have BASC shot shooting in the foot?

[David BASC]

Sadly I think you are worong, if you think about it with the objective of preventing lead entering wetalnds / key habitats, there would be pressure to seek evidence of compliance. If what you say is correct and there was no way of proving compliance under certain systems, then the alternative would be....?

Edited July 25, 2013 by David BASC

[Guest cookoff013]

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?

 

you see, i have a problem with this, why isnt the current law being enforced? why punish 10000s when a few prosecutions would almost certainly make an impact. maybe a few prosecutions would be better than any wishy washy campaign.

[mudpatten]

Talking of fantasy, how is the campaign to save lead launched by Gunsmoke at the Gamefair progressing.

[al4x]

Sadly I think you are worong, if you think about it with the objective of preventing lead entering wetalnds / key habitats, there would be pressure to seek evidence of compliance. If what you say is correct and there was no way of proving compliance under certain systems, then the alternative would be....?

 

 

so is Scotland under pressure to prove compliance?

 

The main thing is people could be checked whether the authorities don't have the money to do so is another matter. Our system is in theory easier to check but and the big but is we can be seen to use lead over the very ground they are trying to protect

[mudpatten]

I really thought that we`d reached some sort of conclusion with this thread but it would seem that the same small handful of BASC stabbers and conspiracy theorists simply can`t grasp the pertinent issues.

 

One corner wants to see the more restrictive Scottish system imposed on the rest of the country, another believes that by writing reams of nonesense it`s sheer quantity will somehow affect what is happening and a third actually wants to see squads of police, or Council employees or,god forbid, gangs of RSPCA inspectors lawfully interrupting shoots on a daily basis.

 

Thank goodness that, in this rather one sided tag team bout, we have BASC in the fourth corner arguing from a standpoint of sound common sense.

 

And all anyone need do in the interim is to comply with the existing law.

 

Simples.

[David BASC]

The cross organisational ‘use lead legally’ applies to all the UK, not just England.

 

As I understand it, in Scotland only the police have powers to enforce this legislation and inspect equipment such as guns, shot game/wildfowl or cartridges and the police are not, to my knowledge, pushing the issue at this time.

 

However, as I have said, do you / the majority of BASC members really want BASC to campaign for more restrictions on lead shot?

 

I am sure that IF regulations changes in England & Wales to adopt the Scottish system then there would be the caveat of monitoring compliance.

 

But as I say there will be no chance at all to change the law if we cannot be seen to comply with the current legislation.

 

So yes, the message is very simple – comply with the law

[gunsmoke]

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.

 

 

Where did this one come from. "any compensetion would be payable"?

 

Remember BASC sets on the lead shot steering group with the WWT so they know more then they are telling us.

 

So how must is it going to cost the government to pay compensation for every 2 1/2" chambered gun that can not be used.

 

Purdey £15-40,000 each

Holland and Holland £10-35,000 each

Gibbs £3-15,000 each

 

AND the list goes on, why do we not just say NO to any lead ban.

 

I want scientific proof. Are is no scientific proof. so they are now trying make a link between compliance and the law. If you read the Submission to Ministers that is exactly what the plan is from the WWT.

Edited July 25, 2013 by gunsmoke

[mudpatten]

How`s your campaign to save lead going Ian?

 

I`ve seen a single You tube clip in which you are selling a badge for £1 which has had 22 views.

 

What exactly do you intend to spend the money you raise on?

 

You`re very keen on hammering BASC on "What if scenarios". Here`s one for you.

 

Let`s imagine you raise £100,000 pounds from your appeal ( Thats a fair old chunk of cash each from the 22 Youtubers!)

 

What do you specifically intend to spend it on? And I think we all deserve a little more detail than simply "saving lead."

[wymberley]

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?

Apart from a brief phrase regarding compensation which reflected a lack of knowledge and as I can't see BASC being involved with cartridge development, in view of you placing 4 further posts subsequent to the above, I'm forced to accept the answer as a, 'no'.

 

Some 25 years ago when the topic was flavour of the month, the then (yep, there was a proper one) BASC Education Dep't was asked if there was a contingency plan in place should some form of formal assessment/qualification be introduced for shooters. The answer was, 'no'. We got away with that then and I hope we continue to do so. Are we going to get away with the situation currently prevailing as well? As, unlike the qualification problem which is currently dormant, this one is not going to go away. So if, indeed, the answer is actually, 'no', then I would suggest that we're in bother.

 

The iffy bit is that should, somehow, the compliance figures get acceptably close to the 100% mark but we're still hit with a total lead ban who is then going to get it in the neck should it be shown that BASC had had no foresight in an attempt to prevent it. Relying purely on the C100% compliance for survival is naive in the extreme.

[David BASC]

Gunsmoke,

 

Look at the post 144 above mine it was a question that was asked!

 

No we do not know more than we are tellning , where is the evidnece for htis unfounded comment from you?

 

Compliance with law will always be monitored to a greater or lesser extent wont it?

 

Let’s assume, just for sake of argument, that you and eyeglass are correct, and that all the ducks sampled by WWT were shot legally in Scotland and none came from England or Wales, all the BASC members who said they sometimes or never complied with the law lied and they did in fact, comply all the time , and that all the shoot owners the CLA questioned who said their shoots did not comply all lied too, and did in fact rigorously enforced the regulations on their shoots and as a consequence compliance was at or near 100% back in 2010….how is that going to make any difference at all to the level of compliance observes if compliance is retested in 2013/14 season and or 2014/15 season?

 

If I have complied with the speed limit all my motoring life, but get caught doing 100mph on the M1 – does that mitigate the offence?

 

Why do you keep asking me questions but ignoring questions I ask?

[wymberley]

 

 

 

Why do you keep asking me questions but ignoring questions I ask?

 

'ere, that's a bit rich in view of Post #159

[David BASC]

Wymberley,

 

 

I have said before that compliance is not the be all land end all, and to now be accused of implying this and being naive in doing so is a bit much!!

 

What I have said before is this; there are other threats to lead such as the questions on human health and the questions on environmental impacts that are being looked at by the LAG. These may yet prove to be significant issues that we need to address but until LAG reports and DEFRA decides what to do about the report findings we simply don’t know what if any, new threats we face for sure.

 

However regardless of LAG what I am very confident about is that is compliance is not seen to improve then lead will be banned regardless of any LAG report – and anyone who thinks differently is indeed naïve.

 

You asked if as you put it ‘in the main’ was BASC was looking to secure any compensation form the public purse if a ban comes in. I answered as best I could rather than just ignoring you!!! No I don’t know if this is possible, compensation has been paid in the past as we know to pistol owners, but whether or not there is any possibility of compensation in this case I can’t possibly answer.

 

Yes we do liaise very closely with the cartridge manufactures on product development based on market needs – we do not R&D new cartridges ourselves of course! I can see no other contingency other than wad and powder developments for the foreseeable future though.

 

 

[wymberley]

Wymberley,

 

 

I have said before that compliance is not the be all land end all, and to now be accused of implying this and being naive in doing so is a bit much!!

 

What I have said before is this; there are other threats to lead such as the questions on human health and the questions on environmental impacts that are being looked at by the LAG. These may yet prove to be significant issues that we need to address but until LAG reports and DEFRA decides what to do about the report findings we simply don’t know what if any, new threats we face for sure.

 

However regardless of LAG what I am very confident about is that is compliance is not seen to improve then lead will be banned regardless of any LAG report – and anyone who thinks differently is indeed naïve.

 

You asked if as you put it ‘in the main’ was BASC was looking to secure any compensation form the public purse if a ban comes in. I answered as best I could rather than just ignoring you!!! No I don’t know if this is possible, compensation has been paid in the past as we know to pistol owners, but whether or not there is any possibility of compensation in this case I can’t possibly answer.

 

Yes we do liaise very closely with the cartridge manufactures on product development based on market needs – we do not R&D new cartridges ourselves of course! I can see no other contingency other than wad and powder developments for the foreseeable future though.

 

 

David, thank you.

 

To summarise:

 

BASC is doing nothing until the LAG report is published. Consequently, any rearguard (again!) action will have to be generated in a possibly very short period between the publication and everyone else's demand for immediate action. Am I to believe that we actually have no idea at all of any likely outcome?

 

It looks as though the only work on cartridges relates to improvements to wadding (can't think why that should be as we know steel in the current cartridge format does not harm barrels - thought developing 21/2" cartridges may have been more beneficial) and powder (I guess to make steel somewhat quicker without excessive pressures). I would have thought a survey to ascertain how many guns which are incapable of being used with viably priced ammunition (ie 21/2" chambered) are in existence so that BASC can present a figure indicating how much a total ban WILL cost the government. Should concentrate a few minds!

[David BASC]

Not at all, please do not put words in my mouth!

 

BASC is working with all the other main organisations to promote compliance as lack of compliance is a clear and present danger.

 

BASC is working as a partner on FACE UK responding at a European level to combat threats to the use of lead shot.

 

BASC is awaiting the results of the LAG report – judging by the EFSA report its my gut feeling that the risks to humans from eating game shot with lead will be minimal, so at this point in time I do not see any threats from that angle. But no one has any idea what the primary evidence group looking the environmental threats from spent lead shot have found - please tell me how we can put in place plan of action against a report that we have not seen?

 

As to wads, you may have your own views but many do not like plastic wads, although as you say steel is fine in plastic wads in terms of barrel damage from scoring.

 

If it’s possible and if there is a demand from the market than as I have said before I am sure the cartridge manufacturers will produce shorter cartridges.

[wymberley]

Not at all, please do not put words in my mouth!

 

Why ever not, it gee'd you up sufficiently to get across some good points!

 

BASC is working with all the other main organisations to promote compliance as lack of compliance is a clear and present danger.

 

Good oh! But you've been watching too many films

 

BASC is working as a partner on FACE UK responding at a European level to combat threats to the use of lead shot.

 

As it should be

 

BASC is awaiting the results of the LAG report – judging by the EFSA report its my gut feeling that the risks to humans from eating game shot with lead will be minimal, so at this point in time I do not see any threats from that angle. But no one has any idea what the primary evidence group looking the environmental threats from spent lead shot have found - please tell me how we can put in place plan of action against a report that we have not seen?

 

You employ similar sneaky, coniving little scroats- but they're our little scroats - as does the opposition to find out what's going on. Because I have to say if BASC has simply no idea of what may well happen I'm helping to pay someones' wages under false pretenses. Surely, (I don't know what's happening to the font size) with our in-house expertise it must be possible to sit around a table and figure out what could possibly happen and then devise our actions to suit each of them.

 

As to wads, you may have your own views but many do not like plastic wads, although as you say steel is fine in plastic wads in terms of barrel damage from scoring.

 

Yep, I don't mind ring bulges in anyone else's English gun, just not in mine.

 

If it’s possible and if there is a demand from the market than as I have said before I am sure the cartridge manufacturers will produce shorter cartridges.

 

IF THERE IS A DEMAND! If, as we're told, 16 gauge are already available from our makers for export, cannot BASC publicize information from these same manufacturers assuring us that the 12 bore version will be available immediately (assuming a legislation and production lead times) if required.

[David BASC]

I don’t mind being asked questions, or being geed up to clarify a point but I don’t like people presuming the answer I will give that’s all!

 

I will ask manufactures about the production of shorter cartridges

[wymberley]

I don’t mind being asked questions, or being geed up to clarify a point but I don’t like people presuming the answer I will give that’s all!

 

I will ask manufactures about the production of shorter cartridges

I'm sorry if I upset you, such was not my intention. I've read it again and I still think that my summary was an accurate precis of your comments but with my own comments added.

 

I notice that you made no comment re the 21/2" example survey. I do like pointy sticks and the result of that could well be a very sharp one to aim in any appropriate direction if necessary.

[David BASC]

Hi, not upset at all but thank you. I take your comments as robust and constructive and trust you don’t mind if I am blunt and robust in reply!

 

 

Maybe its better first to get feedback from the cartridge makers about the viability of mass produced 2 1/2 before we do a survey? I would not want to set hares running that’s all…

 

 

Given the current government, I am not sure that telling them it may cost £Xmillion in compensation, if indeed compensation was at all possible, would make much difference. But I suspect compensation will not be payable anyway so finding out how many 2 ½ chamber guns won’t help. But I could be wrong and will of course keep checking and will look to try anything viable.

[al4x]

Its fine David you'll just have to get the word spread round the house of Lords that they will be needing 3.5 Xtrema's for the next pheasant and grouse season to cope with the shell requirement and see if the law gets passed

[sitsinhedges]

In the grand scheme of shooting things the many tens of thousands of lead cartridges that must be shot at perfectly lawful quarry against each one cartridge shot at a duck makes the issue microscopic in reality and will never justify losing lead.

 

why not just ban wildfowling and be done with it. Problem solved.

[David BASC]

 

In the grand scheme of shooting things the many tens of thousands of lead cartridges that must be shot at perfectly lawful quarry against each one cartridge shot at a duck makes the issue microscopic in reality and will never justify losing lead.

 

why not just ban wildfowling and be done with it. Problem solved.

 

 

 

I am sure you are joking, at least I hope you are…I can only imagine the justifiable rage that would emanate from this forum and beyond if I ever made such a crass statement. But not everyone will be unhappy with your post, far from it, those who are vehemently against us will be punching the air with glee..trust you are happy.

 

Stop the chatter and prattle – lets all get with the programme and stick to the law because as sure as eggs is eggs compliance though testing shot duck will be repeated sooner or later

[Kes]

Would it not be sensible to check the methodology and statistics which are proposed to be used in the LAG report and consider how it might be opened to question. Although BASC are a partner in LAG, exception reports in contentious matter are commonplace.

So, what BASC should be doing before the LAG reports is simply seeing if all its conclusions are likely to be soundly based or susceptible to sensible and reasonable criticism. If you like, its peer reviewing the document as its being produced but, like all other but "anti" shooting organisations have done and will be doing to issue critical but slightly supportive comments if the conclusions of the report do not appear to stress conclusively that which they would like to see.

Indeed I would review all inputs, from the dangers of lead shot in wetlands (worldwide), through a new survey of shooting compliance, also researching the health effects of lead on humans in other countrys' research, in fact, I would ensure I knew the validity of the report before it was published. If elements of the research showed flaws in the approach of the LAG, I would publish them as that became apparent, casting doubt on the conclusions before they are used by your opposition " colleagues" on the group.

I would also research the cost to the industry of a lead ban as opposed to a change to the Scottish Law.

I would also not be overt about confirming this for obvious reasons but hope that shooters trusted the organisation to do all that it can to remove the underpinning from the report, should it be seeming like its conclusions were shaky and being manipulated.

Perhaps thats why shooters are asking these questions because it may not appear clear to all that the answers are a definite yes. Is Mr Swift aware of this, is BASC aware of this or are we all sleep walking into non compliance and "our own stupid faults".

 

A fair comparison might be the NHS telling patients who smoke that they are not going to be treated - some element of logic in that but not if you are a tobacco company or representing smokers, unless you decide to take a moral stance above or to the side of the people you are supposed to represent?

I, for one, maybe alone, am not convinced BASC is doing enough. I would rather not be saying - "I told you so" when BASC tries to defend itself from shooters when a condemnatory report is published which seals the fate of lead.

 

However everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

How many duck could have been shot by people who suggest they have shot duck with lead in England ? I'd wager not as many as the survey suggests.

My criminal use of lead on ducks - which I answered truthfully in the questionaire would have resulted in less than 3 dead and I ate them so how many others did the same and what is the stance of cartridge manufacturers and so on and so forth and yawn, goodnight.

[sitsinhedges]

I am sure you are joking, at least I hope you are…I can only imagine the justifiable rage that would emanate from this forum and beyond if I ever made such a crass statement. But not everyone will be unhappy with your post, far from it, those who are vehemently against us will be punching the air with glee..trust you are happy.

 

Stop the chatter and prattle – lets all get with the programme and stick to the law because as sure as eggs is eggs compliance though testing shot duck will be repeated sooner or later

 

Try and read the first sentence again and tell me it is incorrect. I have never shot any wildfowl with lead so why should my shooting be fundamentally changed or even stopped completely on the basis of what a microscopic amount of people do. Stop them not me.

[David BASC]

BASC does not, nor for that matter does anyone else have the power to get copies of the papers or the reports from the primary evidence groups before the reports are drafted, save of course for those individuals on the relevant groups. Nor does BASC alone have any editorial rights over the reports that LAG make to DEFRA I am sure you know that and wonder thus why on earth you are suggesting Kes that if BASC fails in this regard we are somehow complicit? There are no terms of reference of the LAG that allows this as far as I can see, but I will ask.

 

All we or anyone else has access to are the documents on the LAG web site,

 

As to the costs to industry, well there are country's where lead shot is banned, and there will be comparative data to show the likely impacts in the UK, but more research could be done I agree. All I can say is that wildfowling is doing fine and that form of sporting shooting has adapted well. There were warnings of doom and gloom for wildfowling in some sectors prior to the ban, but non came to fruition I am pleased to say.

 

You may ask yourself Kes, how would you cope if there was a total ban, would you give up or adapt? I know what I would do and what almost everyone I know will do - but as we say we are all entitled to our own opinion.

 

As to the ducks shot with lead that end up in dealers and put nails in the coffin of lead shot...I suspect that the vast majority come from the larger inland shoots that mix duck with pheasant in drives...how daft to flout the law and then be dim enough to put them into the dealers en masse...but you are probably correct its a small number of people, compared opt all shooters, that are doing this.

 

Sits = no apology for your crass statement I see, just trying to divert away from it...sad

 

David

Edited July 25, 2013 by David BASC

[sitsinhedges]

Why should there be an apology. Why is wildfowling more important than my type of shooting.

 

Your statement seems to infer that my kind of shooting is disposable but wildfowling isn't.

 

Maybe you would like to clarify why that is.