Milkfloat Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Slightly off topic - but what are the rules in the rest of Europe and the US? Do they have a lead ban at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Milkfloat - yes they do. Some country’s have an outright ban, some have restrictions much like England/ Wales or Scotland/ NI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 which ones have laws like England? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pole Star Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Slightly off topic - but what are the rules in the rest of Europe and the US? Do they have a lead ban at all? The first I ever remember about a lead problem in the US was many years ago the American national parks service & Fish & game noticed unusual numbers of Bald Eagles dying & investigations had shown it to be the build up of lead shot in the eagles gut . They had been getting this lead from eating dead & pricked birds hence the start of the drive to the lead ban for shooting water fowl . The lead ban seems to have moved on from there & its gone from petrol , paint & a number of other things & if the WWT say they want lead removed from the environment I think thats the way it will go given time & if so lets hope the price of NT will come down , which it should do once the demand is there . Falconers now avoid feeding shot game to their birds for the same reason Edited July 15, 2013 by Pole Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 I believe you will find the answer on the phase out of lead over wetlands on the AEWA web site, some counties ban the use of lead for all wildfowl shooting, most restrict it over various wetlands, but the designation of these wetlands vary. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 This is quite interesting it would intimate our law is at loggerheads with their aims so will probably get looked at in due course anyway. Whether we should be heading it off and looking for a law that complies and makes sense is one issue that most agree is the way forward before we hit the situation of a nationwide ban affecting all who don't shoot over wetlands. As ever the chart of who does what show lots are ignoring things and some even get away with it being voluntary like Germany. http://www.unep-aewa.org/publications/technical_series/ts3_non-toxic_shot_english.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pole Star Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Very very interesting links there I hope all here take time to have a read of them . Edited July 15, 2013 by Pole Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 None of this gets away from the fact that the BASC has encouraged its members to admit to wilfully breaking the law on a regular basis, in writing, and have then given this information to a government agency to be used to justify restrictions against the wider shooting community. What the hell were they thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 None of this gets away from the fact that the BASC has encouraged its members to admit to wilfully breaking the law on a regular basis, in writing, and have then given this information to a government agency to be used to justify restrictions against the wider shooting community. What the hell were they thinking? they weren't thinking and the reply very small, in this day and age there could have been an online questionnaire whereby you had to enter through your membership online section. This could have been publicised amongst the wildfowlers and general membership and stressed how important it was to get a decent response and it wasn't. Draw your own conclusions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 None of this gets away from the fact that the BASC has encouraged its members to admit to wilfully breaking the law on a regular basis, in writing, and have then given this information to a government agency to be used to justify restrictions against the wider shooting community. What the hell were they thinking? I cannot understand the motive for this at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) You’ve changed your tune SITS – one minute , in your post 240, you say if the report came back with positive results that would have been OK, but because it came back with bad results now it’s not OK – you can’t have it both ways can you? DEFRA wanted to assess the level of knowledge and understanding and acceptance of the laws on lead shot as well as assessing the level of compliance among shooters and shoot managers. How else would DEFRA get the information about knowledge and understanding within the shooting community if it were not via BASC and the CLA? You will note none of the recommendations that went to DEFRA pushed for a ban but the emphasis was on greater efforts to get the message over on the laws on lead, as it was evident a lot were ignoring the laws some or all of the time. Yes it would have been great in the results had been different, but they were not. Ignoring the issues will not make them go away and will only make the situation a lot worse – why on earth you can’t see or accept that is beyond me. As I said before and I will say again – there is no point ignoring the fact that some have ignored the law for a variety of reasons. From the research we know what the issues are and we can now address them, as we have been doing and now at long last we are joined by the other organisations too. Why we are being criticized for trying our best to fix this situation of non compliance beggars belief. David Edited July 15, 2013 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 You’ve changed your tune SITS – one minute , in your post 240, you say if the report came back with positive results that would have been OK, but because it came back with bad results now it’s not OK – you can’t have it both ways can you? DEFRA wanted to assess the level of knowledge and understanding and acceptance of the laws on lead shot as well as assessing the level of compliance among shooters and shoot managers. How else would DEFRA get the information about knowledge and understanding within the shooting community if it were not via BASC and the CLA? You will note none of the recommendations that went to DEFRA pushed for a ban but the emphasis was on greater efforts to get the message over on the laws on lead, as it was evident a lot were ignoring the laws some or all of the time. Yes it would have been great in the results had been different, but they were not. Ignoring the issues will not make them go away and will only make the situation a lot worse – why on earth you can’t see or accept that is beyond me. As I said before and I will say again – there is no point ignoring the fact that some have ignored the law for a variety of reasons. From the research we know what the issues are and we can now address them, as we have been doing and now at long last we are joined by the other organisations too. Why we are being criticized for trying our best to fix this situation of non compliance beggars belief. David I never said it would have been OK, I have said that the BASC should not have been involved in a survey that encouraged shooters to incriminate themselves and therefore all shooters by association. Ignoring the issues or making a mountain out of a molehill? I know which I think it is. The reason you are being criticised is because it's very difficult to understand exactly whose best interests you are actually acting upon. The whole lead thing keeps popping up endlessly every few months and it's about time it was put to rest, and in our favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Sorry when in post 240 you said SITS 'And of course if a survey came back without a detrimental result of course it wouldn't have been criticised, how could it have been' .It sounded to me that it was not the research that you had an issue with but the result. How else should I interpreted what you posted here? Do you honestly not believe that some shooters are completely ignoring the laws all the time and some are ignoring the laws some of the time? Do you accept that if there is a problem we need to know so we can do all we can to fix it? The results were not great - we can all agree on that but here is no point ignoring the fact that some have ignored the law for a variety of reasons. From the research we know what the issues are and we can now address them, as we have been doing and now at long last we are joined by the other organisations too. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option. If we can get compliance up than this will certainly help put the balance of the argument in our favour. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Sorry when in post 240 you said SITS 'And of course if a survey came back without a detrimental result of course it wouldn't have been criticised, how could it have been' .It sounded to me that it was not the research that you had an issue with but the result. How else should I interpreted what you posted here? Do you honestly not believe that some shooters are completely ignoring the laws all the time and some are ignoring the laws some of the time? Do you accept that if there is a problem we need to know so we can do all we can to fix it? The results were not great - we can all agree on that but here is no point ignoring the fact that some have ignored the law for a variety of reasons. From the research we know what the issues are and we can now address them, as we have been doing and now at long last we are joined by the other organisations too. Burying our heads in the sand is not an option. If we can get compliance up than this will certainly help put the balance of the argument in our favour. David If you needed a survey to tell you there was a problem the problem obviously wasn't that great. It appears to me that you are looking for a justification to a conclusion that has already been arrived at. I also thought this was supposed to have been put to bed by the LAG so what happened there apart from factions breaking off and doing their own thing when the results weren't going their way? We do this as a hobby for enjoyment and frankly get tired of all the politics and bull **** that pollute our hobby, an endless unrelenting load of **** to fend off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 "The whole lead thing keeps popping up endlessly every few months." Indeed it does. Thanks to the input of no more than five forum members. The same few people who cannot move beyond a certain point in time and seem locked in a never ending cycle of bitterness and recrimination towards BASC. You won`t see any potential solutions from the handful of conspiracy theorists because their purpose is not to find one. Their purpose in life, for reasons known only to themselves, is to damage BASC at all costs. Their standpoint seems to be that BASC, the largest shooting organisation in the u.k. with an impressive list of triumphs to its credit going back over a hundred years is actually the secret front organisation for reptillian aliens hell bent on destroying the future of shooting. Apart from anything else, something upon which the jobs of all BASC staff depend. For those of you who are BASC members you cannot fail but be impressed by the calm and authoritative handling by David BASC of increasingly bizarre arguments. You will also note that much of his work on here is carried out in his own time. Thats true dedication for you. Even if he is a reptillian alien! For me, this BASC baiting has gone on long enough and this circular and spiralling thread should be shut by the mods if only to give David Basc time to return to the job for which he`s actually paid. In any event Dave, you must like this hot weather, you being cold blooded and all that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 The survey was to assess the level of knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the law (have I not said that before??) What conclusion do you think we are trying to justify? LAG are looking at the possible environmental and human health issues linked to lead shot and what real risks they pose – not the law on lead shot – have you not looked at the LAG web site? As I said, and seem to have been ignored… do you honestly not believe that some shooters are completely ignoring the laws all the time and some are ignoring the laws some of the time? Do you accept that if there is a problem we need to know so we can do all we can to fix it? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 The survey was to assess the level of knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the law (have I not said that before??) What conclusion do you think we are trying to justify? LAG are looking at the possible environmental and human health issues linked to lead shot and what real risks they pose – not the law on lead shot – have you not looked at the LAG web site? As I said, and seem to have been ignored… do you honestly not believe that some shooters are completely ignoring the laws all the time and some are ignoring the laws some of the time? Do you accept that if there is a problem we need to know so we can do all we can to fix it? David You need to defend shooters interests and that is all you need to do. Any 'solution' that degrades shooters interests isn't a solution at all. To be honest I think that mudpatten is right and your time is better spent elsewhere. Getting involved in these debates does nothing to encourage me to shell out my next sixty odd quid. We'll just have to deal with the consequences when they arrive, hopefully they will be positive. That's me done on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 And we cannot defend shooters interests without knowing what the issues are that need to be addressed. If we ignore the issues or failed to identify the issues then I guarantee the outcome will be negative. Given that you and others have asked me to answer questions, which I have done my best to do, then accuse me , falsely, of not answering questions, I find it a bit rich you chose not to answer questions I ask and now turn round and infer I should not get involved in the debate at all. I say again, if we can't get compliance on the up we will have a problem, a big problem, within about 2 years or so by my reckoning. It is as simple as that. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 That's me done on this thread. I do hope so, it's repetitive to say the least. I'd just like to commend David for keeping his cool in the face of some of the most thick headed, antagonistic posting I've ever seen on here, and managing to keep things on track,despite some people seemingly being incapable of grasping the basic point and preferring to argue the finer points rather than looking to deal with what needs to be done! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Chamber Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Yawn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted July 15, 2013 Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 Yawn... That's one way to keep your post count ticking along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Chamber Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) That's one way to keep your post count ticking along.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, missus! Handbags! Seriously the verbosity on this carousel is tiring. Your last but one comment says it all. Edited July 16, 2013 by Floating Chamber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted July 16, 2013 Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) You seem to be twisting the issue and setting us up for a fall. No-one said we should ignore the law but you seem to be setting up shooters for the blame on something that appears to be a foregone conclusion. Strange how you suddenly believe everyone is breaking the law all of a sudden. I'm certainly not. If I shoot at a duck it costs me about £1.50 a pop for the ITM. What exactly am I supposed to shoot thru my moderated gun that needs subsonic ammo to function? You have said exactly what I was going to say. Please read the Defra document submmission tp ministers and you will understand how we are now in the **** [starts with S and ends with T] we are in. The WWT and BASC have been working on this for years and this is the result. Question: what have BASC done to help save lead shot? Edited July 16, 2013 by gunsmoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 And round and round and round and round, until eventually it dissappears up it`s own..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted July 17, 2013 Report Share Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) To suggest BASC is trying to do anything that damages shooting is totally stupid , why on earth would BASC do anything to harm shooting? It not in our interest to do so! To answer your question Gunsmoke – plenty. If you bothered to look back you will see it was BASC that held off bans or restrictions on lead shot for many years. But you know as well as I do once the international agreement was signed restrictions were going to come in no matter what. But it was BASC that delayed the implementation for almost a decade to give the UK cartridge manufactures a chance to develop alternatives, if we had not done this then what would wildfowlers etc had to shoot with? Since restrictions have come in BASC have lead the way on delivering information about the law, and about the alternative types of shot available. On compliance BASC has again lead the way on trying to get the compliance message over and are now joined by all the main shooting originations, shooting media and main trade You are quick to criticize, create puerile conspiracy theories and fire off questions but why don’t you answer questions that are asked of you – for example: Have you raised your concerns with DEFRA? If not why – you have had three years to do so? Why do you think it’s odd that DEFRA are talking to the UK’s largest shooting organisation about lead shot? Do you honestly believe that noncompliance is not an issue? What are you doing to push the compliance message? David Edited July 17, 2013 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.