If there was a total ban on lead .....?

[Scully]

 

I certainly don't want the law in let me get that crystal clear. if it comes I shall obey it because any that don't risk further restrictions being enforced, this is just how things work now I am afraid. It seems your calling for better enforcement now as that is the answer to laws being disregarded, my aim is to do this within our ranks just like has been done in the Wildfowling clubs

The law is already 'in', that's the point, and it isn't working. Wildfowling clubs 'do this' within their ranks because it's law,not for some reason of moral obligation, but how this is achieved or enforced is unknown to me as I'm not a wildfowler. Can the same be said for those who shoot inland riverbanks, ponds and floodplains? Who polices these individuals?

Rightly or wrongly, illogical laws tend to be resented and ignored, whatever they relate to, and as long as their are lead shot cartridges available then it will continue to be so.

The entire lead shot issue has more to do with politics (agendas again) than animal or environmental welfare; reflected not only in the illogical difference in English/Scottish legislation, but also by those who choose to ignore it. I'm not against steel, but am against political deceit, and can perfectly understand why some choose to ignore the law.

As the issue is unenforceable the only answer has to be a ban, which will only become effective with the cessation of lead shot production and the gradual fazing out of lead shot as individual supplies dry up.

I will then look forward to the benefits to both wildfowl and the environment becoming apparent to us all.

[kent]

The issue of illegal use of lead is a clear one of others excepting it. Look at drink driving when I first got my licence most did it to a degree, I even remember a copper pulling me over and asking had I had a drink when I said yes but not very much he said "ok I wont breathalyse you then" Only the guy who was totally drunk found his car key mysteriously missing back then. Now we call the cops off our mobiles to report persons. Don't get me wrong I am all for this "change in attitude" but the law never changed just the severity of the sentences.

This "change of attitude" has already occurred in wildfowling clubs. I hope we can make in happen elsewhere the law currently demands it! Our biggest issues are the Scottish / England and Wales difference, I know one section of saltmarsh that takes a lot of falling lead shot from clay shooters yet the fowlers there can only use non toxic! The American view is somewhat different as they talk of preserving their resource and even have voluntary no lead zones over upland areas used by wildfowl when they are out after other legal for lead game.

Why do wildfowlers have this change in attitude? Because they realise if they don't then they risk loosing it all and that is what we now face over the illegal use of lead on duck and other wildfowl inland "loosing all lead" perhaps not all our shooting like the wildfowlers just yet, only all lead ammo. The trick is achieving the "change in attitude" within the inland shooting community

[Scully]

The issue of illegal use of lead is a clear one of others excepting it.

I'm not really sure I understand this. Do you mean the illegal use of lead shot occurs because there are those who willingly accept its use?

You're correct in that laws only apply to those who comply, as your drink driving example implies, but I always feel (with one or two exceptions) that those who comply are usually those who have most to lose and and have considered the consequences,not simply because they think its wrong.

What those who don't comply may have not realised is that non compliance can be monitored by comparing numbers of wildfowl entering the foodchain via game dealers with sales of non toxic shot before and since the lead shot ban was introduced. If figures remain fairly consistent then obviously the law is being flouted, as compliance would surely indicate the numbers of wildfowl remained roughly the same but sales of non toxic shot to dramatically increase.Government bodies may be deceitful and illogical but they're a long way from being stupid.No doubt there will more monitoring of shot wildfowl being bought by dealers in the future, when dramatic increases of birds bought by Scottish dealers would set bells ringing!This still doesn't take into account all those shot by individuals of course.

A change in attitude is very unlikely while many regard the ban as illogical and a ban inevitable.

Legislation (all legislation) can only do so much, as it only applies with the consent of those who are willing to comply. We all know HOW it should be, I'm simply telling it as it IS.

The reasoning for the law is complex, elusive and non provable;that's what you're up against. For instance,what will be the signs in the wildfowl population and the environment that a lead shot ban is of benefit to either? Have the wildfowl and environment benefited from the ban in N. America and other countries where it applies? If so,how can anyone tell and what are those benefits? Is anyone even bothering to monitor the claimed benefits? It costs money to research an issue, especially when the agenda has been achieved. My cynicism surprises even me.

Edited December 24, 2013 by Scully

[Underdog]

When they have banned lead do certain people here really really believe that it will be the end of the great witch hunt that is anti shooting?

Do these poeple honestly believe that getting a brown nose will appease the masses against us?

 

If a duck is shot in Scotland with lead and it flys south over the border and shot with steel but inspected by big brother and found to have lead shot in it, is that another nail in our coffin?

 

Why is it I don't see any more duck now than before the first ban?

 

All the spiel had me believing I would be tripping over the things now!

 

It's a crock of poop, I said then and still do, it's a mistake!

 

Won't be long at this rate and we will be lucky to use a pair of catties!

 

U.