WWT Lead Shot Plans

[mudpatten]

An apology for your previous rudeness might have been more appropriate.

 

Before you spend your time adding spurious comments from vets and doctors please spend a few moments in posting the pictures of the guns damaged by stel shot that you attach so much weight to.

 

If it is the problem that you maintain it is, you should have a readily accessible library of pictures.If you have`nt, people will think that you are exaggerating the problem and that you really don`t have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

[David BASC]

I have already posted above a summary of what BASC has done and delivered to protect shooters and the lead issue, so to say BASC has done nothing is wrong - we have done all we can and much of the time with limited or indeed little practical help from others, if we had not delivered on our objectives its likely that there would have been significantly greater restrictions on lead shot in the UK now.

 

We will keep doing all we can and we will keep being open and honest about it, we have nothing to hide, and unfortunately that means sometimes having to deliver bad news such as the level of non compliance.

 

You may not remember but there was other research in 2002 I think it was that found high awareness and low compliance too. It was since this point that BASC kept telling shooters that sooner or later DEFRA would measure again the level of compliance, and so they did. To attack BASC for seeking confirmation on the level of compliance in this latest study is a bit much, imagine if you will that shooters had listened to BASC and the latest research had shown high levels of compliance….

 

But they did not so now we find ourselves frankly in a poorer position than if compliance with the law was as high inland as it in on the coast.

 

There is much to do to review the real risks of lead shot and that’s exactly what the Primary Evidence Groups of the LAG and I am not sure what evidence secure outside of this will do to help. But who knows.

 

On the subject of Damascas barrels I have asked our director of research to dig out the original info on this to double check, and I will post the reasons ASAP that’s all you had to do, ie ask, rather than throw personal insults at me!

 

Best to all

 

David

[Scully]

Is BASC,or does BASC,have any intention of challenging the WWT regarding their intention to attempt to turn this into a public health 'scare' as it were,to further their agenda?As you say,it's hardly in the remit of a conservation charity.

Also,is it true that some of the very same people in the WWT who are pushing the claims that lead is having such a detrimental effect on our wildfowl,the same people who are actually engaged in the research to 'prove' their claims?

Or are the researchers/scientists totally independant and unattached to any involved organisations?

[mudpatten]

I should just like to point out that David is a full time employee of BASC and that today is a Sunday and he is not at work.

 

Thank you for your dedication to duty and your sterling work to help preserve our shooting.

[David BASC]

Scully,

 

Good evening,

 

Yes of course we will counter and defend against to the best of our ability any attack on shooting, be it a direct attack or an indirect attack.

 

We started the Campaign for Game as I say about 16 years ago, and in its BASC guise today of Taste of Game and the CA's Game to Eat, I can assure you neither the CA nor BASC want to see the countless hours of work and money we have put into promoting game brushed aside by anyone or any organisation.

 

With my biologists hat on, I have to remind us all that the FSA have set limits of metals in foods and lead is one of them. Metals that are bio accumulative and that have no biological use have very low limits in foods, and those limits will only get stricter.

 

But again I stress this is one of the key issues that the LAG is addressing though their primary evidence groups.

 

Contamination of foods by undesirables is not uncommon, but through proper protocols and procedures we get foods that fit the standards set by the FSA, we don’t simply ignore entire food groups because they may be contaminated at some point on the process from field to table, or their very manufacturing process.

 

If we did then foods such as fermented fizzy drinks (coke) peanuts, chicken, eggs, shelfish to name but a few would be off the menu.

 

John H is arguably one of the top scientists in the UK when it comes to different shot types and has been actively involved in the lead issue for well over a quarter of a century; so its not too surprising that his name crops up on many papers. Frankly I am glad he’s on our team. I know Johns desire to present the facts about different shot types warts and all based on real life practical experimentation over the years rubs some people up the wrong way sometimes but that the thing about scientists we like to present facts.

 

As things develop in the UK and in Europe you can rest assured that BASC will be at the front defending your rights to go shooting as best we can. I am please ot say that this time round it looks like a few of the other organisations are with us! And of course letting you know what’s going on out there, even when we have to bring not such good news such as the compliance issues in the past.

 

David

[Scully]

Many thanks David,and good evening to you also.

 

So regarding my first question,I can expect,and look forward to hearing of BASC's response to the WWT's attempts to create a health scare.

As for my other questions,perhaps you wouldn't mind taking off your biologists hat and donning your BASC one:Is it true that the very same people who are claiming lead shot is having a detrimental effect on our wildfowl,the same people who are actually engaged in the research to prove their claims?

Or are the researchers/scientists totally independant and unattatched to any of the organisations with a vested interest in the outcome?

Many thanks again.

[David BASC]

You certainly will see BASC sparking our against any 'health scare' along with others too! After all the very basis of our Taste of Game campaign is that game meat is natural, low fat and healthy.

 

The lists of people and papers submitting evidence to the LAG is on the LAG web site, these papers are then being looked at by the primary evidence groups (whos membership is also listed) to assess what, if any, risks there are.

 

But to be honest I dont sit on LAG so for more info you would need to contact the LAG directly

 

Sorry I cant be more help on this last point

 

David

Edited April 30, 2012 by David BASC

[Scully]

You certainly will see BASC sparking our against any 'health scare' along with others too! After all the very basis of our Taste of Game campaign is that game meat is natural, low fat and healthy.

 

The lists of people and papers submitting evidence to the LAG is on the LAG web site, these papers are then being looked at by the primary evidence groups (who’s membership is also listed) to assess what, if any, risks there are.

 

But to be honest I don’t sit on LAG so for more info you would need to contact the LAG directly

 

Sorry I cant be more help on this last point

 

David

Will have a look.Thanks.

[Scully]

Had a look,but no joy.The LAG do not have a website apparently.Phoned BASC who couldn't help either.

Had a look on the WWT,but still couldn't find the names of any of the scientists involved,independent or otherwise,but found a letter from Martin Sprey to Tim Bonner,in response to the article in last weeks ST,where the former says the evidence has been produced.

Also a claim on the website that lead poisoning is responsible for the deaths of 21% of wildfowl,only second to flying accidents, which themselves can be attributed to lead poisoning!

The info' must be out there somewhere,so I'll keep looking,but if anyone could point me in the direction of the scientists involved I would be grateful.TA.

[poontang]

Had a look,but no joy.The LAG do not have a website apparently.Phoned BASC who couldn't help either.

Had a look on the WWT,but still couldn't find the names of any of the scientists involved,independent or otherwise,but found a letter from Martin Sprey to Tim Bonner,in response to the article in last weeks ST,where the former says the evidence has been produced.

Also a claim on the website that lead poisoning is responsible for the deaths of 21% of wildfowl,only second to flying accidents, which themselves can be attributed to lead poisoning!

The info' must be out there somewhere,so I'll keep looking,but if anyone could point me in the direction of the scientists involved I would be grateful.TA.

 

Here you go.

 

http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/

 

And it all came about because of this:

 

http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm

 

Happy reading.

Edited April 30, 2012 by poontang

[anser2]

Scully its not a claim that lead has a detrimental effect on wildfowl , it’s a well established fact . Do a web search and you will find loads of papers on the subject. All come up with the same conclusion, lead pellets poisons ducks.

 

I used to be a warden on a wildfowl reserve with both wild and tame waterfowl. One of problems we had was the waterfowl collection area had been shot over in the past and we sometimes lost birds that after an autopsy were found to be poisoned with lead pellets. We also ringed thousands of wild ducks on a large gravel pit and pochard and tufted duck were often caught suffering from lead poison even though the local shooting pressure on ducks was very low.

Edited April 30, 2012 by anser2

[David BASC]

Dear All,

 

As promised I have re-checked our guidance on the use of steel shot in Damascus barrels.

 

As I said at the time, just after I was unnecessarily insulted by Gunsmoke, the guidance was not mine but guidance from a third party, in point of fact the Proof Master from the Birmingham proof House.

 

Firstly, there is no doubt that Damascus and steel barrels are proofed to the same pressure, that was never in question and typically any nitro proofed gun can be used to fire standard steel.

 

However, with Damascus barrels there is the issue of what happens further down the tubes, especially with the potential issue of occasional elevated pressures with steel shot due to the reduced pressure dampening effects of steel wads which could lead to failure in Damascus barrels further down from the chamber.

 

So our guidance will stay the same, that to be on the safe side, steel should not be shot through Damascus barrels.

 

Now I don’t expect or even want an apology from Gunsmoke, but as he is a time served fully qualified gunsmith of 40 years experience, I guess he may concede that even he can learn something new every day.

 

David

[Scully]

Many thanks Poontang,should keep me busy for a while!Like an idiot I was looking under Lead Advisory Group!

With all respect anser2,I've read quite a few papers,and it's the contradictory evidence that I've read which causes me to be sceptical about some claims.I'm not an idiot(see contradictory statement in second sentence above!)and am well aware of the toxicology of lead in our habitat,both naturally occuring and man induced.I shoot wildfowl with steel because I have to,and regardless of the amount of lead I put into the habitat,that habitat will be there long after I've gone,regardless of what the scientists say.I also shoot pheasant,pigeons,corvids,foxes,and rabbits over the same habitat,so I fail to see the logic behind the legislation.

As far as lead in out diet is concerned,the WWT is clearly changing tack to fulfill their agenda,which arouses my natural distrust of all authoritarian groups.If the scientists involved in 'proving' that lead shot in the human diet is detrimental to human health are the very same ones who are associated with the WWT and any other interested parties,then wouldn't you be alittle bit suspicious of their motives?

I shoot over arable farmland,and I shoot a lot.Every field I shoot over at one time or another throughout the year contains crops;grown in soil which over many years have been the recipient of lead fall out.My mates shoot over the same land,and we shoot over similar land in syndicates also,as do hundreds of thousands of like-minded people.I used to shoot at a clay ground in Cumbria which was grazed by sheep on the other six days of the week.

I don't know if lead seeps into the soil over time,poisoning the soil that our crops are grown in,maybe I'll find the answer in the linked reading,but common sense tells me that spent shot in the human diet doesn't appear to be doing humans any harm at all,contrary to WWT claims.

I will make a start on the reading when I getback home this weekend;crummy hotel has no Wi-Fi!

[Scully]

Have only touched the tip of the iceberg here(loads of reading to get through!)but it appears that WWT's plans to 'phase out' the use of lead in shot on the basis of it being dangerous to the health of humans when part of the diet, goes back at least four years(so why was it exposed as 'secret' in the relevant copy of ST and why haven't the shooting organisations picked up on it before now,and indeed responded?)according to an article I've read entitled:'Ingestion of Lead Ammunition:Implications for Wildlife and Humans',dated 2008.

There are many names mentioned,including BASC's John Harradine who 'commented that alternative gunshot in the UK is very effective'.His comment may have been taken out of context,after all, the titled piece was compiled by someone who has links both with the RSPB and WWT,and it fails to mention (deliberatley?)if J Harradine did in fact specify any type of shot,or whether he meant ALL types of alternative shot.Maybe BASC could clear this point up.

Michael Kosnett,on whose findings much of the article is based,appears to be a totally independant scientist,which is heartening,but there are many more names/associations to read up on,but there are still many instances of 'appears' and 'likely',but no certainties as yet.Do we legislate on 'liklihoods' and 'appearences'?Now that's a certainty!

The search goes on,much to do.

Edited May 5, 2012 by Scully

[David BASC]

Scully,

 

Spot on - John did not (would not) say that. The person who did write that indeed is the same person as behind the WWT's recent policy decision.

 

David

[poontang]

Scully,

 

Spot on - John did not (would not) say that. The person who did write that indeed is the same person as behind the WWT's recent policy decision.

 

David

 

David,

 

I mentioned the exact same thing last year, and was told that Mr Harradine had not said what was reported in Debbie Pain's commentary.

 

You must admit the reference shows Mr Harradine and BASC in a poor light, and seems to show BASC policy as one that is in favour of alternative shot loads over lead?

 

If Mr Harradine didn't say what is reported then it is clearly a libellous statement, and as such Ms.Pain should be told in no uncertain terms to retract the statement and issue a full apology.

[David BASC]

We will, from time to time, be misquoted or quoted out of context, both by those who may be arguably against us, and even by those who should be on our side…this happened to me in 2010 where several quotes from me on this very forum were cut and pasted together and not put in any context an merrily reproduced in a well known shooting mag…

 

As I have said time and time again BASC needed to do research on the non lead loads and give guidance to our members and to their limitations and uses, as so many of them have to use non lead ammo.

 

This has resulted in some accusing BASC of being anti lead, or pro non lead.

 

David

[Scully]

We will, from time to time, be misquoted or quoted out of context, both by those who may be arguably against us, and even by those who should be on our side…this happened to me in 2010 where several quotes from me on this very forum were cut and pasted together and not put in any context an merrily reproduced in a well known shooting mag…

 

As I have said time and time again BASC needed to do research on the non lead loads and give guidance to our members and to their limitations and uses, as so many of them have to use non lead ammo.

 

This has resulted in some accusing BASC of being anti lead, or pro non lead.

 

David

Thanks for the reply David,but that's no reply to the points Poontang has raised.This report goes back to 2008;four years ago!Did BASC issue a statement asking for Ms Pain to retract the statement?If not,why not?Has BASC questioned the report,and if not,again,why not? If she(or anyone else) is quoting people out of context to favour their own arguments in documents which are held up as evidence to prove that the health risks of the ingestion of lead shot in the human diet is a genuine hazard,then surely that means the integrity of the contents of the entire document must be open to doubt.

I'm assuming no minutes were taken,when the various meetings of various organisations sat down together to hear evidence?

If BASC has been accused of being anti-lead,or pro non lead,then who is to blame for this?

[David BASC]

The LAG is looking at what if any risks there are to humans or the environment from lead shot, its not looking at the efficacy of different shot types, so this mis quote will not form part of any ‘evidence’ as far as I can see.

 

Mis quoting people, in my view, seriously weakens your position, as frankly sooner or later you are found out, and this will probably simply discredit who ever makes up such stupid stories.

 

When I am back in the office in a few days time I will ask what was said in reply to this statement four years ago.

 

It will be the likes of the FSA that will produce guidance on the levels of lead allowed in foods, these are already published I believe, and trust me lead limits in foods will not be going up.

 

I believe the primary evidence groups of the LAG will publish their reports when the research is concluded.

 

As to who is to blame for BASC being accused of being anti lead just because we have looked at the alternatives and reported on our findings? Those who promote such daft stories in order to pursue their own agenda and who deliberately or inadvertently then cause splits within the shooting community.

 

David

[Scully]

I agree David,any intentional misleading by any parties involved will inevitably come to light,eventually.But if false representation is left unchallenged it is 'read' as fact.As the 'voice of shooting' I expect BASC to speak,and would be more than chuffed if they in fact shouted when the need arose.

As to BASC being accused of being anti-lead for reporting on their findings,I wasn't aware BASC had compiled a report.Where can I read it?

I don't believe BASC are anti-lead,but after listening to more than one BASC representative,including J.Swift,neither do I believe they are 100% committed to this fight,but as yet am unaware of the reason.

And unless anyone should think I am anti BASC,I would be interested to know how the other organisations are reacting to the WWT's 'health scare',they are very conspicuous by their abscence.

I would be more than happy for BASC to prove me wrong David.

As for splits within the shooting community,those happened years ago,and BASC cannot completely escape responsibility for sevearl of these.

[David BASC]

You are of course open to your own views but I cannot remember any cases where BASC was responsible for a split within the shooting community. Some have not agreed with BASC's stance on some issues, I know, but the elected members of the BASC Council will always make the best possible decision based on the facts they have at the time.

 

Back to lead...and BASC's position on lead shot.... this has been in the public domain for years and years. It was BASC that delayed the ban so the cartridge boys could at least get some alternatives on sale, and as we have heard some have made things more effective since especially steel…no one else did anything as far as I can remember, but I stand to be corrected of course.

 

As I said , back in the 80's and 90's it was a lonely BASC that stood up for lead.

 

Of course BASC is committed to lead shot, why wouldn’t we be? But at the same time we are not blind to the alternatives and their uses as some seem or choose to be.

 

Now we have the LAG and BASC will of course play a main roll, and the likes of the WWT starting fights outside of the LAG is, at best, counter productive in my view.

 

David

[Scully]

So no report then David?No minutes from the meeting in which J.Harradine is stated to have 'commented that alternative gunshot in the UK is very effective'?

Doesn't give the appearance of professionalism in my opinion,after all,minutes were taken during the Research Advisory Committee at Rossett Hall on 18th November 2009,when amongst other things Michael Alldis ' urged caution with regard to political implications of changing from lead ammunition,including effects on membership'.

Philip Guard felt that a '3 stage process would be appropriate(for the phasing out of lead shot)namely a ban on the manufacture of lead ammunition,followed by bans on sale,and eventually,use.'J Harradine was present at this meeting also,but obviously felt no objections to the proposals, given his comment to Debbie Pain a year earlier.I don't think I've misquoted anyone,or taken anything out of context,as I have a copy of the minutes in front of me.

Basc not responsible for rifts in the shooting community?The above isn't exactly an incentive for solidarity is it? Wasn't the NGO formed as a result of BASC's indifference to the needs of gamekeepers;didn't the CA come about as a result of BASC's apathy regarding the hunting of foxes;and the SRA came into being following Dunblane,when the best advice BASC could give was to keep a low profile.

Something stinks David,and it isn't me;I've just had a shower!

Please....prove me wrong.

[David BASC]

As I said you are, of course, entitled to your own views.

 

Please remember, views of members of a research committee do not set BASC policy.

 

BASC policy is set by the elected members of BASC who form Council.

 

BASC Council will form its own views and set BASC strategy for keeping focus on our 5 key objectives.

 

Mike Aldis as you may know runs a shooting ground and was very aware of how sensitive the lead issue was and indeed still is, and was expressing his view.

 

Phil Guard is a very clever scientist, and he was simply reporting on how, from his experience in the pharmaceutical industry and beyond, substances are removed on typically a three step process. This was a warning from Mr Guard as to how a wider ban could come in this as not a proposal by Mr Guard!

 

If you want to set hares running about the formation of other organisations then please do so, but get your facts right to start with. Perhaps a call the CA for example to ask them how they came about may open your eyes …but start another thread and lets keep this one focussed on the original post – i.e. lead shot.

 

David

[gunsmoke]

Dear All,

 

As promised I have re-checked our guidance on the use of steel shot in Damascus barrels.

 

As I said at the time, just after I was unnecessarily insulted by Gunsmoke, the guidance was not mine but guidance from a third party, in point of fact the Proof Master from the Birmingham proof House.

 

Firstly, there is no doubt that Damascus and steel barrels are proofed to the same pressure, that was never in question and typically any nitro proofed gun can be used to fire standard steel.

 

However, with Damascus barrels there is the issue of what happens further down the tubes, especially with the potential issue of occasional elevated pressures with steel shot due to the reduced pressure dampening effects of steel wads which could lead to failure in Damascus barrels further down from the chamber.

 

So our guidance will stay the same, that to be on the safe side, steel should not be shot through Damascus barrels.

 

Now I don’t expect or even want an apology from Gunsmoke, but as he is a time served fully qualified gunsmith of 40 years experience, I guess he may concede that even he can learn something new every day.

 

David

 

However, with Damascus barrels there is the issue of what happens further down the tubes, especially with the potential issue of occasional elevated pressures with steel shot due to the reduced pressure dampening effects of steel wads which could lead to failure in Damascus barrels further down from the chamber.

 

If that it right, then the advice should be that these cartridges should not be used in any standard proofed gun, Steel or Damascus. The fault is with the cartridge not the gun.

[gunsmoke]

Scully:

 

The CA came out of the BFSS and the countryside business group. The shooting community is splitting up and more groups and organisation are starting up. I thought that it would be a good idea for all shooting to be under one single organisation like the NRA in the USA. However they are all looking after their jobs. Its nothing to do with members they are there to get the money in.

 

I too have the BASC research committee minutes. Very interesting reading, I feel that some BASC staff are still working under this paper.

 

The public view of the BASC is to fight for lead shot for other types of shooting. Yet at the game fair a couple of years ago one BASC staff member told me, "lead is dead, get use to it!" Another one told me that Steel shot is as good as Lead. C**P!

 

Why as BASC not high lighted the misleading facts in the WWT report, Ho, they help to write it.