Lead Ammmunition Group

[rbrowning2]

Children at risk the clay shooting

 

On 28 Apr 2014, at 11:31, > wrote:

Dear

Thanks for your thoughts. Apologies for slight delay in reply but other things have had to come first.

Pleased that minsters are relatively relaxed.

Agreed on “proportionality" but the curved ball to watch is the risk to children. All else to one side, the

evidence is pointing pretty solidly at at least 5,000 plus under eights in UK being in households where game

is regularly served once a week or more, and say 50 gms would be enough for them to hit the BMR of a 1

point IQ decrement. Hence what are the proportionate measures to protect children from that harm? (Others

are looking at some 80,000 at EU level but that’s not LAG’s bag). How would Daily Mail react?

2

The clay shooting side has been covered but mainly in livestock risk assessment. The Swedes

have a longstanding ban on lead cartridges for all clay shooting. I am aware of the complications regarding

the commonwealth games! This all falls under the clay shooting governing bodies up to olympic level, and

that would be a matter for say sports councils and DCMS. I have seen some of the risk management

planning for clay shooting, but haven’t given it much thought in the LAG context. Thanks for the heads up.

I’m off to see at Oxford on Thursday to see if we can put some meat on the idea of a

seminar at the EGI. Will let you know how I get on, but knows that it is all very ‘exploratory’.

You will have picked up that has stood down. I know that he and colleagues in have given

careful thought to a successor from the bird side - and are proposing . As you will also have seen

I have not hung around and for continuity am regarding him as "stand in" pending a nod from Defra

and anointment/acceptance at the next meeting. is a known anti lead campaigner (which will not be

welcome with joy by some perhaps) but I think he will be sensible - and he certainly knows the subject

matter inside out.

As things stand we are looking at 16 May for the next mitigation subgroup meeting and I’m delighted

can make it - and 25 June for the main committee. But final confirmation soonest. So long as at least

one from Defra can be there …. appreciated.

In haste - hope makes sense.

Kind regards

On 22 Apr 2014, at 17:10, (Defra)

[panoma1]

Okay so that is your personal opinion and you don't want to answer the question asked. Fair enough

Not just my personal opinion! and I've answered the question already! but I'll try again!......DavidBASC who represents BASC on this forum has confirmed BASC's position on his posting #170 (in answer to my question posting #169) on this thread!

[wymberley]

Steady as we go, Guys. As Scully said; "interesting times" ahead (my font). We're on page 13 of an interesting debate, the topic of which is about to reach 'critical mass' and it would be a shame in view of this if we were to be 'struck off'. I must concede that apparently I'm guilty to reacting to nonsense so will be doing my best to watch the 'Ps' and 'Qs',

[rbrowning2]

Last email from FOI request

 

From:

Sent: 22 May 2014 09:24

To: '

Subject: RE: Sale of game

Good Morning All,

Agree with all the comments below and it just brings me back (as usual) to “conversion of the obdurate” which

surely includes a focus on advocates who use the non‐toxics e.g. wildfowling clubs. Hearing about their experiences,

how they have addressed any issues with the non‐toxics, how it hasn’t ended their shooting etc. Non‐toxics clinics

and demonstrations have worked well in other countries. And of course those wildfowlers can feed their wigeon to

little Johnny (or Penelope) knowing how healthy it is... Sorry, couldn’t stop myself.

Best wishes,

PS I can see was accidentally omitted from first email so included now.

From:

Sent: 22 May 2014 07:43

To:

Cc:

Subject: Re: Sale of game

Thanks

Thank you both for chasing this hare, but I struggle to draw anything more from it as regards wider risks to

wildlife (or human health). Do others?

It doesn’t shed doubt on the belief that the non-compliance recorded by WWT, having purchased ducks

from retail outlets for their study, stemmed from non-compliance among those who customarily supply

ducks to the market - and that means the organised shoots and estates who produce a surplus to their own

requirements.

It tends to support the view that people who "one might see as proper wildfowlers” do not sell to dealers and

in the main in England and Wales get on with using alternatives to lead as they are required to do - although

2

I do not doubt that one or two have local arrangements etc. Some wildfowling clubs proscribe sale. The rest

is speculation.

Reducing the risk to wildfowl, as a (arguably the top but nor only) priority under the wildlife heading,

means finding ways to convert the obdurate. These we know are people who don’t think there’s a problem

and don’t think there is any downside risk to themselves from breaking the law. They probably haven’t yet

accepted, in addition, that their failure to comply, whether or not they think there is a problem or any

genuine risk of being penalised, will eventually force the conclusion that banning lead shot is the only way

to go.

It is of course worth bearing in mind, to my certain knowledge, that some “serious shoots” have simply

stopped the duck shooting because they have recognised the difficulty, whatever they do, of getting some of

the guns to obey instructions in the current climate of opinion - which puts the organisers at risk if they sell

the birds. In any case the duck shooting was a sideline to the main purpose of the shoot.

Even so thank you having a go at it.

Best regards as ever - further thoughts welcome.

On 20 May 2014, at 15:55, wrote:

Thanks

And for contextual info here’s the text from the report – 15% of the BASC members surveyed supply birds

(of all sorts) to game dealers, of these 5% did so regularly.

Best wishes,

3.3.5 Supplying birds to game dealers (Question 3)

Fifteen percent of all survey respondents (140/939) supplied birds to game dealers, with approximately one

third of these doing so on a regular basis. The questionnaire did not specifically ask respondents to

indicate which of the types of shooting in which they participated, were the sources of the birds they

supplied to dealers. More than half of those who reported supplying birds to dealers (68%) were involved in

shooting requiring the use of non-lead (Figure 3.4), almost exclusively inland duck shooting. Furthermore,

none of those who reported supplying birds to dealers was involved only in shooting which required the use

of non-lead shot.

<image002.png>

Figure 3.4 Percentage of suppliers of birds to game dealers (n=140) who are and are not required to

use non-lead shot in some or all of their shooting.

3

M

From:

Sent: 20 May 2014 14:00

To:

Subject: Sale of game

Hello,

I’ve had a look at the compliance survey data and have cross-tabulated part of one question where we

asked respondents their frequency of taking part in a number of shooting disciplines, and whether or not

they sell any of their game. Note that this means that we can’t tell what game they’re selling, for example if

someone is a rough shooter and a wildfowler and sells their pigeons but not their ducks then we’re stuffed.

However, I’ve extracted the following:

Frequency of

wildfowling

Do you sell birds to game dealers?

Yes, regularly Yes, sometimes No

Once a week

(n= 15)

*6.7 0.0 93.4

Once a fortnight

(n= 17)

0.0 *5.9 94.2

Once a month

(n= 23)

0.0 *4.3 95.6

Once a season

(n= 73)

8.2 13.7 78.1

Not at all

(n= 811)

4.9 8.8 86.3

*Individual shooters who sell birds to game dealers, but are also active in game shooting, inland duck shooting or rough shooting

to the same or greater extent as wildfowling (i.e. not exclusively wildfowlers)

As you can see, for those people who reported wildfowling at least once a month, almost no one reported

selling their game (there were single respondents per frequency class that did, but they were also active

game shooters, inland duck shooters or rough shooters).

Does this answer your question

______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.

For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

______________________________________________________________________

This message is confidential and for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. It may not be disclosed,

copied or distributed in any form unless it contains an express statement to the contrary.

[gunsmoke]

You can find all the email here. rborwning2 good work lad!

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emails-between-defra-and-members-of-the-lead-ammunition-group

[gunsmoke]

Remember this for BASC research advisory committee, "they knew" And its no good saying John Swift no longer works for BASC, John Swift is still under contact to finish the work as chairman of the LAG by BASC. [see LAG minutes]

 

RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

Minutes of Meeting held at Rossett Hall

18^th November 2009

 

It was agreed that the following recommendation be given to Council:

 

“In light of the growing evidence of problems with lead ammunition the Committee believes that the use of lead ammunition in shooting and stalking is becoming increasingly unsustainable. As a result of the growing and external pace of change the Committee recommends that Council prepares members and other shooters for early change away from lead ammunition. The Committee also recommends that the Deer Committee gives urgent attention to the problems of lead bullets“.

 

AP3 – MA to recommend to Council in January that bans on lead ammunition are anticipated sooner rather than later and that members should be prepared for early change

[Kes]

Interesting to hear Members referred to as Obdurate (stubbornly refusing to change one's opinion or course of action)

 

As an interested reader of such stuff, safe to say I am appalled that this happened whilst I was a Member and despite the continued repetition of the BASC line - anything but that seems to me to have been going on behind the scenes.

Perhaps this comes of seeing material that others havent seen but there is a stinging arrogance about these 'redacted' e-mails. I particularly like the incredibly cynical approach to lead and children's intelligence. The obvious questions about the 'duck sample' never seem to have been asked just simply taken for granted. It also seems that as I and others have said 'compliance' with the law has provided a convenient exi,t when really BASC senior staff seemed to have readily accepted a ban was inevitable as far back as 2004 (Mr Harriman at an international conference).

An abnegation of responsibility by "The voice of shooting".

Amen to that.

[rbrowning2]

Ode to a clay shooter.

 

Dear Sir George Digweed MBE,

 

Just a few lines to let you know you will no longer be able to win any more world or other titles due

to the need to ban all lead shot from your cartridges (after all we could not find any other way to stop you winning).
I do hope you understand.

 

Yours

J... S....

ex-B....

C........ LAG.

[Kes]

The title needs changing Gunsmoke or shooters generally must be happy with the loss of lead shot and lead rifle bullets.

This has to be the biggest shooting news in a decade and no one is reading it ! Then again maybe everyone else knew it was going to happen ?

[Bazooka Joe]

Then again maybe everyone else knew it was going to happen ?

 

 

 

I had that feeling from day one.........I wonder what "Plan B" is.

[Scully]

 

 

I had that feeling from day one.........I wonder what "Plan B" is.

 

I'm still wondering what 'Plan A' was. 'Plan B' was a singer, last seen in The Sweeney. I don't think it was well received, and I say that with a growing sense of foreboding.

If the above reports are true, we are about to see whether our shooting organisations are truly worthy of our membership fees. 'The Voice of Shooting' is just one organisation, but a bold claim to make. Time will tell.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Scully

[Salopian]

Well, well, well,

What a sorry state of affairs, I feel extremely let down.

My passion has always been Wildfowling , nothing beats a morning or twilight walk on the marshes with my Labradors.

I have always operated within the Law even though I have never agreed with the restrictions on the use of Lead shot and I have witnessed more than my fair share of crippled birds with steel shot a supposedly suitable alternative (NOT).

What really hurts me is that whilst feeling betrayed and extremely let down by BASC's lack of action and support , to go about my sport I still have to remain a member of BASC. If I had a fair choice I would resign immediately.

To sum up my reaction it would be to refer to the LAG as the Shooters Lead Advisory Group , or in BASC's parlance SLAG!

[neutron619]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

 

There will never be a "politically convenient" time to fight shooting's corner, so why, rather than this "managed decline" we see yet again, can we not have someone robustly standing up and saying "no - it's our right to hunt - we've been doing it for 200,000 years and we're not stopping now"?

 

Obviously I await the flaming I'm going to get from the millions of people who have been eating lead-shot game for the last 500 years and are suffering its effects erm... terribly? Oh. Thought not.

Edited February 10, 2015 by neutron619

[gunsmoke]

The title needs changing Gunsmoke or shooters generally must be happy with the loss of lead shot and lead rifle bullets.

This has to be the biggest shooting news in a decade and no one is reading it ! Then again maybe everyone else knew it was going to happen ?

 

I've filed reports to shooting magazines none have been printed. I've written on the Norwegian and Swedish reports and trashed the WWT report on lead in game meat. none have been printed. I posted to shooting mag first before posting on here. Then BASC supporters and staff lay into me. It looks like the LAG from these emails are going to use all the reports to try and ban lead totally.

 

Yes it looks like they knew. These emails are proof of a conspiracy. along with the steering group minutes I got by FOI Act.

[wymberley]

The infamous e-mail in question is, of course, flawed in as much as it clearly states that the alternatives (note the plural) meet the conditions initially laid down for any material selected to replace lead. Not quite true; one, non toxic, is missing but we can take that as a given. Only one alternative meets those criteria and even then only does so under certain conditions once the shot has left the gun barrel. At the moment I would imagine that only the minority of shooters are aware of the situation. This will obviously change once the LAG findings are announced and become fully published in the public domain (you can bet that the 'antis' will ensure blanket coverage). At this point it will be interesting to see if the GTA then report a dramatic decline in the sale of those guns, albeit a small minority compared to the overall number in existence but still a large number, and not to mention the profits, which are unable to handle steel shot. Hang on though, why not sell them on in Norway?

[Scully]

At this point it will be interesting to see if the GTA then report a dramatic decline in the sale of those guns, albeit a small minority compared to the overall number in existence but still a large number, and not to mention the profits, which are unable to handle steel shot. Hang on though, why not sell them on in Norway?

Good points. I'm jumping the gun a bit here I know, but while Dave Carrie and the Duke of Westminster et al can afford to put Bismuth through their full and full choked guns, I can't through mine, not in the numbers of lead I put through them anyhow. But if lead is banned, will there be any offers of compensation to those whose guns are rendered useless or at the least devalued greatly by a complete ban on lead? Just a thought.

Lots of money to be made in some quarters anyhow, especially the proof houses. There's always an upside.

[rbrowning2]

Wishful thinking re compensation, I seam to recall that they considerably underestimated the compensation paid out for the pistol ban so

I cannot see them doing that again. Unless some EU law made them and that assumes we continue to be a member of the EU by the time any lead shot ban was fully implemented.

 

Plan B do as they do in the USA and start stockpiling lead cartridges and lead shot.

[Penelope]

http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/foi-email-suggests-lead-ammo-group-report-will-back-lead-shot-ban-42532

[gunsmoke]

For anyone who in interested I have placed all the emails on to my Save Our lead Shot facebook page

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/386424074747289/

[Kes]

It is churlish of me but I wonder at the terms (of reference/engagement and financial) given to J Swift to preside over this.

If this is the best of the 'Voice of Shooting' then I am glad I'm no longer a member and I hope others will react with the passion some of us have left for the sport of shooting.

Lions led by donkeys - or in this case a retired donkey with an eye on his carrots.

 

I will be asking the NGO what their stance will be since the future of some of their members must be imperiled by this neglect of duty and responsibility.

Sadly therefore many of the bad things I heard from others about BASC must also be true.

Finally my apologies to Gunsmoke on behalf of all those who didnt listen - you were right.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Kes

[panoma1]

I see BASC are trying belatedly to distance themselves from John Swift, by revealing he is presently neither employed by nor a member of BASC.

 

Which leads to the rhetorical question....who then represents/represented BASC "the voice of shooting" on the LAG?

 

There appears to be skulduggery/treachery involved here........if this is the case BASC are implicated at least by association and/or dereliction.

Edited February 10, 2015 by panoma1

[Kes]

I see BASC are trying belatedly to distance themselves from John Swift, by revealing he is presently neither employed by nor a member of BASC.

 

Which leads to the rhetorical question....who then represents/represented BASC "the voice of shooting" on the LAG?

 

There appears to be skulduggery/treachery involved here........if this is the case BASC are implicated at least by association.

A distinct absence of comment from BASC, which, when it does come, will be swallowed whole by a gullible but also 'obdurate' membership.

No-one will come out of this smelling of roses from the BASC team and whatever they may now say about JS - he was CE for a hell of a long time and Chair of the LAG previously, certainly when Mr Harriman accepted lead was lost in 2004.

Like an arabian woman (Kingdom of Heaven), BASC has two faces and is therefore two-faced.

Sad to say for those over 140,000 contributors to this collective misery, BASC must have misrepresented its position to its membership for at least 11 years that is known about (2004 -now). Nothing can or should change that fact.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Kes

[neutron619]

A distinct absence of comment from BASC, which, when it does come, will be swallowed whole by a gullible but also 'obdurate' membership.

 

I've just replied to your other thread about the illegal form - and in doing so by being obdurate, no doubt - but I expect we'll be encouraged by BASC to go along with that new bit of bureaucracy too. When are they going to make some kind of robust response to something? Anything?

Edited February 10, 2015 by neutron619

[Kes]

 

I've just replied to your other thread about the illegal form - and in doing so by being obdurate, no doubt - but I expect we'll be encouraged by BASC to go along with that new bit of bureaucracy too. When are they going to make some kind of robust response to something? Anything?

Agreed - anything, and yet those who are regarded as BASC bashers get no sympathy or understanding from the BASC members who think the organisation the apotheosis.

[andrewluke]

from what it says in this link http://www.leadammunitiongroup.co.uk/basc does have a representative but who is it???