have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

-Mongrel- · July 11, 2013

Who exactly are Eyeglass and Gunsmoke? You both throw around information freely and generally seem to have it in for BASC and the processes involved in this situation so far, yet do so with the impunity of the anonymous.

It's almost as if the aim is to divide and conquer, something that a couple of lateral thinking antis might have come up with even. I'm afraid I cannot take seriously anything which may be nothing more than unsubstantiated rumour mongering.

chrispti · July 11, 2013

Who exactly are Eyeglass and Gunsmoke?

Its Ian summerell ....... Check out his website http://ianthegun.webs.com/

Taken from his website .... "At this years CLA Game Fair I'm starting a campaign to stop a ban on lead shot after the WWT secret plan was exposted in the Shooting Times. It is now out in the open"

Ian is single handedly going to save lead shot, so if your going to the cla, be sure to support him !!

If you scroll down his front page a bit, you will see a link to his "NEW lead shot forum"......

Edited July 11, 2013 by chrispti

wymberley · July 11, 2013

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.

David

Are they 'issued' in the membership/initial/renewal/whatever package? That would be good.

David BASC · July 12, 2013

At the moment we and the other organisations are handing them out at shows and events.

I hope Ian will have some on his stand to - I even have a display for them to go in that I can give him for free too!

David

eyeglass · July 12, 2013

There has been a lot of confusion in the recent posts about my last post. I would like the opportunity to clear that up.

My last post (eyeglass post no.119) was to let P/W viewers to get to see the facts of the matter so that they can form their own opinions. I posted a copy of the text of an email that is going the rounds and is highly informative. You can see at eyeglass post no. 119.

It had an attachment of an important document that backs up the points made.

The point made was that it appears that DEFRA officials (including BASC & WWT) mislead government ministers by omitted very relevant facts in a ‘submission document’ made to ministers. The submission was asking for permission to publish the WWT BASC report on compliance.

If those relevant ‘facts’ had been included in the ‘submission’ DEFRA may not have been given permission to publish.

Read the attached file along with eyeglass post no. 119. I believe this to be serious information. It does mean that a bit of effort is needed to actually look at the evidence.

The facts left out are listed on the eyeglass post no 119

HERE IS THE FILE THAT YOU CAN DOWNLOAD

RFI 5495-96 Annex-submission.pdf

David BASC · July 12, 2013

Of course BASC are not 'DEFRA officials... not sure why you try to claim we are?

Have you asked DEFRA about this - if so what did they say, if not - why not?

Was the e-mail ‘doing the rounds’ as you put it…written by you?

You seem to be ignoring the big issue - How does any of this you have posted help in any way deliver on the need for high levels of compliance this season, and next, and next?

gunsmoke · July 22, 2013

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

David

How was the third party? Could it have been the steering group which the WWT and BASC are members of?

eyeclass gave us the PDF file of the submission to ministers, it which it clearly states that the research paper was reviewed by the steering group itself. It was not peer reviewed. The steering group was set up by the last Labour Government with members of Defra, NE, WWT and BASC.

We have to thank eyeclass for giving us this information. So the WWT and BASC sat on the steering group, managed the project throught every stage and [here is the best part] they reviewed the research paper!

Remember that the WWT got £63,775 for this work and BASC got paid out of that.

David BASC · July 22, 2013

Agian I ask -

Have you taken this up with DEFRA and if not why not?

How does any of this you have posted help in any way deliver on the need for high levels of compliance this season, and next, and next?

David

July 22, 2013

deleted.

Edited July 22, 2013 by cookoff013

gunsmoke · July 24, 2013

Letter from defra regarding the PDF file Submission to Ministers eyeclass posted on pigeon watch that confirms that it is real and not made up. I do not like people questioning my truthfulness. I am not making this up.

“I can confirm that the document you attached to your email is the submission to Ministers that accompanied a 2010 report looking at compliance with the Environmental Protection (Restriction on use of lead shot) (England) Regulations 1999.”

I am trying to get the truth out and allow the shooters of Britain to have an honest debate on lead shot. I do not like being lied to or mislead.

Our ref: RFI 5663

24 July 2013

Dear Mr [gunsmoke] [i have removed my name under Pigeon watch rules]

Thank you for your email requesting clarification regarding information that has previously been released in response to a request for information. Your email has been passed to me to respond to.

I can confirm that the document you attached to your email is the submission to Ministers that accompanied a 2010 report looking at compliance with the Environmental Protection (Restriction on use of lead shot) (England) Regulations 1999.

The version of the submission you attached to your email had previously been released in response to a request for information received by Defra, which was handled under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

In responding to this request, and after careful consideration, officials decided that the names and contact details of all government officials below Senior Civil Service level should be withheld under section 40(2) (third party personal data) of the FOIA and regulations 12(3) and 13(1) (third party personal data) of the EIRs as the information constitutes personal data relating to a third party. Section 40(2) of the FOIA and Regulations 12(3) and 13(1) of the EIRs provide that personal data relating to third parties is exempt information if disclosure would breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

We considered that disclosure of this information would be likely to breach the first data protection principle in Schedule 1 to the DPA, which relates to the fair and lawful processing of personal data, in two ways. First, disclosure would not have constituted ‘fair’ processing of the personal data, second, disclosure would not have satisfied any of the conditions for data processing set out in Schedule 2 to the DPA.

There was only one condition in Schedule 2 that was relevant to this request - 6(1), where the processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by Defra (or a third party to whom the data is disclosed), except where the processing can be considered to be unwarranted by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. The decision of the Information Tribunal in House of Commons v Information Commissioner & Leapman, Brooke, established the following three part test that must be satisfied before the sixth condition will be met:

1. there must be legitimate interests in disclosing the information,

2. the disclosure must be necessary for a legitimate interest of the public and,

3. even where disclosure is necessary it nevertheless must not cause unwarranted interference or prejudice to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the data subject.

The first part of this test was satisfied by the FOIA and EIR request, as there is a public interest in official information being made available, and a legitimate interest in the information being disclosed on the lead shot report, as this is an important environmental issue. However, the public interest in transparency and accountability had already been met by the disclosure of the submission that was disclosed with the response. A further disclosure of the of the names of the junior civil servants was not necessary for the legitimate interests of the public as this would have added virtually nothing to the public’s understanding of the policy area of the use of lead shot. In light of this, we did not go on to consider the final element of the test.

Processing the names and job titles of the junior civil servants (through disclosure in response to the request) would have failed to meet a condition within schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act and so would breach the first data protection principle. Consequently this information was considered exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOIA and regulation 13 of the EIRs.

Regards

Ashley G Smith

Wild Birds Policy Officer

fruitloop · July 24, 2013

that just sounds like a total fob off

David BASC · July 25, 2013

I think the objective of the research that delivered the results of the 2010 report has been lost. Remember the results of the project would be used to inform Defra Ministers about whether there was a need for any legislative reforms or policy initiatives to increase compliance with the 1999 Regulations.

There were no legislative reforms proposed, the only thing that was stressed was the need to increase the awareness of the law and to stress the need for compliance – this is being supported by all the main shooting organisations and the shooting press.

However, you (gunsmoke) seem stuck in trying to discredit the research, and repeatedly ignore very simple and basic questions that are asked of you. For example:

You and eyeglass have repeatedly come on here claiming the 2010 report is incorrect and so on, and even generated ‘evidence’ to prove its wrong yet you have not, as far as I can tell, taken these points up with DEFRA – why?

What are you doing to help boost compliance this coming season and the next?

Kes · July 25, 2013

If you read the information provided by both parties in this 'difference of opinion', it is hard not to conclude that over the "decades" that BASC and the WWT have been addressing the lead shot issue, WWT have been rather more 'driven' than BASC.

It does seem like BASC have been a little somnabulant about where this particular research might end up and rather uncaring about other inputs to this 'research' carried out by none less than their opponents on the lead shot issue.

It is hard to see how BASC's approach would ever get us anywhere but where we are now when, some time ago a focus should perhaps have been more keenly provided on the evidence to confirm the danger of lead shot to wildfowl and to use that to divert WWT.

I seem to remember BASC suggesting "there is no evidence of harm" but that stance has now changed to an all encompassing " support compliance".

I have to say this is with hindsight which is always very helpful.

It appears to me that there are valid questions to answer about BASC's approach and some credit must be given to those of the opposing view who carry out their research and investigation alone and without the backing of a significant support staff.

If there has been blind cooperation amounting to complicity then that is unforgivable. Equally it would appear that the momentum achieved by the anti lead shot interests is now almost unstoppable,and probably is unstoppable.

Given that likelihood, (I now feel probability), what self-protective position would you take ?

All shooting organisations can only be protected by saying "we told you so" and returning the responsibility for compliance to shooters.

Is this the singular reason why all shooting organisations have - seemingly for the first time, supported a single issue in such an overt way ?

We are all able to make our own minds up and I admit to being occasionally critical of BASC, but this issue is likely to be a make or break issue for shooters and one wonders what type of shooting organisation will emerge when lead is banned as I now begin to feel it will.

Sorry to be negative but a bit of reading drives away some shadows and your average chap, like myself needs to do that to facilitate an informed opinion rather than relying on unedifying prejudices.

As Henry says - discuss or not its up to you.

al4x · July 25, 2013

Kes that is much where I am I feel this is more a PR exercise to limit damage from a ban to membership levels than it is an attack on a ban itself. Compliance is very convenient way to blame members themselves and it wasn't so long ago there was the disclaimer about reviewing the evidence of harm from lead and going from there, all the evidence being funded by the anti movement. However its not really worth discussing as its unlikely we will know for definite. What I will say is from a members point of view I didn't see anything being done in the fight before that leaked document, after that we got the PR machine in full operation working on members and we have had some effort being made to look like things are being done.

I still don't see any work being done to counter the argument or provide a law that complies with the agreement on lead use over wetlands which to me suggests this matter will crop up again in law and because of our half ***** law it will affect people who never shoot ducks and never shoot over wetlands.

David BASC · July 25, 2013

How bizarre to suggest that BASC sleep walked into being involved in this research when ,as I said above, it was the clearly defined objective of the research to inform whether there was a need for any legislative reforms or policy initiatives to increase compliance with the 1999 Regulations.

As some may not realise, this restriction on lead is not just a UK issue, it’s an international issue and the toxicity of lead to ducks is not in doubt, so we are signed up to an international agreement to withdraw lead from some habitats / species, it’s all on the AEWA web site.

As to the ‘no evidence of harm’ I think you will find, that this refers to the lack of evidence of risks to human health from lead shot game – see the EFSA report

The law is clear, it was clear from day 1 and some chose to ignore it for a variety of reasons and this is putting pressure on lead shot. If shooters across the board had complied then this attack on lead shot would not have taken off would it?

So yes right now compliance with the law is top of the agenda, and I tell you now (not ‘I told you so’ in hindsight) if the shooting community cannot demonstrate an increase in compliance this season, next and next and so on that lead WILL face severe restrictions possibly a complete ban.

Of course, I know as well as anyone, that if further restrictions come in shooters will look for someone else to blame, not fellow shooters who have ignored the ban and caused the problem but will, no doubt, turn on the very organisations that delayed the implantation of the bans for years, who removed many sites from the lead restriction, who did their best to give the cartridge manufactures more time to develop lead alternatives, who have repeatedly fought off further calls for restrictions and bans and who have repeatedly warned that there is a very real need to comply with the law…

al4x · July 25, 2013

As some may not realise, this restriction on lead is not just a UK issue, it’s an international issue and the toxicity of lead to ducks is not in doubt, so we are signed up to an international agreement to withdraw lead from some habitats / species, it’s all on the AEWA web site.

yet we have a law that still permits it......... and no one seems bothered about that which smacks of an all or nothing approach to the use of lead, or if you are gunsmoke a foregone conclusion

David BASC · July 25, 2013

But as I have said before, you can choose not to shoot over wetlands in England if you want to, just as you can choose to drive at 60mph on a motorway if you want.

I understand A4x that you seem keen for further restrictions on the use of lead shot for all forms of shooting over all wet land - that is your choice, I suspect if we asked shooters in England if they wanted the law to change so there was no use of lead over any wetland for any species or clay shooting, the majority may not have the same view?

Until we get compliance up we cannot possibly hope to change the law in any way

David.

Whitebridges · July 25, 2013

............

Until we get compliance up we cannot possibly hope to change the law in any way

David.

I'm not so sure this approach always works best. There are plenty of examples where militancy and non-conformism by the people has driven changes in the law.

wymberley · July 25, 2013

How bizarre to suggest that BASC sleep walked into being involved in this research when ,as I said above, it was the clearly defined objective of the research to inform whether there was a need for any legislative reforms or policy initiatives to increase compliance with the 1999 Regulations.

As some may not realise, this restriction on lead is not just a UK issue, it’s an international issue and the toxicity of lead to ducks is not in doubt, so we are signed up to an international agreement to withdraw lead from some habitats / species, it’s all on the AEWA web site.

As to the ‘no evidence of harm’ I think you will find, that this refers to the lack of evidence of risks to human health from lead shot game – see the EFSA report

The law is clear, it was clear from day 1 and some chose to ignore it for a variety of reasons and this is putting pressure on lead shot. If shooters across the board had complied then this attack on lead shot would not have taken off would it?

So yes right now compliance with the law is top of the agenda, and I tell you now (not ‘I told you so’ in hindsight) if the shooting community cannot demonstrate an increase in compliance this season, next and next and so on that lead WILL face severe restrictions possibly a complete ban.

Of course, I know as well as anyone, that if further restrictions come in shooters will look for someone else to blame, not fellow shooters who have ignored the ban and caused the problem but will, no doubt, turn on the very organisations that delayed the implantation of the bans for years, who removed many sites from the lead restriction, who did their best to give the cartridge manufactures more time to develop lead alternatives, who have repeatedly fought off further calls for restrictions and bans and who have repeatedly warned that there is a very real need to comply with the law…

A good post, David. Not saying that I quite agree totally with all of it but a good post n'rt'less.

You've said that if compliance doesn't improve, lead could go in two years (could you stretch that to 21/2 when my current cert's run out?). Consequently is BASC working on any contingency plans in preparation for this possibility? In the main, but not only, I'm thinking of reimbursement from the public purse for example. We know full well that the economic criterion element for the introduction of NTS was not honoured so is BASC going to be better prepared to look after the interests of the thousands of shooters whose guns turn out to be unsuitable for any cost viable NTS available at that time should this occur?

al4x · July 25, 2013

How is not having the legislation in place complying with the agreement you mentioned?

The fundamental of this is does lead poison ducks? if so as that agreement and the WWT and the RSPB et al seem to suggest then how can we defend throwing lead into wetlands while after other quarry?

What concerns me is why none of them are trying to change the law over wetlands and they are focusing on a total lead ban. Personally I think sticking to this approach will lead to everyone on non toxic for everything rather than us going for the sensible option which it seems is science based ie ducks get poisoned through filter feeding in wetlands but birds on normal land don't filter feed and are at next to no risk.

eyeglass · July 25, 2013

This thread was started with the question; Has BASC shot itself in the foot? The answer is YES. But it is worse than that. BASC has shot the entire shooting public in the foot.

There is no evidence that compliance with the restrictions on lead is anything less than 100%. The allegations made by BASC and others are not backed up by any evidence. The claims are assertion and not evidence.

BASC know that the accusations they are making are wrong and just rumour and anecdote.

BASC is implying that the 70% of shooters are guilty of something when they are not. There are 650,000 S/G licence holders. Around 9,500 have taken the ‘Pledge’

Currently 640,500 law abiding shooters see no reason to sign up to something that they already abide by. They are proud of their record on compliance with the lead restrictions.

640,500 shooters are innocent of the accusations BASC has thrown at them.

640,500 shooters have lost respect for BASC.

640,500 do not trust BASC.

640,500 shooters are the voice of shooting. BASC is not.

It is not DEFRA making these accusations.

It is BASC and the WWT who have made these allegations to DEFRA.

DEFRA do not claim the reports to be true. BASC claim that their report and its conclusions are true. Anyone reading the report(s) knows that they are not true.

Why is BASC making these false allegations?

The answer seems to be in the email doing the rounds below.

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

‘Well now we know courtesy of the BBC that, 1 in 12 ducks die from lead poisoning, and that 45% of the shooting public are of criminal intent and do not comply with the on restrictions lead ammunition.

None of it true but the lie has been made good, lauded and enshrined, in the glow of media.

We witnessed this week BBC producers officiating at the same sex marriage of the WWT and the BASC on TV in Country File.

Same sex marriage you cry in alarm? Because they are both of the same anti-lead persuasion. They both hate lead and pledged to each other, 25 years ago, to work to ‘phase-out’ all lead ammunition over 20 years. Not shooting mind you, but Lead. All embarked upon without a shred of UK evidence to support the objective.

The BASC analysis was that steel was the perfect alternative to replace lead. That has been its hidden agenda ever since. At the beckoning of the WWT, the BASC embraced the AEWA as its alibi with the blessing of Hilary Benn, and the new Labour Government approved its adoption. The mission got off to a good start.

Blown a bit off course in the last 5 or 6 years, it has come back all guns firing. Hand in hand with the WWT’s simpering praise for the ‘Campaign for Compliance launched by the BASC. The BASC/WWT deal is now consummate. The future has been set.

Look forward to a BASC ~~policeman~~ inspector in every English field. Mock not, that inspector will be a BASC member, an informer shooting alongside you, with an ingratiating smile on his/her face. Mandatory signing of the ‘Pledge’ as it is now called will be a standing order. Members will be fined for breaches of BASC’s laws, not the Country’s laws mark you.

At the right political moment, with the right political friends, mandatory membership of BASC on renewal of your shotgun certificate will be imposed and implemented.

Welcome to the British-Stasi of Shooting and Coercion. Watch out for a knock on the door from a BASC inspector in future, as they will be given open access to the gun licence files held by the police. They will come to count the number of lead loaded cartridges in you possession and what is in your deep freezer.

It will all be incremental but the first steps have already been taken.

Indeed BASC, have already started to ask in an accusative tone of voice, those ‘posting’ on Pigeon Watch Forums, if they have signed the ‘pledge’?

All of this arises out of that initial secret handshake between the WWT and the BASC. The next joint enterprise was the Lead Ammunition Group.

Then came the launch of the joint production of the false, and malign WWT/BASC 2010 report on Compliance. The blue touch paper of deception was lit. The mechanics of this project was assembled in DEFRA’S Wild Birds policy Team office Bristol, a stone throw away from the WWT base at Slimbridge.

Then the rounding up of the rest of the shooting organisations took place. They were gulled into signing up to the ‘Joint Statement’. Presumably persuaded that the WWT had conceded ground in a ‘Deal’, the nature of which was hinted at in Country File.

The deal rests upon the acceptance of a concoction of false allegations gift wrapped in WWT/BASC 2010 report on Compliance. This was and is the wedding gift presented to the WWT and BASC by Hillary Benn.

The shooting public is now urged to sign up to the same lie to smooth over the folly of shooting’s representatives. Remember all those who have not taken the pledge will be known by measuring the list of names and email addresses of those who have against the list of 650,000 innocent shotgun licence holders and then comes the knock at the door.

All fantasy of course? Well BASC set up and runs and has access to all of the data on the ‘pledge’ website.

Simple, set up a false accusation, call it science, dress it up as a moral imperative, acquire the imprimatur of DEFRA and then blackmail the target constituents. Some might see this as a protection racket to induce membership with an offer they cannot refuse. Mission creep at its finest. All incremental. All fantasy of course?

But given the abuse of on-line personal data, is it worth taking the risk of signing up? What is certain is it will not save lead as there will be another report to assess the level of compliance. Think who is going to be asked to do it. Do you trust them?’

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

Hillary Benn MP: Minister at DEFRA in the last government. Anti-hunting – anti-shooting. He is consistent he is a Vegan. He is still a Labour MP and is in the ‘shadow’ government. Watch out.

David BASC · July 25, 2013

I cannot possibly suggest and in no way will I or BASC ever condone shooters deliberately breaking the law in the misguided belief that by doing so this will lead to a change in law.

I can assure you that if shooters are seen to break the law then legislation will be forced on us.

As to ‘what happens if’ the big push at the moment is on cartridge development, as to whether any compensation would be payable I don’t know.

I understand your point Al4x but AEWA are not, as far as I know, putting any pressure on England & Wales to increase restrictions so I can assume they are content at this time with the actions undertaken. As I said shooters in England and Wales have the flexibility to choose where to use lead in wetland areas away from the foreshore and certain SSSI’s.

Given that compliance will always be an issue, regardless of which system we operate under, how would you assess compliance under the Scottish system for example, without having ‘environmental police’ regularly visiting shoots?

Edited July 25, 2013 by David BASC

eyeglass · July 25, 2013

v.II 2