COuntryfile article on lead shot and ammunition

[RossEM]

The law in England/Wales/NI isn't fit for purpose and SHOULD be the same as Scotland (i.e. no lead shot over wetlands.) I don't know why or how the difference occurred - anyone care to explain?

 

I would support BASC in lobbying to get the law changed to mirror Scotland. In fact, it should be the number 1 campaign priority in my opinion. There maybe a threat from anti-shooting MPs of amending a draft bill into a total lead ban - meet it and defeat it. That's what your paid for.

 

But.

 

Until such time that changes are made, the law is the law AND WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING IT. Breaking the law brings us all into disrepute and makes us look like cowboys. It aligns us with those moron keepers who kill birds of prey. We always claim to be 'law abiding shooters' - the public are not getting that impression at the moment. It demeans every effort we make towards conservation. It is a PR DISASTER for shooting.

 

I would hazard a guess that it isn't wildfowlers who are breaking the law, as their birds don't usually end up with game dealers. It's probably game shooters on driven duck shoots - the very people for whom the cost of bismuth cartridges isn't an issue.

 

Steel shot is safe to use in ANY gun, providing the chamber length corresponds to the cartridge, and that the barrel has no more than 1/2 choke. If you are not comfortable using steel in an antique gun, use bismuth, or don't shoot wildfowl with it!

[Pole Star]

Spot on RossEM thats what I feel about it too .

[al4x]

, 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.

 

 

The current focus is the correct one I don't think anyone is discussing anything else, I just have a few issues which are completely related to the problem, such as the law being an *** and the research being used being almost exclusively funded by the other side, and the fact that it took a lot before BASC started looking like they were going to fight. Like it or not the start was that leaked document that I got lambasted for mentioning earlier, How correct it was is not really up for debate but it provoked activity hell all the big guns got rolled out on here and other forums to counter it. Lead is under attack that is no doubt the Lead action group is reviewing information provided mostly by organisations against the use of lead and we have people "reviewing" that,

 

Where I think a lot of the threads go awry is that David does pop up, and does put the party line forward but also had a habit that I am not alone in noticing of answering just like the best politician. So avoiding answering awkward questions and moving the focus elsewhere this I have no doubt is due to his employment and not being able to but it sure frustrates and results in discussions that don't go anywhere.

 

Ultimately this thread is just about us continuing to use non toxic on ducks which I will be doing, it won't count for much as they get eaten here so won't count for anything in the statistics but I can be happy that i'm within the law

[David BASC]

I refute the accusation that these threads go awry because I post.

 

 

I do not avoid answering awkward questions –...list the awkward questions on this thread I have not answered?

 

 

But you answer this - why do you keep posting things like this that distract from the big issue of compliance?

 

Wake up – if we ignore the law we will face a ban on lead shot- you can fire silly inaccurate accusations at me and BASC all day long, that will not change the facts that there is a concerted campaign to achieve a total ban on lead shot. It is directed by powerful organisations with considerable financial and political resources. Although the current government has no desire to ban lead, politicians will be swayed by evidence and public opinion.

 

At present there is no evidence to suggest that existing legislation is inadequate – if it is observed.

 

David

 

 

 

[wymberley]

I refute the accusation that these threads go awry because I post.

 

 

I do not avoid answering awkward questions –...list the awkward questions on this thread I have not answered?

 

 

But you answer this - why do you keep posting things like this that distract from the big issue of compliance?

 

Wake up – if we ignore the law we will face a ban on lead shot- you can fire silly inaccurate accusations at me and BASC all day long, that will not change the facts that there is a concerted campaign to achieve a total ban on lead shot. It is directed by powerful organisations with considerable financial and political resources. Although the current government has no desire to ban lead, politicians will be swayed by evidence and public opinion.

 

At present there is no evidence to suggest that existing legislation is inadequate – if it is observed.

 

David

 

 

 

I do think that David BASC does 'tick off' and respond to the points/questions raised very well. Now, I don't/can't know if the ones where he doesn't do so are because they are 'difficult or simply that he's just missed them.

 

Of the words that worry me, "At present there is no evidence to suggest......." (Some years back in a certain organisation the expression, 'no fault apparent' came into vogue. How it was allowed to slip through I could never understand; "well, Boss I didn't say there was nothing wrong, just that it wasn't obvious to me".) is near the top of the list. Also up there near the top is no words at all. Consequently, when you 'hear' those words and then don't 'hear' any about something that has been mentioned several times, I start to wonder and share al4x's point of view.

 

I'm pretty sure by now that the message, 'compliance at all costs' has been received. However, is it the be all and end all? Please don't ask me to pin point my reasons for saying so as, 'a feeling in my water' is not really a satisfactory answer, but I'm beginning to get the impression that the LAG is going to prove to been an equal or even greater threat than any 'compliance' failure. The latter we have control over; the former we don't.

 

So, David, is compliance this 'be all and end all' (I am not detracting from its importance) or should we also keep a weather eye on the Group and particularly now that BASC has now no representation?

[David BASC]

Compliance is a part of the issues we face, not the be all and end all. But that, of course, is not a reason to ignore the need to comply.

 

If compliance is seen to be low then regardless of the LAG I have no doubt there will be massive pressure to ban lead

 

 

We do not know yet what LAG will find and report on - but the two issues I know they are looking at is lead in food and lead in the environment.

 

 

LAG will report to DEFRA- what DEFRA do with the report we will not know.until it is delivered,but our people in Westminster are keeping a very close eye on the situation.

 

David

[RossEM]

David, I don't think the point is that the current legislation is inadequate - I think it's more the fact that the current legislation is over adequate.

 

A lead ban over wetlands - that is coastal marshes, estuaries, lochs and washes - is understandable and justifiable. A lead ban over any other type of land is pointless. It doesn't protect wildfowl from ingesting lead.

 

The Scottish system does not criminalise those guns who shoot duck during a driven game day, and it protects wildfowl. It is the ideal for both shooting and conservation interests, and is what we should have and should be striving for.

 

It's reasonable to assume that wildfowlers will be 100% compliant with the lead ban, as they are (in my experience) more avid sportsmen in terms of knowledge, care and interest of their quarry than the average corporate-day game shot.

[David BASC]

I take your point of course. As I have said, personally I chose voluntary restraint and don’t shoot lead over any wetlands in England, and if a duck comes over when I only have lead in the tubes, I let it go. But if I am flighting one of the ponds on my shoot, then I stoke up with steel (my choice- other alternatives are available)

 

The problem is the antis – they will push hard for a ban if compliance with the current laws is seen to be low.

 

Barry Gardiner, new shadow minister for the natural environment, speaking at the Game & Wildlife Conservation All Party Parliamentary Group this week, set out some key aspects of the opposition's plans for future wildlife policy.

 

He welcomed the renewed commitment by the shooting community to ensure lead shot was not used inappropriately and said it was "absolutely right and absolutely good" that some moorland owners were using diversionary feeding to reduce the risk of predation by raptors. But he warned that failure to abide by the law would make regulation more likely in a future Labour administration.

 

Straight from the horse’s mouth as it were.

 

David

 

 

[RossEM]

Has Mr Gardiner been made aware that the law is inappropriate, and if amended the chances of 100% compliance would be higher?

[Kes]

Has Mr Gardiner been made aware that the law is inappropriate, and if amended the chances of 100% compliance would be higher?

Good point and is reform of the present law on the LAG agenda?

[al4x]

Good point and is reform of the present law on the LAG agenda?

 

No and I have asked DavidBASC more than a few times on this and BASC don't seem to want it, though the swerve on this one is they don't want to rake the argument up but it would be interesting to know who had input to the law in the first place and why we have a less sensible one than Scotland.

 

Though the LAG and the BASC's old employee who chairs it does seem good at suggesting other countries in Europe don't shoot over wetlands so why we can is a bit of an anomaly

[David BASC]

The role of the LAG is specifically to advise DRFRA and the FSA on:

 

1. the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition, the respective levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any significant risks;

 

2.possible options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition.

 

Not the law

 

It is not a case of ignoring what some have said about lobbying for a change in the law, but as I have said before, we are in a very weak position to suggest changing the law, let alone keeping lead shot, if we can’t show we can comply with the current laws.

 

 

In England the wetland restriction applies to any area below high-water mark of ordinary spring tides, plus on or over any of the sites of special scientific interest listed in the Regulations. BASC lobbied for and was successful in removing many sites from the Regulations. This leaves many areas where you can still use lead shot for all quarry apart from wildfowl.

 

In Scotland the wetland restriction is much broader and applies to all areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres. This gives us significant areas where lead shot cannot be used for any form of shooting.

 

I accept your point about shooting into or over wetlands and as I have said before, you can show voluntary restraint and not shoot over / into wetlands if you want to.

 

David

 

 

[Bazooka Joe]

The problem is the antis – they will push hard for a ban if compliance with the current laws is seen to be low

 

 

Surely the answer to that one David is to lobby for a change in the law, & take the advantage away from the anti's altogether.?

[David BASC]

Morning BJ,

 

Parliament will not change the law just because compliance is low.

 

We have clearly been told that we are expected to comply with the law as it stands; if we do not then we will find lead is lost.

 

David

[wymberley]

Morning BJ,

 

Parliament will not change the law just because compliance is low.

 

We have clearly been told that we are expected to comply with the law as it stands; if we do not then we will find lead is lost.

 

David

David,

 

There has been so many words spoken about this and it would take for ever to search through them all. Consequently, please forgive me if the answer to my question is, after all, readily found. I have to admit that now, I've forgotten the root cause of the joint association campaign to drive home the dire need for compliance.

 

Who told us and do they have the power to ban lead?

 

Another question if I may, do we have a percentage figure available for from the total number of shooters, those who actually shoot 'fowl?

[David BASC]

Wymberley,

 

No problem, I fully understand and agree, this is a ‘problem’ with long threads!

 

With an election just 2 shooting seasons away, the WWT made it clear they were ‘upping their campaign’ some months ago. It’s very probable that they will look again at compliance with the laws on lead shot.

 

We are already picking up from MP’s that they expect the shooting community to comply with the laws. Just this week the new shadow minister for the natural environment warned that failure to abide by the law would make regulation more likely in a future Labour administration.

 

So all the main shooting organisations, and others, have come together for a big push on compliance.

 

I do not have national statistics for shooters in general, but based on our members main shooting interests, around 25% will take part in coastal wildfowling and almost 50% will shoot duck and geese inland.

 

David

 

 

 

[wymberley]

This is starting to not sit well with me. We have been told by a organisation what they'd like us to do. However, they themselves have no direct power to force us to but if we don't then they'll attempt to coerce those that do into doing so is basically what you're saying, David.

 

BJ is just the latest to say it but attempting to change the law does seem to have merit amongst PWers and BJ also gives another advantage of this in as much as it steals the WWT's thunder.

 

We know that the existing compliance from the 'fowlers is already extremely high. Additionally, I would imagine that the vast majority of those are BASC members and therefore it's possible to accurately give an assessment of the numbers involved. From the 50% of the inland shooters, how many are just 'pot shots' and how many responded, 'yes' to the survey on those grounds or even just because they felt they might want to. As you say, we cannot be certain of a total in this regard. As a result we cannot be aware of the extent of the problem and if we can't be, who on earth else can be.

 

I would suggest that BJ et al have a good case and also that all of the associations involved in this 'compliance push' carry out a survey of their members to, A. ascertain exactly what %age actually shoot inland 'fowl and B. the %age in favour of lobbying for a change in the law. As in Europe, for example, there are situations so critical that any governing body should really ensure that they have a mandate to carry out their intended actions.

[al4x]

Lets say Wymberley if the law was the same as Scotland we wouldn't be having this compliance issue as it couldn't be tested using the current methods.

[Piebob]

I, too, am struggling with the BASC stance/thought that we should not attempt to have the law changed as it may be hijacked and we'll end up with lead being banned altogether.

 

Let's assume we accept the provenance of the dead, oven-ready ducks from the notorious complaince survey. Assuming they are all English, fresh birds then these are more than likely to have come from inland game shoots, as 'fowlers generally keep their own/do not sell on to dealers.

 

Let's also assume that shooters accept the argument that lots of wildfowl are dying from ingested lead. i.e. the very reason for the law being brought in. (Let's leave that debate for another time)

 

OK...

 

BASC's own survey reveals that one of the main issues in non-compliance is the fact that people do not agree with the law as it stands. (They understand it, but they don't agree with it).

Those non-compliance shooters can not see the logic in banning the shooting of ducks, away from ponds, at an inland game shoot on a mixed drive or start/end-of-day duck drive because doing so does not address the reason for the law being introduced - ingestion.

BASC wants, and has been tasked, to increase compliance within the shooting community.

 

One of the ways for BASC to achieve this is to lobby to get a sensible law in place that shooters see as logical, in that it addresses the ingestion issue at the heart of the law.

 

A subsequent measure of compliance may well reveal that this single change makes it a non-issue. i.e. compliance will be so high.

[al4x]

Bear in mind there is also a cross europe agreement to cut shooting over wetlands........ how our law fits with that I don't know,

[Penelope]

Bent over backwards for Europe I suspect. Seems to be the default mode.

 

Bear in mind there is also a cross europe agreement to cut shooting over wetlands........ how our law fits with that I don't know,

[al4x]

Bent over backwards for Europe I suspect. Seems to be the default mode.

 

 

not at all we seem to be telling them to comply and then coming up with our daft situation where you can shoot pheasants over the same wetland but not ducks with lead, the crux of the issue is if lead is that bad to ducks then surely using it over the same area of wetland on a different quarry is just as bad

Edited July 12, 2013 by al4x

[wymberley]

 

not at all we seem to be telling them to comply and then coming up with our daft situation where you can shoot pheasants over the same wetland but not ducks with lead, the crux of the issue is if lead is that bad to ducks then surely using it over the same area on a different quarry is just as bad

Al4x,

I know what you mean but everything after the comma is best deleted as someone could take it the wrong way.

[al4x]

edited to add that naturally I meant over wetlands

[Penelope]

Alex, what I meant was that the UK will change it's laws to comply with whatever European directive is put in place to reduce or curtail shooting over wetlands, especially if Labour are in power at the time.

 

Here's a thought, don't all game birds and pigeons use grit, so surely they would all be equally susceptible to ingesting lead as a grinding agent, so where are the masses of poisoned carcases. Yes I am aware that lead is toxic if ingested, but IMO it takes exceptional circumstances, and I suspect that pheasanst on shot ground would be the most susceptible.

 

And before the trolls start spouting that I must be one of the wildfowl lead shooters because of my comments, I comply, I use steel, despite the fact that I think that the non toxic alternatives are not as effective as lead. I say this from personal experience

 

 

not at all we seem to be telling them to comply and then coming up with our daft situation where you can shoot pheasants over the same wetland but not ducks with lead, the crux of the issue is if lead is that bad to ducks then surely using it over the same area on a different quarry is just as bad

Edited July 12, 2013 by Penelope