have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[Piebob]

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.

 

I'm fully aware of the lead shot laws in both Scotland and England.

 

And it is not advice as per my highlight in your post above - it is law in Scotland, and I fully comply with it. But I think you need to re-read the documents you have quoted for further clarity, as you're posting some wrong information in this thread - as highlighted above for Scotland and also with regards to shooting clays or pheasants over ponds in England.

[Dee Wildfowler]

My club was provided with some steel shot cartridges to try in the early 90s, they were American and they were ****. Since the introduction of the lead shot ban, cartridge manufacturers have worked hard to produce some good quality steel shot cartridges. I've used them and they kill very well, provided you reduce your range to a maximum of 40 yards, above that and a clean kill is uncertain.

 

There are some issues with steel shot:

1: They can cause damage in non-steel proofed guns i.e. older English guns.

2. There is the potential for ricochets from water, stones or just hard ground.

3. Many land owners won't allow steel in woodland because the pellets can damage the saw during felling and the harvested wood will have a lower value with pellets in it.

4. Steel cartridges need plastic wads which will take years to break down and are a hazard to grazing cattle and sheep.

 

For coastal shooting they are a good replacement for lead but they have a more limited use inland.

 

John

[mudpatten]

Truly stunning comments John.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue surrounding the NTX legislation, the fact is that the shooting community has been placed in a position of trust by the goverment. A significant proportion of that community has systematically abused that trust and we are now going to have to pay the piper for that abuse.

 

For someone in your position to come along at this stage in the national debate when lead has to face critiscism from a number of directions with a whole list of reasons why steel shot is problematic is incomprehensible.

 

What are you now saying? That steel is an unsuitable alternative?

 

If, God forbid, lead goes, the above comments of yours point clearly towards only one viable conclusion. Ban shooting altogether.

 

What exactly is your strategy in this issue? To me you seem to be wandering aimlessly with no strategy in mind at all.

[CharlieT]

Mudpatten

 

I did not read John's comments as such.

 

He actually says that steel kills well at ranges up to 40 yds and when used for costal shooting are a good replacement.

 

His other comments are indeed valid as far as shooting as a whole is concerned.

For many of us who shoot driven game and use older guns steel would be a no go for all the reasons John quotes. At the moment it's no hardship to use a suitable alternative when shooting duck as a last drive. However, at present there is just no suitable alternative to lead on high bird shoots or where land management concerns are taken into account. On our little shoot for example using non toxic shot would virtually double the cost of a day for our guns.

[Dee Wildfowler]

Nick,

 

I said that steel does work but its not a universal replacement for lead. There is an issue with current compliance otherwise DEFRA wouldn't be sampling duck and finding a high proportion of them shot with lead. As the Food Standards Agency requires an audit trail for all types of game meat going into the human food it would be easy to establish who the real transgressors are rather than punish all shooters by banning the use of lead, which may happen if the shooting community doesn't sort itself out.

 

So my strategy is find and deal with those who are breaking the law and bringing the sport into disrepute. If nothing is done then the pressure to ban lead will continue. A total ban on lead will not stop shooting because there are viable alternatives but they are either very costly or, like steel, have some drawbacks. Better to stop the misuse of lead, however that has to be done and no matter what short term trouble that might cause. The threat is real and our response must be uncompromising.

 

John

[mudpatten]

Agreed.

 

The problem is that this whole debate is as much about perception as it is about fact. It`s about the fact that lead is a toxic heavy metal and it`s about the fact that our opponents will use any information, and twist it where it does`nt quite fit, to their own advantage.

 

Lets imagine the unthinkable that lead is holed below the waterline and is sinking fast. Lets imagine that I`m an anti and I "quote" John observations.

 

1) Clean kills are uncertain with steel.

 

2)Steel shot damage guns.

 

3) Steel is inherently dangerous.

 

4) Landowners won`t allow it`s use in woodland.

 

5) Plastic wads are eco unfriendly.

 

I`m not sure about the logic of the final comment about the use of steel is ok on the foreshore, but not inland. I`ll leave that to one side because lead is not yet dead and I don`t want to assist in it`s demise.

 

Were I that anti I would say to 1),steel shot is inhumane so, as an animal welfare issue, lets ban shooting., 2)Who cares, but if there is a risk of 3rd party injury then ban its use.3)It`s dangerous, ban it.4) Don`t shoot in the woods (Thats pheasant shooting done away with then.) 5) All shooters are eco unfriendly but lets ban plastic wads along with the steel shot itself.

 

To me, Johns argument contains many more points which will be used to attack us than ever it does in our defense. the fact that steel shot does indeed have issues, is of no concern to our opponents whatsoever and it would be insanity to build a case for the retention of lead upon the shortcomings of steel.

Edited July 3, 2013 by mudpatten

[anser2]

Given the right combination of shell, load , pellet size steel will kill cleanly to 50 yards with no problem. The main problem is does the shooter have the skill to place the shot in the right place to kill the bird cleanly.

[David BASC]

The wrong shot / skill combination is probably a far bigger issue than the type of shot used.

 

One of the biggest issues with any of the non-lead shot is that they all have ballistic properties that are slightly different, so unless shooters accept and understand this and compensate accordingly, pattern their guns etc, then they will experience in field problems.

 

Its fair to say steel shot in particular has come on a long way over the past 10 years.

 

I am afraid the cost of the alternatives to lead will never fall to current lead shot levels , apart from steel, and even the price of that is volatile.

 

There are 2 types of steel shot standard steel can be shot through nito proofed guns, Super steel can only be shot through steel proof guns, never the less older guns could experience damage at the choke with standard steel.

 

Scoring should not be an issue if the protective wad maintains its integrity

 

All shot is capable of ricochet. In 18 years of managing shooting insurance claims I have never has a single claim for steel ricochet, I have had loads of claims from lead shot ricochet off water, paths, trees

 

If people would shoot birds with sky round them, the timber would not get any shot in it, it would also reduce shooting related insurance claims by about 40%.

 

In the same time period I have never has a claim for damage to livestock from plastic wads, indeed the cartridge manufactures do their own tests to try and ensure wads present a very low risk to livestock. I am afraid to say though that shooters leaving wheat (feed) unguarded accounts for many £thousands of claims every year. If shoots would keep their feed secure it would reduce claims by a further 15-20%

 

David

[Darno]

Not sure i understand the law? Are you allowed to fish using lead weights in the same water ways as you shoot over??

[bostonmick]

I smile when I hear all this rubbish talked about lead shot and the danger of eating birds killed with this,being brought up on a farm in Ireland we ate what was shot most of the time,all generations of my family lived to their mid eighties so if that is what lead poisoning does for you then bring it on. I wonder how many people have died from eating fresh shot game compared to factory raised animals that are full of chemicals,its a pity we don't have an organisation that speaks up for the countryside and all its customs that have been the core of our living for hundreds of years.we pay our money into various organisations which all seem to just pander to the anti's every whim.cigarettes,alcohol,drugs,kill thousands of people every year yet nothing is said about banning any of them .I once stopped at a garage to fill up with diesel in a town on route when I asked for directions the lady behind the counter said why would anyone want to go there its just fields I said clay pigeon shoot to which she informed me that I was a cruel and wicked man and she was against all the bloodsports,i just smiled to myself and left.but on a serious note its people like her that are being listened to and affecting our sport.

[Albertan_J]

Why doesn't basc lobby for a change in the law to mirror Scotland? Too many hypocrites when it comes to this issue. People will continue to shoot a duck with lead then a pheasant after whilst rough shooting or on a driven day 9 times out of 10 regardless of what they say on here or on a petition. The law is ridiculous simple as that until its changed it will forever be broken inland

[chrispti]

Not sure i understand the law? Are you allowed to fish using lead weights in the same water ways as you shoot over??

in the sea, yes, but then you reel in your lead weight when your finnished. Even if you lost it, the chances of a duck ingesting a large lead weight is VERY slim.

Edited July 3, 2013 by chrispti

[Terry P]

Why doesn't basc lobby for a change in the law to mirror Scotland? Too many hypocrites when it comes to this issue. People will continue to shoot a duck with lead then a pheasant after whilst rough shooting or on a driven day 9 times out of 10 regardless of what they say on here or on a petition. The law is ridiculous simple as that until its changed it will forever be broken inland

Not if its banned

[mudpatten]

The main drawback with the "lobby for change" concept is this.

 

Once you open the door to a review and subsequent amendment to the law it gives our opponents the opportunity to stick their foot in it and call for a far more radical change. Apart from any other political considerations, this process is likely to take some time, possibly years, and we might find ourselves in the position of the whole issue being up in the air legally, and we suddenly find ourselves with a Labour government with an urban based agenda totally unsympathetic to the countryside.

[David BASC]

We need to get over the noncompliance hurdle before we can make any significant effort to review the current law with a view to changing it in any way. If we can’t show the shooting community is capable of sticking to the current law there will be little faith in us sticking to any changes.

 

David

[motty]

We need to get over the noncompliance hurdle before we can make any significant effort to review the current law with a view to changing it in any way. If we can’t show the shooting community is capable of sticking to the current law there will be little faith in us sticking to any changes.

 

David

But that is exactly the reason why the law is broken in the first place, because it's so ridiculous! The whole of the UK should have had the same laws, and common sense should have been prevailed.

[David BASC]

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but just because some feel the law is ridiculous is not an excuse for breaking it. Breaking the law just because a person does not think it’s a worthy law is not the way to get it changed.

[Albertan_J]

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but just because some feel the law is ridiculous is not an excuse for breaking it. Breaking the law just because a person does not think it’s a worthy law is not the way to get it changed.

David how many otherwise law abiding citizens speed? That is what you are up against with the main difference being nobody officially polices the ban away from the foreshore.

[David BASC]

I take your point, and self-policing within the wildfowling community has shown all how easy it is to stick to the law.

 

I wonder if those who flout the law realise that if a syndicate gun, club member, shooting guest or client uses lead shot in a way that is prohibited, the person who "allowed" him or her to do so would also be open to prosecution.

 

A landowner, shoot organiser etc knowing somebody is using lead, or suspecting that lead is being or even might be used, and doing nothing about it, might well be open to prosecution.

 

The fine, I believe, is £1000

 

David

Edited July 4, 2013 by David BASC

[motty]

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but just because some feel the law is ridiculous is not an excuse for breaking it. Breaking the law just because a person does not think it’s a worthy law is not the way to get it changed.

I personally comply with the daft, current law. I have shot with people who have killed geese on stubbles using lead. Did i feel slightly uneasy about it? Maybe. Did i think they were wrong? Not really.

In my opinion, when Scotland had their lead laws introduced (2004?), BASC should have tried to get the English laws altered to match them.

[wymberley]

The main drawback with the "lobby for change" concept is this.

 

Once you open the door to a review and subsequent amendment to the law it gives our opponents the opportunity to stick their foot in it and call for a far more radical change. Apart from any other political considerations, this process is likely to take some time, possibly years, and we might find ourselves in the position of the whole issue being up in the air legally, and we suddenly find ourselves with a Labour government with an urban based agenda totally unsympathetic to the countryside.

One interpretation of this is that you say we should all lie down and be 'walked all over' by legislation that is patently nonsensical. Put another way, as we lost this one battle, you're happy to sue for surrender terms in the war.

[mudpatten]

Another interpretation might be to heed the words of the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Su.

 

"Only pick fights that you can be sure of winning."

 

Once this issue reaches the point of open Parliamentary debate, we lose all control of it. It is then in the lap of the gods and utterly subject to political whim.

 

You might wish to advocate blindly "fighting", just to be seen to be having a fight for it`s own sake. My personal preference, and I don`t work for BASC, is to carefully pick the ground of my own choosing.

 

To extend the military analogy. I want the sun behind me, a full supply of arrows, and the enemy charging uphill through thick mud.

 

In your battle plan your troops have lost cohesion and become mutinous, all discipline has collapsed and they are doing what THEY want because the rules are "stupd". Your shield wall has collapsed and half of your left wing is an undisciplined rabble running pell mell down the hill.

 

It`s 1066 all over again and the flawed strategy that you propose will lead to a seismic defeat for shooting.

[al4x]

you could look at it another way mudpattern, what would be the point of a survey of what duck were shot with in Scotland. This issue doesn't crop up as the law makes sense and it has to be self administered as its nigh on impossible to check up on.

 

we get a law that doesn't make sense, a shooting organisation we really have no idea if it is genuinely defending lead or going through the motions due to previous very bad PR, its far from clear cut and the fact is they have it all set to blame it on shooters to protect their income. When their advisors were saying its done and buried and how do we make it look like we have fought its very hard to believe much at the moment.

[David BASC]

_{I am not clear on the point you are trying to make Al4x.}

 

_{The law came in after over 10 years fighting and resistance in the face of threats for complete ban on lead shot. Before the current ban there was a period of voluntary restraint. Good, bad, it’s the law and shooters have to comply. Many do some don’t, that’s a matter of fact.}

 

_{It’s those who choose to break the law or who claim they are ignorant of the law that are causing the problem – it is as simple as that. Trying to lay the blame at BASC’s door or infer this is just a PR exercise is wrong and missing the point completely}

 

_{Get compliance up and then we have an opportunity to move forwards, but ignore the law and with the resultant low compliance we are in a very weak position, and there is every chance lead will be banned.}

 

_{The future of lead shot is in the hands of shooters.}

 

 

 

[eyeglass]

There is no such thing as steel-shot proof

 

There is no such thing as lead-shot proof

 

Gun proof is a test of the amount of pressure the barrels can take.

 

It is not a test or proof of the shot (pellets) that you fire down the barrel.

 

It is not a test of the barrel walls resistance to damage from the shot that is fired down them.

 

The reason that there is no such thing as lead shot proof is that lead cannot, repeat cannot damage the walls of your gun. That is why fibre wads are used with lead. Lead shot can be in direct contact with the barrel walls of your gun without any problem whatsoever.

 

If steel shot comes into contact with the barrel walls of your gun, it is a write-off.

Steel shot can and does come into contact with the barrel walls of your gun. The forcing cone is the most common part of the barrel where this takes place. It can also carve deep tram-lines in full length of the barrel wall.

 

It only takes one cartridge out of 1000 to ruin your gun and its value, and take it out of proof.

 

Steel shot can and will get ahead of the cup that it is contained in. Lead shot can and will get ahead of the cup it is contained in. When that happens with lead shot it is called leading and is cleaned off after shooting.

 

When that happens with steel it is the barrels that are cleaned off and you need new ones at around £1,000 at the cheapest.

 

You can verify the comment above by talking to the London & Birmingham proof houses.

 

 

And btw there is no evidence that England is failing to comply with the restrictions on lead. The WWT/BASC 2010 report on Compliance has been shown to be wrong in its conclusions – period. All the comment on this post is talking rumour and anecdote. None of which can prove anything and would not stand up in court of law. It seems to come from the wildfowlers. They seem to have it in for the 95% of shooters who do not shoot wildfowl.

 

Imagine if the boot was on the other foot and the 95% got upset with the wildfowler allegations against the rest of shooting.