WWT Lead Shot Plans

[yickdaz]

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.

i,m a basc member so you can,t say i,m being anti basc, but i do agree 100% with this, and i never have heard a sensible answer to it or any for that matter

why is it that one day you could shoot off hundred lead carts at pigeons flighting over a wetland,marsh area but if a duck or a goose came over you would have to change to non toxic, for 1 or 2 shots defies logic you have already put lead all over the marsh,shooting pigeons

[David BASC]

I take your point of course, but there is nothing stopping you from using ntx on or over any wetland ilike they do in Scotland or n Ireland if you want to.

 

The phasing out of lead over wetlands is the desire of FACE across all member states under the AEWA agreement, and some member states are further down the track than others.

 

David

[gunsmoke]

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

 

 

BASC got paid from there work on the WWT/BASC report for defra. Now called the Cromie report. BASC and WWT where in partnership on the report. WWT got £65,557, BASC was paid out of that. The WWT/BASC report [now cormie] is now being used as evidence by the WWT to call for a total lead ban.

 

BASC have added some of the so call finding of that report to the FACE UK reply to the EU. they have aslo added the WWT 2002 report.

 

Not very good PR work for shooting. I would think that the WWT will send their report to the EU themselves. No need for us to do it. BASC have shot shooting in the foot.

 

BASC are unable to question the WWT because they recieved money for their work on it. They are now not it any passion to fight for their member on the issue. Your very posting on PW prove this.

[graiglearn]

who exactly defines wetlands ? does this include upland bogs ,peat hags & ponds ? I used to load on a grouse moor famous in the south of Scotland where 600 brace days of grouse were shot on a regular pattern ( although this was around 200 brace per day x 4 days when I was there ) The point being a century of a hell of a lot of lead - the name of the estate means more lead in the hills ,waders ,including snipe, plover,moor birds including curlew and duck on the 'town' dam and burns and streams which provides the water for the population or at least did.and the only problem in all these years with tons & tons of lead, was a mutton ban when a reactor blew up in Russia ,come to think don't know if mutton ban lifted ,wonder if any sheep had high lead readings ,if they did it would have saved them from radiation .

[poontang]

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

 

Hi David,

 

Thanks for that. I'll get a copy tomorrow and have a read.

 

The AEWA plan of action is in the open domain, and on their website for all to see.

 

The 'road map' I was referring to was the one discussed at the CIC workshop on sustainable ammunition, held in 2009 in Denmark.

 

Since then all meetings of the sustainable ammunition platform have been held behind closed doors.

According to the CIC website they're very close to finalising a road map based on the 2009 workshop, which as we know was aimed at phasing out lead ammunition for ALL shooting.

 

http://www.cic-wildlife.org/index.php?id=546

 

You have to admit it would be interesting to know what this 'road map' involves?

[yickdaz]

I take your point of course, but there is nothing stopping you from using ntx on or over any wetland ilike they do in Scotland or n Ireland if you want to.

 

The phasing out of lead over wetlands is the desire of FACE across all member states under the AEWA agreement, and some member states are further down the track than others.

 

David

thats fine i suppose then there is some logic to follow

but i still don,t see a need for a ban inland, shooting pigeons and game over a rape field,stubble, drillings,etc etc

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke

Yes WWT got the £65,557 from DEFRA, and yes WWT paid the costs of BASC surveying a random sample of 3000 members about their use of lead and non toxic shot and their views on the legislation. Yes the results of that BASC survey of shooters and shoots made up part of the overall WWT report to DEFRA on lead shot compliance.

 

That is not evidence of ‘selling out’ as you put it was simply a matter of research.

So by way of illustrating that point will you please answer the question I asked… if the results of the BASC survey had come back to show most shooters almost always complied with the legislation would you still question the results and still say we sold out?

To say that BASC can’t question the WWT is totally wrong by the way, of course we can!

 

 

Graiglearn,

Wetlands are defined under RAMSAR as permanently wet areas such as streams, rivers, ponds lakes, bogs etc either natural or man made.

 

Poontang,

I agree the CIC stance seems both odd and at odds with FACE, I will, if I get a chance tomorrow, have a closer look at what the CIC are doing/ saying.

 

 

David

[poontang]

 

 

 

 

 

Poontang,

I agree the CIC stance seems both odd and at odds with FACE, I will, if I get a chance tomorrow, have a closer look at what the CIC are doing/ saying.

 

 

David

 

Thank you David.

 

You must have finished work by now? Go and put your feet up!

[RossEM]

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!

 

Pavman, sounds like you've had very different experiences to me. I found steel 4's killed decoyed pigeons very cleanly at that range. Can I ask, what was the manufacturer, what choke were you using, and had you used them previously for fowling?

[gunsmoke]

Gunsmoke

To say that BASC cant question the WWT is totally wrong by the way, of course we can!

 

David

 

Go on then. Tell the members of PW how the WWT duck survey could have been using legally shoot duck in Ireland and scotland and other parts of the EU.

 

Tell them how the BASC survey, is only hear say, it is not evidance. There is no proof of non-compliance within the BASC survey. Only what people have answered in a questionnaire.

 

Oh you can not do that because BASC got paid for the part in the WWT report. Sold out for a hand full of silver.

Edited June 20, 2012 by gunsmoke

[David BASC]

Please gunsmoke answer my question, why do you keep ignoring me ?

 

Look at the full wwt report, they checked the duck were shot in England.

 

Are you suggesting that the BASC members lied when answering the survey?

 

Yet again I ask if the results showed high compliance would you have said they were wrong?

[fruitloop]

hi david im not being anti basc as i am a fully paid member. but the questionaire that i receved twice thrugh a email then a link to a on line servey from basc was very leading the way it was worded. thats the reson i did not do it and just bined it . if i am wrong i apoligise .

and is there a way to get a samples of the questions and ansers that was on the servey please. so the members on hear can see what was asked...

Edited June 21, 2012 by fruitloop

[poontang]

 

 

Look at the full wwt report, they checked the duck were shot in England.

 

 

 

That's not strictly true David.

 

Below is a copy of the letter I received from DEFRA, which accompanied the report following my FoI request.

 

 

 

It seems that WWT made no attempt to prove the provenance of the ducks other than asking the seller. For an organisation who claim to have used robust and scientific evidence for their findings I would suggest they've fallen at the first hurdle.

As far as I'm aware under FSA rules all game meat bought from a registered gamedealer must be able to be traced back to source ie. the shoot it came from.

 

Surely WWT should have done this?

 

Below is a screenshot taken from a DEFRA survey, showing how traceability should be proved, and more importantly can be verified by other parties.

 

 

I think you'll agree the WWT methods of proving provenance leaves a lot to be desired?

[David BASC]

Morning Fruiloop

I would not for one moment think or suggest you are anti BASC.

As I said the full set of survey questions are in the Appendix of the full survey report as are the details of those answers.

 

Morning pontang

Yes the purchasers checked with the sellers where the ducks were shot, and I believe only those where the sellers said they were shot in England were they entered into the survey. And I agree on that basis several assumptions were made.

 

On that basis is the WWT research valid? Well it may not reflect the level of compliance in itself, and to he best of my knowledge the WWT have not suggested that compliance levels are only 30% I think the level of compliance back then is much more precisely gauged by the BASC member survey.

 

However the WWT part of the survey certainly showed how many duck were on sale with lead in them.

 

As I said before several pages ago, the thrust of the WWT attack at the moment is not compliance with regulations but lead in ducks and game, and there is no doubt about the fact that a very high percentage of the ducks they purchased contained lead shot, and that’s what the WWT are attacking on, trying to run a silly food scare and apparently ignoring the work and remit of the LAG!

 

On a European level there are concerns about non compliance with the AEWA agreement which is why there has been a suggestion at European level that the easiest way to ensure compliance with the phasing out of lead over wetlands is a total lead ban across all of Europe.

 

Regards

 

David

[pavman]

Pavman, sounds like you've had very different experiences to me. I found steel 4's killed decoyed pigeons very cleanly at that range. Can I ask, what was the manufacturer, what choke were you using, and had you used them previously for fowling?

 

 

Ross

 

I have shot 1000's of steel loads wildfowling and in general I step up the shot size 2 above what I would use in lead to get the same mass or there abouts. If you look back many of my posts have been on the subject and always suggesting a bigger shot size for steel. I get sick to the back teeth of folk suggesting 3-1/2 carts in number 3 steel are great on Geese. They are not unless you are either very close or very good or both.

 

However what I had not done prior to sunday was to use Steel and Lead back to back on the same quarry enabling me to make a direct comparison.People on here who know me and have shot with me would I am sure vouch for my competence I am not a novice.

 

The load I used was Lyalvale on 1/4 choke and it was corvids not Pigeons.

 

Sooner or later we will doubtless roll over and there will be a total lead ban and that will be another steps towards a total shooting ban. You and I wont get a say in it and our ability to afford alternatives in the interim will not be taken into account because the folk making such decisions don’t live in our world. Not unlike politicians who sit round a big walnut table in designer suits sipping fine wines deciding how much they can get out of a working man and how long they can make him pay so they can squander it all over again.

 

Rest assured a number of HMG departments are rife with antis and they will keep at it. We should give no ground not one inch if we do they want more.

 

Slightly off the subject, I have just been declined an offer on some marshland that was flood defence work. It was a seald bid sale and the particulars stated at first the seller was with holding sporting rights to control wildfowling. I then got contacted saying they may let SR go if it was part of a sensible shoot plan. I put a plan and bid in and I understand mine was the highest bid and it was turned down I can only assume for one not wanting SR.

 

Now I assume flood defence work will come back to the public purse expense in which case at some junction HMG is trying to control shooting and is prepared to loose tax payer money to do so.

 

I have referred the matter to BASC but have not received a reply or indication as to what they can do if anything. I hope they follow it up and dont simply accept it because once we start down that road (and we are most likely on it already)we are nailing our own coffin lid shut.

Edited June 21, 2012 by pavman

[gunsmoke]

Poontang, Good job. It may take davidbasc a few hours to reply to this, he'll have to have a couple of meeting with Mill staff to work out what they are going to do now.

 

I'm going to get Davidbasc a new spade for xmas.

[Bazooka Joe]

Many thanks go to WWT staff and others including Lucy Andrews, Kane Brides, Nigel

Coxon, Barbara Cromie, Andy Fryer, Sally MacKenzie and Tom and David Stroud for

purchasing, collecting and/or posting ducks for the game dealer survey.

 

 

As I said before several pages ago,

the thrust of the WWT attack at the moment is not compliance with regulations.

but lead in ducks and game, and there is no doubt about the fact that a very high percentage of the ducks they purchased

contained lead shot, and that’s what the WWT are attacking on,

trying to run a silly food scare and apparently ignoring the work and remit of the LAG!

 

 

Makes it all that easier to prove the point does it not David,

 

especially if they supply there own Ducks..?.

[David BASC]

Oh dear gunsmoke, so keen to have a dig you did not bother to note that I had already replied to poontangs very good point 10 minutes before you had your little and now customary swipe at me…pity you are not so quick to answer the question I have repeatedly asked of you…

 

Morning BJ

Given that most game is shot with lead, and that many ducks are legally and illegally shot with lead then a lot of game on sale will contain lead, not all though. This has also been found by the FSA surveys of lead and other heavy metals in foods. But is that an issue? That’s what’s being looked into now by the LAG.

 

David

[al4x]

That's not strictly true David.

 

Below is a copy of the letter I received from DEFRA, which accompanied the report following my FoI request.

 

 

 

It seems that WWT made no attempt to prove the provenance of the ducks other than asking the seller. For an organisation who claim to have used robust and scientific evidence for their findings I would suggest they've fallen at the first hurdle.

As far as I'm aware under FSA rules all game meat bought from a registered gamedealer must be able to be traced back to source ie. the shoot it came from.

 

Surely WWT should have done this?

 

Below is a screenshot taken from a DEFRA survey, showing how traceability should be proved, and more importantly can be verified by other parties.

 

 

I think you'll agree the WWT methods of proving provenance leaves a lot to be desired?

 

Poontang I think you have to accept it isn't in the interest of bedfellows to upset each other by discrediting the research done jointly. Though it would seem the most logical way of putting a spanner in the works from a DEFRA point of view I can't see it happening. Traceability in food is there game dealers will have those records simply because if someone has an iffy chiller and chucks hundreds of birds that are contaminated with e coli or similar into the food chain then they have to be identifiable. If this information hasn't been collected you have to ask yourself why, there really is only one answer. With the tack the WWT has taken of an obvious attack on shooting I really would have liked to see some form of falling out between them and our major shooting organisation but doesn't look like its happening one press release stating what they are up to and thats it.

[wymberley]

Ross

 

I have shot 1000's of steel loads wildfowling

 

When someone says something like this, it pays to sit up and pay attention. When I first joined PW, some clown criticised me for using the term, 'in general'. We are writing a post on an internet website not a thesis and so readers must accept that there may well be exceptions to what is said but the main thrust remains valid. There are exceptions to the 'go up 2 shot sizes' rule and this aspect plus the failure of some shooters to even consider the 2 shot sizes, which Pavman rightly finds annoying, is one reason BASC is facing the problems it now does and the blame for which could well be laid at its own doorstep.

 

Go to the BASC website, hit departments and look for 'Education'. There isn't one any longer. Consequently, in general, and apart from the, 'go up 2 shot sizes' advice, shooters have been left to muddle through on their own. Is it any wonder that many think steel shot is a disaster performancewise? All the necessary information is available at t' Mill and as the 'Voice of Shooting' BASC shoot have made greater efforts to disseminate it to all shooters, not just its members.

 

Hands up everyone who has heard of terms akin to 'pellet lethal energy' or 'pellet energy density' in relation to NTX. There's nothing complicated here, it's all straightforward and some understanding of these terms would have gone some way in showing that steel is not the total disaster that many believe to be the case.

[poontang]

Poontang I think you have to accept it isn't in the interest of bedfellows to upset each other by discrediting the research done jointly. Though it would seem the most logical way of putting a spanner in the works from a DEFRA point of view I can't see it happening. Traceability in food is there game dealers will have those records simply because if someone has an iffy chiller and chucks hundreds of birds that are contaminated with e coli or similar into the food chain then they have to be identifiable. If this information hasn't been collected you have to ask yourself why, there really is only one answer. With the tack the WWT has taken of an obvious attack on shooting I really would have liked to see some form of falling out between them and our major shooting organisation but doesn't look like its happening one press release stating what they are up to and thats it.

 

'Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer' is a phrase that springs to mind.

 

It seems to me that we've kept our enemies a little too close in this instance.

 

It would have been very easy for WWT to have proven the provenance of the ducks sourced, however they decided not to do so, which in my opinion makes the survey null and void.

 

What is important is that this report is now being used as 'proof' that compliance in the UK is low. It's been used in the FACE submission to the ECHA and by WWT in the Mail On Sunday article trying to sway public opinion.

 

Whilst I can understand David's point about the amount of game shot with lead this report was concerning compliance with regulations for the use of lead in wildfowl.

 

The bigger picture of lead in game is being looked at by the LAG, but surely now the WWT's position on there is untenable? How can they possibly be trusted to give a balanced and fair opinion on the issues?

 

David said earlier that 'On a European level there are concerns about non compliance with the AEWA agreement which is why there has been a suggestion at European level that the easiest way to ensure compliance with the phasing out of lead over wetlands is a total lead ban across all of Europe'.

 

I'd like to know who made the suggestion that a ban on all lead should be phased out? Was it AEWA?

[David BASC]

poontang, it was not AEWA as far as I recall, the AEWA simply want to see lead shot over wetlands phased out and that’s what member states have agreed to do.

 

It was the Ornis Committee ,that look at all bird issues in Europe, which was set up under a European Directive who, I believe, suggested the best way to ensure compliance with the AEWA agreements was a total ban on lead shot for all shooting, not just over wet lands.

 

They will probably look to force the issue through REACH (Registration,. Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) for example which prevents European members putting into the market any substance that’s hazardous to health or the environment which is not adequately controlled.

 

The European Commission have to ask the ECHA (European Chemical Agency)to assess the restriction proposed.

 

This in turn has eventually led to the FACE report to ECHA

 

David

[Scully]

 

 

It would have been very easy for WWT to have proven the provenance of the ducks sourced, however they decided not to do so, which in my opinion makes the survey null and void.

 

What is important is that this report is now being used as 'proof' that compliance in the UK is low. It's been used in the FACE submission to the ECHA and by WWT in the Mail On Sunday article trying to sway public opinion.

Exactly.These are points which keep cropping up time after time;and which I've tried to get across myself.

This information is now in the public domain as 'proof',when in fact it is no such thing!We even have contributors to this thread who believe it as a fact...it isn't a fact at all!I can't explain how angry this makes me....and central to placing this information into the public domain without any regard as to the accuracy of its contents is one of this country's biggest shooting organisations!Unbelievable!

[David BASC]

OK, so for sake of argument lets disregard the number of ducks that were purchased with lead in them.

 

Lets just look at the survey of shoots and shooters…where almost half said they did not always comply is that not a clear assessment of the level of compliance?

 

Scully you said that you know of more than one syndicate who ignore the law, shoot ducks with lead and then sell them to game dealers, and judging by a few other posts you are not alone. The evidence for non compliance is there for us to quite literally see.

 

There is nothing that I can see in the AEWA agreement that gives any flexibility on compliance; you either comply or you dont. Evidently the later is the case; you have seen it with your own eyes Scully.

 

Defra had warned and BASC had warned for a few years that a survey on compliance was coming, and the results would be in the public domain so now that it has happened why are you surprised that it is in the public domain?

 

Advice, warnings and guidance were, in many cases, simply ignored as you have seen for yourself. And now some are running around blaming BASC…when the real fault rests simply and squarely with those who have ignored the law, its them that have landed us in this mess and when people fail to see this, well I cant explain how angry that makes me.

 

As I say time and time again if the results had been different and shown compliance with the law then you and others would be more than happy about it and would not be criticizing BASC for doing the research and the results being in the public domain.

 

David

Edited June 21, 2012 by David BASC

[gunsmoke]

 

Let’s just look at the survey of shoots and shooters…where almost half said they did not always comply is that not a clear assessment of the level of compliance?

 

David

 

This is not proof or evidence. It is hear say only. If BASC what to do a survey of its members that is up to them. BUT to get paid by the WWT for the work and then we get the WWT using it against us, that is where BASC have gone wrong. BIG TIME!

 

The WWT/BASC report was at its started aimed at inland shooters. WHY? I believe to get the a point where we are now. Was BASC in on the plan? I do not know.

 

But just look at the research advisory committee minutes and we start to see the plan at work.

 

It was agreed that the following recommendation be given to Council:

 

“In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the Committee believes that the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalking is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As a result of the growing and external pace of change the Committee recommends that Council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The Committee also recommends that the Deer Committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets“.

 

AP3 – MA to recommend to Council in January that bans on lead ammunition are anticipated sooner rather than later and that members should be prepared for early change.