, and it would hardly inspire confidence.

[mudpatten]

Just an observation.

 

As the anti BASC hysteria from a handfull of disaffected members becomes more and more shrill a quick point for the silent majority of readers of this thread to consider.

 

I`ve just returned from the BASC AGM where the results of the recent ballot for Council, BASC`s governing body,were announced.

 

To the best of my knowledge, none of the BASCerbators on this forum were successful candidates.In fact, none of them were candidates in any way, shape or form.

 

When one considers that BASC Council decides the direction of BASC would you not think that serving on that Council might be a better use of one`s time that wasting it ranting in cyberspace. Think what could be achieved with a "fight for lead" candidate working on the inside of BASC. Think of the wave of electoral support that a "save lead" candidate might have surfed into office on.

 

The simple fact is is that most of the BASC detractors don`t actually want to do anything positive. It serves their alternate agenda to be content with simply damaging BASC for the sake of it.

 

Some of them know that the future of lead is in jeopardy and that BASC is actually doing it`s best to stave off the worst case scenario. They will not put their heads above the parapet, they will not put their real names to the fight for lead because they understand the difficulties that BASC face and that the fight for lead is going to be more complex than simply stamping ones feet and shouting "No" with ones fingers firmly stuck in one`s ears.

 

Consider the above points when you read some of the distorted anti BASC drivel on this thread.

[al4x]

How much is distorted and how much is members just not quite believing the company line is that sincere.

 

To my mind you need to be retired and have plenty of time to spare to do justice to being a council member. There really isn't much BASC knocking on this thread just rattling the cage so to speak. Personally if it wasn't for wanting to do some more wildfowling a lot of posts on this thread would have had my DD cancelled long ago.