rbrowning2 Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 No it will be the death knell who do not want to use steel. Shooting for those who change to steel will carry on as usual. No it won't, a lot of clay shooting grounds already ban steel shot so it will be good bye to them and how can you ignore the landowners telling you no plastic wads only fibre or biodegradable plastic which are both currently very expensive. Yes in time and depending on how much notice is given prices for cartridges may be about the same as now but if initially they are considerable higher then how many will continue to shoot. How good will we be on the world stage of competition shooting when we have steel and the rest have lead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 It is a great shame when someone who would otherwise support the whole of our sport, decides they know best and refuses to accept or understand the weight of criticism which results. There is far too much selfishness everywhere these days - there is no place for it in our collective sport, as, apart from being a detestable personal characteristic, it hands the greatest opportunity to our detractors. It is my belief that we have already given too much ground on lead, with less support than perhaps we should have expected from all who take part in, or draw a living from our industry. I, for one, will be keeping the research under close scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 It is a great shame when someone who would otherwise support the whole of our sport, decides they know best and refuses to accept or understand the weight of criticism which results. There is far too much selfishness everywhere these days - there is no place for it in our collective sport, as, apart from being a detestable personal characteristic, it hands the greatest opportunity to our detractors. It is my belief that we have already given too much ground on lead, with less support than perhaps we should have expected from all who take part in, or draw a living from our industry. I, for one, will be keeping the research under close scrutiny. Sadly and for some time past!..............my thoughts entirely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted January 3, 2015 Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 Call it sheer ignorance or what ever . But i will stay optimistic. Lets face it . They have been trying to ban lead for the past decade or so . And lets say IF and i mean a big IF they do succeed it wont be an over night thing . It will take a couple of years before its i full effect . And thats plenty of time for things to change yet again . You only have to look st other countries to see how things are working out . Some have even gone back to lead i belive . Never let the ******* grind you down ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted January 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2015 It is a great shame when someone who would otherwise support the whole of our sport, decides they know best and refuses to accept or understand the weight of criticism which results. There is far too much selfishness everywhere these days - there is no place for it in our collective sport, as, apart from being a detestable personal characteristic, it hands the greatest opportunity to our detractors. It is my belief that we have already given too much ground on lead, with less support than perhaps we should have expected from all who take part in, or draw a living from our industry. I, for one, will be keeping the research under close scrutiny. The whole thing is turning into a farce - at the last meeting they couldn't even give a date, even a provisional one, for the next meeting. With regard to the final sentence of the quoted Post, does anyone know if the proposed LAG Forum at the Edward Grey Institute for the 10/11 December took place?. Senior representatives (whatever that means) of the various stakeholder groups were to be invited and this would give the opportunity for the Group to outline the "emerging conclusions on potential mitigation options". I can only assume that that invited audience would include officials from the various shooting organisations and there's no mention of it from mine as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Well according to Shooting UK, following a FOI request which resulted in the release of certain redacted emails, it seems the LAG chaired by ex BASC chief executive John Swift are to recommend a total ban on and the phasing out of lead shot!....there's a surprise!If this is true? What are BASC going to do now? Perhaps BASC can now reveal their plan B?.........Over to you again DavidBASC.........P1With apologies in advance to Blunderbuss, Yellow Bear, grrclark, Harnser and Whitbridges for again trying to put BASC and their self confessed mouthpiece DavidBASC on the spot again! Edited February 9, 2015 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Well according to Shooting UK, following a FOI request which resulted in the release of certain redacted emails, it seems the LAG chaired by ex BASC chief executive John Swift are to recommend a total ban on and the phasing out of lead shot!....there's a surprise! If this is true? What are BASC going to do now? Perhaps BASC can now reveal their plan B?.........Over to you again DavidBASC......... P1 With apologies in advance to Blunderbuss, Yellow Bear, grrclark, Harnser and Whitbridges for again trying to put BASC and their self of confessed mouthpiece DavidBASC on the spot again! The Field is reposting this story as well. I read that Norway is repealing its lead ban, suggesting nothing is clear cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Graffius Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 In David's absence I've posted the BASC response below. This has been added to the Shooting Times story on their website. BASC statement on lead ammunition ban report Speaking in response to a report that suggests that the Lead Ammunition Group will back a lead shot ban, the Chairman of BASC, Alan Jarrett said: “To our best knowledge no report has been seen or approved by the Lead Ammunition Group. BASC’s policy on lead ammunition is clear – “no sound evidence no change”. We have not seen any evidence to change that policy. It would be wrong to do so on the basis of unattributed and partly redacted emails relating to a report that has not been published and hasn’t actually been delivered to the government.” ENDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sitsinhedges Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 In David's absence I've posted the BASC response below. This has been added to the Shooting Times story on their website. BASC statement on lead ammunition ban report Speaking in response to a report that suggests that the Lead Ammunition Group will back a lead shot ban, the Chairman of BASC, Alan Jarrett said: “To our best knowledge no report has been seen or approved by the Lead Ammunition Group. BASC’s policy on lead ammunition is clear – “no sound evidence no change”. We have not seen any evidence to change that policy. It would be wrong to do so on the basis of unattributed and partly redacted emails relating to a report that has not been published and hasn’t actually been delivered to the government.” ENDS If we are put in a position where we lose lead, BASC will have failed miserably to protect the interest of shooting and will become an irrelevance. My yearly subs have just become due but even now i'm wondering if it's worth shelling out nearly 70 quid to an organisation that seems to be letting me down. What would be the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 I suggest there is no evidence that could not be reversed by implementing the 'Scottish Law'. We simply do not see lead-poisoned duck amongst the many which are reared annually on ground overshot with lead for decades. If that doesnt happen, when the area around is compiritively hard ground, how possible should it be to poison wildfowl when spent lead falls in silty muddy sediment ? Where is the detailed examination of past evidence supporting poisoning in fact not theory and where also is the in-depth examination of the Norwegian conclusions. I beieve their representatives are sufficiently savvy to see through poor science and refuse to reverse a ban if that was unjustified. The BASC response isnt really that heartwarming or worthy of cheering. I agree with 'Sits' wholeheartedly. There could be few things so damaging to shooting as a lead ban especially without any evidence, still we can always rely on those who flouted the silly law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Interesting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 In David's absence I've posted the BASC response below. This has been added to the Shooting Times story on their website. BASC statement on lead ammunition ban report Speaking in response to a report that suggests that the Lead Ammunition Group will back a lead shot ban, the Chairman of BASC, Alan Jarrett said: “To our best knowledge no report has been seen or approved by the Lead Ammunition Group. BASC’s policy on lead ammunition is clear – “no sound evidence no change”. We have not seen any evidence to change that policy. It would be wrong to do so on the basis of unattributed and partly redacted emails relating to a report that has not been published and hasn’t actually been delivered to the government.” ENDS Christopher, "no sound evidence no change" sounds good but it concerns me that in its recent communications on this matter BASC no longer mentions its previously held position that any proposed restrictions on the use of lead shot "must be proportionate to the level of scientifically proven risk".....can you confirm this is still BASC's position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Speaking in response to a report that suggests that the Lead Ammunition Group will back a lead shot ban, the Chairman of BASC, Alan Jarrett said: It would be wrong to do so on the basis of unattributed and partly redacted emails relating to a report that has not been published and hasn’t actually been delivered to the government.” If the above is true why respond at all ? If 'unattributed and partly redacted (censor or obscure (part of a text) for legal or security purposes) e-mails' were sent - by whom were they sent and to whom and what were the redactions. If they were BASC e-mails then has someone let the cat out of the bag ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWAG Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 BASC Policy on Lead Ammunition BASC will vigorously oppose any unwarranted restrictions on the use of lead ammunition. Discussions and decisions about possible restriction must fully involve shooting interests to ensure that social, environmental and economic consequences are taken fully into account by decision makers. The justification for any proposed restriction must be clear, substantial and science-based. 2. Working with others (i) BASC is committed to continue working in partnership with shooting, conservation and land management organisations on lead ammunition and alternatives. At a European and flyway level, BASC will work closely with FACE to promote this policy. At home, BASC will continue to work with kindred bodies through the Code of Good Shooting Practice. ii) BASC will continue to collaborate with the proof authorities, research institutions, cartridge and gun makers, as well as gun shops and retail outlets, to ensure that safe, effective, environmentally acceptable and affordable non-lead ammunition is available where needed. (iii) BASC will work with statutory, non-governmental and land management organisations to ensure that all legal provisions and regulations are science-driven, proportionate and practical. (iv) BASC, with other shooting organisations, supports the work of the Defra and Food Standards Agency Lead Ammunition Group. This is reviewing the scientific evidence on environmental and health impacts of lead shot through risk assessments prior to giving advice to Ministers. 3. The law on lead shot (i) BASC will use its best endeavours to promote understanding and compliance with all laws applying to the use of lead shot in the United Kingdom. (ii) BASC will promote the policy set down in the Code of Good Shooting Practice that “Shoot managers must ensure Guns comply with the relevant regulations restricting the use of lead shot” and that “In order to avoid lead shot contamination of wetlands important for feeding waterfowl, non-lead shot should be used for game and pest shooting over such wetlands.” (iii) BASC will incorporate references to the law and how to comply with it, into all appropriate BASC codes of practice, best practice guidance and publications. 4. Information and advice (i) BASC will promote awareness and understanding of the safe and effective use of lead and non-lead ammunition among its members, the shooting community, and those with responsibility for the management of land used for shooting. (ii) BASC will continue monitoring, assessing and commenting on evidence relating to the impacts of lead ammunition, including risks to human health, the environment, efficacy of non-lead ammunition; and will provide advice accordingly. Christopher, "no sound evidence no change" sounds good but it concerns me that in its recent communications on this matter BASC no longer mentions its previously held position that any proposed restrictions on the use of lead shot "must be proportionate to the level of scientifically proven risk".....can you confirm this is still BASC's position? Well where did you get this sentence from. Now evidence base it the policy is above where does it say this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 I have been saying it for years, we will soon have Lord Swift of Marford Mill, for services to NuLab, sitting in the house of Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) that email is shocking from a ex basc chief exec Edited February 9, 2015 by lister22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWAG Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 that email is shocking from a ex basc chairman What email and which former chairman of BASC ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 chief exec john swift email on shooting times website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) BASC Policy on Lead Ammunition BASC will vigorously oppose any unwarranted restrictions on the use of lead ammunition. Discussions and decisions about possible restriction must fully involve shooting interests to ensure that social, environmental and economic consequences are taken fully into account by decision makers. The justification for any proposed restriction must be clear, substantial and science-based.2. Working with others(i) BASC is committed to continue working in partnership with shooting, conservation and land management organisations on lead ammunition and alternatives. At a European and flyway level, BASC will work closely with FACE to promote this policy. At home, BASC will continue to work with kindred bodies through the Code of Good Shooting Practice. ii) BASC will continue to collaborate with the proof authorities, research institutions, cartridge and gun makers, as well as gun shops and retail outlets, to ensure that safe, effective, environmentally acceptable and affordable non-lead ammunition is available where needed. (iii) BASC will work with statutory, non-governmental and land management organisations to ensure that all legal provisions and regulations are science-driven, proportionate and practical. (iv) BASC, with other shooting organisations, supports the work of the Defra and Food Standards Agency Lead Ammunition Group. This is reviewing the scientific evidence on environmental and health impacts of lead shot through risk assessments prior to giving advice to Ministers.3. The law on lead shot(i) BASC will use its best endeavours to promote understanding and compliance with all laws applying to the use of lead shot in the United Kingdom. (ii) BASC will promote the policy set down in the Code of Good Shooting Practice that “Shoot managers must ensure Guns comply with the relevant regulations restricting the use of lead shot” and that “In order to avoid lead shot contamination of wetlands important for feeding waterfowl, non-lead shot should be used for game and pest shooting over such wetlands.” (iii) BASC will incorporate references to the law and how to comply with it, into all appropriate BASC codes of practice, best practice guidance and publications.4. Information and advice(i) BASC will promote awareness and understanding of the safe and effective use of lead and non-lead ammunition among its members, the shooting community, and those with responsibility for the management of land used for shooting. (ii) BASC will continue monitoring, assessing and commenting on evidence relating to the impacts of lead ammunition, including risks to human health, the environment, efficacy of non-lead ammunition; and will provide advice accordingly. Christopher, "no sound evidence no change" sounds good but it concerns me that in its recent communications on this matter BASC no longer mentions its previously held position that any proposed restrictions on the use of lead shot "must be proportionate to the level of scientifically proven risk".....can you confirm this is still BASC's position? Well where did you get this sentence from. Now evidence base it the policy is above where does it say this? Try looking through previous postings! (#169 and #170) ...........but I can put it another way....... I would be obliged if Christopher would confirm whether BASC supports the statement that any proposed further restrictions on the use of lead shot "must be proportionate to the level of scientifically proven risk".................or it does not!! Edited February 9, 2015 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Yet another retreat. When is BASC going to win anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sold out by the very people who we trusted with our sport. Like many I am sure i am old enougth to have had my pistols taken away, my semi-auto ,223 taken away and now possible the biggest single event to kill off shooting in this country bar none, may be initiated by the very people who were their to support us: John Swift ex-BASC John Batley GTA Shocking news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 how can Norway vote to allow lead back and these nutters want to ban it and do you have to like shooting to be on the board of basc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 (edited) Full email. Sent: 28 October 2014 14:36 To: (Defra) Subject: Re: Paper on lead ammo Categories: Lead FOI - Sent to Me Dear Many thanks for copying this to me. It will come as no surprise that I had already seen it, but I had not been aware of the circulation to for the Ornis group etc. That’s helpful as the EU currents are running quite briskly in parallel to the LAG ones. As you will know I am currently preparing for a restricted LAG meeting at FSA on Thursday which is attending. My objective there is to see whether and to what extent a consensus/common position might be achievable. Whatever emerges it remains my intention to complete report, which is now well advanced without further delay. I reckon that I have seen everything that needs to be seen, and listened to everything that needs to be heard - that on top of 40+ years of steering various groups around the lead minefields. If I had to give you the heads up, it would be along the lines that the LAG process will point with complete certainty to the toxic nature of lead ammunition, qualified with equal certainty that precise effects and their extent can only be predicted with uncertainty. The conclusion to be drawn on all the evidence that I have so far seen is that lead ammunition is harmful for both wildlife and human health - it is not just a matter for wildfowl - and moreover that the alternatives are safe, effective and available at comparable cost. The dispersal of some thousands of tons of an accumulative, seriously toxic material every year is quite simply an insupportable thing to be doing for purposes of recreation and sport - especially if there are now alternatives that can well be used. I have seen nothing that persuades me otherwise - although I am still in listening mode. I have not always been of this view and know that the shooting and landowning stakeholders say there isn’t really a problem and it’s all a conspiracy etc - but that really isn’t the case at all. They seem to forget that I was - so there aren’t that many rabbits left to pull out of the hat. Hence, although one can quibble with words, the position taken by “the scientists” in their conclusion is a sensible and well founded one: namely to foresee "a phase out and eventual elimination of lead-based ammunition and its replacement with non-toxic alternatives”. I’m afraid that halfway houses as so far mooted by the shooting stakeholders do not stand up to scrutiny, and although there will predictably be arguments for more research there are reasons why it would not change the fundamental position. So by all means keep your cards close pending the outcome of the LAG process, but line makes sense - of “welcoming it” pending further consideration at a future date i.e. working with the grain of the evidence. (I do however recognise a current UK political dimension). Forgive me for being frank - but hope stimulating! Best wishes as ever and thank you again, Edited February 9, 2015 by rbrowning2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWAG Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 BASC Policy on Lead Ammunition BASC will vigorously oppose any unwarranted restrictions on the use of lead ammunition. Discussions and decisions about possible restriction must fully involve shooting interests to ensure that social, environmental and economic consequences are taken fully into account by decision makers. The justification for any proposed restriction must be clear, substantial and science-based.2. Working with others(i) BASC is committed to continue working in partnership with shooting, conservation and land management organisations on lead ammunition and alternatives. At a European and flyway level, BASC will work closely with FACE to promote this policy. At home, BASC will continue to work with kindred bodies through the Code of Good Shooting Practice. ii) BASC will continue to collaborate with the proof authorities, research institutions, cartridge and gun makers, as well as gun shops and retail outlets, to ensure that safe, effective, environmentally acceptable and affordable non-lead ammunition is available where needed. (iii) BASC will work with statutory, non-governmental and land management organisations to ensure that all legal provisions and regulations are science-driven, proportionate and practical. (iv) BASC, with other shooting organisations, supports the work of the Defra and Food Standards Agency Lead Ammunition Group. This is reviewing the scientific evidence on environmental and health impacts of lead shot through risk assessments prior to giving advice to Ministers.3. The law on lead shot(i) BASC will use its best endeavours to promote understanding and compliance with all laws applying to the use of lead shot in the United Kingdom. (ii) BASC will promote the policy set down in the Code of Good Shooting Practice that “Shoot managers must ensure Guns comply with the relevant regulations restricting the use of lead shot” and that “In order to avoid lead shot contamination of wetlands important for feeding waterfowl, non-lead shot should be used for game and pest shooting over such wetlands.” (iii) BASC will incorporate references to the law and how to comply with it, into all appropriate BASC codes of practice, best practice guidance and publications.4. Information and advice(i) BASC will promote awareness and understanding of the safe and effective use of lead and non-lead ammunition among its members, the shooting community, and those with responsibility for the management of land used for shooting. (ii) BASC will continue monitoring, assessing and commenting on evidence relating to the impacts of lead ammunition, including risks to human health, the environment, efficacy of non-lead ammunition; and will provide advice accordingly. Christopher, "no sound evidence no change" sounds good but it concerns me that in its recent communications on this matter BASC no longer mentions its previously held position that any proposed restrictions on the use of lead shot "must be proportionate to the level of scientifically proven risk".....can you confirm this is still BASC's position? Well where did you get this sentence from. Now evidence base it the policy is above where does it say this? Try looking through previous postings! (#169 and #170) ...........but I can put it another way....... I would be obliged if Christopher would confirm whether BASC supports the statement that any proposed further restrictions on the use of lead shot "must be proportionate to the level of scientifically proven risk".................or it does not!! Okay so that is your personal opinion and you don't want to answer the question asked. Fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted February 9, 2015 Report Share Posted February 9, 2015 Even Tungsten or tungsten-Alloy shot may not be safe so say the LAG From: Sent: 23 August 2014 09:02 To: (Defra) Subject: Re: Report - Toxicity of Tungsten and Tungsten-Alloy Shot Categories: Lead FOI - Sent to Me Dear Quickly before signing off…! I shall certainly look at it again when I get home. I suspect that the science behind the assumed safety of the current alternatives to lead will be raised and LAG will have to take such questioning into consideration. I also suspect that questions will be raised about more than W. But we can deal with those questions as they arise. Perhaps a naive question … but potential hazards in products going onto the market should be covered by the REACH processes and risk assessments done by trade prior to authorisation. If there is a risk attaching to Ni and Co in some tungsten shot types then surely it will have been (or should) be covered by the relevant REACH risk assessments? The same would apply to possible contamination of some steel shot with Ni and Co. Is that not the mechanism for public and environmental protection? I could take that up with the trade rep when I get home - but in the meantime could you take a view please from your REACH specialists? Hence LAG’s awareness raising of alternatives’ use might be made on the basis that said alternatives have been through the REACH scrutiny and passed as safe? The American protocols to be met for the safety of alternative shot types for shooting wildfowl raise some tricky issues for Europe (not least trades in ammunition). They relate solely to wildfowl on the assumption that using lead for wildfowl has been banned. If the protocols were applied to lead per se in a wider context I have no doubt that lead would fall at the first level. Hope these points make sense - and thanks again. Pity about your weather …! All best On 21 Aug 2014, at 15:21, (Defra) wrote: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts