have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[Salopian]

Without any doubt in my mind the major culprit in the Lead shot Duck scenario is the smaller commercial shoot. Often starting the day or finishing it with a 'bag filler' around a flight pond. Three of my friends and I who buy about four such days a year refuse to shoot these Ducks at all, because they simply are not sporting.

It is sickening to watch 3 or maybe 4 more guns who have no conscience blazing away at numerous Ducks circling a pond that they think offers food and sanctuary. It really does leave a bad taste.

I do not think BASC have shot Shooting in the foot, but I do think that the shooting associations as a whole have not defended our sport robustly enough. BASC have possibly done most in our defence, but possibly only paid lip service.

The CPSA on the other hand, the association representing the people who deposit the most Lead on land and into water by far have done nothing at all.

In fact whilst not actually condoning shooting over water and wetlands they have done nothing to advise against it. Many clayshoots present clay targets over ponds, lakes and wetlands. Also of note is that the CPSA and many grounds actually highlight the risks involved using steel shot and many grounds actually ban the use of steel shot.

[David BASC]

Same old BASC bashing rubbish from Gunsmoke , He fails to see or perhaps he ignored that fact that this is not a BASC project, but a project developed and promoted by a range of shooting organisations standing together.

 

Its a shame that so many have chosen to ignore the law in the past, and frankly put shooting in a weaker position than we would have been if compliance was high. But we have the chance now to draw a line under that and move forwards

 

The wildfowling clubs have managed to deliver on as close as damn it 100% compliance, this has been done through that part of the shooting community through:

 

Knowledge and understanding of the law

Compliance with the law

Demonstrable self-policing

 

If the same were replicated inland we will see high levels of compliance, and that is exactly what this campaign wants / needs to deliver on.

 

David

[Terry P]

David, do game dealers not have to prove where they got their birds from. If so surely it would be very easy to find out where the lead shot birds are coming from. If not perhaps they should be encouraged to do so.

[CharlieT]

David, do game dealers not have to prove where they got their birds from. If so surely it would be very easy to find out where the lead shot birds are coming from. If not perhaps they should be encouraged to do so.

You are correct in that shoots must comply with the requirement to declare to game dealers their details and who inspected the birds etc.

 

However game dealers are not required to determine what type of shot was used. Perhaps if it was a requirement that ducks offered to game dealers had to be accompanied by a signed declaration from the shoot, stating that non toxic shot was used, may help some way towards shoots self policing the matter. After all, there is nothing like having to put your name to something to focus the mind.

[al4x]

You are correct in that shoots must comply with the requirement to declare to game dealers their details and who inspected the birds etc.

 

However game dealers are not required to determine what type of shot was used. Perhaps if it was a requirement that ducks offered to game dealers had to be accompanied by a signed declaration from the shoot, stating that non toxic shot was used, may help some way towards shoots self policing the matter. After all, there is nothing like having to put your name to something to focus the mind.

 

precisely and nothing like no enforcement to make people ignore things.

[David BASC]

I think it is a joint approach that's needed to take this issue by the scruff of the neck. There is still a lack of understanding in some areas of shooting regarding the use of lead shot, hence the first phase is awareness raising of the issue.

 

Make no mistake, if we as the shooting community are not seen to be complying with the law as it stands the future of lead will be bleak -probably the quickest way to get lead shot banned is to be caught breaking the law. Once its gone its gone, all the fingerprinting, recriminations and childish accusations will be pointless, it wont be coming back.

 

So all of the shooting community has this chance, possibly a last chance, to show we can comply with the law and I agree enforcement by self policing is the way to go.

 

David

[sitsinhedges]

The Law must be obeyed but the lack of sense re this law should also be challenged.

 

Shooting at ducks away from water does no more harm than shooting at anything else.

 

Signed nevertheless.

[al4x]

The Law must be obeyed but the lack of sense re this law should also be challenged.

 

Shooting at ducks away from water does no more harm than shooting at anything else.

 

Signed nevertheless.

and on the same vein shooting pheasants over water either does harm or it doesn't

[sitsinhedges]

and on the same vein shooting pheasants over water either does harm or it doesn't

 

Obviously, that's why the scottish way of dealing with the issue makes far more sense. I'm sure people would be far more inclined to obey laws that are based on sense rather than nonsense.

I'm lucky as I shoot few ducks and was gifted a box of 32/5 ITM cartridges a couple of years ago that will last me a while at the rate I am using them. About £35 a box normally though

[Harnser]

After talking to a gun smith friend of mine I would be very reluctant to shoot steel through any of my guns . He told me that he is seeing more and more guns coming in for repair with very nasty scores in the barrels from steel shot . The majority of these guns are irreparable .

 

I would think that somebody with a very expensive English gun would baulk at shooting steel shot through it or other non toxic shot . Only one of my guns are proofed for steel and after talking to my gun smith friend I would be reluctant to shoot steel .

 

As an after thought ,wouldnt rusty steel shot be toxic to wild fowl ?

 

Harnser.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Harnser

[Terry P]

Shot 1000's of steel through my gun as have my mates that have various guns, not a bit of damage..

 

As to the traceabilty of shot ducks, if shoots have to leave their details then it must be possible to find the offending estates and bend their ear before they lose their right to use lead.

[chrispti]

How can a game keeper ensure his guns are using non toxic during the duck drives?

 

Appart from telling the guns to use it and asking to see their non toxic cartridges before the shoot/drive, its pretty unenforceable, unless they have someone physically stood behind each gun watching what cartridges they use....

 

Wouldn't it be better not to sell on the ducks in the first place..... just to be on the safe side ....

[Guest cookoff013]

i have shot 1000 steel shells a day, at £88 per k, they were too cheap to refuse. no problem here.

 

The regulations are very clear,

it states it is illegal to discharge lead shot over wetlands, on or below the high watermark, that means discharging shot at anything. so those claim they can set a clay shoot underwater pouring lead everywhere are talking out there bottom.

thats the law. it states that. read the document. it is plain and simple. it is simple, do not shoot lead at anything over wetlands or below the high watermark.

 

-the counterpoint to this, they cant inforce this, they cant moniter this either. millions of phesent are shot, unless someone shoots, shot into the ground, and a policeman or inforcer of the law is present. but then in theory, that really could be argued out in court.

 

second point,

it is illegal to use lead shot for shooting all the species listed, you know the list.

this means, it is illegal to shoot any of the species listed with lead, wherever they are, they could be in fields, macdonalds, wetlands, the pub, or anywhere, if it is in england, lead shot is not to be used.

 

the SSSI are same as the first point.- it lists them.

 

 

now for the interesting part,

if a police officer suspects that you have used lead on the species listed, he can take them, have samples taken and analysed.

however he cannot take them from a residential premises. ie, the police can force there way into your car, boat, but not your home. once the shot birds cross the door they are intouchable, and cannot be submitted for sampling or testing (i think)

[al4x]

Since when did it stop you shooting pheasants over wetlands? In England it's perfectly legal

[Guest cookoff013]

also.

 

let me give you an example of where this can fall down.

 

say i go shooting with a friend of mine, and start dropping tons of ducks. i take them, put them in the car. i use steel he uses lead.

i get stopped, and the birds get taken.

 

i have not committed an offence. however the evidence is to the contrary. say my birds got mixed up with his, again the evidence points me breaking the law.

 

however "i didnt shoot it" is hardly hard evidence in court. if the justice system is as good as i think it is, some innocent people could be prosecuted.

 

 

first of all, it is illegal to discharge a shotgun with lead shot, over high watermark, for them to argue that in court, it has to be witnessed probly by a police man, but that can be totally argued in court. no-one knows what cartridges are used by someone else.

thats a no brainer.

 

evidence is only gathered from collecting shot birds to it going in a front door, it can be any place of residence.

[Guest cookoff013]

Since when did it stop you shooting pheasants over wetlands? In England it's perfectly legal

 

the document states,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2170/pdfs/uksi_19992170_en.pdf

 

Prohibition on use of cartridges containing lead shot

3. No person shall use lead shot for the purpose of shooting with a shot gun–

(a) on or over any area below high-water mark of ordinary spring tides;

(b) on or over any site of special scientific interest included in Schedule 1 to these

Regulations; or

© any wild bird included in Schedule 2 to these Regulations.

[bicykillgaz]

How can a game keeper ensure his guns are using non toxic during the duck drives?

 

 

Could the shoot not provide the steel cartridges if they have a duck drive? If its usually the last drive can't the keeper get the guns to unload and hand them some suitable steel loads before the drive starts. What's a 500-1000 steel carts cost split between say 10 guns over the course of a season, can't be much and far better than facing a ban.

[chrispti]

Could the shoot not provide the steel cartridges if they have a duck drive? If its usually the last drive can't the keeper get the guns to unload and hand them some suitable steel loads before the drive starts. What's a 500-1000 steel carts cost split between say 10 guns over the course of a season, can't be much and far better than facing a ban.

No good if the guns are shooting their best Purdy side by sides...... Would need to be bismuth really.... and that's not cheap !!

Edited July 2, 2013 by chrispti

[anser2]

If a gun can afford a days driven game , tip the keeper £30 quid , plus the cost of drinks afterwards inm the pub ,then the cost of a box of non toxic shoot for a duck flight at the end of the day is a small % of the overall costs for a days shooting.

[Guest cookoff013]

same if you can afford a purdy, or H&H and 10,000 cartridges a season.

 

they can afford it,

[chrispti]

No excuse then....

[Piebob]

 

the document states,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2170/pdfs/uksi_19992170_en.pdf

 

Prohibition on use of cartridges containing lead shot

3. No person shall use lead shot for the purpose of shooting with a shot gun–

(a) on or over any area below high-water mark of ordinary spring tides;

( B) on or over any site of special scientific interest included in Schedule 1 to these

Regulations; or

© any wild bird included in Schedule 2 to these Regulations.

 

Exactly. So you're disproving your earlier point, and proving Al4x's point. Nowhere above does it says that you cannot shoot pheasants over wetlands (in England), so clay grounds are also perfectly legal allowing / using lead over, say, ponds.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Piebob

[Guest cookoff013]

http://www.unep-aewa.org/surveys/hunting_and_trade/brochure_on_lead_shot_scotland.pdf

 

this is scotland, it has a definition of some of the words.

 

it actually states what a wetland is, and a description of a pond. it is also advised to use nontoxic shot for pheasents over ponds. and when some farmland is flooded.

[al4x]

http://www.unep-aewa.org/surveys/hunting_and_trade/brochure_on_lead_shot_scotland.pdf

 

this is scotland, it has a definition of some of the words.

 

it actually states what a wetland is, and a description of a pond. it is also advised to use nontoxic shot for pheasents over ponds. and when some farmland is flooded.

 

 

Scotland isn't implicated in this debacle as you can shoot ducks inland with lead unlike England, their law makes sense ours makes sense if you want to enforce it but no one does.

[berniebear]

iv only read parts of this thread but surely ducks with lead shot in them that are for sale in a butchers shop are 100% traceable, I went on a meat hygiene course so we could still sell pheasants to the game dealer as they were supposed to take your meat hygiene number so it was all traceable, but to be honest I don't think iv ever been asked for it.