WWT Lead Shot Plans

[wymberley]

Speaking personally yes I look back at the days when the sun never set on the British Empire, and woder where its all gone...if I could travel back in time my first port of call would be the Great Exhibition of 1851.

 

Where did it all start to go wrong

 

David

 

For the solution to the problem it isn't necessary to go back that far.

 

Any legislation is not going to affect us old codgers too much but the younger element will feel it.

 

Now, when I was small and did something stupid I had my 6d pocket money stopped. Why should this just apply because you're small? If you are one of the 'youngsters' and your parents are still alive, ask them how they voted in 1975. 'Yes' was the epitome of crass stupidity and if that is their reply, then confiscate their pension(s) and you should have something towards your next bismuth purchase.

 

Serves 'em right!

Edited June 15, 2012 by wymberley

[Salopian]

'939 mainly BASC members out of 130,000 members have the fate of lead shot for shooting in their hands.'

 

If they got off their backsides we would have far more than 939, it is about time that everyone such as clayshooters and the BASC membership were informed.

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke,

 

Your continuing accusation that I am misleading people has gone beyond any reasonable limit.

 

Your posts attacking me in this way are, I am sure aimed at damaging my and possibly BASC’s credibility. This I find personally offensive and totally unacceptable.

 

I must request, in the strongest possible terms, that you retract them immediately.

 

David

[chrispti]

Gunsmoke,

 

Your continuing accusation that I am misleading people has gone beyond any reasonable limit.

 

Your posts attacking me in this way are, I am sure aimed at damaging my and possibly BASCs credibility. This I find personally offensive and totally unacceptable.

 

I must request, in the strongest possible terms, that you retract them immediately.

 

David

 

I have been reading this post throughout. Like others, I can see Gunsmoke's pathetic attacks for what they are.

 

I wouldn't worry too much.

Edited June 15, 2012 by chrispti

[BlaserF3]

As a good report I phone the number and hada long chat with Louise. The birds are for birds of pray. Once again Davidbasc has been misleading. he did not tell you that.

 

Did you know that BASC sent out 3000 questionnaire and only had 577 returns. So they did it again and got 427 returns out of 2nd 3000. SO the survey report was only from 939 people. 939 mainly BASC members out of 130,000 members have the fate of lead shot for shooting in their hands.

 

 

What's wrong with that?

[Teal]

This topic has more than 450 messages on it, there are a lot of positive posts in here which have covered a wide range of issues. However, it's disappointing that some have resorted to personal insults in recent pages. This will not be tolerated and is against the rules of the forum.

 

Due to the hundreds of messages in this topic and sheer number of different contributors, with some strongly held opinions, I am taking the unusual step of posting this up as a public warning. If people break the rules of the forum, disciplinary action will be taken against them, and if it is persistent on specific topics, then the topics will be closed.

[flyshooter]

As a good report I phone the number and hada long chat with Louise. The birds are for birds of pray. Once again Davidbasc has been misleading. he did not tell you that.

 

Did you know that BASC sent out 3000 questionnaire and only had 577 returns. So they did it again and got 427 returns out of 2nd 3000. SO the survey report was only from 939 people. 939 mainly BASC members out of 130,000 members have the fate of lead shot for shooting in their hands.

Hallo Mr. Gunsmoke, I readely admit I know very little of the legalities of the lead/steel shot debate, how ever, I do think to be fair, with 12148 views of this thread to date and only 454 posts of comment, to date, from P.W. members, surveys in general should realy be taken with a pinch of salt. No affence intended. Gel.

Edited June 15, 2012 by flyshooter

[Salopian]

David BASC,

I think that gunsmoke is probably just as frustrated as many of us are at the apparent lack of fight displayed by the representative bodies of the shooting society.

I do not think that I have ever read or had reported that a BASC spokesman has objected or made an objection to any points made by the anti Lead bodies all that I have ever read is that C O'G or JH attended.

Unfortunately you chose to stick your head above the parapet and people will make uncomfortable comments. You have to admit that whilst you protest that you have always been truthful, you have in my opinion been economical with the truth and the facts.

This obviously to release some tension from a very delicate matter.

But I do think that this debate may now have run it's course, I have to ask why are we washing our laundry in public, ganging up on one spokesman when realistically we should be lobbying HQ and the other associations. But possibly more importantly finding out what the true feeling amongst shooting sportsman is over the impending phasing out of lead shot.

Are they bothered or not?

939 from a reputed 130,000 does not make good percentages in a technical document

" In a survey carried out by BASC 92% could not be bothered to reply"

" In a survey carried out by BASC we didn't bother to ask 92%."

As a very active member and an avid wildfowler and trade member of BASC I was never asked to take part in a survey and many more of my friends know nothing of such a survey.

[super sharp shooter]

David BASC,

I think that gunsmoke is probably just as frustrated as many of us are at the apparent lack of fight displayed by the representative bodies of the shooting society.

I do not think that I have ever read or had reported that a BASC spokesman has objected or made an objection to any points made by the anti Lead bodies all that I have ever read is that C O'G or JH attended.

Unfortunately you chose to stick your head above the parapet and people will make uncomfortable comments. You have to admit that whilst you protest that you have always been truthful, you have in my opinion been economical with the truth and the facts.

This obviously to release some tension from a very delicate matter.

But I do think that this debate may now have run it's course, I have to ask why are we washing our laundry in public, ganging up on one spokesman when realistically we should be lobbying HQ and the other associations. But possibly more importantly finding out what the true feeling amongst shooting sportsman is over the impending phasing out of lead shot.

Are they bothered or not?

939 from a reputed 130,000 does not make good percentages in a technical document

" In a survey carried out by BASC 92% could not be bothered to reply"

" In a survey carried out by BASC we didn't bother to ask 92%."

As a very active member and an avid wildfowler and trade member of BASC I was never asked to take part in a survey and many more of my friends know nothing of such a survey.

Same here I was not involved in any survey regarding the ban on lead shot. As a member of basc have I missed the survey or was I not involved?

[gunsmoke]

David BASC,

939 from a reputed 130,000 does not make good percentages in a technical document

" In a survey carried out by BASC 92% could not be bothered to reply"

" In a survey carried out by BASC we didn't bother to ask 92%."

As a very active member and an avid wildfowler and trade member of BASC I was never asked to take part in a survey and many more of my friends know nothing of such a survey.

 

The 939 returns of the survey was from 6000 questionnaire sent out. There was two lots of 3000 posts of the questionnaire. You can read the result of the WWT/BASC report on line. there is a link somewhere on on one of the post on this tread.

 

It not all of the 939, its ony 45% of them.

 

I'm not having a go at DavidBASC personly its his post i'm having a go at.

[gunsmoke]

David BASC,

I do not think that I have ever read or had reported that a BASC spokesman has objected or made an objection to any points made by the anti Lead bodies all that I have ever read is that C O'G or JH attended.

 

Its not only me then. Thank you Salopian from pointing this out. Did you know that the LAG report will be written by JH and Dr Pain?

[Salopian]

Before the report is written for the LAG would it not be a good idea for BASC ,CA, CPSA, & NGO to conduct a survey to see what their members thoughts are on the use of Lead shot? :hmm:

 

 

In an earlier post flyshooter comments that with only 454 posts from 12,148 views on this thread that in his opinion surveys should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Could I then point out that these damaging reports that are written by people who have no real experience of the subject matter, rely very heavily on surveys and statistics conjured up and 'facts' that suit their point of view.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Salopian

[flyshooter]

Before the report is written for the LAG would it not be a good idea for BASC ,CA, CPSA, & NGO to conduct a survey to see what their members thoughts are on the use of Lead shot? :hmm:

 

 

In an earlier post flyshooter comments that with only 454 posts from 12,148 views on this thread that in his opinion surveys should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Could I then point out that these damaging reports that are written by people who have no real experience of the subject matter, rely very heavily on surveys and statistics conjured up and 'facts' that suit their point of view.

your opinion would be a lot more productive than pointing fingers, it is not just shooters that would be affected. While health is an important issue it should not be used as a stepping stone for fame, for folk who wish to climbe the ladder to be of note. If the general shooting fratunaty is as half, as passionate, as the guys on this thread, about this issue, I would have thought it would be a force to be recond with, and at least get to the nitty gritty of the real truth of lead/health. It would be quite some thing to see a vote on lead/steel with out going into who has done, or not done, what, perhaps Pigeon Watch might be able to use their magic to let all members have a chance to vote on this site, as a starter, not for wether lead should be banned, but rather wether we should have concrete evidence that there is a problem, keep well, keep united, Gel.

Edited June 16, 2012 by flyshooter

[Salopian]

Health is an extremely important issue make no mistake.

If an organisation came up with conclusive proof that Lead shot was as dangerous as some would have us believe, I for one would embrace those findings and do my very best to educate others in to the possible harm that they could be subjecting themselves and others to.

My contention has always been, is it right to promote steel shot as a suitable alternative to lead when the majority of shooters are (a) not proficient shots with lead, (B) have no or very little idea of range judging.

Consequently we get one or two saying steel is a suitable alternative to lead and can kill efficiently at ranges up to 40 yards, and then every man and his dog buys and uses steel because it is a £1 cheaper than Lead shot cartridges and happily blazes away at 40 -60 yards killing the occasional one and wounding 5-6 and thinking their average is not bad.

 

 

The situation as I see it is that one or two conservation organisations have come along with an idea that Lead may be harmful to game meat and therefore injurious to Man. BUT they haven't got real hard facts gleaned from a true study of the real situation, so lets exaggerate our claims and scare monger.

Then we have shooting organisations who should be refuting these allegations having an attitude of 'Oh God, looks like we may have to do some work, I suppose we had better send some one to listen to these loonies, who have we got free that's doing nothing?'

Consequently we have representation that does nothing because they already have a track record of doing nothing.

Sorry if this sounds a bit exaggerated and possibly untrue but I have no evidence to the contrary.

When are the shooting organisations going to represent their members and their members wishes.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Salopian

[BlaserF3]

[wymberley]

 

I fear that the dumbing down and shallow (the quality remains but it's the depth that is missing) level of education offered compared with what was, and would also have been on offer, in the mid 80s is ultimately going to lead to a situation in which the future generation of shooters would rather not be in.

 

 

My contention has always been, is it right to promote steel shot as a suitable alternative to lead when the majority of shooters are (a) not proficient shots with lead, (B) have no or very little idea of range judging.

Consequently we get one or two saying steel is a suitable alternative to lead and can kill efficiently at ranges up to 40 yards, and then every man and his dog buys and uses steel because it is a £1 cheaper than Lead shot cartridges and happily blazes away at 40 -60 yards killing the occasional one and wounding 5-6 and thinking their average is not bad.

 

 

All through this thread, David has meticulously answered every point raised. Now, whether you think rightly or wrongly is academic. There is one (possibly another to prove the rule) exception and it's the one to which these posts refer. It is the one where both David's response and BASC have failed.

 

Education

[Guest cookoff013]

what will happen to those places that are fibre only or no steel shot? i`ve heard some clay places have banned steel shot.

 

essentially i wont be able to shoot clays. i`m not blazing £200 of bismuth in an afternoon clay session. i can pay that for a cheap peg day.

 

the fibre steel loads are not readily available, plus i dont want to shoot fibre steel shells. i dont believe the cip has a criteria for fibre wads. i think it just states protective plastic shotcup. so that still is an issue slightly trivial.

 

so this economic alternate isnt totally available.

 

all the steel shot manufacturers refuse to make a 1oz steel 5 # #6 shot cartridge for the pigeon guys as it directly diminishes the lead pigeon shells profit margin. for an equivalent shell you could shave off £70 or so !

 

the manufactures could have flooded the market with cheap steel shells in the variety of loads, but they didnt. that is one way they could have changed the use of steel. just flooded the market with cheap steel and made the money talk.

i know a few guys who converted to steel just so they can shoot the cheaper shells. i also have a friend who has had his licence for 2 years and until recently (until i gave him a box) had never shot a lead shell.

 

salopian

it has very little to do with hit rate and effectiveness of steel / compared to lead. essentially steel has been used over the pond for many many years. in some states exclusivley, and with poorer manufactured shells.

 

i get this issue will be lead by european politics.

[poontang]

Before the report is written for the LAG would it not be a good idea for BASC ,CA, CPSA, & NGO to conduct a survey to see what their members thoughts are on the use of Lead shot? :hmm:

 

 

 

 

That would be a bit like the government having a referendum on our future in Europe.

 

I think it suits the shooting organisations to keep the issue as quiet as possible, whilst our 'representatives' in Europe fight our corner.

 

The question really is are they fighting our corner, and if so, exactly how are they doing it?

 

Personally I think the LAG are just going through the motions. I very much doubt it'll have any real bearing on the outcome of this whole sorry charade. It's a damage limitation exercise designed to promote the idea to shooters that there is a fight going on on their behalf.

 

As David has already said the real fight is taking place in Europe.

 

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) are surveying the use of lead ammunition across the EU and it will be them who make recommendations as to the way forward. I am assuming they will be looking, amongst other things, at the evidence which has already been presented by the WWT and others at the Peregrine Fund meeting and which is on the table at the LAG? I have asked twice on this thread exactly what the response of FACE was to the ECHA survey, and have not received an answer. Both BASC and CA are heavily involved with FACE so surely someone knows how they've reacted to this?

 

I'm still very suspicious of the CIC's road map on the phasing out of ALL lead ammunition, and would like to know exactly how close their relationship is with FACE?

 

In summary, the three most important questions I'd like to see answered are:

 

1. What was FACE's response to the ECHA?

 

2. Are FACE working with the CIC on their 'road map' and if so in what capacity?

 

3. Considering the WWT's leaked minutes and BASC's fairly damning response to their publication, can the LAG really carry on in its present guise?

[RossEM]

I certainly don't buy steel cartridges because they're cheaper. My local shop cynically now charges circa £10 more for 4's than they do for 7's.

I first tried steel because I didn't believe the low opinion that UK shooters have of it, as it's been used SUCCESSFULLY in the USA since the 1980s. And low & behold, I found that steel works very well.

 

I posted a film from the USA on early steel loads earlier in the thread which proves this. Here it is again:

 

 

Conclusions I drew from this documentary:

 

Steel is as lethal, i.e. it is as balistically suitable, as you would expect lead to be at reasonable ranges - therefore it is an effective alternative to lead.

 

If you're a competent shot, steel should kill cleanly - using the appropriate load for the quarry, of course.

 

And in my experience, I have found the above to be categorically true.

 

A couple more points:

 

I would expect a ban on lead will create a demand for steel-shot game and for more configurations of steel loads.

 

CIP regs state that you can safely use a standard (not 'High Performance') steel load in ANY shotgun with the corresponding chamber length through no more than half choke.

 

IN MY EXPERIENCE I have not found wounding rates or carcass damage to be any better or worse than with lead. You'd have to come to your own conclusions about this one!

I'm no more pro-steel than I am pro-lead, but please look at the evidence and get your heads out of the sand.

Edited June 16, 2012 by RossEM

[Scully]

The 939 returns of the survey was from 6000 questionnaire sent out. There was two lots of 3000 posts of the questionnaire. You can read the result of the WWT/BASC report on line. there is a link somewhere on on one of the post on this tread.

It not all of the 939, its ony 45% of them.

Is this true?

939 returns from a survey of 6000?

And only 45% of those count?

And this has been published as a valid piece of evidence?

If this is true,then I find it scandalous;not only will I not be renewing my membership,but should in reality be demanding back my membership fee on the grounds of misrepresentation!

Just to clear a point;while I am pro-lead,I am not anti-steel.I have used the latter to great effect on Ducks.My bone of contention is the unjustified back door attack on shooting and shooters on the spurious grounds of public 'health',but mostly the inneffectual,lethargic and it has to be said,highly suspicious and evasive responses to that attack by the very people who claim they are helping us.

The smell isn't getting any better I'm afraid.

Anyone care to answer Poontangs latest points?David?Mr.Swift?Dr.O'Gorman?Someone must surely know......hello?

[Salopian]

RossEM,

BASC will confirm that hardly anyone can successfully complete the test devised by Tom Roster to check shooting competency that BASC carry out on their improve your shooting training days.

Tom Roster does not use steel loads that we have available here as advised by the CIP.

He uses far better steel loads than we have available for our 3" chambered guns, and remember I keep talking about our 2 & 1.2" & 2 & 3/4" chambered guns which will become obsolete if we rely on 3" & 3 & 1/2" chamber loads. Can you imagine the carcass damage to a pigeon using number 2 steel shot?

[poontang]

 

 

 

 

Steel is as lethal, i.e. it is as balistically suitable, as you would expect lead to be at reasonable ranges - therefore it is an effective alternative to lead.

 

If you're a competent shot, steel should kill cleanly - using the appropriate load for the quarry, of course.

 

 

 

 

If you're wildfowling then steel can be a suitable load, but only with a gun capable of using it.

 

What about game shooters, clay shooters, pigeon shooters?

 

How is steel an effective alternative if shooting ground game?

 

It may be an alternative, but effective? I don't think so.

[BlaserF3]

Here is a video of RossEM shooting a pheasant, sorry wounding a pheasant with steel shot

 

Not really sporting is it Old Chap

[RossEM]

Hi Poontang & Salopian, Maybe I should've written 'experienced' shot. These pheasants in my two videos were shot with 2 3/4" non-high performance steel cartridges (what the CIP call 'standard steel') Express 24g 20 bore. Of course I would not recommend using 3" cartridges with large shot sizes on smaller game as it would destroy the carcasses. To my knowledge, there is no 2 1/2" steel load commercially available, but there certainly would be if demand was high (e.g. if lead happens to be banned.) I've shot ground game with steel and haven't noticed any ricochet, but I know others who have.

 

Hi BlaserF3, to be fair that shot was a long one for me (I was egged on by the cameraman.) Poor judgement on my part, for which I apologise and it was picked up and dispatched within seconds.

However, that bird would not necessarily have been cleanly killed with lead. If you watch the wildfowl being shot with early steel loads in my last post, perhaps there are some better examples for you. I kind of resent your wounding/not sporting comments. It happens to us all, old chap.

 

Conveniently, you didn't post this one:

 

[mudpatten]

There is a lot of hand wringing going on about the apparently low,but still statistically valid, number of responses to a BASC survey.

 

That low number of responses is an accurate indication of how the average shooter views the abolition of lead shot.

 

For many shooters,this issue does not appear on their radar.It is the reason why many inland shooters still use lead on duck. It is the reason why so many gamekeepers sell those unlawfully shot duck to gamedealers on the open market.

 

A handful of contributors on this forum continue to propound the myth that the current situation with lead shot being in jeopardy is somehow the fault of BASC. I would respectfully put forward another scenario.

 

Our adversaries have correctly identified that there is a massive lack of compliance with the law relating to the use of non toxic shot.Despite the fact that steel shot, as the cheapest alternative, works well there is a constant background chatter against its effectiveness from misguided people who genuinely believe that the best way to save lead is to attack its alternatives.I`ve got news for you - the Government does`nt care about that, and if you persist in rubbishing steel they will attack shooting on humanitarian grounds as well as those of toxicity and then we really will be finished.

 

We constantly attack and denigrate our representative bodies. One idiot correspondent continually feels the need to accuse a BASC representative of misrepresenting the truth. But for appropriate warnings from the moderators I wonder how long it would be before that correspondent accused him of being a thief and a rapist. An exaggeration? Yes! But what does attacking something you don`t agree with in such a personal and vitriolic fashion actually achieve? Absolutely nothing. It just makes the attacker look bankrupt of strategy, tactics or even common sense.

 

Worse, it demonstrates to our adversaries, many of whom actually visit this forum, how factionalised and divided we are over the whole issue - how weak we are and ripe for attack.

 

None of those who attack BASC so vehemently actually put themselves forward as candidates for election to BASC Council where their ideas and drive would actually have done some good. Or been exposed as the nonesense that much of their rhetoric actually is. But at least they would have engaged with the debate where it matters. But they abrogated that responsibility completely and utterly.

 

And perhaps the most telling point of all about what the average shooter thinks about the whole issue, if indeed he thinks about it at all, and one well noted by our opponents as an indicator of our inability to fight is the fact that, at the recent BASC AGM, council members were voted into place, or not as the case may be,by LESS THAN 3000 VOTERS.

 

Less that 3000 chose to take part in the democratic process that could have seen the removal of John Swift, John Harradine stoned to death or Connor O`Gorman crucified upside down, depending on whether you view any of those particular individuals as the anti Christ or Satan himself.

 

The answer of the shooting community to a significant threat such as this is not to unite. Not to swell the number of members of BASC to increase its power base, not to change those things about BASC which we perceive to need changing, but to fight amongst ourselves like a rabid dog biting at its own hindquarters.

 

Gentlemen,we are going to get, despite the best efforts of BASC, the shot material that we deserve.

Edited June 16, 2012 by mudpatten