Lead Ammmunition Group

[panoma1]

David I qoute from your post#93

 

"Over and above this, as we all know, wildfowl will also inhabit other areas inland, and these areas also need protection from spent lead shot deposition"

 

If this is BASC's position I fear they have already accepted a total ban on lead shot!

[wymberley]

David I qoute from your post#93

 

"Over and above this, as we all know, wildfowl will also inhabit other areas inland, and these areas also need protection from spent lead shot deposition"

 

If this is BASC's position I fear they have already accepted a total ban on lead shot!

To be fair, I think David's first sentence was a blanket one and then he gave the foreshore as the prime example and then your quoted words as a further example of wetlands. In other words, as per the Scottish legislation.

 

As sure as little eggs is little eggs I hope that's what he meant otherwise, as you say, we really are in trouble.

 

Edit: PS Mind you the words, "for example" are a tad worrying!

Edited December 8, 2014 by wymberley

[David BASC]

No BASC have not accepted a lead ban.

 

If BASC had not been up to the mark and up to the job then I am sure as god made little eggs there would have been a UK wide total lead ban for shotguns back in the mid to late 90's

 

If shooters cannot simply use lead shot only where and when they are legally obliged to, regardless of what part of the UK they are in, then frankly we know damn well what will happen regardless of the LAG etc

[panoma1]

Glad to hear it David!

What makes you think that a total ban on lead shot in the UK would have happened in the late 90's? For what reason was the government persuing a complete ban on lead shot in the UK in the late 90's? Why?

How and what did BASC do to prevent this alleged attempt to totally ban lead shot in the UK in the late 90's?

 

If there is a low level of compliance with the present lead shot restrictions, that is because of ignorance, or people can't see the purpose of or a reason for the ban, but mainly because of lack of enforcement!.....why do you think so many people are using a phone whilst driving? Yep! because of lack of enforcement they don't think they will be caught!

 

I submit there are very high levels of compliance on the coast because Wildfowlers can identify. (not neccesarily agree with though) what the ban is trying to achieve........inland, you are getting lower levels of compliance because shooters cannot see why the law says you can shoot a Pheasant over land with lead but you can't shoot a duck or goose with lead.....and frankly nor can I!

 

Since the Government have unfairly and I believe without scientific reason/evidence banned (been allowed to?) the use of lead shot to shoot wildfowl anywhere in England and Wales how can we defend using lead shot to shoot anything else anywhere?

 

David I feel you have been selective in addressing the questions I have posted throughout this thread, I would be grateful if you would be good enough to go back through them and attempt to do so.......as I consider the possibility of a complete ban on the use of lead shot as the most serious threat shooting currently faces.

 

P1

Edited December 8, 2014 by panoma1

[David BASC]

The restrictions on lead shot came about from an international conference in Brussels in 1991, there was a significant risk that the easy option would have been a total lead ban. Hence BASC (alone I may add) fighting off restrictions, while at the same time doing all we could to encourage cartridge manufacturers to develop and get ready to market viable alternatives.

 

Even after the 1995 AEWA sign up in the UK we kept on fighting, not least of all because during this time there was continuing strong pressure ion the UK government from those who were advocating a total ban.

 

If you think I have missed nay questions then for the sake of clarity and to prevent further accusations of me being selective, please list the questions you feel I have totally missed

 

thank you

[panoma1]

The restrictions on lead shot came about from an international conference in Brussels in 1991, there was a significant risk that the easy option would have been a total lead ban. Hence BASC (alone I may add) fighting off restrictions, while at the same time doing all we could to encourage cartridge manufacturers to develop and get ready to market viable alternatives.

 

Even after the 1995 AEWA sign up in the UK we kept on fighting, not least of all because during this time there was continuing strong pressure ion the UK government from those who were advocating a total ban.

 

If you think I have missed nay questions then for the sake of clarity and to prevent further accusations of me being selective, please list the questions you feel I have totally missed

 

thank you

David I have already posted my questions! they all end with a question mark! I asked you to address them and you come back with a request that I relist them! They are already there so why?

 

Quote "Even after the 1995 AEWA sign up in the UK we kept on fighting, not least of all because during this time there was continuing strong pressure ion the UK government from those who were advocating a total ban" unquote.

 

Who were "those advocating a total ban"? The protectionists such as the RSPB and the WWT et al? .........ie. the same organisations presently sitting on the LAG? What was the basis of their arguement advocating a total ban at that time? It must have been persuasive because it was partly successful in that over and above compliance with the AEWA requirements, the species specific ban on shooting ducks and geese with lead came into being!

 

P1

[David BASC]

I have politely asked you to tell me which ones you say I have not answered, I am asking you to clarify exactly which ones, If you don't want to do that then simply say so

 

BASC has frankly done tons more than anyone else on this issue and told shooters about it on our web site and our magazine, and the general shooting press over the last 20 years

 

If you are that interested in finding out the history of the decades of attacks on lead shot at a European as well as UK level then I commend Google to you.

 

David

[Blunderbuss]

David I have already posted my questions! they all end with a question mark! I asked you to address them and you come back with a request that I relist them! They are already there so why?

Nice attitude. Perhaps because the world doesn't revolve around you? Perhaps because he has better things to do with his time than endlessly trawl through the back catalogue of posts from just one poster?

 

Why the sarcasm, rudeness and self important sense of entitlement? David has politely offered to answer your questions, if you could take the time to repost them. Is that too much to ask? Perhaps (as I suspect) he comes on here, unpaid in his own time. Perhaps he also has a life to attend to? Perhaps (and this will clearly come as a shock to you) despite being on BASCs payroll, he isn't an expert on every aspect of their work and might not have all the answers?

 

Alone amongst reps from the organisations, David comes on here time and again, often taking endless grief for his trouble. We are lucky that he does, but if I were him I'd have given up yonks ago. Perhaps you might want to interrogate/cross examine/water board the reps from the CA, CPSA, NRA, SST, GTA, MLAGB, NRSA, GWCT etc who regularly post on pigeon watch? Er, hang on a minute.....

[Yellow Bear]

Nice attitude. Perhaps because the world doesn't revolve around you? Perhaps because he has better things to do with his time than endlessly trawl through the back catalogue of posts from just one poster?

 

Why the sarcasm, rudeness and self important sense of entitlement? David has politely offered to answer your questions, if you could take the time to repost them. Is that too much to ask? Perhaps (as I suspect) he comes on here, unpaid in his own time. Perhaps he also has a life to attend to? Perhaps (and this will clearly come as a shock to you) despite being on BASCs payroll, he isn't an expert on every aspect of their work and might not have all the answers?

 

Alone amongst reps from the organisations, David comes on here time and again, often taking endless grief for his trouble. We are lucky that he does, but if I were him I'd have given up yonks ago. Perhaps you might want to interrogate/cross examine/water board the reps from the CA, CPSA, NRA, SST, GTA, MLAGB, NRSA, GWCT etc who regularly post on pigeon watch? Er, hang on a minute.....

+1 and add SACS to the list - however it would be interesting to know if panoma1 is a BASC member or just a freeloader

[panoma1]

Likewise I politely asked you to address the questions I have already posted on this thread as you have not done fully so far, and you come back asking me to repeat these questions!? I can only conclude that this is a tactic to waste my time repeating myself? David if you don't wish to answer them simply say so

 

You have made statements and given partial answers to my questions on this thread, to which I have asked further questions, which you have again failed to address fully, why do you refer me to google when BASC were involved in the discussions/negotiations in question as in your own words they "have done tons more than anyone else on this issue" you are David from BASC, therefore do you not have the answers via BASC?

 

David we are getting nowhere so unless you relent and attempt to answer my concerns there seems little point in continuing this debate.

[wymberley]

the objective of the current restrictions on the use of lead shot is, as we all know, aimed at preventing the deposition of spent lead shot onto key habitats were wildfowl for example are most likely to be.

 

 

David,

 

Because it's so easy to do, all of us at times can say or write something that we did not mean to - or is ambiguous. I think that you may have done this in the above quote which is extracted from your Post #93. Because you mention, "current restrictions", I think I know the answer but am not certain. Therefore, would you agree that, "for example" should be omitted? Other examples of key habitats where, say, grouse are most likely to be are the highlands and moors. Similarly, for pheasant, any shooting estate and for pigeon, anywhere in the UK. In other words, on behalf of BASC should you be so empowered to say, can you confirm that it is BASC's opinion that wildfowl is not an example but the one and only collective species to which the use of lead shot should remain illegal (in addition to the existing site specifics) assuming the species specific legislation remains in force?

 

Many thanks

[David BASC]

I have asked for clarification so I will not be accused of being selective, it is as simple as that

 

If you want better answers than I can give, please contact our Chief Scientific advisor at Marford Mill

[David BASC]

Wildfowl are covered as are moorhen and coot in England, Wales.

 

Wildfowl are Anatidae

 

Moorhen and coot are not.

 

Hence the use of the phrase 'wildfowl for example'. as not only wildfowl are covered

[panoma1]

Blunderbuss and Yellow Bear,

 

My postings have not been a personal attack on David BASC (unlike yours on me) nor were they designed to be sarcastic or rude, they may have shown a bit of irritation as I feel I have asked relevant questions of someone who is employed by BASC and feel I have not had a satisfactory reply.

 

You appear to feel compelled to rush to David's defence rather than find out information from him that could have serious implications for the future of shooting, I wonder why? David does not need to be patronised by you nor need your protection, he is a grown man and can as you have seen hold his own in any debate.

 

And yes Yellow Bear I am a BASC member, as I was previous to that a WAGBI member.

[panoma1]

I have asked for clarification so I will not be accused of being selective, it is as simple as that

 

If you want better answers than I can give, please contact our Chief Scientific advisor at Marford Mill

 

David, If the "Chief Scientific Advisor" to which you refer is Dr J H? I asked similar questions of him at the Last Welsh Wildfowling conference in Caersws many years ago and similarly........got no answers!

[wymberley]

Wildfowl are covered as are moorhen and coot in England, Wales.

 

Wildfowl are Anatidae

 

Moorhen and coot are not.

 

Hence the use of the phrase 'wildfowl for example'. as not only wildfowl are covered

Thank you kindly, David.

 

I'm as sure as I can be that you fully understood my question, but as I indicated, sometimes we don't say what we mean or are ambiguous with our wording and I just did it!

 

Consequently, could you answer my question raised at Post #111 if I add Moorhen and Coot to the term I incorrectly used for the collective wildfowl species?

 

Many thanks

[grrclark]

Blunderbuss and Yellow Bear,

 

My postings have not been a personal attack on David BASC (unlike yours on me) nor were they designed to be sarcastic or rude, they may have shown a bit of irritation as I feel I have asked relevant questions of someone who is employed by BASC and feel I have not had a satisfactory reply.

 

You appear to feel compelled to rush to David's defence rather than find out information from him that could have serious implications for the future of shooting, I wonder why? David does not need to be patronised by you nor need your protection, he is a grown man and can as you have seen hold his own in any debate.

 

And yes Yellow Bear I am a BASC member, as I was previous to that a WAGBI member.

 

Panoma, it is a general discussion forum, not a dedicated ask BASC and hold their feet to the fire forum. There is no right to reply and certainly no obligation on David's part to provide answers.

 

If you have issues with BASC or require further answers then write to them under the terms of your membership and ask the relevant questions. If you want share the results here later for a broader discussion if you are unsatisfied, that would be valid.

 

I'm not attempting to run to David's defence here, as you say he is easily capable of that himself, but from the perspective of someone who appreciates having a representative from my organisation on here it frustrates me hugely when the guy seems to get nothing but hectoring from people with a personal agenda.

 

I cannot recall a thread where David has posted without some barrack room lawyer type wanting to call his every word into question. His responses are analysed in the extreme from every angle with every post dissected as though it is some sort of trial.

 

Your concerns are absolutely valid and legitimate and of course you are entitled to pursue them and seek answers, but perhaps accept that this forum is not the appropriate place for a formal examination of BASC and their actions.

[Blunderbuss]

 

Panoma, it is a general discussion forum, not a dedicated ask BASC and hold their feet to the fire forum. There is no right to reply and certainly no obligation on David's part to provide answers.

 

If you have issues with BASC or require further answers then write to them under the terms of your membership and ask the relevant questions. If you want share the results here later for a broader discussion if you are unsatisfied, that would be valid.

 

I'm not attempting to run to David's defence here, as you say he is easily capable of that himself, but from the perspective of someone who appreciates having a representative from my organisation on here it frustrates me hugely when the guy seems to get nothing but hectoring from people with a personal agenda.

 

I cannot recall a thread where David has posted without some barrack room lawyer type wanting to call his every word into question. His responses are analysed in the extreme from every angle with every post dissected as though it is some sort of trial.

 

Your concerns are absolutely valid and legitimate and of course you are entitled to pursue them and seek answers, but perhaps accept that this forum is not the appropriate place for a formal examination of BASC and their actions.

 

 

Thank you

 

I was composing a waffly reply but you've said what I was thinking far more eloquently and concisely than I could!

[BlaserF3]

Why has nobody asked this organisation http://www.bssc.org.uk/the-british-shooting-sports-council/bssc-today/what is happening on the lead shot discusion?

[panoma1]

 

Panoma, it is a general discussion forum, not a dedicated ask BASC and hold their feet to the fire forum. There is no right to reply and certainly no obligation on David's part to provide answers.

 

If you have issues with BASC or require further answers then write to them under the terms of your membership and ask the relevant questions. If you want share the results here later for a broader discussion if you are unsatisfied, that would be valid.

 

I'm not attempting to run to David's defence here, as you say he is easily capable of that himself, but from the perspective of someone who appreciates having a representative from my organisation on here it frustrates me hugely when the guy seems to get nothing but hectoring from people with a personal agenda.

 

I cannot recall a thread where David has posted without some barrack room lawyer type wanting to call his every word into question. His responses are analysed in the extreme from every angle with every post dissected as though it is some sort of trial.

 

Your concerns are absolutely valid and legitimate and of course you are entitled to pursue them and seek answers, but perhaps accept that this forum is not the appropriate place for a formal examination of BASC and their actions.

Then perhaps David should just come on here as David....... not David BASC?

[David BASC]

Wymberley - yes BASC does not see any reason for the current lead restrictions to be extended to other species, this has been our position for many years, indeed it was BASC that lobbied for and succeeded in having other non wildfowl species removed from the English list.

 

At BASC our arguments are backed by solid, scientific evidence and we refuse to countenance any decisions proposed by policy-makers, regulators or others that are not soundly evidence-based.

 

And as we provide clear evidence to support our case we will expect those who seek to restrict any aspect of shooting to do the same. They must back their claims with hard evidence, and this is particularly important in contentious areas such as the use of lead shot.

 

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

 

P1 yes the Chief Scientific officer is Dr JPH

[Scully]

Further to the annoyance of agendas, there is no common sense nor logic applied to shooting legislation in the British Isles, and not just regarding wildfowl and lead shot.

Our rough shoot is covered in vast swathes of marshland covered in Reedmace and Bullrushes, and dissected at many intervals by culverts, ditches and gulleys. It is perfectly legal for us to shoot the many pheasant with lead shot which inhabit this land, but not the ducks which inhabit this same piece of land. If the lead ban is about the environment and the wildfowl ingesting lead shot then how can this be so? If I shoot a duck with steel shot then all is legal; the duck is dead but the environment is safe, but if I shoot a pheasant on the same piece of land with lead, then all is legal also, the pheasant is dead but now the environment is contaminated ! Where is the logic? It can't be about lead as the environment that the ducks inhabit has still been contaminated when shooting the pheasant. If it's about ducks ingesting spent lead shot then how come I can shoot pheasant and all manner of creatures over the same piece of land?

Our shoot is bordered by the river Eden, on which live ducks by the hundreds, and all the lead that doesn't hit a pheasant is spent all over this land, including the river and its banks.

Where is the logic?

Our flight pond has been there for generations, and has been used as such by those generations. The spent lead shot in its shallows and margins must be worth a bob or two by now (the fact it is centrally placed to the shoot means it will also be subject to fall out when shooting pheasants also) and from what has been claimed regarding the toxicity of lead shot is it too far fetched to expect we should maybe find at least some evidence of a carcass or two? We regularly find the odd carcass of pheasants, roe, crows, buzzards, pigeons and rabbits (even salmon) around the shoot, but never once in all the years I've been shooting there have I found evidence of one single duck carcass. Strange really.

J Swift, when asked at a BASC evening I attended some years ago, given the threat it has been claimed lead is to ducks, how come we weren't seeing evidence of such casualties, explained that nature was very efficient at disposing of such things, but stuttered a bit and then failed to explain how then those people who worked for those organisations which were making the claims against lead, managed to find them. To say no one was impressed would be an understatement; even Robert Bucknell had the good grace to appear a little embarrassed.

I am of the opinion the lead shot issue has little to do with lead, but rather shooting in general.

[grrclark]

Then perhaps David should just come on here as David....... not David BASC?

I disagree, he comes on and engages in a good level of discussion and isn't afraid to get into a good debate. I personally like that he comes on as a representative of BASC.

 

I also think that it would be arrogant in the extreme if some individuals believe that their self appointed status of rigorous examiner should be to the detriment of the other BASC and forum members who appreciate having David on here.

 

However if the relentless hectoring and badgering continues he will either not bother, which i see as a loss to all of us, or he will end up resorting to generic anodyne posts that add no value what so ever.

 

To his absolute credit it seems to me that David really does his best to avoid taking that anodyne stance and I hope that the environment here is sufficiently self moderated to allow that to continue.

 

Have a read back through the discussion objectively and some of the others threads that David comments on, the level of scrutiny that his posts are subjected to is ridiculous really.

 

A huge amount of the questions he gets are completely subjective and driven from a very narrow agenda.

 

I would like to think that as reasonable people we can enjoy debate, but some of the BASC threads descend into an almost legalese type of analysis and given the nature of this forum it is ludicrous.

 

For what it is worth you obviously have a keen interest in this subject matter and as a shooter I appreciate the questions that you are asking, but perhaps there is a better way to challenge BASC if you feel they have misrepresented the interests of shooters than hectoring David who comes on here in a much broader capacity.

[mudpatten]

Just like to say a quick "Thank you" to David for his sterling work on our behalf.

 

I notice that his last post was well after 5pm,long after I`d have been out of the office door. There`s dedication for you, especially since today is his birthday.

 

You have the patience of a saint mate. We`re lucky to have you working for BASC.

[David BASC]

I understand your point Scully about your shoot, however, as you say the law is not always logical!

 

The English laws targeted specific sites that were seen to be vulnerable, some sites were removed of course at a later date

 

Scottish law targets all wetlands, and if your shoot was in Scotland of course you would not be able to legally use lead at al by the sounds of it

 

But, the law in England allows you to use lead in the circumstance you state, it does not force you to, you have the flexibility to use non lead shot in those circumstances if you wish to

 

As to the ducks that the WWT found to have high blood lead levels, I think you will find that BASC later discovered and made the point publically (2012) that these ducks were tested from sites that historically had heavy lead contamination and had not been shot over for years, and it was the historical lead that was causing the problem, it was not as WWT proposed, and example of non-compliance with the current laws.

 

As to the presence or absence of carcasses, well my shoot is very different from yours, we very seldom find carcasses of any species on our shoot.

 

Remembering that all the animals that live on the shoots we know will die eventually of other causes such as disease or starvation, and thinking of the number of animals that will inhabit the land we shoot over it is surprising how few carcasses we see .