Scully Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Scully, what , in your view, would make a valid science? David Research undertaken by totally impartial bodies such as Universities with the knowledge and experience to undertake such research. Questionnaires set by interested parties can easily be set to arrange results of a desired bias,and even science can be corrupted in a similar way;it's been done on many ocassions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Thank you very much for that, I do appreciate your reply. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossEM Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Can we see a copy of the questionnaire? The wording should have been simple enough to determine clear results. I do agree that a random selection of 3,000 members was nowhere near enough to provide an accurate picture...why couldn't BASC have sent a group email and mailshot to it's entire membership? If it was being remunerated for time/materials/postage this should not have been a problem. However, it still stands that disagreeing with the law is no defence for breaking it. Imagine if the survey had been carried out 'hands-on' by DEFRA officials turning up at inland game shoots - the findings would've been the same, if not worse, and could've lead to prosecutions, lost licenses, closed shoots etc. It's not BASC's fault that some people shoot ducks with lead, but maybe they could've got a more comprehensive picture on our behalf. I don't agree that BASC is in the middle of a damage limitation exercise, I think they are genuinely fighting our corner, albeit with some mistakes made. I think they'll probably continue to do all they can until the EU decides to ban lead altogether. If they don't try to stem the tide, they (and we) might as well give up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Yes you can, its an apendix on the main report, on the Defra web site here: http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0730_9719_FRP.pdf David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Interesting little peace of info. Note that from front cover: Report to Defra from the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust with contribution from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation Inside: Acknowledgements First and greatest thanks go to Drs. Alison Loram and John Harradine at BASC for their significant contribution to the project. There would have been little understanding of the issues surrounding waterfowl shooting and compliance with the Regulations without their major endeavours and it is much appreciated. I still want to know how much BASC got paid for all the work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) No one has ever denied that BASC were involved in the research, by sending the questionnaire to members. It was the questionnaire that gained information on members knowledge of the legislation, their understanding of the legislation and their compliance with the legislation and their attitudes towards the legislation. And thats why the main thrust of the recommendations to Defra was about increased promotion and education about the legislation and the reasons for it. And I have said countless times if you were a member and got in touch with me I would give you the information...but go on have a guess… David Edited June 28, 2012 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Research undertaken by totally impartial bodies such as Universities with the knowledge and experience to undertake such research. Questionnaires set by interested parties can easily be set to arrange results of a desired bias,and even science can be corrupted in a similar way;it's been done on many ocassions. Yes I agree with Scully. What do you make of this. Now you have to remember it is written by highly skilled experts in their field. They are talking about steel shot and under the heading: Ballistic Properties Widely 'talked down' as, on paper, performance appears poor/poorer than lead/other materials. Increase of shot size to allow for lower density than lead, with shooting within hunter's ability to hit target consistently, makes it widely usable. Performance has evolved, along with acceptability. Edited June 28, 2012 by gunsmoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 What do I make of it? It seems pretty accurate. "Widely talked down." Absolutely! You`ve been doing that since this thread opened and is clear proof that the research was accurate. Have you managed to find the photo`s yet of all the gun barrels that you imagine have been damaged by steel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) What do I make of it? It seems pretty accurate. "Widely talked down." Absolutely! You`ve been doing that since this thread opened and is clear proof that the research was accurate. Have you managed to find the photo`s yet of all the gun barrels that you imagine have been damaged by steel? Try this web site http://ianthegun.webs.com/apps/photos/ I think some of them are from the proof house. Edited June 28, 2012 by gunsmoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 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?. David This line reminded me of a BASC meeting I went to a couple of years ago.A couple of old boys who did quite a bit of 'fowling asked J.Swift the question;'If it's true that spent lead shot is poisoning our wildfowl,where are all the dead carcasses?'To which J.swift replied that nature did a pretty good job of reclaiming carcasses which is why we hardly ever see them.Reasonable answer I would suggest,but then one of the old boys said;'Those who claim they're being poisoned don't seem to have much trouble finding them',to which J.Swift didn't have an answer,but simply quoted party policy. Part of an impending meeting:'The FACE report ends by stating that FACE supports the ban on the use of lead shot in wetlands and would like to see this effective throughout the EU,through legal provisions and appropriate awareness measures;and that FACE consider that a total ban on the use of lead shot would have a disproportionate negative impact on the greater majority of hunters'. Phew...that's a relief! Doesn't really matter what FACE may or may not consider;a total ban would undoubtedly ensure compliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 So do you believe that spent lead shot does not harm ducks? Yes you are correct, unless we comply then further restrictions, over and above that on or over wetlands will probably follow. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 Not at all sure what the photo shows or under what conditions the 'damage' happened, or indeed when they were taken. Was this the same gun you took to NI? So you are keen to show steel shot damages steel barrels, but according to you its ok to use steel shot in Damascus barrels as you posted a few pages ago? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossEM Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 The blurb underneath the photo states that the proof house found the damage to the chamber was caused by an incorrectly loaded cartridge (i.e. steel pellets loaded outside the plastic wad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 28, 2012 Report Share Posted June 28, 2012 My apologies, I missed that important point. Not too surprising that an incorrectly loaded cartridge, or an over sized cartridge would risk causing damage... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrispti Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Try this web site http://ianthegun.webs.com/apps/photos/ I think some of them are from the proof house. You should change the name of your "lead shot forum" to the "I hate the BASC forum" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 Gunsmoke, Don`t you think that refering us TO YOUR OWN WEB SITE with a flourish, which implies that we will find reams of pictures of barrels damaged by steel, only to find that that is most certainly not the case is actually weakening your already suspect case. If you look at the counter on this thread you`ll notice that it goes up steadily.People are no longer interested in the detailed content which has pretty much been exhausted, they visit it to read, and laugh at,the latest offering from some of the contributors who`s grasp of reality is increasingly tenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted June 29, 2012 Report Share Posted June 29, 2012 This thread has run its course and will now be closed. No doubt we will return to this subject in the future, if and when there are any significant developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts