have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[David BASC]

I , like many others, are prepared to turn the other cheek, that is the nature of forums.

 

But when direct accusations are made against the work BASC delivers on are made, and people seem unprepared to substantiate those accusations I will push for an answer. I no more intend to humiliate you or anyone than you or others intend to try to cause me offence or upset by making such accusations

 

I am happy to answer questions and points raised, but see no place at all for unfounded accusationso perhaps you will do my the kindness of answering the questions I have asked in reply to your comments?

 

David

[Gordon R]

Kes - come on.

 

When you read through the garbage that has been thrown at David on this thread - not by you - you have to admit he has been professional and very restrained in his responses.

[digger]

Well said Gordon. Some people cant understand the "?" symbol

[mudpatten]

Personally, I believe that "Gunsmokeandmirrors" is actually "Eyeglass", but on a different hallucinogenic medication.

[Gordon R]

I believe that they are both from the same planet, although I have to confess that I don't know which particular planet that is.

[Scully]

Gunsmoke/eyeglass,I have read the report from the USA which you provided a link to,which while not irrefutable proof, simply strengthens my own suspicions regarding the veracity and undeniable 'facts' of the science on which some policy has been based.That said,you still aren't answering anyones questions and as a result are coming across as something akin to a comedy double-act now.

You have done well to get 14 pages out of this but nothing has been achieved and no conclusions have been drawn with the exception that no one takes you seriously.If you want this state of affairs to change in your favour you need to post irrefutable proof of your claims on all levels.Random accusations of wrong doing and claims of multi David BASC's simply wont cut it.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to deliver and provide proof(not accusations) of shenanigans and proof of why BASC are doing what you claim,and what they will ultimately gain from it.Bear in mind the 'leaked document' (which started all this,and cannot be denied)has been done to death.

Unless you want to become a laughing stock you need to deliver.You started this thread,it remains to be seen if you can finish it.

[-Mongrel-]

Gunsmoke/eyeglass........Unless you want to become a laughing stock you need to deliver.

 

Bit too late for that, the clowns are in town and in full flow!

[Penelope]

Food Unwrapped on C4 at 8:30 might be worth a watch. Duck hunting was mentioned in the trailer.

[David BASC]

The very fact that there is a degree of dispute over the evidence on lead shot is why the LAG have been formed to look at all the evidence and risks from both sides, and come to a common agreement on:

the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition, the respective levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any significant threats;

 

possible options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition.

 

The thread started about the figures from the WWT report on the number of duck purchased from dealers that had lead shot in them, and the fact there was now a cross organisational campaign to promote compliance.

 

Although gunsmoke et al have consistently questioned the provenance of the duck samples, there is little if any evidence that the vast majority came from anywhere other than England but as I have asked gunsmoke, he could call WWT or DEFRA to ask about the checks and balances they used to check the provenance but as far as I know he has not

 

As a result of that much maligned study, DEFRA decided that no further legislation was required this point is often missed by those who challenge the reports validity.

 

However, it was stressed then as now that shooters need to be aware of the law, and comply with the law OR more legislation will follow. I am sorry to say that trying to undermine the original research that set the foundation of international policy is not going to divert our political masters from their chosen course

 

The more I look into this the more sure I am the problem that we face is due to a very small number of people deliberately ignoring the law on a relatively small number of the larger shoots, shooting large numbers of reared duck.

 

David

[Kes]

"It always makes me chuckle when people make comments like this, mildly provocative to say the least in my view, and then ends with a ‘I won’t be back to answer to this’

 

No one at BASC has been ‘blindly lead’ anywhere, and you can’t prove or substantiate this statement, which is probably why you have chosen (again) to duck out of the discussion."

 

As a BASC member, I object to being treated in this manner (sentence 1).

The only question asked of me is sentence 2, apart from a throw away sarcastic comment with a question mark later in the response.

 

With respect to the question asked, it seems to me that BASC's attitude to lead has changed from a "we'll defend the use of lead at all costs" to a feeling a few people have that BASC feels, "NTS is the future". This has been the change in responses over the period of time I have been listening and learning from the debate.

Whilst I recognise others may be a little 'extreme' in their views and their method of expressing them - I expect those people who comment to noticethat I have not done so - my comments (I hope) are always measured and substantiable. I do not care how others behave to someone, I expect to be treated according to the way I behave. If that is not something David and BASC can do then its no wonder getting through to individual members is difficult.

I may be on a forum but some people do this for interest and dont abuse the privilege. I havent ever been banned or warned so apparently I merit sarcasm like others - sorry, not an adult or excusable response, especially when I am a BASC member.

What happened to reasonable behaviour and individual treatment - check back; I have made some very supportive comments about David - his post was unworthy - sorry, in my book everyone deserves some respect, even if they are a clot and/or don't spell especially well. However I would say its particularly so if the person pays £60 to be publicly abused by someone who simply has a different opinion and is an employee of the organisation you support by membership. This behaviour is like telling a shareholder, or a normal voter, 'your vote dont count' which is inappropriate even if they own a £1 share or are a member of a democracy.

[sitsinhedges]

The very fact that there is a degree of dispute over the evidence on lead shot is why the LAG have been formed to look at all the evidence and risks from both sides, and come to a common agreement on:

the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition, the respective levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any significant threats;

 

possible options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition.

 

The thread started about the figures from the WWT report on the number of duck purchased from dealers that had lead shot in them, and the fact there was now a cross organisational campaign to promote compliance.

 

Although gunsmoke et al have consistently questioned the provenance of the duck samples, there is little if any evidence that the vast majority came from anywhere other than England but as I have asked gunsmoke, he could call WWT or DEFRA to ask about the checks and balances they used to check the provenance but as far as I know he has not

 

As a result of that much maligned study, DEFRA decided that no further legislation was required this point is often missed by those who challenge the reports validity.

 

However, it was stressed then as now that shooters need to be aware of the law, and comply with the law OR more legislation will follow. I am sorry to say that trying to undermine the original research that set the foundation of international policy is not going to divert our political masters from their chosen course

 

The more I look into this the more sure I am the problem that we face is due to a very small number of people deliberately ignoring the law on a relatively small number of the larger shoots, shooting large numbers of reared duck.

 

David

 

That's blindingly obvious, so why not instead of telling us if they don't comply we will lose lead go after them instead. If it was a real issue I am sure a carefully worded letter from their FEO's explaining how not complying with current law could lead to a revocation of their certificates would concentrate minds.

 

I'm still convinced all of this talk of comply or get more of the same bad law is a red herring.

[Penelope]

Ah, not what I thought it may have been about.

 

Food Unwrapped on C4 at 8:30 might be worth a watch. Duck hunting was mentioned in the trailer.

[Scully]

Fair enough David, but if I'm right in thinking the LAG consists of no impartial bodies and unless their findings are based upon research undertaken by impartial professional bodies, then you're missing the point.

Have there been any impartial studies undertaken by professional bodies recently or will findings be based on those studies already in existence, regardless of age?

Edited July 29, 2013 by Scully

[Bazooka Joe]

We have to have a range of scenarios planned and ready to roll out when we know what the report says. Then and only then can we deliver on the scenarios planned for

 

 

 

Ok David, care to elaborate, I'm sure quite a few on here would like to see what backup plan BASC have.

[chrispti]

Ok David, care to elaborate, I'm sure quite a few on here would like to see what backup plan BASC have.

Yes please post up your battle plans for all too see...... Including the antis..

[David BASC]

Kes,

BASCs position on lead shot has remained robust since I have been working here, almost 18 yearswe have never ever said non lead it the future have we?

 

Still cant see why on earth you said BASC's grip on this issue is a bit loosey goosey and rather blindly misdirected - no real planned strategy just reaction'. From one member of BASC to another I still cant see how you can make such a public accusation and say such a statement is measured and substantiable as you claimwith no evidence to back it up?

 

As I said when direct accusations are made against the work BASC delivers on are made, and people seem unprepared to substantiate those accusations I will push for an answer. I no more intend to humiliate or indeed insult you or anyone than you or others intend to try to cause me offence or irritation by making such accusations.

 

So I guess that if your comments werent intended to be provocative, then my response certainly was not intended to be insulting.

 

Sits

The police do not want to or as far as I can see have no intention of policing this

 

Scully,

the main members of LAG are form BASC, CLA, GWCT, FSA, WWT, RSPB, GTA, NGDA, NIEH, UFAW

the key papers hey have looked at, as far as I know are here: http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/information.html

But to be honest I know nothing more than whats on their web site.

 

BJ

Come on, do you honestly expect us to post here detail of all the possible scenarios we have contemplated and our calculated response? Sorry, cant do that it would be crazy (here come the allegations of subterfuge, double dealing, back stabbing etc etc)

[Kes]

So I guess that if your comments werent intended to be provocative, then my response certainly was not intended to be insulting.

 

Not a very fulsome recognition of something you should have recognised as wrong. Why should I be seen as provocative when I have an opinion which may differ from yours?

As others have said - lets see your strategy - time you put up or stopped insulting others to play to the crowd.

If I was as bereft of response as you seem to be on this issue, I certainly wouldnt be insulting your members but then again maybe you dont recognise what you have done - my original criticism of BASC.

I dont like to be insulted by a member of staff of an organisation I am a member of, however senior - despite supporting you, as I have and as you might have noticed, your responses are blind to any truth but your own.

[Piebob]

The more I look into this the more sure I am the problem that we face is due to a very small number of people deliberately ignoring the law on a relatively small number of the larger shoots, shooting large numbers of reared duck.David

Ah right. So we might not really have a non-compliance issue after all?

[Whitebridges]

Al4x I am talking about using steel shot in a shotgun what i thought this post was all about , not in a .22.

Wymberly i regulary shoot geese most people regulary shoot. Shoot ing steel takes different skills that have to be learnt , but there is no longer any real excuse to continue using lead. If you realy have to streach your barrels then go for the other non toxic shells.

 

With respect to you anser and apologies if i'm chipping in. I don't doubt that you are a convert to steel and other inferior substitutes to lead on the marsh. Good luck to you. Please don't carpet bomb other people with your opinions and think they should accept them carte blanche.

 

There are a lot of traditionalists on here that shoot away from the marsh and shoot guns that were made to shoot lead. Lead is better through such guns and people want to carry on with a way their fathers used them and their sons should be able to use them in the future.

 

This debate is a good one but lead shot should be here to stay and i'm relying on people like yourself to see a balance view and respect the "pro lead" lobby.

 

BTW if you think a ban on lead will end just there think again. Look at the USA. If lead gets banned this means bullets as well. California is an example. You'd want this as well would you? Or maybe you don't have the knowledge or experience to understand how detrimental such a move would be for UK rifle shooters?

Edited July 29, 2013 by Whitebridges

[David BASC]

Kes,I see you still don't want to answer the questions I have asked? Why?

 

Its important for me to understand why you say that the organisation you re a member of has a 'grip on this issue is a bit loosey goosey and rather blindly misdirected - no real planned strategy just reaction'

 

Evidently you don't see this sort of statement as being mildly provocative, that's your view but if you are genuinely and I mean genuinely insulted by a simple phase ' It always makes me chuckle when people make comments like this, mildly provocative to say the least in my view, and then ends with a ‘I won’t be back to answer to this’ then I am truly sorry....

 

Mountains and molehills perhaps? On this forum I treat all members as I find them, its as simple as that Kes , not insulting people or playing to the crowd as you accuse, but if I get poked I will poke back.

 

You, just as many member, are free to criticise BASC of course, if you feel that the right thing to do, but as I keep saying, evidence the claims that's all I ask.

 

Piebob - you we do have an on compliance issue but the vast majority of the non compliance is probably being caused by a relatively small number of shooters, and its their bad practice that risks dragging us all down!

 

David

Edited July 29, 2013 by David BASC

[Piebob]

I've got to agree with Kes. It *feels* like a lack of strategy, or perhaps naivety, on the part of BASC.

 

If I was a strategic, anti-shooting MP who wanted to ban lead, but not be seen to be the bad guy, what could I do?

 

I could attempt to get a law introduced to restrict the use of lead shot, on the back of some international concerns about 'fowl ingestion. But rather than address those specific concerns, I could introduce a law that I know will cause compliance issues as it doesn't make sense. Then, the compliance issues exposed, the next step is to ban lead altogether. And the best bit - it's not my doing, it's the non-compliers. Rather brilliant!

 

Unfortunately, this is being played out right now. At each step robust challenges could have been made, but now we're relaying on sorting the compliance before it comes to the final act. I really hope it will be enough.

[Kes]

David,

I refer you for your answer that you say I havent provided to Piebobs post above - the exact answer - perhaps, or do I have to be even more specific ?

It does possibly look like a bit of somnambulism if this potential threat went unrecognised but then again BASC argued for the English Law perhaps not expecting the outcome to be where we are now?

Seems to me like a little walking with eyes closed ?

As for strategy, what is that now and for the future; or is it simply compliance which, by everyones argument (for and against NTS)is not being achieved or perhaps therefore achievable without 'policing' for all the reason given above, many times.

Maybe part of the strategy for the present and the future could be the disaffiliation of shoots failing BASC's own lead shot test ? A prosecution of a few inland game shoots for the greater good, a helpful and sustaining use of the BASC reserves ?

I'm sorry David I dont see the strategy but if you see this as provocative again, I'm sorry its merely a members view whether you think I should have it or not.

I will look at your response and answer any questions raised but other than that, we have been round and round this issue, that is why I first said I expected to see a total ban. Deja Vu? I'll let someone else make their points - if you dont mind.

[utectok]

I left basc because of this lead nonsense weirdly they never even bothered to remind me to renew not sure they really are interested in the members any more?!

[chrispti]

I left basc because of this lead nonsense weirdly they never even bothered to remind me to renew not sure they really are interested in the members any more?!

I got a reminder that I'm due for renewal.....

[al4x]

BTW if you think a ban on lead will end just there think again. Look at the USA. If lead gets banned this means bullets as well. California is an example. You'd want this as well would you? Or maybe you don't have the knowledge or experience to understand how detrimental such a move would be for UK rifle shooters?

It's already happening, there are places beginning to insist on non toxic bullets for deer, as far as I can see from that slightly dubious peregrine fund research. When people like the forestry commission start taking that stance is the lead action group going to see any difference and I have doubts. As I do whether there is a basc pr exercise going on but that is purely my feeling with no actual basis