David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I suggest to you that despite what some may think, the English and Welsh lead shot restrictions are far less restrictive on the use of lead shot than those in Scotland and NI. The English law is species specific, and also includes key wildfowl habitats away from the foreshore The Scottish and NI laws prevent the use of lead shot on ANY species if shooting on or over any wetland habitat, not just the foreshore; you cannot shoot lead at all over or let it fall into any wetland, lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, etc . Given that lead shot can travel over 200m, think how many inland shoots have lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and other wetland habitats within them, and think how much of a change those shoots would have to make if lead shot could not fall into any wetland even if it was not a key habitat for wildfowl. Blunderbuss, as the page on the BASC web site reads and as I posted above, the CA representative was representing ALL the shooting organisations not least of all BASC. They were briefed by us, consulted with us, so our voice was heard, all be it though the CA representative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Blunderbuss, as the page on the BASC web site reads and as I posted above, the CA representative was representing ALL the shooting organisations not least of all BASC. They were briefed by us, consulted with us, so our voice was heard, all be it though the CA representative. With respect that doesn't answer my question. You have told me WHO was representing shooting but not WHY it wasn't BASC. Edited February 11, 2015 by Blunderbuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 My apologies, its my understanding that Defra wanted as level a playing field on the main group as possible, so having the Chairman AND shooters main representative both from BASC would have delivered an unbalanced group, just as if say the Chair was from WWT and WWT were a representative on the main group. So the Chair invited the CA to represent shooters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 As a shooting only organisation it would have been far better to have BASC representation on the group. The chair could have come from the CA. That would have been a far better option I would suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 My apologies, its my understanding that Defra wanted as level a playing field on the main group as possible, so having the Chairman AND shooters main representative both from BASC would have delivered an unbalanced group, just as if say the Chair was from WWT and WWT were a representative on the main group. So the Chair invited the CA to represent shooters I didn't think the Chair was representing BASC. He certainly doesn't seem to have been representing shooters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 Thanks for the clarification David. With the benefit of hindsight it does seem a grave mistake as Poontang suggests. What point having BASC in the neutral post of chair if it precludes them representing shooting interests directly? The very reason BASC exists surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) so in regards the effective comparable priced carts where and what are they??? so called steel mmmm . never again at live quarry the last time I used them I decided to pack up and go home. tungsten/heavy shot is over priced and more toxic than lead... and bismuth well I don't want to sell my house to go pigeon shooting Edited February 11, 2015 by fruitloop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear68 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 David; please could you confirm that if was John Swift as Chair of the Lead Action Group who invited CA to represent shooters? He is the former CE of BASC, with well over 100,000 members....to whom it appears he administered a very big kick in the teeth. Did BASC acquiesce to his choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Fruitloop Try the steel cartridges of today they are so much better than a decade ago and now my prefered shot is steel rather than lead. I get cleaner kills and find a good quality steel shell provided its used with the correct shot size , shot load and choke will do all I want it to do. Since using steel for most of my shooting my kills for cartridges average has improved greatly ( 28 geese for 35 shots with steel is better than I ever did in the old lead days ) and I now used steel for everything from pheasants, pigeons , rabbits and of course wildfowl. It shoots differently to lead , but once mastered good quality steel shells are brilliant. Beware like lead though there one or two rubbish brands out there though. Edited February 11, 2015 by anser2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 It is my understanding that John Swift invited the CA, this may well have been after consultation with Defra, but for a definitive answer you would have to ask John. BASC Council were perfectly happy for John to Chair the LAG, but BASC Council had no authority or control over LAG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitloop Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Fruitloop Try the steel cartridges of today they are so much better than a decade ago and now my prefered shot is steel rather than lead. I get cleaner kills and find a good quality steel shell provided its used with the correct shot size , shot load and choke will do all I want it to do. Since using steel for most of my shooting my kills for cartridges average has improved greatly ( 28 geese for 35 shots with steel is better than I ever did in the old lead days ) and I now used steel for everything from pheasants, pigeons , rabbits and of course wildfowl. It shoots differently to lead , but once mastered good quality steel shells are brilliant. Beware like lead though there one or two rubbish brands out there though. tried some 4s on pigeons before and all I got was broken wings and runners so put them back in my bag and went back to lead 6s than tied some large shot on geese this season. mmm same again broken wings and runners so packed up and went home as I don't like just injuring them and then chasing them round a field to Finnish the job and these are not from decades ago it was in the last year or two .steel needs to stay on the clay grounds where it belongs not on live quarry. Edited February 11, 2015 by fruitloop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenboy Posted February 11, 2015 Report Share Posted February 11, 2015 I suggest to you that despite what some may think, the English and Welsh lead shot restrictions are far less restrictive on the use of lead shot than those in Scotland and NI. The English law is species specific, and also includes key wildfowl habitats away from the foreshore The Scottish and NI laws prevent the use of lead shot on ANY species if shooting on or over any wetland habitat, not just the foreshore; you cannot shoot lead at all over or let it fall into any wetland, lakes, streams, rivers, ponds, etc . Given that lead shot can travel over 200m, think how many inland shoots have lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and other wetland habitats within them, and think how much of a change those shoots would have to make if lead shot could not fall into any wetland even if it was not a key habitat for wildfowl. Blunderbuss, as the page on the BASC web site reads and as I posted above, the CA representative was representing ALL the shooting organisations not least of all BASC. They were briefed by us, consulted with us, so our voice was heard, all be it though the CA representative. It could also be argued they have got it right , one of the key driving issues behind the banning of lead shot is the harm it does when ingested by waterfowl . Our current system does nothing to prevent this . Of course even if the law regarding its use were the same as other parts of Britain there would still be those that felt unable to comply with it . I hear many shooters crying out to save lead shot ( and so they should be ) but it is by not complying with current legislation that they themselves are bringing a ban ever closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 The England and Wales system does allow flexibility, so if you do not want your lead shot to fall into wetlands even those which are not typically used by wildfowl, then you have the option not to shoot over those lands. I agree that compliance with the law is key Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 It is also true that compliance with the Scottish law is far more difficult to establish for or against unless you start sieving areas of wetland. The English/Welsh law provides its own evidence of non-compliance in the form of dead fowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Head of RSPB. http://markavery.info/2015/02/11/basc-wriggling-gwct-silent-interesting/ The man is a buffoon - still thinks the BASC is WAGBI. If you go to the bottom of this article there is a choice of 'Related Posts'. Have a look at the final sentence of the 'Lead And other Poisons' option. So, what is it that he knows that we don't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 The man is a buffoon - still thinks the BASC is WAGBI. If you go to the bottom of this article there is a choice of 'Related Posts'. Have a look at the final sentence of the 'Lead And other Poisons' option. So, what is it that he knows that we don't? It seems unlikely that someone else is unaware - who else could that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Fruitloop I used to have a problem with steel and BBB shot for geese , but I now use a 3.5 inch load and HLS Undertaker full choke (.700) regulated for BBB shot and find the combination very effective on foreshore pinks. Inland i drop down to BB. I have also found Gamebore 32 gr steel no 3 great for pigeons and pheasants . Indeed I have found no 3 a very good univeral shot size in steel for most duck though I step up to N0 2 for high mallard , and able to kill the odd close goose if you are caught by surprise. The key for successful shooting for steel is chose fast loads , step up 2 or 3 sizes to what you would use in lead and pick the correct after choke to match the shot size you want to use , ie do not try no 3 shot through a choke made for BB shot , they just will not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) It seems unlikely that someone else is unaware - who else could that be? As things can change - between June and October for example - and as a consequence what was recently said may not still be valid, I will not give the source but although expressed a little differently by a reliable and informed group, I have heard similar - as perhaps you may well have, Kes, although certain conditions did apply. Edited February 12, 2015 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 As things can change - between June and October for example - and as a consequence what was recently said may not still be valid, I will not give the source but although expressed a little differently by a reliable and informed group, I have heard similar - as perhaps you may well have, Kes, although certain conditions did apply. Understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Got this for the CA today: CA "working tirelessly" on the lead shot issueThe future of lead ammunition is one of the biggest issues to face shooting in the past few decades, but one which can easily pass you by if the detail of scientific research and Westminster and EU political process turn you off. The Countryside Alliance is involved in the debate at every level and is working tirelessly on behalf of our members to make sure that the whole shooting community get their say on the use of lead ammunition and those that would like to see it banned cannot rely on false statements and scare stories. The Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) has now been considering evidence for over five years and concerns have been growing about the process for some time. Correspondence published on the Defra website as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request has brought those concerns to a head and seems to confirm that the process has completely broken down. LAG was set up with representatives of a range of interest groups to consider the issues and to produce a report on risk and mitigation as a group, but the published correspondence suggests the Chairman is now working towards his own conclusions regardless of the views of many group members. This is far too important an issue to be decided on the basis of a contentious report and there is no doubt that any report containing the conclusion that lead based ammunition should be phased out would be exactly that, as Defra itself suggests in the FoI correspondence. The case for a complete ban is further weakened by recent developments on the continent where the Norwegian parliament has voted to overturn a ban on lead ammunition outside wetlands and the EU has halted moves to restrict all lead products. The relevant science being considered by LAG has all been published on its website and having discussed this with experts we are clear that it does not meet the standard required to justify further restrictions on lead shot, let alone a complete ban. However those who have been campaigning for a ban on lead shot, and leaked Wildlife and Wetland Trust documents have revealed exactly how extensive that campaign is, were set on their conclusions before LAG was even formed as, it now seems, was its Chairman. Our Executive Chairman, Barney White-Spunner, sits on LAG as the representative of the shooting community. LAG’s considerations are confidential, but you can be certain that he, and I am sure others, will demand proper scientific justification for any conclusions LAG comes to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Thanks for that Gunsmoke; seems a bit more reassuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) So Mr Spunner seems to think MR Swift has been and is running his own agenda. No surprise there then - just a lot of betrayed members - assuming of course he was doing this before he became the 'retired' Mr Swift, with no links to BASC. It also suggests that BASC didnt have a voice despite what has been said but that Mr Swift did and it wasnt the memberships. Rather bad form all round. Perhaps his parting wasnt that amicable? Edited February 12, 2015 by Kes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) tried some 4s on pigeons before and all I got was broken wings and runners so put them back in my bag and went back to lead 6s than tied some large shot on geese this season. mmm same again broken wings and runners so packed up and went home as I don't like just injuring them and then chasing them round a field to Finnish the job and these are not from decades ago it was in the last year or two .steel needs to stay on the clay grounds where it belongs not on live quarry. I really don't want to see a lead ban, but your view on steel shot is ridiculous. Could it be your shooting that was to blame for your poor results with steel? Watch the pinkfoot shooting in it's entirety - shot with 4.5mm steel. Edited February 12, 2015 by motty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 So Mr Spunner seems to think MR Swift has been and is running his own agenda. No surprise there then - just a lot of betrayed members - assuming of course he was doing this before he became the 'retired' Mr Swift, with no links to BASC. It also suggests that BASC didnt have a voice despite what has been said but that Mr Swift did and it wasnt the memberships. Rather bad form all round. Perhaps his parting wasnt that amicable? One point I would like to make, John Swift is under contract by BASC to finish the work as chairman of the LAG. How do I know? He told me so. Do you think John Swift should resign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 12, 2015 Report Share Posted February 12, 2015 Yes as simply that would undermine the whole committee. However he won't as that would be far too simple a way to sink the group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts