Scully Posted June 17, 2012 Report Share Posted June 17, 2012 This was several years ago now,and other than tell them that DEFRA had expressed an intent to check on duck carcasses sold to dealers,nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Scully you asked in posting #494 Why do you have to be careful....unless you're actually employed by BASC they can't sack you.Are you employed by BASC?If not,and you have verifiable information relevant to this thread,then tell us.....please.Don't be shy! Sorry about not replying sooner, I’ve been working. I do not work for BASC. The phone call I had was regarding Face UK, that lasted a couple of minutes. The remaining 20 minutes was taken up with, I have to be careful about what we say on web sites and forums, along with we have to show a united front. So, from now on I’m going to follow BASC policy and fight to retain lead shot. Oh! That’s what I’ve been doing all along. I’ve tried to redress misleading statements regarding shooting and to show that BASC had been in partnership with the WWT on the work carried out on the WWT/BASC report for DEFRA. The very document that is now being used as evidence against us and being used by the WWT to ask for a total lead ban. DEFRA have not approved the report. “The report was published because it was commissioned and paid for by DEFRA; it certainly does not mean we accept its validity. If we had not published we would have been accused of a cover up.” Jim Paice MP One of our fellower on pW sent me this. “Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” Mark Twain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 (edited) Thanks for that gunsmoke;very interesting.Can you divulge who it was that phoned you from FACE UK,telling you to be careful about things said on websites/forums,and showing a united front? Nice to see a senior politician stating that the reports validity isn't necessarily accepted;wonder why a similar foot note wasn't printed following its publication by shooting organisations? Edited June 19, 2012 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeglass Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I have been watching this thread for some time and have now decided to offer some input. David BASC reveals that the BASC survey was far from random indeed it might well have been vulnerable to all kinds of influence. It was not random and anonymous. David makes the point that the second wave of mailing was to those who had not responded to the first mailing. Now remember the responder did not put their name or address on the reply form as they were assured that the survey was to be anonymous. But you can only re-mail to a non-responder if you know who they are. End of. See his post No. 498 We all know about surveys, wine, apples, butter, coffee; one week they are good for you and the next they will kill you. Of course they don’t call them science (because they are not) they call them studies. A neat bit of spinning eh? Now think DavidBASC. Think how he spins in the hope that none of you know enough to counter his assertions. Notice how fact dissolves into maybe’s and then disappear. Notice how he pretends to be insulted when he is caught out. Like when He Introduces an advert calling for pigeons shot with steel, hoping to imply that game dealers were going for steel rather than lead. But he neglects to say that the advertiser was feeding the pigeon to falcons at a raptor center in Scotland and in their innocence did not want lead shot birds. He then goes into a hissy-fit when Gunsmoke caught him out. I say all this just to point out that most of the people on/or following this thread are genuinely concerned to get to the truth of BASC’s secret muttering to government. Is that possible in the face of being continually insulted by DavidBASC’s low opinion of everybody’s intelligence? Now he is foot dragging on the FACE UK recent submission to the EU who are in the process of trying to get lead banned in total. Helping policy intention along are the EU’s sock-pups FACE, the AEWA, the CIC and of course the RSPB and the WWT. None of them want shooting to continue. Why Is DavidBASC not telling you what he already knows? Is it because he represents BASC on this thread? Is it because BASC is ashamed of what they have just done in secret? He knows that In May this year BASC (John Swift) insisted that the WWT/BASC report findings on compliance be inserted into a questionnaire sent out by the EU to FACE and other shooting bodies across Europe. It asked for information about shooting with lead ammunition so that they could form policy to apply for its total restriction. FACE UK replied – hardly another country did. He knows that Swift and the rest of the crew on FACE UK knew that the WWT/BASC report was deeply, deeply flawed, and falsely accused the entire shooting community of breaking the law, without a shred of evidence. He knows that introducing this virus into the EU will place the shooting community in an untenable position. You might have thought that the right thing to do was not place a disreputable piece of negative propaganda into a survey constructed to proceed with a ban on lead. Mr O’Gorman (BASC & FACE UK) wrote to the press to say that ‘viable science’ would be placed before the EU. So what seems to have happened is that BASC working for the WWT placed this material into the mix for them. Why, because the WWT is not a member of FACE UK but they use it as a back door to the EU when it suits, with the help of BASC. Is BASC in fear of collapse when what they did and said behind closed doors, leaks out and the membership recoils and disappears? Mr John Swift emailed the FACE UK members saying: “Whatever your views and you are entitled to hold them, I believe it would have raised more eyebrows and weakened our position if reference to such a report had not been included.” He then went on to include The 2002 RSBP/WWT study; it claimed that of 40 mallards bought from game dealers and butchers over two thirds (27 birds) had been shot with lead. Not much to go on I would have said. Again, an equally flawed bit of WWT propaganda. I will post again when I get the time but I reckon this is enough for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 There is a very good editorial write up by Jonathan Young in the current edition of 'The Field' out today. No doubt Jonathan Young will be pilloried and possibly lose advertising revenue. Some very interesting comments on the expected life of barrels if using steel shot. The GTA will be rubbing their hands with glee and promoting steel shot. I had a very interesting conversation today with a retired Chief Constable who uses Bismuth for all his shooting to save breaking the Law. What is a Chief Constables Pension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Every other illegal parking and speeding fine issued during his term in office diverted to an offshore numbered account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 No, he was born a Toff and has a very nice Country Estate, nice chap actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 David BASC is surely the Anti Christ. Let us stone him to death! He must die. Whoops, sorry. It`s the preacher in me coming out. I actually met David face to face for the first time at the BASC agm a couple of weeks ago. He`s a great bloke and certainly has more patience than me when it comes to the increasingly bizarre posts on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Eyeglass The survey of BASC member was based on a totally random selection of 3000 members. The respondents were anonymous, their details were not and haven to been passed to anyone outside BASC, but of course we knew who they were. I have not ‘spun‘ anything, I never said or suggested the person looking for steel shot pigeon was a game dealer. There are no ‘secret mutterings’ as you claim, if they were secret how would you know about them… Nor am I foot dragging over the FACE submission – it was a FACE submission not one from BASC so why or how would I have access to it? For you to claim I have a low opinion of others is totally wrong and itself insulting to me and others on this forum. Perhaps that was your objective? What kicks the stool from under our post is your statement above as follows: Now he is foot dragging on the FACE UK recent submission to the EU who are in the process of trying to get lead banned in total. Helping policy intention along are the EU’s sock-pups FACE, the AEWA, the CIC and of course the RSPB and the WWT. None of them want shooting to continue. You suggest that FACE and the CiC don’t want shooting to continue!!! What?? FACE, the representative body of all the EU hunting organisations including BASC and the CA and the CiC the international body which advocates sustainable hunting are anti shooting, as mudptten says, a truly bizare post which some may think sums up the credibility of many of the other statemnts you made. Salopian, I think JW’s editorial is very interesting indeed, although I have not seen any evidence in the UK over the last 10 years or so of increased barrel wear, I do think his analysis of the European threat is pretty well spot on. David Edited June 20, 2012 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Thanks for that gunsmoke;very interesting.Can you divulge who it was that phoned you from FACE UK,telling you to be careful about things said on websites/forums,and showing a united front? Nice to see a senior politician stating that the reports validity isn't necessarily accepted;wonder why a similar foot note wasn't printed following its publication by shooting organisations? I'm not going to name a member of BASC staff here, I also think its not allowed under PW rules. The foot note was recieved after my petition to yas NO to a wider lead ban when in to DEFRA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Eyeglass The survey of BASC member was based on a totally random selection of 3000 members. The respondents were anonymous, their details were not and haven to been passed to anyone outside BASC, but of course we knew who they were. sorry David but they were not anonymous if you knew who had and who had not responded that requires the paperwork to identify the member in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 David BASC is surely the Anti Christ. Let us stone him to death! He must die. Whoops, sorry. It`s the preacher in me coming out. I actually met David face to face for the first time at the BASC agm a couple of weeks ago. He`s a great bloke and certainly has more patience than me when it comes to the increasingly bizarre posts on this thread. I couldn't agree more with these comments. Pigeon Watch is not the official website for the BASC and DavidBASC is a member here like everyone else. Why people think he has any obligation to respond to their questions, statements (and more especially, their rantings) defeats me. I admire his patience, I am afraid I would have overloaded the auto censor by now with my responses. A bit more respect please from the BASC knockers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Yes Al4x, as I said we (BASC) knew who we were writing to, and then who responded to the first mailing, and this allowed us to re-send the info and request to complete the survey to those who did not respond first time round. However as the letter to the members clearly stated, their details would remain anonymous and would not be passed to anyone outside of BASC. I hope that makes it clear. Eyeglass I have not seen the report to FACE nor have I seen the report that FACE has made to the ECHA, have you? Its my understanding a request from ECHA to FACE asking them to reply to a questionnaire about lead shot use was to review all issues around lead shot and NTX, not least of all in the context of what member states of AEWA have signed up to regarding the phasing out of lead shot over wetlands. The research on lead shot in ducks for sale and the research into shooters attitudes towards the regulations and NTX were thus relevant, don’t you think? I suspect all the member organisations of FACE in Europe were asked for the same information. How much of this made its way into the final report from FACE to ECHA I don’t know. Yes I do my best on this forum to answer questions about BASC. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I had a questionare sent to me from basc but decided not to fill it out As i thought the questions was a bit anti lead ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 don't suppose you kept a copy did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I had a questionare sent to me from basc but decided not to fill it out As i thought the questions was a bit anti lead ! That's probably because WWT had a hand in designing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 There are no ‘secret mutterings’ as you claim, if they were secret how would you know about them… Nor am I foot dragging over the FACE submission – it was a FACE submission not one from BASC so why or how would I have access to it? David Afternoon David, I suspect the 'secret mutterings' are those of the Sustainable Ammunition Platform who's meetings take place behind closed doors, and who's participants include members from FACE, CIC and WFSA. Surely as a vice president of FACE, John Swift would know about the FACE submission? Either FACE are a very shady organisation who keep their VP's in the dark.........or they don't want people to know what their response was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I dare say John and Conor are aware of the detail FACE submission, but its for FACE to publish these details not me, and I don’t have them. So best to contact FACE, sorry I can’t help further on that one. As to the questions in the BASC survey…..they are in the final report to Defra…. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I dare say John and Conor are aware of the detail FACE submission, but its for FACE to publish these details not me, and I don’t have them. So best to contact FACE, sorry I can’t help further on that one. David Well I won't hold my breath waiting for FACE to publish anything just yet. Personally I find FACE a little bit 'faceless'. A group of people who nobody's really heard of, unelected by UK shooters and now we're supposed to suddenly trust the future of lead ammunition to them. Still, at least we do know that they're working on the 'road map' with CIC and WFSA. If only we knew what the 'road map' was eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 poontang, Charles Nodder did an excellent piece on FACE and the work they do in the July issue of The Field. I would think the 'roadmap' is a plan of action to ensure the member states comply with the AEWA commitments- but I stand to be corrected. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavman Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 whilst shooting crows last W/E I started on steel but soon reverted to lead, it was very disturbing to see maimed flapping birds as a result of steel not having the stopping power. I had to put 2 shots into many and that was enough to switch me back to lead on the day. It was not intended as an experiment but in some ways it ended up as one. The birds where in over deeks so not like they was out of range most being 20 to 30 yards and the load was 32 grm 3’s some left over fowling loads. So far I have seen no convincing evidence (come to think of it nothing at all) that shooting lead loads over inland locations at Game, corvids or vermin can been shown to be sufficiently detrimental as to warrant a ban. The ingestion of lead by wildfowl or waders “gritting up” is a valid point and one I can understand. The rest of it is the Anti lobby chipping away at anything they can until they put enough holes in us to sink the ship…………….. if we don’t fight back they will win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 whilst shooting crows last W/E I started on steel but soon reverted to lead, it was very disturbing to see maimed flapping birds as a result of steel not having the stopping power. I had to put 2 shots into many and that was enough to switch me back to lead on the day. It was not intended as an experiment but in some ways it ended up as one. The birds where in over deeks so not like they was out of range most being 20 to 30 yards and the load was 32 grm 3’s some left over fowling loads. So far I have seen no convincing evidence (come to think of it nothing at all) that shooting lead loads over inland locations at Game, corvids or vermin can been shown to be sufficiently detrimental as to warrant a ban. The ingestion of lead by wildfowl or waders “gritting up” is a valid point and one I can understand. The rest of it is the Anti lobby chipping away at anything they can until they put enough holes in us to sink the ship…………….. if we don’t fight back they will win! I agree with you, pavman. Spot on. They have been trying to re-write the laws of physics on this thread. I'd like to see some fighting back too, however BASC seem to have sold out for 30 pieces of silver. Do not know the amount they where paid from WWT for their part in the paper that is being used against us. BASC was in partnership with the WWT on the Cormie report to defra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The ingestion of lead by wildfowl or waders “gritting up” is a valid point and one I can understand. this is the bit I get as well which is why I don't understand in the effort to keep lead for general use why BASC still think its fine to use over wetlands when shooting other species. Seems the NGO think this is nonsense as much as most shooting people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildfowler.250 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Can someone sum up the gist of these 35 pages in one post? Would like to follow it but the last time I looked it was ratings at BASC? Lead getting banned then??? Sorry if this seems lazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 If you , gunsmoke, have evidence that BASC has sold out as you put it then let's see the evidence. As I have said several times before, if the research had come back showing very low numbers of duck with lead in them and shooters and shoot owners saying they almost always complied with the legislation, would you then have disagreed with the results and still claimed BASC had sold out? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts