COuntryfile article on lead shot and ammunition

[scotslad]

Must admit i have zero trust or confidence in a few bodies on the LAG and dubious off the LAG, because off some of the back stabbing 2 faced bodies that are on it, But i think BASC do a pretty good job really, better than most off the other orgs, could improve thou. It's simply to easy and fashionable for certain people to bash BASC over ever tiny detail, and a lot off things out against them are taken out of context or purely fictional

 

Al4x Wot be the point in BASC testing shot duck for lead shot to test complience?

 

ON 1 hand the 'anti's/conversationist's' wouldn't believe a single word that was printed as BASC have a vested interest, with absolutely no irony wotsoever on there part and not seeing their vested interest

And secondly Basc would only get slagged off by it's members and others who always like to bash it for giving others the ammo to bash us if complience doesn't improve drastically. But even if it does improve drastically they will never give u any credit, all ur doing is NOT breaking a law. Look at the raptor situation confirmed cases/prosecutions are at an all time low and generally still declining year on year (due to a lot of work by various bodies) yet some bodies blow every case out off proportion.

 

As long as the survey/research is peer reviewed and Basc and others have looked at the methodolgy, analysis, results and conclusion and it all seems fairly robust and not biased, they're shouldn't be a problem wot ever the outcome is.

 

Bottom line if ur still shooting with lead at waterfowl u are breaking the law no matter wot u think about it. The more that happens the nearer we come to a complete ban for everybody. It's a very simple really

 

If woodcock were taking off the quarry list would u still shoot them as u don't agree with the law? .

When they changed laws in the past on Badger digging, Otter hunting, certain traps etc would u still carry on cos u always have done it that way and u don't agree with the law? So why do that with lead and ducks

 

Fair play Tim actually quite surprised by that, like i said i do a lot off work on shoots and it really is a novelty to see 1 SxS now never mind 4 or 5 in the line. Even in the syndicate i run about 20 guns (inc the 1/2's) and i'm the only 1 with a SxS and i'd say that is fairly representative for this area, even for walked up/rough shooting almost all O&U some step down to 20's thou for wieght

Edited July 10, 2013 by scotslad

[David BASC]

Al4x,

The questionnaire was designed to determine people’s awareness of the law, and any reasons for not complying etc, not as a direct measure of compliance.

 

If you looked at the report you would see the indicative level of absolute noncompliance was very low indeed.

 

To say BASC is doing wildfowlers a disservice is just plain daft. We specifically singled out wildfowlers as examples of high compliance through awareness, understanding and self-policing – honestly I wonder why you make us these silly statements?

 

So you think the WWT are targeting wildfowlers on the foreshore do you?- and where do you get that from?

 

The role of BASC and the other shooting organisations is to raise awareness and understanding of the law and the need for compliance. I do not know at this time who is going to do the sampling, but I think we could guess?

 

Regardless of who is going to test, we must comply with the laws.

 

David

[al4x]

 

 

Al4x Wot be the point in BASC testing shot duck for lead shot to test complience?

 

As long as the survey/research is peer reviewed and Basc and others have looked at the methodolgy, analysis, results and conclusion and it all seems fairly robust and not biased, they're shouldn't be a problem wot ever the outcome is.

 

 

 

there are a few reasons as most of us know who have been through higher education where a lot of this research comes from, there is a lot that comes down to your word and it helps if whoever is funding the research is kept happy. The methodology for the tested ducks gave data that ignored wildfowlers entirely which hardly gives a particularly good idea of compliance with this law bearing in mind how many of them there are and how many ducks they shoot. It would be nice to have a correct idea what is going on not to be judged on the basis of farmed mallard shot by a relatively few people in inland ponds. Ultimately compliance is the issue and I agree and can say the few I shoot have all been legal but the compliance levels are not what are being made out to be by the flawed data that is flying about. The only way to counter that data is with data from within, the lead action group wants to review research and yet there is none funded by our side it is all funded by people with a vested interest in banning it.

[malkiserow]

 

 

there are a few reasons as most of us know who have been through higher education where a lot of this research comes from, there is a lot that comes down to your word and it helps if whoever is funding the research is kept happy. The methodology for the tested ducks gave data that ignored wildfowlers entirely which hardly gives a particularly good idea of compliance with this law bearing in mind how many of them there are and how many ducks they shoot. It would be nice to have a correct idea what is going on not to be judged on the basis of farmed mallard shot by a relatively few people in inland ponds. Ultimately compliance is the issue and I agree and can say the few I shoot have all been legal but the compliance levels are not what are being made out to be by the flawed data that is flying about. The only way to counter that data is with data from within, the lead action group wants to review research and yet there is none funded by our side it is all funded by people with a vested interest in banning it.

 

 

Your right Al4x. 99% of research supports the position the funder desires. That's life.

 

"Peer reviewed" I'm not sure we are at that academic level on this one to trust these "peer reviews".... can we get more info on this?

 

Do we have access to the data? I'd like to take a look

[David BASC]

Al4x – wrong yet again, you demonstrably have not read the report, duck obtained from wildfowling activities are specifically mentioned in the report!

[al4x]

how many were tested for lead content?

[David BASC]

READ THE REPORT

[al4x]

ok tell me it wasn't none

[David BASC]

Why? You keep making statements that are blatantly wrong, you can’t be bothered to read the report, but are happy to make statements about it?

 

You have plenty of time to post on here so demonstrably you have plenty of time to download the report and read it.

 

This tittle tattle from you is nothing but a pointless distraction, doubtless giving you some satisfaction but doing nothing at all to help compliance, and to keep lead

 

David

Edited July 10, 2013 by David BASC

[scotslad]

Al4x, u are right about some of the baised and poorly designed null hypothes that some of these surveys/research have but BASC or any other competent scientist should be able to drive a bus through the holes in them.

The problem exists that the press want soundbites generally anti shooting and will happily cherry pick, twist or blatently edit reports to suit their needs so it really doesn't matter wot the report says.

Some off the scientific studies coming out off this country in the last 30+yrs are laughable if they were not so shockingly bad

 

But no matter how baised a survey is u can generally only fudge/skew results so far, so if people got their fingers and steel shells out and there was very little lead shot found next time then there is not a lot they can do.

 

Also i'm not entirely sure wot ur gettin at with the difference between wildfowlers and inland driven shooters, End of day those duck are entering the commercial food chain so should have been shot in a legal way and been stored/handled in accordance with hygene etc, so there is a very good argument for testing them solely for food hygene reasons. I would probably hazzard a guess that far more people will shoot inland duck than coastal/wildfowling situation althou most will only have the odd mixed drive on a small day, not a big commercial duck day, and that the ammount of ducks shot will be far more coming from reared inland shoots than from the coast. Esp with some of these larger shoots shooting large bags.

Did u not even say yourself that the keeper u beat for used to be very strict on NT shells but now doesn't bother s much, if that is the case right across the shoots then the 70% could be right

 

As for fowlers i'm sure there are approaching the 100|% complience so it's not reallty their problem, their already doing all they can. Also I don't think many fowlers would want to give away any of the few ducks they shoot and work hard for

[wymberley]

Purely out of interest, does anyone happen to know - David BASC perhaps - who currently has the chair of the LAG? Is it still with BASC or has John Swift stayed on to complete the work?

[David BASC]

John Swift is the Chair of the LAG

[wymberley]

John Swift is the Chair of the LAG

Thank you.

 

With his work with FACE and in view of his remarks in the minutes (Items 3.8 and 3.9) of the 7th LAG meeting, it looks as though he's going to be even busier now that he's retired from BASC. In view of his expressed favour while still with BASC regarding the ongoing use of lead, it'll be advantageous for use to know in advance about any little bits of legislation from Europe that just might wash gently ashore here on a future spring tide.

 

In view of his other role, you could say that he got it from the horse's mouth!

[al4x]

I'm guessing none in 3.8 are pro lead Wymberley and simply areas that have banned its use or are about to,

Edited July 10, 2013 by al4x

[wymberley]

I'm guessing none in 3.8 are pro lead Wymberley and simply areas that have banned its use or are about to,

In view of 3.9, it looks as though more will be following suit. However, that's over there and because of the historic and ongoing statements from BASC regarding the use of lead - excepting more than likely the existing areas where it's currently a no no and assuming a satisfactory increase in compliance - over here, I bathe in the aura of certainty that all will be well because BASC says so.

 

Personally though, I'd have been inclined to hedge my bets but you can't help but admire the confidence that deemed this not to be necessary.

[mudpatten]

Whilst talking of statistics, here`s one you can check for yourself.

 

By my reckoning using the onboard search engine,( be interesting to see if you work it out differently), almost 75% of all of a14x`s posts on this entire forum are in some way critical of BASC.

 

Does this make him officially, a BASC "knocker" or does he just see absolutely everything from a slightly different perspective?

[al4x]

You obviously haven't read many of my posts mudpattern I just think I would like to see a fight going on and there isn't one and hasn't been. I assume I pay the same in my membership subscription as you so have the same entitlement to voice an opinion.

[Pole Star]

Whilst talking of statistics, here`s one you can check for yourself.

 

By my reckoning using the onboard search engine,( be interesting to see if you work it out differently), almost 75% of all of a14x`s posts on this entire forum are in some way critical of BASC.

 

Does this make him officially, a BASC "knocker" or does he just see absolutely everything from a slightly different perspective?

 

Not meaning to be rude mudpatten but do you have any problems with other bodies you meet on a daily basis ?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Pole Star

[Kes]

You obviously haven't read many of my posts mudpattern I just think I would like to see a fight going on and there isn't one and hasn't been. I assume I pay the same in my membership subscription as you so have the same entitlement to voice an opinion.

 

I have some sympathy with this view of a fight/no fight concern of al4x - I havent the patience to backtrack on posts but this 'new approach' has come quickly and seemingly from nowhere. Challenging the establishment view, even if its BASC's is healthy though dont you think ?

[B B]

For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism. :blink: :wacko:

[Underdog]

I dont see how lead shot could be banned and if it was reloading gear sales would rise.

The economics from lead shot must be huge!

 

U.

[mudpatten]

With the greatest of respect to a14x, I agree wholeheartedly that open debate is healthy and necessary.

 

I stated my view on this apparent need to fight elsewhere. Briefly, the intelligent option is to pick the fights you stand a good chance of winning otherwise the "fighting for it`s own sake" principle just becomes wasteful and divisive. Being seen by other bodies as a punch drunk, beligerant brawler is no way to advance one`s cause because nobody wants to deal with someone whose first resort is to agression.

 

Polestar asks if I ever have problems with other bodies I meet on a daily basis. Absolutely! I undoubtedly do. The difference seems to be that, having identified attack as the appropriate medium, I attack the source of the problem. Not my parent association!

 

If I were to feel that my parent association was falling short I would use the many democratic steps available to lobby for change. These might include lobbying my local council member or,most effectively,actually standing for council myself.

 

I`d be happy to vote for a14x should he ever decide to stand because I admire his underlying desire not to be bent over and ...... What I don`t admire is the fact that, with this current debate as with many others, we seem to have lost sight of the solution and become locked in a self destructive cycle of savaging our own tail whilst contributing absolutely nothing to resolving the issue.

 

Attacking BASC for the sake of attacking it has become the rather worrying objective of a policy that contributes nothing to actually dealing with the problem to hand.

 

It`s easy to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks. It`s rather more difficult to actually solve the problem.

Edited July 11, 2013 by mudpatten

[Kes]

MP, in all fairness al4x has said before he is a member of BASC and perhaps you extend the punch-drunk fighter analogy a little too far. Compliant voices can lead (not lead) to a certain degree of complacency, and too many compliant voices can lead to self assurance.

I too would vote for al4x as a voice representative of shooting and obviously a long time and v experienced rifle shooter.

 

However, we all do ourselves and our representative (not parent) organsation no good in this debate by unquestioningly accepting its approach and policy . There have been a number of previous posts expressing concern at the approach being taken, previously. I would tend to question the arrangements which led to John Swift as our rep on the LAG - he may well be experienced but is this the best way forward - am I allowed to ask this question without explosive criticism ?

Remember we get the representatives we deserve - a little dissent and questioning - taken in the right way by a healthy organisation isnt therefore perhaps worthy of scoffing but of reasonable assessment and response. We are all in this together and just because someone doesnt agree with our views should not justify a response we ourselves would not wish to receive.

This response isnt directed specifically at you MP by the way.

[David BASC]

Healthy discussion is fine, making incorrect or unfounded accusations against BASC or any other organisation is wrong and pointless.

 

The top and bottom of this is that the law as it stands must be complied with.

 

Non-compliance lays us open to claims that current regulation is inadequate and enforcement can only be achieved by introducing yet more laws. We have seen before, in many areas of public life, that regulators often see total bans as the easy option.

 

There is a general election is less than 2 years’ time, so to push government towards further restrictions, and achieve a total lead ban, those opposed to shooting are trying their hardest to portray shooters as persistently breaking the law.

 

So all the shooting originations are standing together to push compliance. Remember, every lead cartridge illegally fired blows a hole in the defence of all responsible shooting.

 

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Underdog]

I would never vote for al4x.

He has limited field of view and the pole causes him to much aggravation.

 

In my humble opinion which of course could be and often is wrong!