COuntryfile article on lead shot and ammunition

[wymberley]

 

 

I've never trusted BASC's stance as it just doesn't make sense,

You've just said what I believe to be the case that many are also of that opinion. What I can't seem to fathom is that BASC don't seem to want to take this on board. I, personally, wouldn't go as far as to say that I don't trust BASC on this one but perhaps I'm somewhat naive.

 

I could, however, readily envisage that behind closed doors BASC has recognised that lead is on the way out and is preparing the ground for this future event. Two things, though, invalidate such a train of thought. Firstly, there is not sign of BASC activity with regard to the future development or pricing of NTS (we'll probably get told that they're waiting for the overdue LAG report) and, secondly, that BASC is firmly in favour of the ongoing use of lead.

[al4x]

This issue only really hit the headlines when some person leaked documents advising BASC to that effect wymberley and it took that document to get them to say anything much on the subject. They realised it was exceptionally bad PR from a membership and income stream perspective and have made the right noises since. If we step back to the draughting of this law we can only assume they had some input and if David wants to just say its too late and put the blame firmly on his members for the loss of lead then you can only assume they had their say at the time. join the dots up and personally i'm not overly keen with the picture that emerges. But that is all old news really from here on somehow you have to get a level of compliance that is going to placate the likes of the WWT with a law that makes no sense on the ground its going to be interesting going forward.

[wymberley]

This issue only really hit the headlines when some person leaked documents advising BASC to that effect wymberley and it took that document to get them to say anything much on the subject. They realised it was exceptionally bad PR from a membership and income stream perspective and have made the right noises since. If we step back to the draughting of this law we can only assume they had some input and if David wants to just say its too late and put the blame firmly on his members for the loss of lead then you can only assume they had their say at the time. join the dots up and personally i'm not overly keen with the picture that emerges. But that is all old news really from here on somehow you have to get a level of compliance that is going to placate the likes of the WWT with a law that makes no sense on the ground its going to be interesting going forward.

I think that your final sentence is spot on, being the only sensible solution. But I just wish that BASC would suddenly become proactive instead of constantly reactive in an attempt to get the legislation changed. I could even tolerate failure if they'd stop throwing in the towel before the first bell.

[David BASC]

I can assure you that BASC are NOT taking the position that lead is on the way out, nor are we ‘preparing the ground’

 

No BASC is NOT against the Scottish set up.

 

 

The law has ‘failed miserably’ as some put it because people have ignored it. We see people claiming the reason being along the lines of ‘I don’t know if a duck is coming though on a pheasant drive’, or ‘it does not make sense to me’ I have heard this time and time again, and it’s got to be the weakest reason I have ever heard for ignoring what it is effect a very simple law, there is no sound reasons for ignoring this law is there?

 

 

It is our honest belief, backed up by the other shooting organisations, that noncompliance with the current regulations will almost certainly result in further restrictions in the very near future. Going on about how daft the law is will not help this I am afraid, we will be judged by our actions over the coming months; it is as simple as that.

 

 

It was BASC that delayed the initial restrictions by over 10 years so the manufactures could get themselves up to speed with alternatives, if BASC had failed in this regard the restrictions would have come in before any alternatives were readily available.

 

It’s not a matter of BASC not engaging on reducing the price – what possible impact could we have on the cost of raw materials and the cost of manufacturing?

 

I can confirm, as clearly and publically stated by our new Chief Executive

 

‘Let me make BASC’s position on lead totally clear: no sound evidence, no change.’

 

 

[Underdog]

Hmmmm. Not read every comment but the guy on the tv must of had a clay shoot on him and is extremly naive in my humble opinion.

Now...those there x-rays.....just how old was the shot in them gizzards?!

 

U.

[Underdog]

Hmmmm. Not read every comment but the guy on the tv must of had a clay shoot on him and is extremly naive in my humble opinion.

Now...those there x-rays.....just how old was the shot in them gizzards?!

 

U.

[wymberley]

"Let me make BASC's position on lead totally clear: no sound evidence, no change."

 

So, we're going to be stuck with what every shooter knows to be a bad law which could well turn out to be our version of the Poll Tax.

 

Now, David, you know full well that I don't expect BASC to control production and material costs and am referring as mentioned earlier to the conditions to be met before NTS is introduced.

 

Keep up this sidestepping of the issues and I also could end up asking, "what possible impact could we (BASC) have?"

[B B]

I can assure you that BASC are NOT taking the position that lead is on the way out, nor are we ‘preparing the ground’

 

No BASC is NOT against the Scottish set up.

 

 

The law has ‘failed miserably’ as some put it because people have ignored it. We see people claiming the reason being along the lines of ‘I don’t know if a duck is coming though on a pheasant drive’, or ‘it does not make sense to me’ I have heard this time and time again, and it’s got to be the weakest reason I have ever heard for ignoring what it is effect a very simple law, there is no sound reasons for ignoring this law is there?

 

 

It is our honest belief, backed up by the other shooting organisations, that noncompliance with the current regulations will almost certainly result in further restrictions in the very near future. Going on about how daft the law is will not help this I am afraid, we will be judged by our actions over the coming months; it is as simple as that.

 

 

It was BASC that delayed the initial restrictions by over 10 years so the manufactures could get themselves up to speed with alternatives, if BASC had failed in this regard the restrictions would have come in before any alternatives were readily available.

 

It’s not a matter of BASC not engaging on reducing the price – what possible impact could we have on the cost of raw materials and the cost of manufacturing?

 

I can confirm, as clearly and publically stated by our new Chief Executive

 

‘Let me make BASC’s position on lead totally clear: no sound evidence, no change.’

 

 

All spot on , some people just did not want to obey the law its that simple. BASC has done all it ever could to suport and inform its members on non toxic shot in watefowl shooting.

[B B]

"Let me make BASC's position on lead totally clear: no sound evidence, no change."

 

So, we're going to be stuck with what every shooter knows to be a bad law which could well turn out to be our version of the Poll Tax.

 

Now, David, you know full well that I don't expect BASC to control production and material costs and am referring as mentioned earlier to the conditions to be met before NTS is introduced.

 

Keep up this sidestepping of the issues and I also could end up asking, "what possible impact could we (BASC) have?"

The only side stepping as you put it is from law breakers who flat refuse to obey simple instructions from their government. This must change now or we will see things get very different in shooting.

[wymberley]

The only side stepping as you put it is from law breakers who flat refuse to obey simple instructions from their government. This must change now or we will see things get very different in shooting.

Delete, "only" and you have my absolute support.

[subsonicnat]

Its all down to the fact that the shooters on driven shoots inland will not put Steel through their very expensive guns:Full Stop:

But as far as I am aware, laws are their for the people who run these shoots to ENFORCE the law while they shoot on their land.

The onus has been put on the land owners and Gamekeepers to enforce the law while they are shooting the drives..

Hoo Rays, could not give a toss to the law, which is where hunting went before the law was forced to act.. eerrr We Go Agin..

[al4x]

Its all down to the fact that the shooters on driven shoots inland will not put Steel through their very expensive guns:Full Stop:

But as far as I am aware, laws are their for the people who run these shoots to ENFORCE the law while they shoot on their land.

The onus has been put on the land owners and Gamekeepers to enforce the law while they are shooting the drives..

Hoo Rays, could not give a toss to the law, which is where hunting went before the law was forced to act.. eerrr We Go Agin..

 

I don't think it has much to do with their guns, its about a law that makes no difference or sense inland, forces people to use a product that isn't as good and does increase suffering of their quarry and simply doesn't work as well, thats before you go into possible gun damage. Bearing in mind how law abiding the shooting community is there are more reasons than cost

[B B]

 

I don't think it has much to do with their guns, its about a law that makes no difference or sense inland, forces people to use a product that isn't as good and does increase suffering of their quarry and simply doesn't work as well, thats before you go into possible gun damage. Bearing in mind how law abiding the shooting community is there are more reasons than cost

Steel will not increse suffering its more than capable of the task. And gun damage is not a factor either. Its just people not wanting to obey the law no other excuse.

[henry d]

How long are we gonna kick each others butts for?

 

OK getting things back on track....The thing the RSPB and countryfile got wrong was the fact that ducks do not, as a general rule graze in fields like the farmer had, error 1.

Error 2 was the swan x-ray, the shot could have been any kind of shot and secondly, why did they not get a vet to remove it and remove the doubt too?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

How long are we gonna kick each others butts for?

 

OK getting things back on track....The thing the RSPB and countryfile got wrong was the fact that ducks do not, as a general rule graze in fields like the farmer had, error 1.

Error 2 was the swan x-ray, the shot could have been any kind of shot and secondly, why did they not get a vet to remove it and remove the doubt too?

 

 

3 good points there!

[Underdog]

Thats my point! How old is the shot? Might be from the 1800's !

 

Personaly I have never ever found a dead duck that I can not explain how it died.

 

I have seen loads of pollution killed birds!

 

Storm in a tea cup. Man has been chucking lead shot around since when...1700 something? And now it is an issue!

Industry dumps this and that and farming sprays this and that. Every year I see sick rooks from eating treated sown grain.

 

Slow news day!

 

U.

[B B]

I agree with the last three posts obviously, but as far as i can tell if there will be no outright lead ban if those that shoot waterfowl use non tox at least in england and wales anyway. Its all a bit late to say waterfowl dont die of lead and when was that lead dropped there etc, things need to change and right away. Lead is toxic we cant get away from that, but if we are all good boys and girls we may just get to keep lead for other types of shooting. But if the selfish few cary on using lead we are sunk it will go.

Edited July 8, 2013 by B B

[motty]

Sorry, I disagree - I'm not a poor shot and have shot birds with lead and steel - plenty. Of the birds I have shot lead was consistently better, steel can wound. Bismuth used to 'ball' on firing if the shot was old. I very much rated tungsten matrix but when I stopped using it , it was nearly 4 times the price of lead. I havent used the best steel carts from the US, just those which have been and are currently available to shoot in the UK.

I also have a problem with flagging up a problem to which there is only a second rate solution and where has the 'there's no evidence lead is damaging' gone? I would like a strong confirmation lead is deadly to wildlife (waterfowl) even though I have signed the pledge - feels like the truth has got lost here to save faces in the shooting world.

ALL shot can wound!

[scotslad]

The big problem is the way duck's and geese feed so actively taking shot into there gizzard which them becomes lodged there, in extreme cases the ducks/geese will begin to starve rather than be poisioned by the lead. This possibly could still happen with steel shot clogging up the gizzard.

 

I done my dissertation on lead shot in shooting ponds about 15 odd years ago, this was an estate that has shot duck for years and years including some big bags, shifted throu wot seemed like ton's of stinky silt (probably about a tonneish per pond) from a few different ponds as well as some control (non shooting ponds) never found a pellet in any off them!!! Any Lead difference in the water was due to geology or some other environmental factor.

I don't really believe there is a documented problem in this country, atleast not with game shooting as the shot is spread over a massive area, but i can see the possiblities with clay shooting due to volume of shots fired and all in the same direction/kill area

 

To be honest unless u are an amazing shot that can alter ur lead to suit the 2 different cartridges almost instantly ur probably better off leaving the ducks as u will be shooting in front off them if using the same lead as ur using for the pheasants, probably a really good way to confuse u and knock u off ur swing

I've just joined a syndicate in england and not sure if i'm even going to bother shooting at the ducks on a mixed drive

[Underdog]

Hmm no disrespect to anyone but I dont agree.

All shooting with shotguns produces prickef birds fact.

This political point scoring is a road to nowhere.

 

Ban lead completly but there will still be birds with damaged beaks, legs and guts but as long as no lead shot is in the gizzard thats fine!

And when it is banned and thirty years later lead pellets are still in the gizzards then what?

Politicans and politics.....waste of time.

I swear that soon we will be back to archery and I cant wait :-).

 

U.

[motty]

The big problem is the way duck's and geese feed so actively taking shot into there gizzard which them becomes lodged there, in extreme cases the ducks/geese will begin to starve rather than be poisioned by the lead. This possibly could still happen with steel shot clogging up the gizzard.

 

I done my dissertation on lead shot in shooting ponds about 15 odd years ago, this was an estate that has shot duck for years and years including some big bags, shifted throu wot seemed like ton's of stinky silt (probably about a tonneish per pond) from a few different ponds as well as some control (non shooting ponds) never found a pellet in any off them!!! Any Lead difference in the water was due to geology or some other environmental factor.

I don't really believe there is a documented problem in this country, atleast not with game shooting as the shot is spread over a massive area, but i can see the possiblities with clay shooting due to volume of shots fired and all in the same direction/kill area

 

To be honest unless u are an amazing shot that can alter ur lead to suit the 2 different cartridges almost instantly ur probably better off leaving the ducks as u will be shooting in front off them if using the same lead as ur using for the pheasants, probably a really good way to confuse u and knock u off ur swing

I've just joined a syndicate in england and not sure if i'm even going to bother shooting at the ducks on a mixed drive

To my mind that just isn't necessary. I don't alter my lead when pigeon shooting with lead to something different when using fast steel on ducks. They both die the same.

[David BASC]

Dear All,

 

Based on loads of experience, both for other shooters, me, and our research team, I have no doubt all shot types can be perfectly effective on quarry at usual shooting ranges.

 

However, we must remember that different shot types and even different cartridge will perform very differently, and shooters need to adjust their shooting style accordingly.

 

Failure to get used to your gun cartridge combination and failure to learn and accept how different combinations will perform differently will lead to an increase risk of wounding, regardless of what shot type used.

 

Have a look here is you want any more information: http://www.basc.org.uk/en/codes-of-practice/respect-for-quarry.cfm

 

 

David

 

 

[motty]

I've got a question for David BASC. In your opinion, would you describe the current law on shooting wildfowl (inland) in England and Wales, ridiculous?

[David BASC]

motty,

 

 

Good afternoon. I do not have the same freedoms as most of you, being here posting as 'the BASC rep' I am afraid all I can do is say that the law in England, Wales Scotland, N Ireland have to be followed. After all its easy enough to do so.

 

Would it make life easier if there was just one law? In my view yes.

 

As I have said we are not in a position to push for a change in Primary Legislation until compliance is going in the right direction. If this happens and we did push for a change in England & Wales for the Scottish system, I know the opponents of lead will push hard for a total lead ban.

 

It will then come down to a vote in parliament, and of course the political mix of parliament etc. – Are we, as a shooting community willing to take the gamble?

 

David

[wymberley]

The LAG was briefly mentioned during the programme. Does anyone know what the current state of play is there? The minutes of the 7th meeting suggest the next would have been in May but the absence of any further minutes suggests that there wasn't.

 

I can see the sense in/need for the Chairman's points raised at Item 3.8 of those minutes but for someone who is supposedly strongly pro lead where relevant and safe and speaking on behalf of an organisation whose work is supposedly purely UK orientated, I'd be a tad concerned if I was a shooter in one of the countries mentioned at Item 3.9. Could this extraneous work outside of their terms of reference contribute to the apparent delay in 'producing the goods'?