gunsmoke Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) BBC Farming Today and John Swift from the BASC. http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01n6rzz I'm not going to have a go at BASC or John Swift here. Did he defend lead shot? Is he trying to get all shooters to stop using lead? Edited October 11, 2012 by gunsmoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 He clearly said ‘we oppose a blanket ban’ he reiterated what we have found in our research, that compliance within the wildfowling community is very high indeed where compliance is actively self policed, however there is more work to do in some cases inland He certainly did not say anything to support your innuendo that he / BASC is pushing for shooters to use non lead. Regards David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I thought that John Swift conducted the interview very well, notable that the Director of WWT was not factual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted October 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 He clearly said ‘we oppose a blanket ban’ he reiterated what we have found in our research, that compliance within the wildfowling community is very high indeed where compliance is actively self policed, however there is more work to do in some cases inland He certainly did not say anything to support your innuendo that he / BASC is pushing for shooters to use non lead. Regards David He is pointing the finger at Game Shootings for shooting duck with lead when there is NO proof of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Wildfowler Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Mallard supplied into the human food chain by game dealers come from game shoots and on several occasions over the past 10 years, in Mallard bought from dealers and tested, a high percentage have been found to have been killed by lead shot. When I was BASC Chairman I attended several game shoots when we were investigating wounding rates and despite the presence of a group of BASC staff, and the Chairman, the guns didn't change their cartridges when there was a duck drive. I know that there are shoots where it's almost a hanging offence to use lead on ducks but unfortunately those shoots are in the minority. This is an open wound in the side of shooting that will eventually kill off the use of lead unless the errant game shooters change their ways. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Is it your belief, Gunsmoke, that there is as high a level of compliance across the board for inland shooting of ducks and geese as there is for coastal wildfowling in the UK? We certainly want / need to move towards that point I am sure you will agree, and it’s my hope that we are doing just that. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 It would be much easier for guns / shoots to comply if the law as it applies in England were akin to that in Scotland where more common sence was used in drafting the law as it applied to inland waterfowl and wetlands. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougall Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Gunsmoke, Having posted the link did you yourself listen to it? How can using Lead for wildfowl be defended when it is ILLEGAL?? If folk do keep using Lead for wildfowl then surely this assists those that are looking to a blanket ban of lead. I thought John Swift did a good job on this programme,if you don't think so put yourself up for election lets hear your manifesto and proposals to do a better job. I for one think BASC are doing a great deal more for my shooting than you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 The above few posts only highlight how tangled the thoughts and actions of the gameshooting community are. I have shot for a considerable number of years and have obeyed the law without fail, always. AS I have said all my dealers who buy Game off me insist that I comply with the law, they take my contact details and whoe betide me if I was ever to supply lead shot wildfowl. Obviously I am aware of malpractice by some gameshoots, but although unlawful it is my understanding that they are for personal consumption, any gameshoot who knowingly supply illegally shot birds into the market are being downright stupid. Sorry John Graham, if you and members of BASC staff and Council were present when this occurred you were compliant with this wrongdoing, did you report it to the authorities? This is the very core of the problem , shooters not knowing what is lawful and probably not caring too much either. Taking the WWT view to even further ridiculous levels, what happens if you shoot a duck inland in Scotland with Lead and it lands and is harvested in England? The true fact of the matter is no one knows how much of a problem Lead is if indeed it is a problem, but whilst we break the Law and also do nothing to defend our sport against this onslaught by WWT, then I am afraid the shooting sportsman is a sitting duck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) I think that no one will disagree when I say that if shooters had obeyed the law then the WWT et al would not have had a strong argument to push for further restrictions or a ban would they? Sad fact is as you and others have seen this has not been the case… There is no mileage in you accusing John of being compliant because he has witnessed poor practice, as you have been in exactly the same boat. We are masters of our own destiny. David Edited October 11, 2012 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 the simple fact is they will always have an argument while you can use lead over water, there is nothing to dispute while the law is as it is its still going to happen and the WWT will still have a case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Do you mean: Banning ALL shooting over wetlands with lead only or Banning shooting of wildfowl and ALL shooting over all wetlands with lead David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Wildfowler Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Salopian, We were there to observe. I did speak to the guns near me and all they did was shrug their shoulders and say "Well everyone does it". They were paying hundreds of pounds a day and were determined to enjoy themselves, irrespective of whether the birds were at a sporting range or even in season i.e. shooting some pheasants in September. So changing cartridges to shoot at ducks never crossed their minds. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I think that no one will disagree when I say that if shooters had obeyed the law then the WWT et al would not have had a strong argument to push for further restrictions or a ban would they? Sad fact is as you and others have seen this has not been the case… There is no mileage in you accusing John of being compliant because he has witnessed poor practice, as you have been in exactly the same boat. We are masters of our own destiny. David David. I accept what you are saying but we go back to the old chestnut, the VAST majority of normal rational sensible shooters comply with the law. Lead shot is nowhere near the problem that some make out, (I make no suggestion it is harmless), BUT, certain individuals don't give a hoot about the law, so the only way you will ever stop it is to BAN lead shot. That is neither sensible or logical, its like saying people break the 30mph speed limit all the time, so we must give all cars a top speed of 30mph! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) All the shooters i know and shoot with are practical gents. Where they see sense they will comply. One syndicate where I shoot has three ponds, duck frequent all of the ponds. The ponds are fed to encourage duck, a fair bit of habitat work is also completed at the expense of the shoot and the benefit of duck and the guns. The syndicate is mainly a pheasant and partridge shoot. All the guns shoot lead shot and have done so over this land for a lot of decades.There is little doubt that there is lead on the land and a little extra because of shooting. The ponds are shot very occasionally usually a flight in to darkness on a wild-ish winters night. However, ducks do flush when guns are on their pegs expecting pheasants and partridge, naturally they are loaded with lead. So do they pass the shot over? Change to "bloody-****- non-toxic" as we know it? Shoot pheasants with cartridges close on £2 a pop, whilst no further duck are flushed? The easy answer is to say everyone must use non-toxic, because it's just too darn complicated and impractical to work out "how it should be done". Heaven forbid. Yes, it's easy to work out and enforce what happens on the marsh, hat's off to everybody on that score. Inland shooting is trickier and using "bloody-****- non-toxic" (not necessarily my personal opinion BTW) for a lot of guns is a complete non-starter. They would stop shooting first which would be a travesty. The complete nonsense of it all is we've had more happy quackers ( breeding pairs) on our ponds in recent years than ever, period, end of story! Edited October 11, 2012 by Whitebridges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Firstly i must say that I have never been on a game shoot. But, surely the answer to the question of ducks flushing on a pheasant drive, is that the shoot bans the shooting of those duck, in the same way that they ban shooting of say Grey partridge on some shoots. Obviously they could have a dedicated duck 'drive' and then swap to non-toxic carts...or is that too simple? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Would it not be easier to just ban game shooting? That way wildfowl would be shot legally, and raptors would be safe too. There we go...sorted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Here we have a good example of exactly what BASC found out when we surveyed a random section (5000) of our members on compliance. Most did comply, some did not , just as we have seen above. And there, Gunsmoke, is your evidence of inland shooters failing to comply in some cases. For sure you can lay out all the justification you like for failing to comply, it’s too difficult, I don’t think it’s worth it, everyone else does it, it makes no sense and so on, but this does not make it right and the blatant disregard for the law has not done shooting any favours what so ever and that is a matter of fact. To be blunt those who have not complied have played straight into the hands of the WWT and RSPB and given then loads of ammunition to use against the rest , indeed the majority, of us. BASC, and I am sure others too, will keep on fighting to keep lead, but this continued stupidity of ignoring the law makes our position very difficult indeed. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 David can you please post the post # above of those naughty boys who are "non-compliant" ....in your view. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) I can't see where David has suggested that anyone specific has not complied, but is commenting more on the tone of the above posts, including yours, of which some are undeniably suggestive of non compliance! I'm sure he'll correct me if it's me who has the wrong end of the stick. Edited October 11, 2012 by -Mongrel- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scobydog Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 Would it not have been more useful to have had this debate at a reasonable time of day when more people would have been listening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 I do find it amazing that there is no evidence of an attempt being made by shooting organisations to promote a bill in parliament that would bring the lead/wildfowl laws in line with those in Scotland. I'm sure an MP could be located that would introduce an early day motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 No bill in Parliament is needed; take a look at what the UK government signed up to under the agreement with AEWA. As i said above, is it a ban of ALL shooting over wetlands you are suggesting or a ban on all shooting over wetlands and all wildfowl with lead? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted October 11, 2012 Report Share Posted October 11, 2012 No bill in Parliament is needed; take a look at what the UK government signed up to under the agreement with AEWA. As i said above, is it a ban of ALL shooting over wetlands you are suggesting or a ban on all shooting over wetlands and all wildfowl with lead? David I would prefer to see location dependent regulation as opposed to species based regulation. Shooting over marsh, ponds or foreshore would be subject to regulation. Shooting a duck over a field (as duck drives I have been on seem to involve) would not. I'm very conscious that all of us need to preserve the environment, but I'm not sure the present system makes as much sense as it could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sprackles Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 All the shooters i know and shoot with are practical gents. Where they see sense they will comply. In other words, "This lead ban is nonsense, I'm not changing" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.