COuntryfile article on lead shot and ammunition

[David BASC]

BJ,

Thank you too, I appreciate a mature exchange of views and I am here to listen and understand the thoughts and feelings of the grass roots shooter.

 

It’s my understanding, and for those North of the Wall and over the sea in Ireland, please correct me if I am wrong, but there has not been and concerted effort by antis to target compliance in Scotland or NI thus far. It’s only us ‘lucky’ so and so’s in Englandshire and Welsh Wales that have been targeted by the WWT et al – oh joy!

 

Playing devil’s advocate if I may ….

Let’s assume we lobby and get Scottish Law - it then dawns on many that where as we could shoot clays, rabbit, pheasants, pigeons and so on just about where we wanted to if we chose, except some designated SSSI’s and the foreshore…we now find that there are hundreds of thousands of places in England and Wales where we can no longer allow lead to fall onto or over it…

 

And now the antis – will they pack up their cagoules and wander off into the sunset to console themselves with a glass of birch wine and at nut cutlet? Not on your nelly! the beggars will change their tack, and hit us from yet another angle.

 

So for now, let’s be seen to be delivering on compliance , and take the wind out of the anti’s sails

 

 

 

[Pole Star]

David if you don't mind can you give us your views on the Scottish law ? forgive me if I am wrong but I sort of got the impression you are scaremongering members south of the border that if they press for a change in the law to mirror that of Scotland it will back fire on them ?

 

As many have said here are the wildfowl being tested all coming from game dealers ? in which case they will almost certainly be reared Mallard from driven shoots & not wildfowl that are shot on the foreshore ect ? & anyway how would the WWT & other bodies who do the testing get hold of them for testing ?. If they approached me as I had just come off the foreshore or the loch edge & said " I say can you give us your hard earned bag so we can take it away & test it for lead " well what would you say ? , I know what I would tell them & sorry but it would not be printable on PW ! .

 

I agree with many on here the problem of none compliance is mostly from big commercial shoots with excess birds to sell & not the hard working wildfowler who works bloody hard in the worst weathers for a small bag for his table !.

 

Most shooters I know of seem to be happy with the nontoxic rules here , I feel BASC should look hard at the commercial shoots who sell their bag on to the game dealers & insist they comply .

With all due respect Pole Star .

Edited July 13, 2013 by Pole Star

[David BASC]

Hi Pole Star,

 

Not trying to scaremonger at all! Sorry if it came over that way, and thank you for pointing it out.

 

I can fully understand how many see the Scottish system as being more sensible, and personally I do have a degree of empathy with that view.

 

I agree that the vast majority of the ducks sampled came from inland shoots as you say, and its these shoots that need to be targeted for compliance.

 

And if someone came up asking to inspect my bag I would tell them where to go. But what I do fear is the threat of this very thing under an official regulatory banner, after all it was threatened in the initial regs and BASC fought it off last time.

 

I was simply saying that there are pros and cons of both systems, and the RAMSAR wetland restriction under Scottish law is something people typically forget, when focusing on shooting ducks away for the foreshore with lead.

 

If I use the shoot I do a bit of ‘keepering and berating on by way of example. We have 6 main drives, arguably 7 as we split on in two. We don’t put duck down, just pheasant, but it is not unusual to see a mallard or teal com through on one of the drives most days,

 

All bar two these drives have streams running through them or ponds in them, there are several other ponds on the shoot, all wetlands under RAMSAR. Shooting under the Scottish system would cause a few issues for the shoot as you can imagine – not unsurmountable of course.

 

But I do wonder, faced with the option of changing to the Scottish system or not shooting the odd duck that comes through – which option people would go for?

 

But I am just one member of BASC and I don’t set policy for BASC, and I very much welcome your feedback.

 

Sincerely

David

Edited July 13, 2013 by David BASC

[Piebob]

Can we, therefore, take it that you and your syndicate guns are currently shooting lead over your wetlands? And therefore presumably not worried about lead ingestion of wildfowl which you know you have as they pass through the drives?

[Floating Chamber]

Yawn....

[David BASC]

Good evening Piebob,

 

Perhaps you have not seen my other posts on this very issue, which of course is quite understandable.

 

What I have said is that personally I use voluntary restraint and do my utmost not to shoot lead over or onto wetlands on the shoot, although it would be legal to do so. I am not a gun on the shoot – just the nominated ‘keeper and a regular beater, so my shooting is pretty limited to pigeons, rabbits jackdaws and crows.

 

However, as we are in Merry England we can shoot over wetlands as you well know, you may disagree, but I am sure you know what the law says…but of course must either ignore the odd duck that comes through or put in non-lead on the drive when we know it’s most likely to see duck, or keep lead in and not bother with the odd duck or chose restraint and use no lead over most of the shoot or alter the drives.

 

David

 

 

 

 

[Piebob]

I'm not having a go I'm just trying to build my knowledge here. I'm trying to understand BASC's reluctance to lobby for change in the law, to increase compliance. I understand now.

[al4x]

David that is a prime example of you answering like a politician. That wasn't the question asked it was are you not worried about poisoning wildfowl? Not a question about you personally showing restraint, the crux is really do people believe its an issue the poisoning of wildfowl and from your answer I would suggest you don't see it as an issue. Hence you are trying to ensure we can still use lead over wetlands compliance is one thing but while we legally can shoot the same areas with lead I can't see how that keeps the birdie opposition happy

[David BASC]

The question asked - if you bothered to look Al4x - you and your syndicate guns so let me break it down for you..

 

Shooters in England, including some of the guns on the shoot I am involved in will shoot lead onto and over wetlands. That activity would be illegal under the Scottish system of course, but you would need to ask each one individually whether they are worried or not about it I cant answer on their behalf.

 

 

A lack of understanding /acceptance about the effects of lead ingested by wildfowl was one of the main reasons people chose to ignore the laws according to our last survey.

 

 

I can answer for me - I do understand and accept the issues of lead ingestion ...hence my post 206

 

Trust that's clear.

 

David

[gunsmoke]

 

 

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.’

 

 

 

Yes I agree, that is what I've been saying for years, problem is they [the wwt] are using the evidence you [basc] provided in the survey. It is not sound evidence, therefor: NO change, I hope.

 

One point,it is not 45% of shooters they say they use lead illegally, it 45% of BASC members surveyed that said they use lead illegally. and that is just hearsay evidence.

[David BASC]

Dear Gunsmoke,

 

Its not hearsay evidence at all. Hearsay would be based on rumour and gossip, word of mouth…this survey of BASC members was conducted under full scientific survey protocols

 

The information we sent to DEFRA was based on the membership survey, and we never ever said it was the whole shooting community.

 

4% said they never used alternatives when they should, 41% said they sometimes did not.

 

As I keep saying, harping on about the 2010 report is NOT going to help the situation going forward the sooner you accept this the better.

 

[sitsinhedges]

Dear Gunsmoke,

 

Its not hearsay evidence at all. Hearsay would be based on rumour and gossip, word of mouth…this survey of BASC members was conducted under full scientific survey protocols

 

The information we sent to DEFRA was based on the membership survey, and we never ever said it was the whole shooting community.

 

4% said they never used alternatives when they should, 41% said they sometimes did not.

 

As I keep saying, harping on about the 2010 report is NOT going to help the situation going forward the sooner you accept this the better.

 

 

So as representatives of the shooting community you have conducted a survey and passed your negative findings on to those who stand to restrict our shooting thus giving them grounds to call for a ban on lead?

 

Brilliant

 

It seems clear that the only people with clear problems regarding using the wrong ammunition are the commercial shoots. Most normal shooting folk don't get enough opportunities at shooting 'fowl to make any difference but we are the ones that are going to suffer for it.

 

As already mentioned, any moderated guns would become instantly obsolete and the places they can be used would be lost for shooting on.

 

I still don't see why you seem to think it OK to shoot other game over wetlands either.

[al4x]

 

I can answer for me - I do understand and accept the issues of lead ingestion ...hence my post 206

 

 

David

So is lead a problem over wetlands yes or no?

 

The current English law suggests not in my and most shooters eyes, otherwise we would have the Scottish law whether it impacts some shoots badly or not.

[wymberley]

Wymberley,

 

To answer your point about steel and older guns, there are two types of steel shot cartridges: Standard Steel and High Performance Steel.

 

Standard Steel cartridges can be fired through any gun proved to the standard level (ie most “Nitro” proved guns, proved to at least 930 bar) and through any choke. But not Damascus barrels.

 

Standard steel runs at about 1395 fps max MV compared to high performance steel that run at 1410 fps max.

 

For traditional lightweight game guns, CIP recommends choke generally no greater than half while the British Proof Authorities recommend no more than quarter choke.

 

I understand that standard steel may not be widely available in the shorter cartridge at the moment – most probably as simple case of supply and demand. If demand for the shorter cartridge increased then I have no doubt the manufactures would up production to cater for that demand.

"may not be widely available" Well, that's one way of putting it! If BASC achieves nothing else, one would hope that they would gain assurances set in stone that should there be any change in legislation that economical priced (remember that condition?) NTS shot is available to an extent that ALL shooters are capable of compying with the law.

 

The way I look at it is that you don't ask for it if you know that you can't get it. There's an old saying, if anybody makes it, somebody will buy it which is a good a way as any for the producers to access demand.

[IEH]

Does a 2.5 inch cartridge case, which many older guns will be restricted to, have enough volume to allow for an effective steel load?

[Guest cookoff013]

Does a 2.5 inch cartridge case, which many older guns will be restricted to, have enough volume to allow for an effective steel load?

 

no, but for the heavyer nontoxics, they are just as good as lead. if not costly.

[IEH]

Thanks, that's as I thought then.

 

So, if you have a 2.5 inch gun you can either buy the heavier non-toxics (Bismuth, TM), and unless you homeload I believe there's only a single load of TM available in 2.5 inch, or have the chambers lengthened to shoot 2.75 inch standard steel - both of which are expensive options.

 

and someone's thinking of buying a best gun as an investment?

Edited July 14, 2013 by IEH

[David BASC]

Yes we were involved in the survey commissioned by DEFRA. Who else do you suggest would have been better placed to ask shooters their knowledge, understanding and acceptance of the laws? As I have said many times before, if the results had been different and shown high compliance I am sure no one would have criticized…. would you?

 

Yes I agree, it’s the inland shoots were the compliance issue must be stressed.

 

To answer your question on lead in wetlands Al4x may I refer you to the AEWA – does that answer your question? It does not matter what I personally think, the massive amount of international research clearly shows the issue with lead in wetlands. I repeat yet again for your benefit I do my very best not to put lead into wetlands, as can any other shooter in England & Wales if they feel so inclined.

 

As I have said, it’s a matter of supply and demand and yes if the situation changes that there will be pressure on the cartridge manufacturers to provide a shorter case ammo. Given the price issue I imagine that will mostly be in steel.

 

David

Edited July 14, 2013 by David BASC

[sitsinhedges]

It seems that you carried out a survey in which you invite shooters to unwittingly condemn themselves.

 

That beggars belief.

[IEH]

 

As I have said, it’s a matter of supply and demand and yes if the situation changes that there will be pressure on the cartridge manufacturers to provide a shorter case ammo. Given the price issue I imagine that will mostly be in steel.

 

 

But if the 2.5 inch case doesn't have the required volume for an effective steel load, how can that happen?

 

You cannot get a quart into a pint pot!

[David BASC]

Sitsinhedges, Firstly, if the results of the survey had come back saying that compliance was high would you have been equally critical?

 

Secondly, have you read the report and the list of recommendations that came from it?

 

IEH, I take your point of course about the 2 1/2 cartridge, and I may well be wrong that a short case steel cartridge is possible but I would hope the manufacturers can help,I know there is work going on with propellants for example but- where will the majority of demand be from? It may well be that steel is a non runner for short case so we are left with bismuth or nice shot for example - but the costs will be much higher than lead.

 

David

 

,

[Guest cookoff013]

It seems that you carried out a survey in which you invite shooters to unwittingly condemn themselves.

 

That beggars belief.

 

now sits, it wasnt BASC head office who filled out all the survey slips. it was shooters. i filled out mine, i complied.

 

the fact that shooters would actually state they use lead is extremely shortsighted by its members. who are these idiots that filled out these forms?? thats the Question.

i dont think its hardcore wildfowlers. the clubs are strict enough, and would hope any members be ejected if they used lead shot.

 

the other point to the argument would be, if the survey came back that 2% of the members use lead, the basc would have stated that the 98% comply, there is no problem. but then the other point is, who`s shooting the duck with lead, and who`s selling them.

 

in this article, i remember the WWT representitive statement, they want to remove lead from the "environment" (or words to that effect). that statement can be taken a number of ways. all sound bad.

 

the irony is a cheap crappy steel proof gun and a box of steel is cheaper than 100-150 shells of bismuth.

 

some people are short sighted or just damn stupid, probbly 45% of those surveyed by basc.

Edited July 14, 2013 by cookoff013

[sitsinhedges]

Sitsinhedges, Firstly, if the results of the survey had come back saying that compliance was high would you have been equally critical?

 

Secondly, have you read the report and the list of recommendations that came from it?

 

IEH, I take your point of course about the 2 1/2 cartridge, and I may well be wrong that a short case steel cartridge is possible but I would hope the manufacturers can help,I know there is work going on with propellants for example but- where will the majority of demand be from? It may well be that steel is a non runner for short case so we are left with bismuth or nice shot for example - but the costs will be much higher than lead.

 

David

 

,

 

If I were running an organisation that is supposed to represent shooters I wouldn't have been running a survey that had a good chance of damaging their sport in the first place.

 

The highlighted part of your post sounds as though getting rid of lead is a done deal. Costs will be much higher, not could be.

[David BASC]

I note SITS that you choose to ignore yet again the simple questions I ask, because you know as well as I do that if the results had come back as Coookoff says – you would be singing BASC’s praises, saying what a great thing it was and how this shows how good the shooting community is at self regulation… Let’s hope the next time the shooting community are questioned we get results that are more to your liking. If there is a problem there is no point in ignoring it and hope that no one notices or that it will go away. Lets face up to the issues and do something about it - that is EXCCTLY what the main shooting originations and the shooing press are doing!

 

Now let’s look at the facts, let’s look at the results of the research in the context of the recommendations made in the report. They were:

 

• Raise awareness of the findings of the report
• Raise awareness of the problem of lead poisoning for waterfowl
• Provide information and guidance about the Regulations more widely
• Reassure the shooting community that the Regulations are not intended to restrict shooting activities any more than necessary
• Utilise communication media such as the BASC website
• Provide information and guidance on the efficacy and use of non-lead alternatives
• Additionally focus measures on inland game and/or duck shooting activities
• Encourage game dealers to demand compliance in their suppliers
• Enforce the Regulations
• Encourage shoot providers to not permit non-compliance
• Requests for Defra and the Lead Ammunition Group to examine the options for improving compliance
• On-going monitoring

The awareness raising was something that BASC was tasked to do, that's what we were tasked to do, that's what we have doing over the years and that's what we will continue to do. I am pleased that at long last to a greater or lesser extent other organisations are starting to do the same.

 

David

 

 

 

 

 

[sitsinhedges]

I think it is you that is ignoring the more uncomfortable questions whilst claiming any restrictions will be our fault, even though most of us barely shoot any duck at all.

 

You should be making sure the commercial shoots are complying with this bad law whilst also campaigning for it to be changed so it makes sense therefore raising compliance instead of selling us vermin shoters down the river.