WWT Lead Shot Plans

[al4x]

how about you had actually questioned people who shot ducks over wetlands David AKA wildfowlers the ones who are at the heart of the organisation. Throwing a survey out to all and sundry with no knowledge of what shooting they do is a little random or is it a case of knowing inland is where the problem is, where the law doesn't make sense and where the use of lead had next to no implications to wildlife, as you yourself have stated there is no need to ban lead on inland water. Where it needs to be compliance is very high but that doesn't necessarily meet the agenda a survey of wildfowling club members could have been presented and a far larger survey done and the results would have been over whelming.

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke,

It is evidence (data supporting confirmation or verification) of non compliance when someone says they don’t comply!

 

Hearsay mean rumour, or gossip or tittle tattle, you may not like the research we did on our membership but it can hardly be classed as hearsay!

 

Have you spectacularly failed yet aging to grasp that advisory committee minutes don’t make Council policy – we’ve been over this why ignore it?

 

Any why yet again ignore the questions I have asked you?

 

Al4x

The membership and shoot owner survey was random for the very reason that it needed a cross section of shooters, not just inland or just coastal because the legislation applies to all. Part of the survey was aimed at finding out what the level of knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the legislation was.

 

If we surveyed wildfowling clubs I agree the level of compliance declared would have been very high indeed.

 

But as we have seen both from the BASC survey and from evidence presented by others on this thread, many inland shooters are not yet up to speed with the legislation or find reasons and excuses not to comply.

 

As I have said, I can see no evidence at this time that shows lead shot causes any environmental loss inland (excluding wetlands) but this is being looked at by the LAG so I stand to be corrected.

 

At present the BASC Councils objective is to resist any further restrictions on the use of lead shot, although we must realistically keep an eye on the UK Governments AEWA commitment to phase out lead hsot in and over wetlands.

 

In the interim if you or anyone else shooting in England wants to show voluntary restraint and not shoot lead in any wetland area, then of course you can.

 

David

[MartynGT4]

Please don't make the mistake of assuming evidence is the same as proof, it isn't.

 

Lets say, for arguments sake, BASC send the survey to 25% of the BASC membership (using a random selection criteria, which should have been published with the report to demonstrate its statistical relevance) and got a 50% response rate. We could then say that the responses equate to 12.5% of the BASC membership. If 50% of those responses state non compliance, at best you've got evidence that 6.25% of the BASC membership are non compliant and results that could be interpreted as an INDICATION that 50% of the membership might not comply. That is absolutely NOT evidence that 50% of the BASC membership are non compliant.

 

Apart from anything else, if you want to draw conclusions from small samples, you absolutely have to ensure your selection criteria is 100% representative of the wider community and clearly demonstrate it as such.

 

If BASC was going to be involved in a survey of this kind, one that was clearly going to be used against the shooting community, at the very least BASC had a responsibility to its paying members to ensure the survey was performed correctly and the right conclusions drawn from it. I'm not a BASC basher but from where I'm sat, the BASC membership has been let down badly and the whole affair has harmed BASC's credibility.

 

If I were employed to run such a survey, at the very least I would enlist the help of a good statistician to be sure the results stood up to peer review. Judging by the conclusions being made from this report, I'm guessing BASC didn't.

 

Just my 2p

Edited June 21, 2012 by MartynGT4

[Scully]

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

I can see your point David,but you've made the same mistake as everyone(me included).The fact I know of two syndicates which choose to ignore the law isn't indicative of shooters in general;sweeping generalisations aren't a good thing.Here's another.....speeding is also against the law but we all do it.Here's another;using your mobile while driving is against the law,but we all do it.Both have potentially more serious consequences,but we all do it.

Neither of these syndicates participated in your survey as not a single member of either syndicate is a BASC member,and whilst both are based in England all ducks were(possibly still are for all I know)collected by dealers from Scotland so I doubt very much if said duck showed up on any survey.

These old boys are dinosaurs,they belong to a generation which still thinks it's ok to drive home after 6 pints of bitter as they've done it for most of their lives;they don't wear seat-belts;resent the smoking ban and regard a law which allows them to shoot pheasant but not duck over the same wood with lead as daft,so will continue to shoot lead for as long as they have it,regardless of any ban.

You may be correct in saying shooters have brought this on themselves,but again,you're assuming from the results of a miniscule section of shooters who replied to your survey that it is indicative of shooters in general.Who knows,you may be right,but 'may' isn't proof is it?

Many countries have not responded with their submissions to the EU shooting organisations as yet according to the good Dr,but we have,albeit that submission not apparently being worth the paper it was printed on.As much as you may want to divert this blame at the feet of shooters,it wasn't shooters who deliberately placed what they knew to be flawed reports,submitted as proof, into the public domain.This was BASC.

To answer your last question,and speaking for me personally,you're probably right(but would it have even come to light,or for that matter been anymore accurate?)but as far as I can remember I entered this debate not on an issue of compliance(which was raised as a result of other questioning)but rather on BASC's seemingly reluctant and evasive attitude when asked about fighting for the retention of lead.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Scully

[David BASC]

Martyn

Thank you for that, I would point out that the survey was checked over by DEFRA’s survey team before it was sent out as stated in the full report.

 

A point for discussion - when does mounting evidence become proof?

 

Scully

A good post, and some valid points in my view, especially about peoples attitudes and the human trait to resist change and propensity to break rules of the road! I agree that its quite probably the case across other countries in Europe.

 

However, I do take issue about BASC’s lack of fight to keep lead. Could we agree that once the UK government signed up to the AEWA then the phasing out of lead over wetlands was going to happen sooner or later and there was nothing at all that could be done about it?

 

Please understand it was BASC’s lobbying that prevented the ban coming in for many years to try and buy time for the cartridge manufacturers to make alternatives available.

 

And since then BASC has successfully fought of calls for complete bans in the UK. What else can we do?

 

The survey report went to DEFRA and it was DEFRA that put it in the public domain, as I said this was always going to happen, and would have hasppened if the survey results had come back showing high compliance.

 

I think we would all have been a lot happier if the results had come back showing high compliance and it would certainly helped our lobbying position when those who oppose shooting called for further restrictions on lead.

 

David

[Scully]

The survey report went to DEFRA and it was DEFRA that put it in the public domain, as I said this was always going to happen, and would have hasppened if the survey results had come back showing high compliance.

David

I'll grudgingly give you the rest,but not the above.Let me phrase it another way then.BASC,knowing full well that the evidence was flawed,and despite the concerns of at least one panel member who made his concerns plain regarding the validity of the evidence,allowed this information to pass to DEFRA in the knowledge of its destination being the public domain.BASC allowed this to be submitted as proof.

We can agree that once the UK government signed up to AEWA then the phasing out of lead shot over wetlands was going to happen sooner or later and also that there is nothing to be done about it(we haven't the will nor resources to fight this)but unless I'm mistaken,it wasn't too long ago you were denying there WERE any plans to phase out lead shot.This isn't a personal attack;in your position I would undoubtedly have done the same.

I can't express how disappointed and saddened I am by this whole sorry affair.In the face of real opposition we are found wanting.

[MartynGT4]

I would point out that the survey was checked over by DEFRA’s survey team before it was sent out as stated in the full report.

 

Fair enough, hadn't noticed that. Wasn't having a go though, just trying to highlight the way stats like these can be interpreted incorrectly and given too much weight. Then factor in the contentious WWT vs BASC element and BASC were bound to end up in a corner. As someone once said "there are lies, damn lies and statistics".

 

A point for discussion - when does mounting evidence become proof?

 

One for a jury?

 

IF compliance is low in some areas, it's not hard to see why. We can say the law is the law until the cows come home but people just wont abide to legislation that doesnt make sense. Fix the legislation and compliance will improve. Good luck getting it changed though. I do wonder if certain groups were rubbing their hands together with glee when it was introduced knowing full well compliance would be low and only a matter of time before a full lead ban was on the table as a result. I know BASC has been championing compliance and think its fallen on deaf ears but instead of handing WWT the results they dreamed of on a velvet pillow perhaps an internal survey published to members only might have been more constructive? Do tell me if you think I'm wearing rose tinted glasses though..

[David BASC]

Thanks Scully,

 

I stand by what I said earlier that at the moment there are no plans in front of Westminster to make any further restrictions on the use of lead shot, and that’s the position that BASC has kept fighting for, for many years. Although as you have seen there are BASC members on this forum that disagree with that stance and think we should go for a full ban over all wetlands.

 

The position of Westminster may change at some point in the future, but I cant personally see this happening until either the LAG reports come out (even then there is no guarantee anything will happen) or if there is further pressure from Europe (much more likely).

 

The survey clearly showed evidence of non compliance and the reasons for it, we can argue the precision of the results, as with any survey, like Martyn said in his post but even if the results were 50% off, the level of compliance would still be uncomfortably high.

 

Thank you too Martyn,

I can’t think of any other way to assess compliance with lead shot apart from asking people and monitoring the ducks that are shot? We don’t want to go to the level of having ‘duck inspectors’ standing on the foreshore or visiting inland shoots to check ducks that have been shot of course.

 

I think the only changes we are likely to see, unless ORNIS get their way, is a ban over all wetlands, similar to the legislation in Scotland. Will that improve compliance? As I said earlier, if we go down that path a lot of shoots will have to change their drives to ensure no lead shot goes onto or over wetlands.

 

An internal survey of members would soon have found its way into the public domain I am sure.

 

I really do appreciate the comments and feedback for you guys, thank you.

 

David

[Scully]

Hi David

According to the current issue of BASC's magazine(just got it today)under the heading 'UK Shooters unite against lead threat',there is a paragraph which reads;'The UK organisations have submitted scientifically valid evidence and relevant information on the use of lead shot to FACE'.

What 'scientifically valid evidence' would this be?

[gunsmoke]

Hi David

According to the current issue of BASC's magazine(just got it today)under the heading 'UK Shooters unite against lead threat',there is a paragraph which reads;'The UK organisations have submitted scientifically valid evidence and relevant information on the use of lead shot to FACE'.

What 'scientifically valid evidence' would this be?

 

 

"The report was published because it was commissioned and paid for by DEFRA; it certainly does not mean we accept its validity." I got told that by a government minister.

[David BASC]

Good morning Scully,

 

FACE UK (as well as all other FACE members in Europe) were sent a questionnaire to complete. The topics on the questionnaire were:

 

Number of shooters

Number of shotguns on issue

Average number of shotguns owned per licence holder

Importance of shotgun shooting compared to rifle and air rifle

Scale of shotgun shooting over wetlands compared other land

Harvest data of wetland birds compared to inland birds

Details on how long the lead restrictions / bans have been in place

What sort of information campaign about lead restrictions were run

Was it supported by the government

How effective the campaign was

Comments on the ban

 

Source data included:

Home office statistics

Crown Estate foreshore data

Statistical bulletins (Scotland)

PASEC report (2006)

BASC guns and cartridge survey (2006)

Lead shot review group compliance study (2000)

Cromie study (2002)

CA compliance study 2002

BASC gamekeepers survey (2002)

The BASC Waterfowl Shooting Survey, 2008

Cromie report (2010)

 

David

Edited June 26, 2012 by David BASC

[Scully]

Cheers David,but which bit is the 'valid science' bit?

[David BASC]

Pretty much all of it in the context of the final report, as its based in evidence from a range of sources via BASC , C A, and PASEC research.

 

David

[Scully]

Even the Cromie report?Science?

[gunsmoke]

Even the Cromie report?Science?

Good Point, nice to see Davebasc as seen the FACE UK reply to AMEC. I'm on the group and I have not seen the full document. I only saw annex I, I did not see annex II.

 

As a gunmaker I would have thought that annex II would have been something BASC would have like me to look over and comment on. Being the only professional gunmaker on the group.

 

I have now seen annex II emailed to me by a countryman's weekly reader.

 

This has been a cover up. I'm told that other members of the group had not seen the full document. How can I saw "duty of care" if I have not seen the full document. I'm as mad as hell!

[David BASC]

Just a point of order Gunsmoke, BASC, like all the other organisations on FACE UK were asked by FACE UK for input to the report and we gave it.

 

For you to now to try and lay the blame for you allegedly not seeing the report at BASC's door is way off side. Its a FACE report not a BASC report. Get in touch with FACE UK.

 

 

Turning to the questionnaire on compliance within the later Cromie report for example, yes it was conducted to high scientific standards.

 

Questionnaires are probably the most reliable research methods to gain the views of people about a subject. Its easily to standardise questions, so everyone gets to answer exactly the same question.

 

Closed questions are used (yes / no / tick the answer) to get basic facts about a persons knowledge or preferences on an issue

 

Questionnaires are very easy to replicate because they are easily standardised. In other words it is easy for anyone else to repeat the research.

 

Postal surveys are weak in the context that questions / answers asked cannot usually be then gone into in any great depth or detail, certainly not without making the survey extremely complex, thats where face to face surveys come into their own.

 

So the BASC survey within the later Cromie report gave a reliable indication of the level of compliance and the level of understanding of the current regulations and the attitudes towards the regulations.

 

I know its been said that this report is being used to bash shooters, but lets look at the recommendations from the report to DEFRA:

 

6.1.1 Raise awareness of the findings of this report

6.1.2 Raise awareness of the problem of lead poisoning for waterfowl

6.1.3 Provide information and guidance about the Regulations more widely

6.1.4 Reassure the shooting community that the Regulations are not intended to restrict shooting activities any more than necessary

6.1.5 Utilise communication media such as the BASC website

6.1.6 Provide information and guidance on the efficacy and use of non-lead

alternatives

6.1.7 Additionally focus measures on inland game and/or duck shooting

activities

6.1.8 Encourage game dealers to demand compliance in their suppliers

6.2 Enforcement or ensuring compliance (by not permitting non-compliance)

6.2.1 Enforce the Regulations

6.2.2 Encourage shoot providers to not permit non-compliance

6.3.1 Requests for Defra and the Lead Ammunition Group

6.3.2 On-going monitoring

 

Fact remains as I have said, we need to know what the law requires and we need to comply with the law, if we dont then I an very sure further restrictions on lead will come in, it really is as simple as that.

 

David

Edited June 27, 2012 by David BASC

[Salopian]

David,

I think that we are all very aware of the Law and unfortunately on inland shooting the Law is broken these are unrefutable facts.

But perhaps we should delve deeper and ask why?

I personally have never seen waterfowl suffering from the effects of Lead poisoning and would be interested to read of how much of an issue it is in the UK.

I have tried all of the Lead shot alternatives and I have severe reservations about steel shot, I use Tungsten Matrix and have tried Hevi-shot, both quite good but very expensive, but remember we are only shooting maybe £10 per outing so that is not horrendously expensive day out.

But when we come to Inland game shooting of mainly reared duck we come to the totally illegal practice of shooting ducks with Lead shot. Why?

Because many gameshooters honestly believe that steel is inefficient, causes wounding and therefore cruel to use on ducks that are hand fed usually and hand reared for the sport.

If we were to have available the losses to waterfowl due to Lead poisoning and compare that to the number of ducks that are bred, released and not harvested maybe that would make interesting data.

Partridge shooting is another contentious issue, with the decline of the grey should we ban partridge shooting? Even though we rear many thousands of redlegs and the greys will fly through the line with them and we cannot rely upon our guests to accurately identify their quarry should we therefore ban partridge shooting?

 

I know that many of you may think that is the ranting of a madman, but it just my way of saying let us all think of solutions to perceived problems and unite in robustly defending our sport.

It is so easy to roll over and accept defeat, but when ever has a true Brit done that?

[David BASC]

Good morning,

 

I think SOME of us are aware of the law, but I believe there is still more to do to make ALL shooters aware of the law.

 

The old ‘I have never send a duck with lead poisoning’ just does not hold water though does it – how many dead ducks or dead birds (apart from those you shoot) do you see?

 

I have never ever seen anyone suffer and die from mesothelioma but I have no doubt exposure to asbestos is the culprit.

 

People cannot possibly justify law breaking, and consequently run the risk of even more restrictions on lead by saying ‘I don’t think alternatives work’ because if they do then I am sure that there will be further restrictions on lead shot..

 

So if people want to keep lead shot blooming well follow the law!

 

In my view no we should not ban partridge shooting but shoots should work with landowners to create partridge habitat. There was an excellent presentation by a BASC shoot at the AGM form near Liverpool who have done just that.

 

David

[Salopian]

The old ‘I have never send a duck with lead poisoning’ just does not hold water though does it – how many dead ducks or dead birds (apart from those you shoot) do you see? My friends are river keepers on the Wye, Severn and Test and have never seen any

 

I have never ever seen anyone suffer and die from mesothelioma but I have no doubt exposure to asbestos is the culprit.

I have lost family and friends to 'asbsetosis'

[al4x]

this is where bringing us in line with Scotland would void any further easy research If you could shoot wildfowl with lead inland not over water then there would be no way of prooving one way or another compliance. That and the law would actually make sense so would be more likely to be complied with, while its a dogs breakfast its hardly surprising the average shooter sees it as just increasing the odds on wounding and cruelty due to using cartridges that just aren't as good unless you pay £1 a pop

[Scully]

You can dress it up any way you fancy David,but questionnaires and surveys are hardly 'valid sciences',and I regard it as highly misleading.It gives readers the impression of totally impartial bodies carrying out technically difficuilt work dressed in white lab' coats when you and I know neither of these impressions is true.

But that's about it I think,unless someone can come up with something else,think I'm just about done.

I'll carry on shooting for as long as I can(but not as a BASC member)with steel if lead goes,and when steel is found to be unsuitable for clays or is found to damage guns or wound quarry,and that goes,I will be forced to pack in as I can't afford to shoot the alternatives,(didn't BASC at one time say no ban until an equally effective/affordable alternative could be found?Wonder what happened to that pledge)so like many people will be priced out of shooting.

So in the meantime,question your shooting organisations,and question them hard.Don't take information from them at face value.Lead is going,and there's nothing your shooting organisation can/will do about it.What they will do however,is try to convince you they are fighting your corner,when in reality what they're fighting for is damage limitation to their business through lost memebership when faced with opposition and policies they know they have no chance of defeating.It's all politics.

[David BASC]

Salopian, the fact your river keeper friends have never seen a dead duck kind of proves my point.

 

Scully, what , in your view, would make a valid science?

 

Al4x, as I think I have said, it’s quite possible that the legislation re no lead on or over wetlands will come in across Europe sooner or later. But I am sure Defra et al will still want to monitor compliance, and if compliance can’t be evidenced, then I think you know what the next step will be.

 

The Scottish solution’ is not perhaps quite the ‘get out of jail free card’ some may think it is.

 

Wounding loss can always be reduced regardless of what shot type you are using, it’s a matter of using the right gun / cartridge combination and shooting within the limits of that combination.

 

David

Edited June 27, 2012 by David BASC

[Guest cookoff013]

Please don't make the mistake of assuming evidence is the same as proof, it isn't.

 

Lets say, for arguments sake, BASC send the survey to 25% of the BASC membership (using a random selection criteria, which should have been published with the report to demonstrate its statistical relevance) and got a 50% response rate. We could then say that the responses equate to 12.5% of the BASC membership. If 50% of those responses state non compliance, at best you've got evidence that 6.25% of the BASC membership are non compliant and results that could be interpreted as an INDICATION that 50% of the membership might not comply. That is absolutely NOT evidence that 50% of the BASC membership are non compliant.

 

Apart from anything else, if you want to draw conclusions from small samples, you absolutely have to ensure your selection criteria is 100% representative of the wider community and clearly demonstrate it as such.

 

If BASC was going to be involved in a survey of this kind, one that was clearly going to be used against the shooting community, at the very least BASC had a responsibility to its paying members to ensure the survey was performed correctly and the right conclusions drawn from it. I'm not a BASC basher but from where I'm sat, the BASC membership has been let down badly and the whole affair has harmed BASC's credibility.

 

If I were employed to run such a survey, at the very least I would enlist the help of a good statistician to be sure the results stood up to peer review. Judging by the conclusions being made from this report, I'm guessing BASC didn't.

 

Just my 2p

 

i agree, the statistics can be very flawed just by its selection, and assumption its a wider "general" representation.

there are some shooters out there that just dont go wildfowling or shoot phesent, so wasting many of the limited datapoints. evidence and indication of compliance are 2 different things. until people start getting caught redhanded with lead shot birds, the evidence of a questionare is flawed. i`m sure the bigger picture may change with a larger sample type.

they should have questioned every licence holder. but that is a different excercise alltogether.

 

so what happens next, are we going to have duck police? not even some law abiding shooters know all approved nontoxic shot types. i`m sure the anti shooting brigade would love to provide evidence of non compliance.

 

could they confiscate ammo for testing? they can already confiscate birds.

 

in the states, you can get fined for just having lead shells in the car !...

 

if i remember there was a prosecution for not using nontoxic shot. but the fine was actually less than good nontoxic ammo.

[andrewluke]

But I am sure Defra et al will still want to monitor compliance, and if compliance can’t be evidenced, then I think you know what the next step will be.

 

 

David

 

it should not be too difficult to monitor non compliance,you only need to send surveys to shooters and they seem quite willing(or stupid)to admit to using lead where it shouldn't be used as they did with the basc survey ,

[Guest cookoff013]

it should not be too difficult to monitor non compliance,you only need to send surveys to shooters and they seem quite willing(or stupid)to admit to using lead where it shouldn't be used as they did with the basc survey ,

 

exactly.

 

maybe send a questionare to all wildfowling clubs.