have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[David BASC]

As I have said eyeglass, several times - have you spoken to WWT to discuss the provenance of the ducks collected over 2 seasons? If not why not? Time for an answer please.

 

We did not test the duck we did the shooter survey, is it that data you are saying we falsified? Taking your point about law if you make accusations but cant back them up with solid evidence your case is thrown out?

 

Exactly what are you doing to help the current situation, I really would like to hear.do you believe that compliance is not an issue?

[Gordon R]

eyeglass - as someone who has been accused of having an abrasive style, I think I can spot another.

 

However, yours goes beyond abrasive. The tone of your posts is appalling - nothing less.

[David BASC]

Fruitloop - thanks I will see if I can find it.

 

I have put a whole shell of steel shot onto a patch of soil about 5 years ago - not exactly scientific, but it has weeds, grass, moss etc growing on it with no apparent problems, but as I say its not a scientific experiment and I doubt Ill get at PhD for it...

 

The shooter survey was 'practice', as it was asking a large random sample of shooters about their knowledge, understanding and application of the law

 

David

[Terry P]

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?

Not to worry Scully you won't be first not to understand me . I just do not believe there is anything to be gained by shooting folk claiming one form of shot is a poor substitute just to defend the use of another, to me its counter productive.

At least with the newer forms of shot BASC have the time to do there own research to counter any dribble the anti's dredge up. Apparently David has already started!!!!

[wymberley]

Not to worry Scully you won't be first not to understand me . I just do not believe there is anything to be gained by shooting folk claiming one form of shot is a poor substitute just to defend the use of another, to me its counter productive.

At least with the newer forms of shot BASC have the time to do there own research to counter any dribble the anti's dredge up. Apparently David has already started!!!!

What, dribbling?

[norfolk dumpling]

With an almost 'shoot friendly' government should we not be looking to change this crazy law to something akin to that north of Hadrians wall??

 

Having said this I am involved with several shoots, farm, big commercial and estate and find the level of abuse quoted v v hard to believe - have we some seriously dodgy research or some enemies involved here??

[Scully]

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 don't need to check it out,I'm not doubting the veracity of your first statement above,I just simply find it staggeringly difficuilt to believe statistical data is gathered in this way.It simply proves there is truth to the adage 'there are lies,damned lies,and then statistics'.

I stand corrected regards your second statement and will gladly concede I was mistaken;BASC did not consent for this data to be used on TV.Am I also mistaken by saying BASC placed this data in the public domain?

If,as eyeglass states,'the report itself cannot account for the actual provenance of the birds' then surely all we need do is read the report.If DEFRA claim it cannot verify the provenance of the birds,then who can claim with any certainty where the birds came from? No one it would seem.

 

I think I may start to stock-pile lead cartridges.At least that way I can enjoy shooting my guns of choice for as long as possible.Is there any way I can unpledge? I think I may have reached the stage where I just don't know who to believe,and am totally disillusioned by this entire sorry state of affairs,and am losing the will to care.For what its worth,I'm out.

Would just like to say here and now that if it ever comes to light that we have been deceived by our shooting organisations I will become a severe thorn in the sides of those involved and will do my utmost to damage that organisations credibility.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Scully

[gunsmoke]

You guys what is see the plan. Please read the PDF file eyeclass posted some time back. The plan is all in the submission document to ministers. I believe that is the play book from what is going on now.

 

There is a copy of the document on www.ianthegun.blogspot.com and youtube country sports tv www.youtube.com/user/iansummerell where you can also find the WWT call for a total lead ban as report on the BBC and the BBC countryfile programme.

 

Before you comment on this post please read the submission to ministers.

[-Mongrel-]

...and around it goes again in its never decreasing circle.

 

Can someone tell me how to stop notifications of when someone has dribbled on this thread again?

[chrispti]

You guys what is see the plan. Please read the PDF file eyeclass posted some time back. The plan is all in the submission document to ministers. I believe that is the play book from what is going on now.

 

There is a copy of the document on www.ianthegun.blogspot.com and youtube country sports tv www.youtube.com/user/iansummerell where you can also find the WWT call for a total lead ban as report on the BBC and the BBC countryfile programme.

 

Before you comment on this post please read the submission to ministers.

Ian, why won't you answer David's questions?

 

Country sports tv (filmed on ians mobile phone) ........ what a good idea ...... What does the £1 raised from a badge go towards? ........ Your pocket?

Edited July 31, 2013 by chrispti

[David BASC]

Morning Scully

 

Regarding the ducks, reading the report and checking with a colleague who reviewed the raw data, the collectors did check in every case the ducks had been supplied locally, but in a few cases this was not possible to confirm, so consequently it would be wrong to say the provenance could the 100% confirmed in all cases.

 

As I have said to Gunsomke and Eyegalss, anyone who is interested can contact WWT and ask about how they checked provenance, although it is covered in the report.

 

However given that the vast majority of shooters don’t sell into game dealers, the problem was / is, as I have said, with the minority of shoots / shooters.

 

The report we made on the knowledge understanding and application of the law was sent to DEFRA via WWT, it was DEFRA that put it in the public domain, as I believe they do with all reports, and yes we did tell members this would happen when we wrote to them.

 

As I said before, and this is a very important bit – this 2 year research was undertaken to inform DEFRA and the government if further restrictions / legislation against lead shot should be introduced. Remember please, there were no further restrictions or changes in law due to this research, nor were any planned based on this research.

 

I can assure you that BASC is not and has never deceived anyone; it would be totally crazy for us to do so.

 

Norfolk Dumpling,

 

As I have said, and I fully accept you may not have read through all the posts on this long thread,. DEFRA will not reccomend a change in the law, if at all, until the Lead Ammunition Group report is made. DEFRA will then make recommendations to government and parliament will make the final decision.

 

In England we cannot shoot anything with lead on the foreshore, or on key wetland habitats that are listed SSSI’s or any waterfowl inland.

 

In Scotland we cannot shoot anything at all with lead on the foreshore, nor can we shoot lead at anything, (game, wildfowl, clays, pigeons, rabbit etc) on or over all permanent and non-permanent wetlands anywhere.

 

The English system is aimed at protecting by law all key wetland habitats, and also other wetland habitats where waterfowl demonstrably reside.

 

The Scottish system is aimed at protecting all wetland habits (as determined under RAMSAR).

 

There are advantages and disadvantages for both systems.

 

Daivd

 

 

[mudpatten]

Gunshmoke,

 

Ian,for weeks now you`ve been slagging off BASC with paranoid arguments that I`ve found difficult to understand from the outset. Your last post. no.333 starting "You guys what is see the plan..." is now verging on the incomprehensible.

 

What is your overall strategy with this issue - apart from trying to damage BASC. Where do you want to see this issue in 6 months time and how do you propose you get there?

 

You say in your website that you intend to start a campaign to save lead but I can find no trace of this campaign anywhere,apart from an amateurish youtube clip selling a badge for a £1. You give no explanation as to what will happen to any money raised. Can you tell us now - how do you intend to conduct your fight to save lead given that you obviously believe BASC to have failed? Is it taking place exclusively in your head or is any of it taking place in the real world?

 

Most of those taking part in this thread, none of whom will admit to supporting your campaign, probably feel that your single issue question has been done to death. You`ve had dozens of answers from David BASC to the same question that you repeatedly ask, but you refuse to move on to some sort of conclusion.

 

It would seem to be quite obvious to any rational reader that your position is diametrically opposed to that of BASC.It seems very unlikely that that will change any time soon. From the point of view of taking your, rather bizarre, argument forward, this would seem now to be in your hands, and your alone.

 

Given that it is now time for you to stop attacking BASC and take your campaign forward in a different direction, what is that direction going to be?

[norfolk dumpling]

David,

 

I hear what you say and this may come over as rather parochial but realise all of my shooting is norfolk/Suffolk, this law is just stupid for E/Anglia where the vast majority of our permissions are arable but we see a lot of duck on ponds and stubbles. The sooner this report is published the better and then we should petition gov for change. Hope to too late as new gov will not so sympathetic and current lot may no survive.

[David BASC]

Norfolk Dumpling,

 

Thanks chap, I fully understand and empathise and agree the LAG report may well give us the opportunity for change.

 

David

Edited July 31, 2013 by David BASC

[Dangerous Brian]

eyeglass - as someone who has been accused of having an abrasive style, I think I can spot another.

 

However, yours goes beyond abrasive. The tone of your posts is appalling - nothing less.

+1

I was reading this thread to try and keep myself informed of any developments in the debate on / fate of lead. It is fast turning into a complete waste of time as people seem hell bent on asking questions and not listening to the answers provided.

 

In reference to steel shot and soil pH: I vaguely remember seeing a picture of a shooting ground (not this country) where steel was used almost exclusively. There wasn't a blade of grass left on the place. I can't find it now and can't remember where I saw it, very helpful I know! Does anyone else remember it or did I dream it?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Dangerous Brian

[fruitloop]

_{hi DB im glad I was not the only one that seen it.}

_{the worrying thing is how many farmers will allow you to shoot on there land if it will do that to the crops....permission revoked}

Edited July 31, 2013 by fruitloop

[gunsmoke]

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

 

great link, this should be past onto the LAG. Oh that's no good they are only looking at 'lead shot'.

 

Why are the LAG looking at the wwt/basc report on compliance. I was told in by the chairman that they where only looking at peer reviewed scientific papers, As the wwt/basc report was not peer reviewed why are they using for there report?

 

The whole thing is a sham.

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke,

 

Firstly, and very importantly, claiming one or more of the alternatives will not work, or will cause worse damage than say lead is not going to save lead shot, it is only going to run the risk of putting pressure on other alternatives being banned – can you not see and understand this?

 

The LAG are looking at a much wider set of issues than the 2010 report, as frankly you should know If you bothered to look at the minutes of the meetings you will note that the group are assessing many works and the papers they looked at are listed….

 

As to your concerns about the paper(s) the LAG have reviewed, and the level of peer review, have to taken this up with LAG?

 

Add this to the long list on unanswered questions….

[fruitloop]

I thought basc stand on lead shot was until a economical and ecologically viable alternative was found they will defend the use of lead and from what I have seen there steel is dubious on the ecolagical side and the other stuff is way to expensive to be viable.

 

 

p.s. no im not eyeglass or the other guy and no I dont know them .im just a concernd basc member

Edited July 31, 2013 by fruitloop

[David BASC]

fruitloop,

 

 

Thanks for the message, please remember that some iron compounds are used in gardening and horticulture to help plants grow! Iron is also an important metal biologically for all vertebrates. However some iron compounds are toxic to plants.

 

 

You are correct that in the 90's, when there were severe threats to ban lead there and then, we did use that very phrase to help delay the implementation of any restrictions for 9 years, that was to try and give the cartridge manufacturers time to develop alternatives.

 

 

Please understand I am no cartridge manufacturing expert, but the alternatives such as bismuth, Nice Shot etc cannot be as low cost as lead as the material / manufacturing costs are higher.

 

Thus far , to the very best of my knowledge, no other alloys or compounds are in development for shot, but if we hear of any we will certainly have a good look.

 

David

[fruitloop]

so when are the manufacturers going to start to develop these affordable alternatives as it seams that they are sitting on there hands and saying steel and that's all you are getting ....

 

just been looking at the different types of steel shot you have one coated with copper one with zinc (galvanised) and one that is treated with a ant rusting agent .

copper can cause damage to trees and zinc is under the classification as a heavy metal like lead and the third what is the anti rusting compound made off??

Edited July 31, 2013 by fruitloop

[aris]

What has the experience of the Scandinavian countries who have banned lead been?

[Kes]

Extract from a Press Article - Oct 2012 - worth a read.

 

Lead poisoning is still a major cause of death among swans, ducks and other waterfowl despite legislation aimed at restricting the use of toxic lead pellets by shotgun owners, a study has found.

A third of wild waterfowl sampled at four wetland sites in Britain showed signs of lead poisoning which accounted for at least 12 per cent of deaths among waterbirds over the past decade, scientists said.

A single shotgun cartridge contains up to 300 tiny lead pellets most of which fall to the ground after being discharged, where they can be ingested by ducks, geese and swans when feeding.

Lead poisoning in waterfowl affects the nervous system of birds and results in paralysis of stomach muscles leading to starvation and death. The study found that gunshot pellets are the most likely cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl.

Conservationists at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT) in Slimbridge, Gloucestershire said that measures introduced a decade ago to restrict the use of lead pellets near important wetlands and sites of special scientific interest are not working, with many shotgun owners admitting that they flaunt the rules.

“Despite the law, brought in over a decade ago to protect wetland birds, nothing has changed. Clearly an effective solution is long overdue,” said Martin Spray, chief executive of the WWT.

Lead is a highly toxic substance that can affect virtually every part of a bird’s body yet it is still legal to use lead shot in Britain for shooting over farmland and moorland where it accumulates in the environment.

Chris Perrins, a distinguished ornithologist at Oxford University and the Queen’s Warden of the Swans, said that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recommended in 1983 that lead shotgun pellets should be phased out with shooters using “non-toxic” alternatives, such as steel shot.

“Yet here we are nearly 30 years on and we are still using them…We don’t need lead and yet we’re increasingly adding lead to the environment year by year,” Dr Perrins said.

It is estimated that during the early 1990s about 160 tonnes of lead fell to the ground in the UK from spent shotgun pellets, with about 1.6 billion pellets deposited in the wetlands alone. Lead shot can persist for hundreds of years and are readily ingested by waterfowl when the pellets are mistaken for food or grit.

Tests on nearly 300 waterfowl sampled at four sites in Britain during 2010 and 2011 found that 34 per cent of them had elevated levels of lead in their bloodstream, said Debbie Pain, leader of the study published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research.

“Our results indicate that lead poisoning has continued to affect a wide range of British waterbirds long after legal restrictions were introduced,” Dr Pain said.

Fourteen species of ducks, geese and swans were found to have been killed by lead poisoning. Postmortem tests revealed that the gizzard of some birds contained up to 438 pieces of lead shot, the scientists found.

Lead shot was banned for angling from 1988 but only limited restrictions have been placed on shooting, mostly relating to bans over foreshores and certain sites of special scientific interest, and for the shooting of all ducks, geese, coot and moorhen.

However, in 2002 two thirds of ducks being sold by game dealers were found to have been shot with lead, with similar levels revealed in another survey in 2010. “This revealed a disturbing and damaging lack of compliance,” admitted the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which represents the shooting fraternity.

 

Edited to remove Lead ADVISORY Group and substitute for Lead Ammunition Group.

 

Tends to indicate who is on the front foot and who is on the backfoot - Note please that the WWT say it is (inferred) irrelevant what target is shot at with lead or where it is shot at - they clearly intend to ban lead. What proportion of the next test will make any difference to their CE Martin Spray's comment quoted above ?

I think if you read this you might conclude any organisation which supports the use of lead shot is blind and stupid - well it is from the Independent but the comment ascribed to BASC is hopefully not what they said or is taken out of context. I didnt know there had been two studies of sampled waterfowl - one not as part of the Defra sponsored study ?

Edited July 31, 2013 by Kes

[Kes]

A useful and interesting 'Paper' by the WWT Jan 2013 http://www.wwt.org.uk/issues/conservation-policy-briefing-on-lead-gunshot/

 

This calls for a complete ban on lead shot and says there are currently available shot (steel) which are sometimes cheaper and just as effective. Make your own mind up.

 

P.S. lots of useful reading in the bibliography.

Also worth checking the tabs to the left of the header - no doubt here I suggest.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Kes

[Kes]

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/article/the-alliances-background-brief-on-the-effect-of-lead-ammunition

 

Interesting to see what others have said.