have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[norfolk dumpling]

I drive rental cars a couple of days a week and a lot of this is urban 20mph stuff - it often means lower gears, higher revs and really confuses some of the autos with 6-8 gears. Don't think this is doing anything for air quality and why is it only me keeping to the limit......

[Kes]

It is a liberal policy to drop urban limits to 20 mph to cut death due to cycling principally. It has nothing to do with sites where most accidents happen and is predicated on the generalisation that most survive a collission with a car at 20 mph - 40% do at 30 mph. In my view, it would be better to retest drivers than to burden all with speed limits which are an impediment to business and individuals alike, that and dealing with the most dangerous sites where collisions are occurring. As said above - if drivers dont see the reason for a speed limit they tend to ignore it, putting more people at risk as expectations of meeting a vehicle at a slower speed are not met buy those on bikes or walking.

Casualty reduction is best left to the professionals and should never be left tp political policy. IMHO

 

ANYWAY WHAT HAPPENED TO THE THREAD !!!

[norfolk dumpling]

Just shows you what a free thinking bunch of people we are.

[eyeglass]

The thread has been subverted, cannot think why.

 

To bring it back on track I have attached a Defra report document concerning the AEWA, BASC, WWT, RSPB. and others.

 

Extract from: DEFRA First report period 1999 and 2002 - Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds.

www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop2_docs/wrd/...reports/uk.doc

 

It said: -

“The UK, through BASC, supported the AEWA/Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU east European workshop (October 2001) on lead shot replacement, through participation, advice and demonstration.”

*Management of Human Activities (4) - Page 30 – (top)

 

Those who take the time and trouble to read the linked document will see how embedded BASC was and is in the group-think against lead. There is no indication in the document of BASC voicing any critical judgement in the matter.

 

Instead, what you will see is uncritical support for the AEWA and implicit support for the eventual ‘phasing’ out of any use of lead ammunition and its replacement with steel.

 

BASC have had 30 years to refute the junk science and stand up for lead but have done the opposite. They embraced the long-term objective of phasing out lead ammunition.

 

BASC has never demanded that independent professional, in-depth research, be carried out in the UK to test the anti-lead ammunition assertions. They bought into the AEWA/DEFRA package from the start. The ‘package’ is a pool of ‘international’ agenda driven ‘research’ none provable, none focused on the UK.

 

Anyone on this thread expecting the poor DavidBASC marketing writing team, to change from this policy now, are dreaming. You are wasting your time expecting anything constructive and pro-lead from BASC. You will need to look elsewhere for the defence of Lead.

 

The AEWA and the Peregrine Fund so-called research material about ducks ingesting lead shot is junk science that is propaganda and agenda driven. It is not proven science in any way, shape, or form. It uses dodgy statistics and shaky biased conclusions to win political objectives.

 

BASC has said that it is accepted science, and that it (BASC) accepts it.

 

They believe, but not out loudly, that because of this lead should be banned. They believe that by sitting on their hands it will happen because they believe that the Government believe the same lie as they do. They also believe that if the matter can be drawn out to the election their problem will be solved if a Labour Government comes back.

 

The reason that we are in this mess is because BASC accepted the various American and European papers on Lead ammunition and its assumed effects on ducks etc without any scrutiny or critical judgement then or now.

 

They failed to test or probe. They did not challenge the claims on behalf of their members they just accepted all of this propaganda and junk science from the conservation industry as the truth.

When asked why, their ‘research’ department said because it was peer reviewed they did not need to challenge, examine or explore any possibility that it was biased even though it was written by animal rights groups and anti’s.

They did not review they accepted because they held the same views as the anti’s with one exception, they could not agree that shooting should be banned. So BASC has lived a lie all this time.

The WWT have never yet produced a duck dying of ingested lead from the wild. It has never yet done any valid research to back such a claim.

 

The background of threat from the anti’s suited BASC so that they could groom their membership at that time into given up lead on wetlands. BASC accepted the AEWA’s assertions without proof.

Just stop to think for a moment. We all know that the BASC/WWT 2010 report on Compliance is a classic piece of junk science, not even peered reviewed, they just rubberstamped it themselves. Yet all we have witnessed on this site is BASC staunchly defending it.

 

We are all able to draw conclusions from that I would say.

 

Unfortunately, BASC abandoned its responsibility to its membership in preference to a misguided deal with the WWT and the RSPB. It has cost all 650,000 of us a heavy price. We all know this now.

 

But because of that cop-out we are now 25 years later, in this mess. Again, we all know this now.

BASC twists and turns, swinging from scorn to belligerence when addressing any dissent on this thread. It is a sure sign of institutional panic.

 

There is more than one person writing under the DavidBASC Post, on this thread. Anyone who may have started out giving the DavidBASC writing team the benefit of the doubt, are certainly reconsidering their opinions.

 

A word about peer review. A researcher writes a paper, passes it to his friends in the same field. They write a review of it. It then gets published as a ‘peer reviewed’ paper. It does not mean that the paper proved anything at all. It means that the researchers peers (his colleagues) did not say it was rubbish and that it followed a methodology correctly. The prediction made in the paper is not proved. The outcome of the prediction is not proved. It is just a peer-reviewed paper. There are hundred of thousands of them a year. It is an industry. It is a grant driven industry.

 

Peer Group Review means, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.

 

You see this junk science stuff daily in the newspapers. Coffee will kill you – Coffee is good for you. Red wine will kill you – red wine is good for you. 4 hours of sleep is healthy. 8 hours of sleep is bad for you. 10 hours of sleep is the only way to lose weight.

 

The so-called scientific papers on the LAG are just the same. But they got there because the research directors of BASC and the WWT put them there. Why? Read Eyeglass post No. 148 page 8.

 

The point is it is BASC that has caused these problems not shooters. It seems that it is BASC who is in denial not us members of the shooting public.

 

There is no UK evidence to show that lead ammunition has any effect on wildfowl except when it is fired directly at the bird. But BASC does not think there is any need to find out the truth it prefers to take the pre-packaged propaganda research of the conservation groups who hate shooting.

 

BASC could have challenged all of this stuff from the anti’s over the last 25 years. It did not then and it does not now.

[David BASC]

What you or indeed anyone else possibly wants to achieve by constantly attacking BASC in this way is beyond me, unless of course your real objective is to undermine the UK’s largest shooting organisation with the consequential damage that will cause.

 

Answer this please, if BASC had not contested the many issues around lead shot over the past 30 or more years, as you repeatedly claim, why has lead shot not been banned in total, as was clearly threatened several times in the past? Because BASC has stopped it! Your logic falls at the first hurdle.

 

Tell me this why on earth would BASC look to do anything that could harm shooting? Why on earth would we do anything that could damage the market we operate in? It makes no sense at all does it?

 

Are you totally ignorant of the fact that it was the UK government among others who signed up to the international agreement on the phasing out of lead over wetlands? It was not BASC that ‘allowed it’ as you seem to claim.

 

Please list the UK, European and America research papers that show lead shot it harmless, and that when ingested causes no harm? Can you? no….

 

LAG are looking at this very important issue and are asking for the evidence to be backed up. Yes we know lead is toxic, yes we know it can cause harm, but how big is the risk in reality? Imagine this if the LAG come out and say lead shot in the environment is not a real significant risk at all, will you still rubbish its science as junk and propaganda?

 

Again you peddle the lie that it’s not just me writing under David BASC why do you keep making rubbish like this up?

[Piebob]

I have attached a Defra report document concerning the AEWA, BASC, WWT, RSPB. and others.

 

Extract from: DEFRA First report period 1999 and 2002 - Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds.

www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/en/mop/mop2_docs/wrd/...reports/uk.doc

 

Your link doesn't work for me. I've snipped the rest of your post. There are some elements of your post that I partly agree with, but you continue to spoil your small amount of good comment with repeated nonsense. It really undermines and detracts from any semblance of reason you think you have. All I see is an attack on BASC - to what end I have no idea. What is it that you want to achieve?

[Dangerous Brian]

Dear eyeglass

 

I have to agree with Piebob on the format of your posts. Perhaps a change of tack is required?

 

Anyone on this thread expecting the poor DavidBASC marketing writing team, to change from this policy now, are dreaming. You are wasting your time expecting anything constructive and pro-lead from BASC. You will need to look elsewhere for the defence of Lead.

I feel I am wasting my time waiting for anything constructive from your posts as well.

 

There is more than one person writing under the DavidBASC Post, on this thread. Anyone who may have started out giving the DavidBASC writing team the benefit of the doubt, are certainly reconsidering their opinions.

 

Please do me a favour and do not presume to tell others what I am thinking.

 

I would think that David has better things to spend his time on than answering the same questions over and over, though hats off to him for doing so. Whether David is as you claim a writing team is still unproven- No one to my knowledge has yet provided any sound evidence of this. My own personal thought on this whole subject is that we all need to be working together on this, not attacking each other. You have raised some questions on this thread, which David has attempted to answer for you, I don't see how you can expect to gain anything further in that respect. If your aims are different (such as picking a fight with BASC itself for whatever reason), then all that will happen is your credibility (in my eyes and perhaps those of the members of the silent majority) will continue to plummet.

[David BASC]

This is indeed a very important issue that we all have a very keen interest in, and not just in the UK but all over Europe too.

 

Throwing around puerile accusations and trying to discredit me personally or BASC in general is pointless and will achieve nothing, and it’s very sad indeed that Eyeglass and indeed one or two others fail to see this.

 

Also criticizing research that not been peer reviewed in one breath and then criticizing the peer review process in the next just muddies the waters further- please understand that research, peer reviewed or not, is open to scrutiny and that is exactly what is going on within the LAG at the moment.

 

Believe it or not everything that could be done was and has been done over the last few decades to protect lead shot within our market, not just by BASC, but the cartridge manufactures and thankfully other organisations too more recently. And that is why; despite repeated calls for a complete ban, the vast majority of us can still use lead shot the vast majority of the time if we choose so to do.

 

We are now at a key point of a very long pro lead / anti lead campaign that has been going on for decades. It’s my view that we will most probably see the report from the LAG sooner rather than later, and most certainly well before the 2015 general Election.

 

And finally, to answer the question in the very opening post- no BASC has not shot shooting in the foot, it would be totally counterproductive of us to do so, and anyone with an ounce of common sense would see that, and understand that BASC will only ever do all it can to keep shooting safe.

 

David

[mudpatten]

I think we must be coming up to a full moon.

 

Eyeglass certainly puts the lunar in "lunatic."

[Kes]

Whilst I do not agree with eyeglasses approach, assertions or conclusions, it is as well we all realise that despite DavidBASC's good offices, the make up of the LAG includes one BASC rep, who is now not employed by BASC but is acting as a consultant as he has retired, been retired (I do not know which).

I find it hard to believe that JS is the man for this job, BASC should be aware that its most critical issue to date is being managed and controlled by a retired CEO and they are FULLY responsible for his actions.

Whatever else is said about BASC, it relies on members in a commercial and competitive environment. If the report from the LAG is unhelpful, everyone can and will make their own judgement about how this has been handled. Whilst there has been insufficient evidence to force a ban thus far, is it right for BASC to claim that they have achieved this alone.I seriously doubt that assertion.

Everything that can be done to save lead must be done - there is too easy a way out for anyone complicit in the acceptance of lead as toxic to wildfowl - us shooters.

If there is a ban - I for one will go over the science with a fine tooth comb and complain if appropriate. However, lead will have been lost by then and it will be kicking against the pricks.

More voices are needed to demand the evidence is beyond question if a ban is to be considered.

[David BASC]

JS retired from BASC, this was well covered in the shooting press.

 

Given JS has been involved in the lead debate for decades, and not just in the UK but in Europe too, and any further restrictions on lead would impact shooting, it was not surprising that DEFRA approached him to be the Chairman of the group – would there be anyone else you would have suggested out of interest?

 

The LAG is a DEFRA group not a BASC group, so I am a little confused as to how you say BASC is responsible for the Chairman of a DEFRA groups actions? Perhaps you could expand.

 

Turning to the call for total bans in the 90’s for example, who else was standing up for lead shot back then? Who delayed the implementations of the wetland ban to give the cartridge manufactures time to develop alternatives? Who was it that got some sites lifted from the original restrictions over wetlands in England? Only BASC.

 

However, as I said before, I am very pleased others have joined the fight more recently and now we have all the main shooting organisations pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet and all supporting the common cause, however, I can understand why so many still focus on BASC and BASCs involvement.

 

Once the report from LAG is released, that will be the time to lobby as necessary and that is exactly what the organisations are gearing up for should the report not go in our favour, and at the same time I can bet a penny to a pinch of salt that those who are opposed to lead shot will be doing the same!

 

Yes this is very much a time for us all to be working together and not fighting among ourselves.

[wymberley]

 

 

Once the report from LAG is released, that will be the time to lobby as necessary

 

 

Just like we were going to wait until the Cullen report was published. I'll make a small wager that before that date some organisation (possibly several on numerous occasions) will publish their own lobby material. Their will be alarm and despondency from the shooters/shooting press and yet again, just as usual, we''ll be fighting a rearguard action off the back foot.

[Kes]

Just like we were going to wait until the Cullen report was published. I'll make a small wager that before that date some organisation (possibly several on numerous occasions) will publish their own lobby material. Their will be alarm and despondency from the shooters/shooting press and yet again, just as usual, we''ll be fighting a rearguard action off the back foot.

Agreed - some time ago on this thread we talked of 'Scenario Planning' perhaps David will confirm there are plans, to do first, as others will be doing and; maybe talk to sister organisations in other countries to see what either went wrong or right with their own lead issues. Pre-empting the lead 'research' would be good etc., etc.

 

Who is the BASC rep if it is not JS ?

So JS left BASC just like that and didnt negotiate any continuation as a consultant ? I'm happy to take your word for it David but after 40 years (was it), I would be surprised. Rather a faux pas for DEFRA to appoint a potentially biased Chair ? Is he on 'our' side ? ;and will that affect others organisations approach to detract from the LAG findings if they do not support their own viewpoint?

 

Are we therefore happy with the NEW BASC rep and can we please know who that is on the LAG ?

 

Also David it is good management practice to laud one's own achievements (as others rarely do enough for CEO's) but it can become hypnotic and whilst a fair degree of self-congratulation is sensible, shooters, in my experience, tend to be 'conservative' in their views and as such often turned off by self-praise. The other well known view of self praise is that it " is no recommendation",

Letting other praise you occasionally is worth many self-congratulations, see the BASC newspaper for details. Just MO

[eyeglass]

Any one reading the Lead Ammunition website will come away with the following understanding: -

 

The Chairman of the main committee is John Swift. As Chairman he is neutral and ‘impartial’.

 

The Chairman cannot ‘technically’ represent anyone. That is the point of the Chairman.

 

Therefore BASC is not represented on the LAG. So when it all goes pear shaped BASC can say it was not their fault.

 

You will also have seen reference to the Prime Evidence sub-committee. A Mr John Harradine is a member. He is also the ‘research director’ of BASC.

 

The Prime Evidence sub-committee reports to the Main committee who decides what goes into the Report. The Main committee is chaired by Mr John Swift but he does not and cannot represent BASC.

 

If you read the minutes of the LAG you will see that it was recommended/suggested by Mr Swift that Mr John Harradine (BASC) and Ms Deborah Pain (WWT) should work together to collated and gather evidence.***

 

Minutes of the 1st Lead Ammunition Group inaugural meeting - 26 April 2010

Action All: The Chair requested that all attendees consider who needs to be involved in subgroups.

 

***Action DP: Debbie Pain agreed to contact John Harradine in order to give consideration to gathering key evidence sources on wildlife and human health so that it might be included on the website.

 

[David BASC]

Yes there are scenarios planed, but please understand that it is not possible for me to place details on a public forum at this time.

 

Yes there is plenty of discussion with other organisations in Europe on this issue.

 

The membership of the LAG is exactly as published on the LAG web site. Do you think JAS is NOT on the side of shooting???

 

Eygalss, are you trying to imply that there some deliberate ploy by BASC to remove itself from the results of the LAG? The make up of LAG was decided by DEFRA not BASC, but it was JAS that requested the CA sat on LAG,– note we currently supply the secretariat too.

 

I have said before now is not the time for in fighting but for working together; do you honestly think that we are all working in blind isolation on this issue? do you not understand that BASC, CA etc are almost constantly discussing these issues at UK and European level?

 

What is wrong with the Chairman asking the WWT to present all their alleged evidence against lead to the Primary evidence group , and for BASC research team to cast an eye over said evidence, before it is scrutinized by the PEG? That’s what the role of the PEG is!!!

 

David

[wymberley]

The worrying thing is if our opponents get hold of the percentage figure of shooters who take an interest in the lead shot usage implications. The last thing we need is for someone to legitimately argue that we are a gungho bunch of philistines who don't give two hoots about the environment and animal welfare (let alone our own). Heaven forbid that they do a survey based on the membership of one of the biggest and most popular UK shooting forums and discover that only 0.17% of shooters have any interest in the matter whatsoever.

 

Anyone want to have a guess when Dr Pain will release her follow up to that mentioned in post #357. I'll bet it'll be before the LAG report sees the light of day.

 

 

 

 

[utectok]

Join SACS

http://www.sacs.org.uk/ cheaper than basc and honest bunch of guys doing good stuff

Edited August 18, 2013 by utectok

[-Mongrel-]

...and a tenth of the political force. I have NEVER heard SACS mentioned on the radio, TV or in the daily press. Definitely not the voice of shooting IMO.

[Kes]

...and a tenth of the political force. I have NEVER heard SACS mentioned on the radio, TV or in the daily press. Definitely not the voice of shooting IMO.

Surely though this misses the point.

Retaining lead as a shot is what we are talking about, not which is the best shooting organisation. We all have our own views on who represents us well.

 

In truth, we need just one organisation to represent shooting in this country - it would have much more weight.

[JustJon]

Surely though this misses the point.

Retaining lead as a shot is what we are talking about, not which is the best shooting organisation. We all have our own views on who represents us well.

 

In truth, we need just one organisation to represent shooting in this country - it would have much more weight.

I thought the organisations where all members of an umbrella organisation supporting where joint opinion was obvious ?

 

Or am I thinking of something else political...

 

If not, they should have that setup - we're never going to all support on group but if BASC, CA, SACS, CPSA all paid into an umbrella political lobby then it would surely be able to build influence and achieve what WE (the punters) are asking for?

[-Mongrel-]

Surely though this misses the point.

Retaining lead as a shot is what we are talking about, not which is the best shooting organisation. We all have our own views on who represents us well.

 

In truth, we need just one organisation to represent shooting in this country - it would have much more weight.

 

In my opinion, you are probably right in that one powerful, well funded voice would be ideal, but we don't have that. However, of the organisations that we do have, BASC is by far the best known and most vocal. You regularly hear BASC reps being quoted/interviewed, occasionally you hear of the CA, the rest just seem to sit in tha background and only serve to split up shooters into smaller groups thus hindering the large organisations.

 

Purely my opinion and I know loads are going to disagree of course, especially the BASC haters.

Edited August 18, 2013 by -Mongrel-

[Wharf Rat]

FACE is the European umbrella group for shooting organisations I seem to recall.

 

Whilst I am a member of most of the UK shooting organisations (including BASC), it still remains down to us as individuals to promote and support shooting. Any campaign trying to protect shooting is worth supporting, I don't care who organises it or what they may have done or not done in the past. BASC have got right up my nose in the past, but I am not going to cut it off to spite my face.

[David BASC]

Yes, there is FACE UK and FACE (Europe)

 

FACE UK members currentlyare:

The Association of Masters of Harriers & Beagles; Atlantic Salmon Trust; British Association for Shooting and Conservation; British Deer Society; British Falconers' Club; Countryside Alliance; Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust; Game Farmers’ Association; Hawk Board; Masters of Deer Hounds’ Association; Masters of Fox Hounds’ Association; Masters of Mink Hounds’ Association; National Gamekeepers’ Organisation; Scottish Land and Estates; St Hubert Club; Union of Country Sports Workers and the Welsh Woodcock Club

[chrispti]

Join SACS

http://www.sacs.org.uk/ cheaper than basc and honest bunch of guys doing good stuff

Like what?

[BlaserF3]

In my opinion, you are probably right in that one powerful, well funded voice would be ideal, but we don't have that. However, of the organisations that we do have, BASC is by far the best known and most vocal. You regularly hear BASC reps being quoted/interviewed, occasionally you hear of the CA, the rest just seem to sit in tha background and only serve to split up shooters into smaller groups thus hindering the large organisations.

 

Purely my opinion and I know loads are going to disagree of course, especially the BASC haters.

 

This is the umbrella body in the U.K.

 

http://www.bssc.org.uk/