have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[Kes]

Lead is either very damaging to waterbirds (in the quantities caused by shooting, ingested normally etc etc etc or it isnt. I cant see there being a middle ground here. So lead will be retained or lost as shot, under either the current law or another.

BASC does need to be on top of this game or we will lose lead. From the details I have read, whilst a call to meet the requirements of the law is NECESSARY, it cannot be the only strand of action. The opposition has effectively backed BASC into a corner and can simply say shooters cant keep to the law and if and when more than 10% of this years harvest show up with lead in them the RSPB et al will insist on a ban.

This is why an urgent look at environmental consequences of lead specifically on waterfowl and in the quantities likely to be accidentally ingested is absolutely crucial. This study has little or nothing to do with birds shot with whatever shot composition as the historical evidence is there (lead shot has been around since the 1890's due to shooting). Lead stays in the environment certainly but it isnt necessarily available to wildfowl/ducks, otherwise would we not be seeing keepers complaining their bred ducks are dying from some mysterious illness ?

Sign up to use NTS by all means its wise, but its down to BASC to start questioning whether fowl can ingest lead from shot in sufficient quantities to cause death. Its obviously important we have reliability, scrutiny and source data for dead ducks. However, waterfowl death from lead poisoning from shot is the real issue and should be the real battleground. Is JS doing this one asks after how many years in this job?

[David BASC]

You are 100% correct when you say the current laws (love em or hate em) must be complied with, otherwise I am sure we will loose lead regardless of the findings of the LAG's environmental and food risk assessment conclude.

 

You are also spot on when you say the effects of lead in the environment and its consequential bioavailability is the key battle ground and that 'evidence' on how harmful lead is in the environment etc needs to be scrutinised, not just in terms of the source data but also the interpretation and extrapolation of said data...this is being done.

 

David

[Whitebridges]

Death by a thousand cuts - this could be very damaging. My old Arrieta will be used a lot less but the Berretta will see more action. Some old guys may just give up.

 

HMRC/RTI is another issue for us to contend with. I'm very fearful and I hope new guys at both BASC and CA will step up to the plate......

 

Never truer words said ND

 

All this non toxic legislation was originally aimed at the foreshore shooter? Yay or Ney? Wildfowlers use non toxic don't they? They're used to the stuff. Fair dinkum, they have guns made for heavy non - toxic loads.

 

In contrast, several game shooters enjoy the privilege of using an English gun made for shooting lead. Sometimes these lucky men find themselves inland shooting a mixed drive of pheasant and duck. So they can put lead in to a pheasant, partridge, woodcock or whatever but not a duck? Can someone help me understand why a gun ( who is loaded with lead) should refuse killing a duck in such circumstances?

 

The guns on such a shoot will have shot plenty of lead over the drive and probably have done over several seasons. Why do they have to consider putting a bit of steel over the same ground at the cost of damaging very pricey guns? There is no sense in what we are being asked to do.

Edited August 13, 2013 by Whitebridges

[big bad lindz]

so when lead is band will you be happy to pay between £1.50-£2.50 per shot for the so called affordable and viable nts carts???

 

OK sorry guys, I know some of you have been shooting for a long time and have older valuable guns or maby as was said passed down the family etc. that are not steel proofed. (mortgage the Purdy to buy the bismuth )

I have only been shooting for about 7 years so all my guns are steel proofed. Some of the heavy loaded 3 1/2" steel that I use for the foreshore is already over a £1 a pop. I use both steel & lead on the clays and on game & pigeons and I cant say I see much between them, although I am sure that there will be people who say otherwise.

 

Looking back through the various comments I may have missed what I am now going to ask (sorry if I have)

Were all the duck that were tested sourced from the UK? and I do not mean from the retail butcher shop, supermarket or game dealer. Its not as if we do not import (fresh & frozen) any from Europe and further abroad. Look what happened with the horse meat saga.

 

If it is against the law then dont do it. Simple. Here in Scotland we already work round the lead shot ban for the foreshore and it seams to be working, but I am sure there will be some out there who have have the inner pocket with lead shot & the outer pocket for the steel if some official happened to ask.

 

BBL

[-Mongrel-]

 

In contrast, several game shooters enjoy the privilege of using an English gun made for shooting lead. Sometimes these lucky men find themselves inland shooting a mixed drive of pheasant and duck. So they can put lead in to a pheasant, partridge, woodcock or whatever but not a duck? Can someone help me understand why a gun ( who is loaded with lead) should refuse killing a duck in such circumstances? It's illegal, simple as that. Nonsensical and illogical? Oh yes, but that's by the by.

 

The guns on such a shoot will have shot plenty of lead over the drive and probably have done over several seasons. Why do they have to consider putting a bit of steel over the same ground at the cost of damaging very pricey guns? There is no sense in what we are being asked to do. They have just reduced the speed limits on a lot of roads locally to 20mph in the name of reducing pollution. For the life of me I can not see how crawling along 10 mph slower using more fuel is better for emissions, but I still have to adhere to the limits sensible or not, or get nicked for speeding.

[sitsinhedges]

 

 

In contrast, several game shooters enjoy the privilege of using an English gun made for shooting lead. Sometimes these lucky men find themselves inland shooting a mixed drive of pheasant and duck. So they can put lead in to a pheasant, partridge, woodcock or whatever but not a duck? Can someone help me understand why a gun ( who is loaded with lead) should refuse killing a duck in such circumstances? It's illegal, simple as that. Nonsensical and illogical? Oh yes, but that's by the by.

 

The guns on such a shoot will have shot plenty of lead over the drive and probably have done over several seasons. Why do they have to consider putting a bit of steel over the same ground at the cost of damaging very pricey guns? There is no sense in what we are being asked to do. They have just reduced the speed limits on a lot of roads locally to 20mph in the name of reducing pollution. For the life of me I can not see how crawling along 10 mph slower using more fuel is better for emissions, but I still have to adhere to the limits sensible or not, or get nicked for speeding.

 

 

They've reduced the speed limits to reduce the amount of people getting run over and killed. Nothing to do with emissions.

[Penelope]

Not just the old guys.

 

Death by a thousand cuts - this could be very damaging. My old Arrieta will be used a lot less but the Berretta will see more action. Some old guys may just give up.

HMRC/RTI is another issue for us to contend with. I'm very fearful and I hope new guys at both BASC and CA will step up to the plate......

[Guest cookoff013]

would BASC gun insurance introduce a policy that if your gun was damaged by steel shot, they would replace it?

 

the insurance will not pay out.......if "23. Damage caused by the use of inappropriate ammunition."

[David BASC]

Our gun insurance would not cover you if you used the wrong ammo.

 

David

[wymberley]

would BASC gun insurance introduce a policy that if your gun was damaged by steel shot, they would replace it?

 

the insurance will not pay out.......if "23. Damage caused by the use of inappropriate ammunition."

Surely it is going to be virtually impossible to declare any ammunition which meets the CIP standard unacceptable. It would have to be the gun which is inappropriate, ie, excessively choked beyond the recommended limit. Other than that, cough up.

 

Edit: As David's post was timed as mine, I assumed that my "any ammunition" would match the gun's load parameters.

Edited August 14, 2013 by wymberley

[David BASC]

If you put 'super steel' in a non-super steel proof gun and as a result damaged your own property then that would invalidate the policy.

 

 

Similarly if you used say steel or super steel with the wrong choke - and this damaged that gun - again invalidation

 

 

if you put a 3 inch cartridge in a 2 1/2 in gun and this damaged that gun - again invalidation

 

and so on.

 

However, if you put a steel cartridge in your gun, and it was the right cartridge, but the wadding failed…and this damaged the gun I would expect the insurance to pay out. But I will double check with them to make sure.

[Guest cookoff013]

If you put 'super steel' in a non-super steel proof gun and as a result damaged your own property then that would invalidate the policy.

 

 

Similarly if you used say steel or super steel with the wrong choke - and this damaged that gun - again invalidation

 

 

if you put a 3 inch cartridge in a 2 1/2 in gun and this damaged that gun - again invalidation

 

and so on.

 

However, if you put a steel cartridge in your gun, and it was the right cartridge, but the wadding failed…and this damaged the gun I would expect the insurance to pay out. But I will double check with them to make sure.

 

 

 

 

 

please do, i`m extremely interested.

 

i have another question.

say i was insured with BASC gun insurance. is barrel scoring considered cosmetic? because if it is, you wont pay out. it clearly states....

 

"Your insured item(s) is not covered for

 

12. Cosmetic damage to any item covered under this policy where

it does not affect their operation, function or safety;

[David BASC]

I have spoken to the brokers.

 

Assuming the correct cartridge has been put into the gun…if the plastic, or other material, wad in a steel load fails and this causes scoring this will count as accidental damage and is covered under the policy and it will pay out.

 

 

It will then be down to the underwriter to take a claim against the cartridge manufacturer to recover their costs if they choose, but this will not impact on your claim what so ever.

 

David

[Guest cookoff013]

I have spoken to the brokers.

 

Assuming the correct cartridge has been put into the gun…if the plastic, or other material, wad in a steel load fails and this causes scoring this will count as accidental damage and is covered under the policy and it will pay out.

 

 

It will then be down to the underwriter to take a claim against the cartridge manufacturer to recover their costs if they choose, but this will not impact on your claim what so ever.

 

David

 

thankyou david, that is quite clear.

 

i`ve only ever heard once of a shell manufacturer replacing damaged barrels.

[al4x]

 

thankyou david, that is quite clear.

 

i`ve only ever heard once of a shell manufacturer replacing damaged barrels.

 

 

I'd suggest that is the situation at the moment but were a flood of claims to come in the small print would change or the price would go up. That is very basic rules in the insurance game so definitely don't bank on this as a fallback were a ban to come in.

[David BASC]

Why would the insurance premium go up when the costs would almsot certianly be recovered from the maunfacturer of the defective cartridge who would then get their house in order...

[al4x]

come on David your insurers at the moment exclude the most common shooting claims so you can forgive me for being sceptical that if this becomes a proper issue and claims flood in then either your insurers will decide its not worth it or the cartridge manufacturers decide its not worth it, or they blame the wad manufacturers etc etc

[Guest cookoff013]

I have spoken to the brokers.

 

Assuming the correct cartridge has been put into the gun…if the plastic, or other material, wad in a steel load fails and this causes scoring this will count as accidental damage and is covered under the policy and it will pay out.

 

 

It will then be down to the underwriter to take a claim against the cartridge manufacturer to recover their costs if they choose, but this will not impact on your claim what so ever.

 

David

 

what if the cartridge was a homeloaded one? who are you going to recover the cost from? i`d say 90% of wildfowling shells are steel. with 30% homeloaded.

[David BASC]

No Al4x you are wrong, the BASC member’s liability underwriters do NOT exclude the most common shooting claims, this is an incorrect statement and I am rather surprised that you have made it.

 

The gun insurance is underwritten by a different underwater for your information!

 

Not all claims would be subject to recovery, if you home loaded and accidentally damaged you gun consequently it would be the same as accidently dropping the gun - accidental damage - covered.

 

 

David

[Guest cookoff013]

also just remembered....

 

most, if not all manufacturers suggest using only factory ammunition.

using homeloads is against the manufacturers ideals.

 

i get all my stuff checked out anyway for safety...

Edited August 14, 2013 by cookoff013

[al4x]

No Al4x you are wrong, the BASC member’s liability underwriters do NOT exclude the most common shooting claims, this is an incorrect statement and I am rather surprised that you have made it.

 

 

 

Not all claims would be subject to recovery, if you home loaded and accidentally damaged you gun consequently it would be the same as accidently dropping the gun - accidental damage - covered.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok if I dump a bird on a fellow guns vehicle I am subject to at minimum a hefty excess if its covered at all so we can sort that one out straight away, a position made because it was a common claim.

 

The rest well we'll have to take your word for it that were everyone to have to use steel and scoring became a big issue that your insurers would just pay out not up rates and not exclude scoring as an issue.

 

its interesting though that if you were to double charge a rifle round you reloaded that they would pay for a new gun if you blew it up.

[David BASC]

Which was/ is not the most common of shooting claims...so to make a statement like you did was frankly misleading. What stopped you from asking what was the most common claim or why was an excess imposed on dropping shot game onto your own cars?

 

For your information the most common claim if for shot hitting the wrong target.

 

Dropping pheasants onto cars owned by the member or other shoot members was a low frequency high cost claim that was clearly avoidable - ie people parking cars BEHIND the shooting line and then being 'shocked' the cars were covered in dents, blood and feathers...so yes to stop this, which frankly went beyond negligence in most cases anyway, we put on a £1000 excess.

 

If the use of steel increased significantly and there was a consequent increase in claims as you suggest could be the case, as I have said the underwriters would start claiming the costs back from the manufactures of the defective cartridges, who in turn would undoubtedly put in place better quality control to stop it happening, so the incidence of claim would fall…and there would be no need for a hike in premium…

[al4x]

 

If the use of steel increased significantly and there was a consequent increase in claims as you suggest could be the case, as I have said the underwriters would start claiming the costs back from the manufactures of the defective cartridges, who in turn would undoubtedly put in place better quality control to stop it happening, so the incidence of claim would fall…and there would be no need for a hike in premium…

 

At least that clears up the fact insurers can change their minds on cover once a history of claims is established.

 

I'm glad you have total confidence in this, I'd suggest prooving you only used one brand of cartridges and they caused the damage might be a stumbling block

 

however its pretty irrelevant the point is, is this an issue?

 

If it is then we have a problem that we cannot rely on insurers to pay for that simply isn't a good enough fall back plan as at the moment most people don't insure their guns for accidental damage.

 

The other issue is one regarding plastic wads, using them over silage etc has been known to cause fatalities in livestock, once this is impossible to prevent if you are going to shoot I assume it will be covered by the standard member cover?

Edited August 14, 2013 by al4x

[David BASC]

That’s the way insurance works as I am sure you know. Premiums and covers will change according to risk, market forces and claims history.

 

 

As i have said, and i don’t know how I can be clearer - if a plastic or other material wad fails and this causes damage to a gun then it would be covered under the BASC gun insurance policy. Whether or not the underwriter takes the cartridge manufacture to task is a matter for them, but if several cases came through than I would be amazed if they did not!

 

 

Could you please point me in the direction of the report regarding livestock fatalities from plastic wads, I would find this very informative and interesting, thank you.

 

Livestock are classed as properly, damage to third party property is covered under the BASC liability policy

 

Hope that helps

 

David

[-Mongrel-]

 

They've reduced the speed limits to reduce the amount of people getting run over and killed. Nothing to do with emissions.

 

Partly to allegedly make roads safer, but they also state '....will also help to improve overall health and wellbeing, reduce congestion and could improve air quality.' Improvement of air quality allegedly achieved by reducing emissions.