lead shot campaign

[grrclark]

Some positive words above and appreciated.

 

Is the LAG officially disbanded and without influence?

 

also, is their report (still in its 'draft' format) without credibility?

 

I am concerned that it is not used and taken as the 'official' outcome before Sir B W-S resigned, by any Civil Servants or ministers.

I have written to them (LAG & Defra) to ask very similar questions, as yet no response.

[gunsmoke]

Some positive words above and appreciated.

 

Is the LAG officially disbanded and without influence?

 

also, is their report (still in its 'draft' format) without credibility?

 

I am concerned that it is not used and taken as the 'official' outcome before Sir B W-S resigned, by any Civil Servants or ministers.

 

grrclark I emailed admin of the LAG and asked Matt Ellis when the minutes of the last LAG meeting would be up on the LAG web site. No reply.

 

The LAG meet in May and the final report is in with the minister according to the resignation letter of John Batley.

 

Is the LAG still a credible group? I do not think so. The WWT, RSPB and John Swift ex BASC CEO have all said they are in favour of a lead ban. With the all the shooting organisation resigning it can no long have any credibility.

 

The plan was to have the shooting organisation on broad to get the lead ban through, then the government could sign the SI without the need for an amendment the the Countryside and Wildlife Act. The same way they brought in the lead ban for wildfowling.

 

With the shooting organisation resigning that type of agreement is not possible.

 

As I said in another thread my view is that, the way this has been managed, the government can no long trust the WWT, RSPB or BASC to advise them on anything.

Edited June 15, 2015 by gunsmoke

[malkiserow]

 

grrclark I emailed admin of the LAG and asked Matt Ellis when the minutes of the last LAG meeting would be up on the LAG web site. No reply.

 

The LAG meet in May and the final report is in with the minister according to the resignation letter of John Batley.

 

Is the LAG still a credible group? I do not think so. The WWT, RSPB and John Swift ex BASC CEO have all said they are in favour of a lead ban. With the all the shooting organisation resigning it can no long have any credibility.

 

The plan was to have the shooting organisation on broad to get the lead ban through, then the government could sign the SI without the need for an amendment the the Countryside and Wildlife Act. The same way they brought in the lead ban for wildfowling.

 

With the shooting organisation resigning that type of agreement is not possible.

 

As I said in another thread my view is that, the way this has been managed, the government can no long trust the WWT, RSPB or BASC to advise them on anything.

 

Gunsmoke, I understand what you are saying, but is this 100% guaranteed?

 

I am concerned that just because we wish it to be, it doesn't make it so, especially if there is a political agenda beyond LAG who seem to have a "final" report which appears to support a ban.

[Savhmr]

The difficulty here is that despite the LAG officially no longer being in balanced existance, we still have a commissioned report supporting the ban of Lead shot with a representative (now resigned) from BASC seen to have signed it off. That may be all the govt' needs. I guess the answer is to email DEFRA direct and ask them whether there can be any credibility in such a report which has not been peer reviewed or accepted by BASC as it now stands. Despite the actions of the outgoing (despicable) CEO, the BASC are not in support of the report conclusions. This should matter to DEFRA.

[gunsmoke]

Malkiserrow For a statutory Instrument to be sign by a minister all parts have to agree, That is how they got the WIldfowling lead ban through because the BASC agreed. Now we have the shooting organisation resigning and BASC had not say it that as they where not members of the main LAG committee. That type of agreement is not possible.

 

Now the problem is that happens if the LAG recommend a phasing out of lead, I believe on the line of the BASC road map of implementation, that I think is the 15 year plan I talked about last year.

 

Is the BASC road map for implementation still BASC policy?

 

If the LAG come out with a recommendation for a phasing out of lead, saying that they have the evidence, where does that leave BASC?

 

We have send the LAG science and there is NO evidence. Only the WWT/BASC report on compliance and the WWT lead in game meat, both can by total trashed. Which way are BASC going to go?

 

Are the government going to publish the final LAG report?

Are the Government going to act on that report or bin it?

 

If BASC did the minutes for the LAG final meeting they would have seen the report and know what it recommends. We how play a waiting game.

[grrclark]

 

Gunsmoke, I understand what you are saying, but is this 100% guaranteed?

 

I am concerned that just because we wish it to be, it doesn't make it so, especially if there is a political agenda beyond LAG who seem to have a "final" report which appears to support a ban.

My thoughts are the same Malkiserow and this is the basis of one of the questions that I asked the LAG group. Whether I get an answer or not is a different thing!

 

It is very easy to look on from outside the process and make some assumptions and it is as equally very easy to be completely wrong in those assumptions, even if they appear to be hugely obvious.

[gunsmoke]

My thoughts are the same Malkiserow and this is the basis of one of the questions that I asked the LAG group. Whether I get an answer or not is a different thing!

 

It is very easy to look on from outside the process and make some assumptions and it is as equally very easy to be completely wrong in those assumptions, even if they appear to be hugely obvious.

 

I only ask the questions, if I do not know the answer. I may be reading tealeaves but its only my best guess.

 

The LAG process was said to be open, yet we they tried to keep the emails between John Swift and Defra secret. They have had phone conferences that have not been reported on or the minutes published.

 

It was to be an open process. all we got was the main committee minutes on the web site.

 

I feel the best thing BASC could do if come out in support of lead. Tell us that it is the best thing to use in standard proofed guns.

 

I'm not going to be able to use a 3 1/2 inch steel proofed gun for crow or pigeon shooting. Its alright for wildfowlers they may only fire 2-3 shots. I could use 100-250 cartidges in a day.

[David BASC]

It is totally wrong to claim the restrictions on lead shot could only come into force because BASC agreed to it - absolute and total rubbish and shows a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of how the lead shot restrictions came about and were implemented, but instead points the finger of blame, wrongly, at BASC.

 

There never ever was a 15 year roadmap or policy of such proposed by BASC for the phasing out of lead shot - this is made up

 

Posting this incorrect information is to no ones benefit.

 

BASC has always supported lead shot

[sitsinhedges]

It is totally wrong to claim the restrictions on lead shot could only come into force because BASC agreed to it - absolute and total rubbish and shows a complete lack of knowledge or understanding of how the lead shot restrictions came about and were implemented, but instead points the finger of blame, wrongly, at BASC.

 

There never ever was a 15 year roadmap or policy of such proposed by BASC for the phasing out of lead shot - this is made up

 

Posting this incorrect information is to no ones benefit.

 

BASC has always supported lead shot

 

BASC are vague at very best and seem about as straight as your average politician over this. Why aren't all of these questions being answered properly and openly on their website? I really don't see how the likes of JS could have been acting alone whilst leading BASC. BASC seem to have made a complete dogs breakfast of the whole issue at best and at worst blatantly lied over the whole thing. All they seem to be doing now they're found out is try and wash their hands of the whole sorry mess by pretending they had no involvement.

[David BASC]

This thread is not about the (usual for some) attack on BASC and lead, based on your lack of knowledge and understanding of how the legislation came about and how the SI that brought in the restrictions was set in front of Parliament, resulting in total lies being told about BASC and completely unfounded and incorrect accusations being made against BASC. Almost every thread on lead results in same rubbish being spouted and the same accusations being made by the same people, resulting in time after time the thread being closed

 

This thread is about the joint campaign by all the shooting organisations to safeguard lead shot - this is a critically important campaign and I for one do not want to see it shut because the same few high jack it to spout the same old untruths.

 

So please stop these silly accusations and lets keep the thread on track

Edited June 15, 2015 by David BASC

[Cranfield]

Please read..... And sign.

 

http://leadshotcampaign.org.uk/

 

This is the first post on this thread, just to remind everyone what the purpose of this thread is.

Its a great suggestion and one we support completely.

Any attempts to turn this thread into a continuation of the recently closed, "All quiet on the lead shot front" thread, will result in posts being removed.

[Salopian]

Interesting to see that only 14,032 have signed.

BASC say they have 130,000+members, CPSA 25,000+ .

It really goes to show the apathy amongst shooters.

As for closing the "All quiet " thread you did so Cranfield without many questions being answered.

No doubt when Swifty gets his report read and the Government act upon it many shooting organisations will wring their hands and say " We did our very best".

And the 400,000+ shotgun certificate holders who did nothing will be very angry.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Salopian

[David BASC]

So lets all try and do our bit to spread the word, especially in the current climate

 

As for unanswered questions, please email me and i will do all i can to help. david.ilsley@basc.org.uk

 

But in the meantime - stand to gether and spread the word

[grrclark]

Interesting to see that only 14,032 have signed.

BASC say they have 130,000+members, CPSA 25,000+ .

It really goes to show the apathy amongst shooters.

As for closing the "All quiet " thread you did so Cranfield without many questions being answered.

No doubt when Swifty gets his report read and the Government act upon it many shooting organisations will wring their hands and say " We did our very best".

And the 400,000+ shotgun certificate holders who did nothing will be very angry.

It's notable that on the campaign page none of the home nations clay shooting organisations are mentioned, at least so far as I could see. I have shared to the SCTA Facebook page, maybe the members of the other national organisations can do something similar.

 

David, do you know if the clay target organisations were asked to support this campaign?

[David BASC]

I will check

[Savhmr]

So, currently, we have a less than 10% turn out to vote amongst the shooting community. It may be apathy or it may be that we individually need to work harder to spread the message amongst ourselves as arguing over what organisations are or are not doing will count for zip come crunch time. It would be interesting to see what proportion of PW members have signed for example. I would sincerely hope it was greater than 10%!

[Cranfield]

I signed up early on and was surprised that I was signing something to say I would obey the law, which is a bit of a foregone conclusion.

 

I had imagined it was a petition to retain the use of lead in general shooting situations and/or to rexamine the use of lead where it has been banned.

Having spoken to a few other shooters, I am not alone in these thoughts.

[Scully]

Post removed.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Scully

[Savhmr]

I signed up early on and was surprised that I was signing something to say I would obey the law, which is a bit of a foregone conclusion.

 

I had imagined it was a petition to retain the use of lead in general shooting situations and/or to rexamine the use of lead where it has been banned.

Having spoken to a few other shooters, I am not alone in these thoughts.

 

Valid point. Currently, insufficient evidence exists to support a ban on lead but if they ban it, what choice do we have but to obey the law? That doesn't require a petition, it's a matter of course. The petition I read as not supporting a ban on lead and if you read section 2 of the opening page of the petition it clearly suggests that existing legislation is adequate without the need for further legislative powers.

 

That would then mean the petition is merely acting as a document where the intention is to have everyone signed up to the fact that they currently comply with present laws, ergo, no further outright ban should be needed. At least that's the way I read it. In other words, it provides signed up evidence from current shooters that they obey the law in contradiction to what passes for the "compliance report" conclusions which is exactly what we're seeking to challenge.

[Salopian]

Savhmr + Anyone else who may be interested.

You make a very good point in your post above.

In this World of conspiracy and deception, being as this is a Public forum, could not the like of Dr.Debra Paine not see that with this petition, 10% (approximately) are signing up to say that they do, and will comply with the Law and legislation, BUT 90% cannot be bothered????

" There you go Minister, I told you that shooting lot were corrupt and hooligans, let us ban Lead, Guns and ALL forms of Countrysports immediately! "

 

Alarmist ! Probably, but as a child I could walk into a Post Office and buy a shotgun certificate , no questions asked for 5 shillings.

Nowadays, the same person, ME, has to welcome into my house a Police Officer of unknown character , show them around my house and its security arrangements, allow them to enquire of my Doctor if I am of sound mind or alcoholic, and then wait an average of sixteen weeks while they shuffle paperwork.

And that's progress and technology??

It's a MAD , MAD , WORLD.

[wymberley]

Savhmr + Anyone else who may be interested.

You make a very good point in your post above.

In this World of conspiracy and deception, being as this is a Public forum, could not the like of Dr.Debra Paine not see that with this petition, 10% (approximately) are signing up to say that they do, and will comply with the Law and legislation, BUT 90% cannot be bothered? ???

" There you go Minister, I told you that shooting lot were corrupt and hooligans, let us ban Lead, Guns and ALL forms of Countrysports immediately! "

 

Alarmist ! Probably, but as a child I could walk into a Post Office and buy a shotgun certificate , no questions asked for 5 shillings.

Nowadays, the same person, ME, has to welcome into my house a Police Officer of unknown character , show them around my house and its security arrangements, allow them to enquire of my Doctor if I am of sound mind or alcoholic, and then wait an average of sixteen weeks while they shuffle paperwork.

And that's progress and technology? ?

It's a MAD , MAD , WORLD.

Good lord, how old are you? Mine cost me 10/- in 1958.

[Westley]

It was not a shotgun licence, it was for Black Powder !

 

 

I can only remember the ten bob licence too.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Westley

[Salopian]

You are both probably right , it could well have been 10/-.

Time does dull the memory and thankfully in time this Lead nightmare will be over and forgotten.

[RossEM]

10% voted - the rest probably either do not use a computer, know nothing about the campaign, can't be bothered, have no interest or disagree with the law and flout it.

 

I have a question for the Mods, there are a number of PW members who wish to continue the LAG debate (myself included.) Why are these threads being closed down?

[grrclark]

10% voted - the rest probably either do not use a computer, know nothing about the campaign, can't be bothered, have no interest or disagree with the law and flout it.

 

I have a question for the Mods, there are a number of PW members who wish to continue the LAG debate (myself included.) Why are these threads being closed down?

Ross, I'm sure that one of the mod's will be along to answer that question, but in many cases I am not surprised that the threads are being closed. Quite a few have descended into making blatant accusations towards BASC in particular, based purely on subjective opinions, and I think that is unacceptable on an open forum.