have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[David BASC]

We all know that lead has been under the spotlight for decades, lead was taken out of most paints in the 1960’s, from most fishing weights in 1987 and from 4 star petrol in 2000.

 

Against this background, during the 1980’s there were calls for bans and lead shot, all of which BASC fought off. Imagine if we really had closed our eyes at this point…

 

In 1991 there was an international conference in Brussels looking at lead shot and this culminated in the 1995 AEWA that stated that lead shot should be banned over wetlands by 2000.

 

After Brussels it became apparent that change was on the way, BASC delayed this change for 9 more years to try and give the trade the opportunity to produce alternatives. Imagine if we had sleep walked into this and not spotted the risks….

 

During this period there were many open meetings on lead, involving on occasions Civil Servants, making sure that we were very much on top of the game.

 

As the wetland restrictions were coming in there were further calls for total bans, BASC fought these off.

 

We fought off allowing the power to enforce the restrictions being devolved to local authorities, insisting it should remain with the police.

 

We said from when the ban in England came in that it was very likely that tests on shot duck would be carried out, we warned the shooting community.

 

After the first lot of tests a couple of years after the English ban we again warned the shooting community to comply.

 

After the 2010 report, which if you recall was in order for DEFRA to see if further legislation was needed, which you will remember did not result in further legislation, again we warned the shooting community to comply.

 

The English / Welsh system is easy to follow – no lead on the foreshore, no lead to shoot wildfowl anywhere – what could be easier to understand or comply with?

 

The Scottish system, which some prefer, would of course prevent the use of lead over a much wider area, but would still need to be complied with and is arguably harder to monitor…

 

BASC’s strategy on lead shot is clear- no sound evidence, no ban.

 

How do we plan to deliver on this?

Work with the other main organisations to get the message out on compliance - UK wide

Persuade all shooters accept they must comply with the law

Evidence compliance is increasing

 

David

 

 

[wymberley]

Must be quick, have to get to the bank to cancel a couple of direct debits.

 

At his post #235, David remarked that he would personally support a survey to see which of the two country's legislation members prefer. Well, I'm sorry David but that isn't going to happen.

 

Have a look at post #301 and bullet points (not) numbered 11 and 12. Perhaps some wag could set up a poll to see from the wording which of the two systems BASC is very firmly in favour of.

 

It's not even subliminal but poles apart like a couple of battery terminals except the power is not to the people.

[David BASC]

Morning,

 

Not to sure what you mean? I would support research to see which system shooters thought was best. But it is also evident that there is some misunderstanding about what the legislation requires in terms of compliance...

 

So if people were asked 'do you prefer A or B' then the comparable similarities and differences between 'A&B' would need to be listed surely?

 

Of course BASC currently supports BOTH systems.... thats also why the compliance message applies all over the UK nad not just England & Wales - the joys of devolved governments!

 

David

Edited July 30, 2013 by David BASC

[mudpatten]

As a general observation, much of this discussion has swung towards a criticism of BASC`s policy and forward planning on this issue.

 

In a number of threads when David has outlined future policy this has immediately been seized upon,twisted and promptly thrown back at him as evidence of plans to capitulate on lead.

 

Gentlemen, you really can`t have it both ways!

[al4x]

mudpattern some of us see the approach as an all or nothing approach that is all. If you are a sceptic you could suggest that solution would avoid the fight taking too long and them having to spend too much money on it. I can't see how our law fits in with agreements on the use on lead over wetlands, I can see possibly why we have it as it was thought to protect a certain group of game shooters but the approach I feel will loose us lead everywhere rather than where it matters. Simple facts is I pay as much or actually probably more than you for my sub assuming you are on an OAP rate so we can all voice an opinion, it is very much in circles and we won't know till the fat lady sings. I can see why the wildfowlers aren't bothered as they already use non toxic but the facts are you are using it where it matters, those who shoot pigeons on stubble and game over arable land make up a lot of the shooters set to loose the best product for the job. High bird shoots look to be for the chop as steel simply won't do the job so we do have a lot to loose unnecessarily with no health benefits and next to no environmental ones.

[mudpatten]

I`ve been watching the visits counter on this thread and it has become obvious that the only people reading at are the handful of us who are posting on it.

 

The majority seem to have taken on board the message from BASC, have stopped laughing at some of the posts and are now spending their time on something more productive.

 

David BASC is an absolute hero. His professionalism and dedication are an inspiration to us all and a superb advert for those who might be dithering about joining BASC. Join us! You know it makes sense.

[al4x]

then you can help pay for lots of internet posting time

[mudpatten]

Who`s paying you then a14x?

[wymberley]

I`ve been watching the visits counter on this thread and it has become obvious that the only people reading at are the handful of us who are posting on it.

 

The majority seem to have taken on board the message from BASC, have stopped laughing at some of the posts and are now spending their time on something more productive.

 

 

Isn't that precisely how we got in this mess in the first place? Someone basing an opinion on a "handful" and then making an assumption instead of ensuring the validity of the results. It's no wonder you're so 'pro' BASC; it would appear that you both share the same procedural methodology.

 

Edit: Mind you, I'm not so clever either! I've just cancelled my direct debit - didn't pay too much attention to the details, trusted BASC to get on with it and although BASC has my date of birth, it's possible that they've charged me full whack for membership even though I qualified for the pensioner's rate some 4 years ago. I say possible as as said I just let them get on with it and have no idea when the TOGs' rate was introduced.

Edited July 30, 2013 by wymberley

[fruitloop]

just a quick one , where are all these affordable alternatives that are not steel .as I can see farmer ? being happy when every one is using it and his crop starts getting brown patches and dying due to the fall out of the steel shot and all the plastic wads for the animals to choke on...

 

frutloop

 

just been looking on clay and game

steel £40 /10kg =£4 per kg

itx shot £50 per kg = £1.42 in shot for a 28g load

bismuth £61 per kg = £1.74 in shot

cgr £59 per kg = £1.68

and nice shot £71 per kg= £2.02

and that is for loose shot not loaded carts im sorry but that is over my budget

Edited July 30, 2013 by fruitloop

[al4x]

Who`s paying you then a14x?

Me thank you very much, own company gives me the ability to post while quiet.

[Scully]

 

 

In a number of threads when David has outlined future policy this has immediately been seized upon,twisted and promptly thrown back at him as evidence of plans to capitulate on lead.

 

 

I'm not so sure any evidence of plans to capitulate on lead needed twisting mudpatten,as all 'evidence' has come from BASC itself.

The 'leaked' statement and what was enclosed within it didn't need twisting and cannot be denied.I don't recall any of those involved ever stepping forward to deny any of the statements made,despite Davids sterling efforts to appease us that what was said in fact was only advisory.We'll never actually know for sure will we?

Next we have a number of ducks tested for lead;but the provenance of said ducks is still open to debate and cannot be proved one way or another.

Then we have a miniscule percentage of a very small number of the shooting public polled as regards compliance,the even smaller number of respondents of which was used as evidence,or to be more precise,proof that shooters in general are flouting the law,and this information then placed into the public domain and used as evidence on nationwide TV with the full consent of BASC.You couldn't make it up!

Point out which of those above statements I have twisted.

The outlook isn't exactly reassuring.

I WANT to believe BASC,but they aint making it easy,and before David(or anyone else) thinks its a slant at him,it isn't.Personally I think he's doing a grand job in a difficuilt position,but some of the leadership in charge of policy/decision making need a kick up the jacksy.

Personally,all things considered, I don't see any future for lead,which is a shame,and as much as David insists we can save it,the odds are stacked against us;I'm not even sure we have the will let alone the power.Lead is going;it may take a while,but it's going.

As the Police have apparently no interest in Policing shoots regarding the lead shot laws as they currently stand,I wonder who will be Policing shoots to a view of compliance when lead is ultimately banned and all those shooters who don't comply now will still continue to use it until their personal stashes run out? If they're shooting for their own pot,who is to know?

[al4x]

The fundamental scully is presumably it will be illegal to use but not to buy. At that point it's quite probable that lots will still use it.

[fruitloop]

lead shot makers enyone

[David BASC]

When i am home tonight I will log on agian and answer the points- as best I can

 

David

[motty]

just a quick one , where are all these affordable alternatives that are not steel .as I can see farmer ? being happy when every one is using it and his crop starts getting brown patches and dying due to the fall out of the steel shot and all the plastic wads for the animals to choke on...

 

frutloop

 

just been looking on clay and game

steel £40 /10kg =£4 per kg

itx shot £50 per kg = £1.42 in shot for a 28g load

bismuth £61 per kg = £1.74 in shot

cgr £59 per kg = £1.68

and nice shot £71 per kg= £2.02

and that is for loose shot not loaded carts im sorry but that is over my budget

Why would that happen?

[fruitloop]

due to the rust altering the ph in the soil

 

Iron corrodes to produce alkaline iron (II) compounds which then go on to acidic iron (III) compounds. Leading to adverse impact on surface soil pH, swings from 9.5 to 3.5 in days. The overall effect is a long term increase in site acidity and net increase in metals leaching. We anticipate and observe pH swings, and the act of corrosion in the soil ‘in and of itself’ takes oxygen out of the soil raising the level of the soil’s zone of anaerobic horizon and reducing the zone in which soil invertebrates can thrive. Iron (II) salts are sold as herbicides, specifically to deter moss. So, how can you expect steel shot through is corrosion products not to have the same effect on range soils. We can anticipate the demise of soil invertebrates due to pH changes and oxidative stress, with consequential further deterioration in sub-soil drainage. Reduction of intolerant herbs and deterioration in grass quality and cover will occur. Formation of secondary a ‘iron-pan’, leading to deterioration in soil texture (with iron concretion) will further impede sub-soil drainage, leading to an increase in surface run-off. The natural consequence of the above is loss of surface biomass and soils.

 

 

 

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv13n4/lanv13n4-5.html

Edited July 30, 2013 by fruitloop

[Terry P]

due to the rust altering the ph in the soil

 

Iron corrodes to produce alkaline iron (II) compounds which then go on to acidic iron (III) compounds. Leading to adverse impact on surface soil pH, swings from 9.5 to 3.5 in days. The overall effect is a long term increase in site acidity and net increase in metals leaching. We anticipate and observe pH swings, and the act of corrosion in the soil ‘in and of itself’ takes oxygen out of the soil raising the level of the soil’s zone of anaerobic horizon and reducing the zone in which soil invertebrates can thrive. Iron (II) salts are sold as herbicides, specifically to deter moss. So, how can you expect steel shot through is corrosion products not to have the same effect on range soils. We can anticipate the demise of soil invertebrates due to pH changes and oxidative stress, with consequential further deterioration in sub-soil drainage. Reduction of intolerant herbs and deterioration in grass quality and cover will occur. Formation of secondary a ‘iron-pan’, leading to deterioration in soil texture (with iron concretion) will further impede sub-soil drainage, leading to an increase in surface run-off. The natural consequence of the above is loss of surface biomass and soils.

 

 

 

http://www.lead.org.au/lanv13n4/lanv13n4-5.html

How long would this take and how much steel shot would it take to achieve.

I will fight for and believe in everyones right to use lead when lawfull to do so, I also really dislike it when people try to point out the bad sides of so called NTS to defend the use of lead, it achieves nothing other than more info for the anti's to jump on.

[wymberley]

Why would that happen?

Never ask a question to which you do not already have the answer!

[fruitloop]

I don't believe in stopping any one using what they want .but I just don't believe that the steel is as eco friendly as its made out to be .

as a apprentice I was told about how carcinogenic rust from iron and steel is and all the nasty's that come from it..

 

as I say where are all these affordable alternatives.

 

plus do you fancy picking all those plastic wads up after a days pigeon shooting yes they say there biodegradable but how long will it take to brake down .

 

and yes I only use fibre wad.

 

 

frutloop

Edited July 30, 2013 by fruitloop

[Scully]

 

I will fight for and believe in everyones right to use lead when lawfull to do so, I also really dislike it when people try to point out the bad sides of so called NTS to defend the use of lead, it achieves nothing other than more info for the anti's to jump on.

I don't really understand this post.Isnt it in the interest of all of us to find an affordable and effective substitute for lead? If the substitutes are as toxic as those being replaced don't we need to know? Do you really believe those who oppose us are going to take the shooting industry at face value when they inform us a certain metal is safe to use as shot on toxin levels?

[David BASC]

BASC has never ever capitulated on lead,.

 

The leaked document in case anyone is not aware, was minute of a research committee meeting held at BASC several years ago where one member of the committee, who owns a shooting ground, thought the future of lead was very bleak and thought that BASC should say so to the membership.

 

The other members was an expert from the pharmaceutical industry who explained how pharmaceutical products are typically withdrawn, ie cease of manufacture, cease of sales than cease of use.

 

No doubt and no question that they said what they said

 

The elected Council, they who make the decisions on BASC policy and strategy, did not share the shooting ground owners views, never the less some seem to think that because 1 member of BASC said in a meeting that they thought lead was on a slippery slope this somehow equates to BASC giving up on lead never quite seen it myself, but there you are.

 

Some may doubt the provenance of the ducks sampled by the WWT, indeed that point has been made clear but as of yet, as far as I know, no one had found any evidence that the duck were not shot in England?

 

As I have said and you can check this out for yourself if you want to, relatively small samples are needed to determine accurate results from questionnaires , but to say BASC consented for this data to be used on TV is totally wrongBASC did NOT consent the BBC to use the data, we have no power at all over the editors of the BBC .

 

I agree there are significant threats to lead shot, it would be foolish in the extreme to try and deny it. Compliance alone will not save lead shot, but failure to comply will almost certainly loose it regardless.

 

What will the LAG report? Who knows but there is always a chance it wont be good news!

 

What about Europe, well lead shot is off the agenda at the moment but could come back as early as next week watch this space.

 

How steel shot will react will depend on the chemistry of the land it ends up on and, this will determine which oxidation state it ends up in and what salts it forms. Theory is one thing practice is another, I have not head of crop damage in countys that have been using steel for years but if anyone has, let me know.

 

Nor have I ever had a claims for livestock choking on plastic wads (although I admit I am not fan of plastic wads) or know of any incidents and I believe the cartridge manufacturers have tested this, but again if anyone can point me in the direction of documented cases I would be very interested.

[eyeglass]

1) The ‘one member of the committee’ as stated below was in fact an elected member of the BASC Council and was the Chairman of the research committee. He was also an owner of a shooting ground but that is not particularly relevant.

 

2) “but as of yet, as far as I know, no one had found any evidence that the duck were not shot in England?” as per the BASC Post below.

 

The evidence is that the report could not account for or prove where the birds had come from and BASC supported the report and the WWT on its claim that there was 70% non-compliance. Defra know that the ‘provenance’ of the birds could not be accounted for. The report itself admits it cannot account for the actual provenance of the birds.

 

Yet, here we have BASC claiming that false evidence should be accepted. It is BASC and the WWT who are making claims against the shooting public based on the testing of birds that they do not know where they came from.

 

In a court, you are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove your evidence, you cannot make a credible case and the matter is thrown out of court. Yet, here we have a bit of weasel language from BASC that defies all logic and common law. That tack is often to be witnessed conducted by those acting in bad faith . But this is BASC attempting to indict the shooting public with false evidence.

 

 

 

BASC has never ever capitulated on lead,.

The leaked document in case anyone is not aware, was minute of a research committee meeting held at BASC several years ago where one member of the committee, who owns a shooting ground, thought the future of lead was very bleak and thought that BASC should say so to the membership.

The other members was an expert from the pharmaceutical industry who explained how pharmaceutical products are typically withdrawn, ie cease of manufacture, cease of sales than cease of use.

No doubt and no question that they said what they said

The elected Council, they who make the decisions on BASC policy and strategy, did not share the shooting ground owners views, never the less some seem to think that because 1 member of BASC said in a meeting that they thought lead was on a slippery slope this somehow equates to BASC giving up on lead never quite seen it myself, but there you are.

Some may doubt the provenance of the ducks sampled by the WWT, indeed that point has been made clear but as of yet, as far as I know, no one had found any evidence that the duck were not shot in England?

As I have said and you can check this out for yourself if you want to, relatively small samples are needed to determine accurate results from questionnaires , but to say BASC consented for this data to be used on TV is totally wrongBASC did NOT consent the BBC to use the data, we have no power at all over the editors of the BBC .

I agree there are significant threats to lead shot, it would be foolish in the extreme to try and deny it. Compliance alone will not save lead shot, but failure to comply will almost certainly loose it regardless.

What will the LAG report? Who knows but there is always a chance it wont be good news!

What about Europe, well lead shot is off the agenda at the moment but could come back as early as next week watch this space.

How steel shot will react will depend on the chemistry of the land it ends up on and, this will determine which oxidation state it ends up in and what salts it forms. Theory is one thing practice is another, I have not head of crop damage in countys that have been using steel for years but if anyone has, let me know.

Nor have I ever had a claims for livestock choking on plastic wads (although I admit I am not fan of plastic wads) or know of any incidents and I believe the cartridge manufacturers have tested this, but again if anyone can point me in the direction of documented cases I would be very interested.

Edited July 30, 2013 by eyeglass

[mudpatten]

Is that really Eyeglass or is it Gunsmokeandmirrors posting after a relaxing shmoke....

[fruitloop]

hi david was there not a post on pw about steel shot making the grass go brown and dying not long ago I just cant remember who posted it and in what section.

 

saying that I might do a little experiment my self on my grass say get a steel load and a lead load cordon a small patch of grass off and tip the contents on there and see what the results are

 

p.s. the bit about Theory is one thing practice is another was it not theory not practice that the current results are based?

Edited July 30, 2013 by fruitloop