have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[gunsmoke]

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.

 

 

 

Thank you eyeclass at last one guy that understand what is going on.

 

The fact is that the so call prove of non-compiance is from BASC members. BASC serveyed its members twice to get a result.

 

So the fact is is not game shooting we should be point the finger at but BASC members would report to a survey that when in th the WWT report. If they are game shooting or wildfowler I do not know.

[-Mongrel-]

Dunno about all of the finer points, I DO know that we came out of tonights Countryfile in a REALLY bad light, compliance or not won't matter with a couple more prime time slaughterings. Lead will be banned...end of.

[David BASC]

So Gunsmoke, may I ask you the same question please:

But most importantly, please tell us all how your message above changes the simple fact that the law on the use of lead shot is clear, and that a senior manager of WWT has today been on TV saying that he welcomes the push on compliance by the shooting organisations, and that if compliance is shown to be on the increase there will be no need for a ban?

 

Are you supporting the push on compliance?

Edited July 7, 2013 by David BASC

[mudpatten]

It would seem that part of Eyeglasses agenda is to attempt to place blame for much of our current problem back onto the wildfowling community.

 

In section 9 of his post relating to the WWT Game Dealers survey it clearly states, without any evidence whatsoever, that coastal wildfowlers actually do supply lots of illegally shot birds to the commercial market whilst the final section on post mortem examination jumps to the idiotic conclusion that, if it`s a teal or a widgeon, it must have been shot by a wildfowler!

 

Whilst we`re talking about poorly thought through arguments I have to say that I was`nt very impressed with the comments on Countryfile from the senior wildfowler from, of all clubs, the Dee WA.

 

His sole contribution to the debate was to emphasise the alleged ineffectiveness of steel by stating that "it goes right through the bird without killing them."

 

There are a whole raft of issues with steel, but if you read the "What steel" thread in the fowling section of this forum you`ll get varying opinions on different brands fo ammo, but none are saying that the better stuff does`nt work.

 

Indeed many members of that club use a particular brand of steel cartridge, of which the one he illustrated was not an example, which work especially well and are much sought after. I would have hoped that we might have ended up with a more capable representative on a national tv debate about a very sensitive subject. It would be interesting to know how he ended up in front of a camera.

 

It was very encouraging to see Richard Ali from BASC firmly standing his ground at the end of the assasination, sorry BBC, "unbiased report", by emphasising the point that this is entirely about compliance. the law is in place and all we need to do is observe it and the future of lead will be safe. Which simple fact makes the twisted logic of Gunsmoke and Eyeglass all the more confusing. The issue is simply not about those points about which they constantly bang on. It`s about observing the law. It really is as simple as that!

[hifly]

This topic reminds me of the a bloke in a gunsmiths winging about the effectivness of steel shot and how rubbish it was, no use at all was his words but he was not prepared to have 36 grams of number 3 fired at his landrover from 50 yards to see just how rubbish they were.

I have used steel since the ban was introduced and kill as many birds now as before just have to adjust a bit with shot size. I load my own goose shells with 5mm steel and that will drop anything I wish to shot at on the foreshore.

I am also a Keeper and make sure that the guns who shot on our estate use non-toxic for all wildfowl, but I am afraid that a lot of shoots don't ! so I think it is a case of when and not if we get banned from using lead, you will then see steel loads come on in leaps and bounds

[Guest cookoff013]

This topic reminds me of the a bloke in a gunsmiths winging about the effectivness of steel shot and how rubbish it was, no use at all was his words but he was not prepared to have 36 grams of number 3 fired at his landrover from 50 yards to see just how rubbish they were.

I have used steel since the ban was introduced and kill as many birds now as before just have to adjust a bit with shot size. I load my own goose shells with 5mm steel and that will drop anything I wish to shot at on the foreshore.

I am also a Keeper and make sure that the guns who shot on our estate use non-toxic for all wildfowl, but I am afraid that a lot of shoots don't ! so I think it is a case of when and not if we get banned from using lead, you will then see steel loads come on in leaps and bounds

 

 

not at the current CIP regulations.

[mudpatten]

Just to make the point that, as we saw with Eleys and the sale of Gyttorps in this country, these are regulations rather than law, and as the perameters change there is every reason to believe that even more effective steel cartridges are in the offing.

[al4x]

The interesting thing on this high level of non compliance is it seems it is based on 45 people who answered a BASC questionaire

[David BASC]

Have you read the DEFRA report? It was 45% not 45 people.....

[Terry P]

Like Nick I to was disappointed by the Dee Fowler slagging off steel, and moaning that although they use it, they basically don't like it. I'm perfectly happy using steel on the foreshore as are most of the fowlers I know.

As already stated WWT dude said if compliance increases he can see no reason for lead to be banned.( Do I trust him, well that's another matter).

[B B]

Like Nick I to was disappointed by the Dee Fowler slagging off steel, and moaning that although they use it, they basically don't like it. I'm perfectly happy using steel on the foreshore as are most of the fowlers I know.

As already stated WWT dude said if compliance increases he can see no reason for lead to be banned.( Do I trust him, well that's another matter).

I agree a lot of shooters simply have never accepted steel shot from day one, if the UK was under SAMI steel shot guidance rather than the restrictive CIP steel guidance we would get to import ort produce decent performing steel shot ammunition like our American counterparts have acces to over the pond. I believe if this came about a natural move to steel would take place over here as happened over there.

[Terry P]

I agree a lot of shooters simply have never accepted steel shot from day one, if the UK was under SAMI steel shot guidance rather than the restrictive CIP steel guidance we would get to import ort produce decent performing steel shot ammunition like our American counterparts have acces to over the pond. I believe if this came about a natural move to steel would take place over here as happened over there.

We can only hope so fella. But I'm sure I read somewhere that the CIPS reg's are just some kind of gentle mans agreement with the cartridge companies and not actually law, eley mentioned this in the info about their lightning shells. Perhaps its time to shove the gentle mans agreement.

[mudpatten]

Just to clarify what I wrote in an earlier post regarding steel shot cartridges and the CIP.

 

Gyttorp are a Swedish cartridge maker. Sweden is not a signatory to the CIP. It`s cartridges are available, quite lawfully, in the UK and are loaded to figures outside of the current CIP regs.

 

They are an especially effective steel cartridge.

 

The source of their supply is close to the Dee Estuary and they are apparently very popular with members of the Dee WA which is why I was so disappointed to hear the comments from the Dee WA member regarding the alleged shortcomings of steel. Perhaps he should have spoken to some other Dee club members before going off on his own particularly destructive tangent.

 

Perhaps Dee Wildfowler can explain how the BBC managed to find someone who propounded that steel did not work in a programme about the possible banning of lead. It certainly looked as if he was saying, if you ban lead and steel is inhumane, you might as well ban all shooting.

 

Really, really helpful! Not!!

Edited July 9, 2013 by mudpatten

[gunsmoke]

The fact that if steel shot comes into contact with the barrels it can cause damage is not ,I am afraid, as reason to ignore the law nor will it in any way make any difference to those who want to see lead banned.

 

The last survey on compliance was in 2 parts.

 

Firstly a survey of duck purchased from butchers, game dealers and other outlets. We checked the sampling protocol and the suggestions made by some that a large number of the ducks samples came from Scotland or overseas were unfounded.

The chemical analysis to test for lead was a standard lab test and the results of this analysis were perfectly valid.

 

The second part was a survey of shooters and shoot managers by BASC and the CLA. Here we saw a significant number saying they did not always comply with the law, all be it for a variety of reasons such as incomplete understanding of the detail of the law, lack of faith in alternatives and so on.

 

The research was also checked over by a third party responsible to DEFRA for checking the validity of the work.

 

There is indeed a very severe risk that is compliance is low, then we will see further restrictions or a ban on lead shot regardless of what alternatives are available

 

This is a very serious situation which is exactly what all the main shooting organisations and others are standing as one on the compliance issues.

 

So if we want to keep lead for our shorter chambered guns we know what we all need to do.

 

David

 

I'm sorry about bring this up again but at the time of the survey it was legal to shoot duck in Scotland, NI and part of the EU.

 

The BASC survey is only hearsay. NOT PROOF of non-compliance.

 

I now have the Submmission document for the steering group on lead shot to the minister and it clearly shows that the BASC and WWT where on the steering group, got paid for the work they did on the compliance report and then both of them sat on the committee then reviewed the report. It sinks!

 

How is all this saving lead shot?

 

What are BASC doing to stop a wider ban on lead shot?

 

Are you really working in the interests of your members?

 

I'm not going down with out a fight. Which is really what you should be doing.

[gunsmoke]

Have you read the DEFRA report? It was 45% not 45 people.....

 

Misleading, it was the BASC survey that came up with the 45%. and its hearsay. you had to do the survey twice as you did not get enough reply on the frist one.

 

45% out of 300 reply 135 people out of a membership of 120,000.

 

You cannot fight the WWT on lead compliance and the duck survey becaue you [basc] where a part of the set up. both of you got tax payer money to work on the report.

 

I ask once again hopwmust did BASC get paid from the WWT to take part in the scam?

[Big Mat]

 

Misleading, it was the BASC survey that came up with the 45%. and its hearsay. you had to do the survey twice as you did not get enough reply on the frist one.

 

45% out of 300 reply 135 people out of a membership of 120,000.

 

You cannot fight the WWT on lead compliance and the duck survey becaue you [basc] where a part of the set up. both of you got tax payer money to work on the report.

 

I ask once again hopwmust did BASC get paid from the WWT to take part in the scam?

 

WIll you give it a rest. All we ever see from you is this rubbish and its always back to how much BASC got paid.

 

How about you get over what happened and come up with a way of progressing and protecting our sport.

[Scully]

 

Misleading, it was the BASC survey that came up with the 45%. and its hearsay. you had to do the survey twice as you did not get enough reply on the frist one.

 

45% out of 300 reply 135 people out of a membership of 120,000.

 

 

You have to admit,if the above is true,the findings are hardly conclusive.

[David BASC]

The aim of the BASC study was to determine awareness, understanding, attitudes and behaviour with respect to the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot)(England) Regulations 1999 within the shooting community.

 

We sent the survey to a random sample of 3000 members and then sent a reminder to the non-responders. We were paid from the pot of money released to WWT by DEFRA for the costs of the mailing, envelopes printing and the time our staff took to enter the data and generate the report.

 

The survey of BASC members showed that in some cases there was a lack of understanding and or acceptance. Only around 4% said they never complied with the law, but 41% said they sometimes failed to comply.

 

This gave a clear indication that in some cases there was noncompliance, typically due to a lack of understanding about the law, and a lack of acceptance that it needed to be complied with.

 

The surveys members said that they needed more information on the laws and more information about the alternatives to lead and more enforcement by the shoot organisers/ managers to help compliance.

 

Understandably then, one of the key recommendations of the final report to DEFRA was to do more to raise awareness of the law and of the ballistic performances and differences of the alternatives as a way to increasing compliance.

 

This has been delivered by BASC over the last three years through articles in our own mag, the sporting press and the web site.

 

We now see the next phase of this awareness raising in the form of the cross organisational campaign.

 

A couple of points…

 

Firstly, if the survey of BASC members and for that matter the WWT survey of ducks shot with lead, had both come back saying 95%+ of BASC members complied with the law and 95%+ of the ducks sampled did not have any lead shot in them…would you be so vociferous in saying the surveys were are wrong?

 

Secondly, have you not realised that we have been given a chance to show we can self regulate and prevent any further restrictions on lead shot if we can be seen to comply with the law? This is THE important issue which is why we must all do all we can to make sure shooters comply.

 

David

 

 

 

[eyeglass]

We now see the David/BASC dancing to a very different tune today – now only 4% may not have complied with the Lead restrictions. I can remember him ridiculing the claim that it was only around 2% made in the AC paper that GUMSMOKE put on P/W only months ago. At that time he was firmly behind 45% that BASC insisted upon.

 

I copy below an email that has been doing the rounds and an attachment that went with it. Judge for yourselves. BASC will no doubt wish to comment. They appear to be in bed with the WWT to an extent well beyond what anyone thought and they take their orders from the WWT.

 

It also seems that they may have been trying to obstruct and influence DEFRA freedom of information replys to people trying to get to the bottom of this.

 

CHECK OUT THE ATTACHED DEFRA SUBMISSION DOC

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

SHOT GUN WEDDING PART II – THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH

 

The document attached above is an important one, obtained by tedious probing of DEFRA’s management of the BASC/WWT 2010 report on Compliance. It indicates the collaboration, fluffing and bluffing that has manipulated shooting into the mess we now witness.

 

The document was written as a ‘submission’ to DEFRA Ministers to seek approval for publication of: - CR0411 - Report to Defra from the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust with contribution from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation July 2010

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075

 

However, the document omitted key facts. It failed to mention the fact that the WWT could not account for the provenance of the birds tested.

 

It failed to say that the WWT did not know the age of the carcasses i.e. had they been stored frozen for 1 year or 5 years (standard meat trade practice),

 

The WWT did not know where or when they had been shot.

 

The submission document failed to say that 96% of the birds tested were purchased as ‘oven ready’, further compounding any chance of providing reliable data for the WWT to base their subsequent allegations upon.

 

Thus, the Ministers were in fact mislead into making the wrong decision and published an erroneous document that maligned the shooting public.

 

The Ministers did not read the actual report that you will find on the web-link above. They rely upon their officials in the relevant departments to advise them, accurately and honestly. In this particular case besides the head of department Mr Tim Andrews (Biodiversity), and another key figure, the Senior Scientific Advisor, would bear responsibility for this submission document. I will return to the SSA further on.

 

The WWT were not in possession of the data listed as ‘omitted’ above. Thus in making the accusations against the shooting public that they are on record of making, the WWT must be lying. They cannot claim that they were unaware of the deficiency of data as described above. BASC appears to be complicit in all of this.

 

It should be born in mind that in general terms there is an almost total lack of any UK research indicating any existence of impact or adverse effect, from the use of lead ammunition, upon waterfowl, reared game, or wild game. Nor is there any evidence of any effect upon the human food chain. There are a couple of papers that might be offered from the UK Conservation NGO industry, but they are compromised by their agenda. Rather in the manner of CRO411.

 

Furthermore, the Countryside Alliance and (surprisingly) BASC have both published on the front page of their websites to the effect that there is no evidence against lead ammunition at all.

 

When reading the attached ‘submission document you might wish to note the mix of weasel wording, such as ‘unnecessary mortality’. Reference to the LAG as policy and lawmaker. ‘high level of non-compliance’ and the use of the word ‘reported’ in a most creative manner.

 

You will note reference to a ‘steering Group’, which has acted as judge and jury in the matter. It will be noted that half of the c.c. list at the end of the document has been redacted. Many of the redacted names were of course on the ‘Steering Group’.

 

The Steering Group was listed to me in a previous DEFRA letter as the following: -

 

Tim Andrews (Wild Birds Policy Advisor, Defra)

Senior Scientific Advisor (Defra)

Policy Advisor (Defra)

Policy Officer (Defra)

Ian Carter (Ornithologist, Natural England)

Dr. Alison Loram (Senior Research Officer, BASC)

Dr. John Harradine (Director of Research, BASC)

Dr. Ruth Cromie (Head of Wildlife Health, WWT)

 

 

DEFRA have gone to strenuous effort to resist revealing the identity of the Senior Scientific Advisor (Defra). They have point blank refused. They have also point blank refused to reveal the identity of the redacted names on the c.c. list. It could be that the model they are following in this is the NHS and CQC. DEFRA should note the failure of that model.

 

The identity of the Senior Scientific Advisor is required to establish his/her objectivity and competence is passing this submission document as must have happened and in accepting the conclusions of the original WWT/BASC report as viable.

 

Alternatively, his/her view were ignored or overridden by other interests that were prejudicial to shooting. This same person may now be in an influential position with regards to the management of the LAG and its report. He/she may be sitting in on meetings at the LAG. It is therefore only right that we know who we are dealing with, in view of what is at stake.

 

The Shooting public is one of the most law abiding and law enshrined groups in the land. To be accused of breaking the law on false evidence traduces the innocent in a most invidious manner. A select committee will find this shocking.

 

I will shortly be formally asking Owen Paterson MP Minister of DEFRA to reveal the identity of all of the redacted names.

 

Meanwhile I ask those in receipt of this round robin to take the trouble to give a close reading to the attached document and take the trouble to read the WWT/BASC 2010 by clicking on the link to it.

 

 

 

 

RFI 5495-96 Annex-submission.pdf

[David BASC]

The figures are all in the report- 4% said they never used alternatives, 41% said they sometimes did not – making 45% in total - are you questioning this?

 

There is nothing new in what you have posted.

 

It fails yet again to do anything to help the situation that we are in NOW.

 

There is a concerted campaign to achieve a total ban on lead shot. It is directed by powerful organisations with considerable financial and political resources. Although the current government has no desire to ban lead, politicians will be swayed by evidence and public opinion.

 

.At present there is no evidence to suggest that existing legislation is inadequate – if it is observed. And that’s the problem; enforcement is difficult and is largely in our own hands and at the moment we are not handling it well.

 

On the issue of compliance we are extremely vulnerable. Provided we abide by the restrictions there is little immediate threat. But any lapse lays us wide open to claims that the law doesn’t work; that a partial ban is unenforceable and that the only solution is a total ban.

 

David

[Scully]

 

 

 

 

Firstly, if the survey of BASC members and for that matter the WWT survey of ducks shot with lead, had both come back saying 95%+ of BASC members complied with the law and 95%+ of the ducks sampled did not have any lead shot in them…would you be so vociferous in saying the surveys were are wrong?

 

 

 

 

 

You're probably right David,but would those in opposition have settled for calling a survey which revealed 95% of 135 people responding from a membership of 120,000 as conclusive evidence of compliance of the remaining membership?

[David BASC]

I cant answer that of course- but if more monitoring takes palce this season - we may find out!

[chrispti]

.

Edited July 11, 2013 by chrispti

[gunsmoke]

We now see the David/BASC dancing to a very different tune today – now only 4% may not have complied with the Lead restrictions. I can remember him ridiculing the claim that it was only around 2% made in the AC paper that GUMSMOKE put on P/W only months ago. At that time he was firmly behind 45% that BASC insisted upon.

 

I copy below an email that has been doing the rounds and an attachment that went with it. Judge for yourselves. BASC will no doubt wish to comment. They appear to be in bed with the WWT to an extent well beyond what anyone thought and they take their orders from the WWT.

 

It also seems that they may have been trying to obstruct and influence DEFRA freedom of information replys to people trying to get to the bottom of this.

 

CHECK OUT THE ATTACHED DEFRA SUBMISSION DOC

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

SHOT GUN WEDDING PART II – THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH

 

The document attached above is an important one, obtained by tedious probing of DEFRA’s management of the BASC/WWT 2010 report on Compliance. It indicates the collaboration, fluffing and bluffing that has manipulated shooting into the mess we now witness.

 

The document was written as a ‘submission’ to DEFRA Ministers to seek approval for publication of: - CR0411 - Report to Defra from the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust with contribution from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation July 2010

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=16075

 

However, the document omitted key facts. It failed to mention the fact that the WWT could not account for the provenance of the birds tested.

 

It failed to say that the WWT did not know the age of the carcasses i.e. had they been stored frozen for 1 year or 5 years (standard meat trade practice),

 

The WWT did not know where or when they had been shot.

 

The submission document failed to say that 96% of the birds tested were purchased as ‘oven ready’, further compounding any chance of providing reliable data for the WWT to base their subsequent allegations upon.

 

Thus, the Ministers were in fact mislead into making the wrong decision and published an erroneous document that maligned the shooting public.

 

The Ministers did not read the actual report that you will find on the web-link above. They rely upon their officials in the relevant departments to advise them, accurately and honestly. In this particular case besides the head of department Mr Tim Andrews (Biodiversity), and another key figure, the Senior Scientific Advisor, would bear responsibility for this submission document. I will return to the SSA further on.

 

The WWT were not in possession of the data listed as ‘omitted’ above. Thus in making the accusations against the shooting public that they are on record of making, the WWT must be lying. They cannot claim that they were unaware of the deficiency of data as described above. BASC appears to be complicit in all of this.

 

It should be born in mind that in general terms there is an almost total lack of any UK research indicating any existence of impact or adverse effect, from the use of lead ammunition, upon waterfowl, reared game, or wild game. Nor is there any evidence of any effect upon the human food chain. There are a couple of papers that might be offered from the UK Conservation NGO industry, but they are compromised by their agenda. Rather in the manner of CRO411.

 

Furthermore, the Countryside Alliance and (surprisingly) BASC have both published on the front page of their websites to the effect that there is no evidence against lead ammunition at all.

 

When reading the attached ‘submission document you might wish to note the mix of weasel wording, such as ‘unnecessary mortality’. Reference to the LAG as policy and lawmaker. ‘high level of non-compliance’ and the use of the word ‘reported’ in a most creative manner.

 

You will note reference to a ‘steering Group’, which has acted as judge and jury in the matter. It will be noted that half of the c.c. list at the end of the document has been redacted. Many of the redacted names were of course on the ‘Steering Group’.

 

The Steering Group was listed to me in a previous DEFRA letter as the following: -

 

Tim Andrews (Wild Birds Policy Advisor, Defra)

Senior Scientific Advisor (Defra)

Policy Advisor (Defra)

Policy Officer (Defra)

Ian Carter (Ornithologist, Natural England)

Dr. Alison Loram (Senior Research Officer, BASC)

Dr. John Harradine (Director of Research, BASC)

Dr. Ruth Cromie (Head of Wildlife Health, WWT)

 

 

DEFRA have gone to strenuous effort to resist revealing the identity of the Senior Scientific Advisor (Defra). They have point blank refused. They have also point blank refused to reveal the identity of the redacted names on the c.c. list. It could be that the model they are following in this is the NHS and CQC. DEFRA should note the failure of that model.

 

The identity of the Senior Scientific Advisor is required to establish his/her objectivity and competence is passing this submission document as must have happened and in accepting the conclusions of the original WWT/BASC report as viable.

 

Alternatively, his/her view were ignored or overridden by other interests that were prejudicial to shooting. This same person may now be in an influential position with regards to the management of the LAG and its report. He/she may be sitting in on meetings at the LAG. It is therefore only right that we know who we are dealing with, in view of what is at stake.

 

The Shooting public is one of the most law abiding and law enshrined groups in the land. To be accused of breaking the law on false evidence traduces the innocent in a most invidious manner. A select committee will find this shocking.

 

I will shortly be formally asking Owen Paterson MP Minister of DEFRA to reveal the identity of all of the redacted names.

 

Meanwhile I ask those in receipt of this round robin to take the trouble to give a close reading to the attached document and take the trouble to read the WWT/BASC 2010 by clicking on the link to it.

 

 

 

 

 

please copy and pass the link to this post on to all your shooting buddies.

Edited July 11, 2013 by gunsmoke

[David BASC]

Its perhaps no surprise that the shooting press are ignoring you, there is nothing new in what you say and nothing substantive in your accusations. Odd enough non of the main shooting organisations seem to share your views...we are all standing together. So are you saying they are all equally at fault too?

 

The role of the LAG is specifically to advise DRFRA and the FSA on:

1. the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition, the respective levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any significant risks;

2.possible options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition.

 

Are you supporting the cross organisation campaign on compliance?

Would you like some ‘Use lead legally’ badges to hand out to your customers – they are free.

 

Let’s work together to push compliance and in that way help secure lead shot – if we fail to deliver on compliance I am sure lead shot will be in bother regardless of the findings of LAG.

 

David

Edited July 11, 2013 by David BASC