Lead Ammmunition Group

[gunsmoke]

DavidBASC, is right, lets all work together.

 

First let clean up this mess, we have no confidence in John Swift as chair of the LAG, then together we can ask for John Swift to resign.

 

Personal I would like to see Prof Levy take over a chair and finish the report.

 

That's a plan.

[Kes]

DavidBASC, is right, lets all work together.

 

First let clean up this mess, we have no confidence in John Swift as chair of the LAG, then together we can ask for John Swift to resign.

 

Personal I would like to see Prof Levy take over a chair and finish the report.

 

That's a plan.

Its also one more than anyone else so far !

[Salopian]

I think that a few things need to be said to straighten the record.

David BASC came onto this site to try and appease members including me that are discontented with BASC's stance on Lead Shot.

He doesn't have to reply , but he does do his best , remember his hands are very often tied due to politics.

BASC as an organisation is actually responsible in its operation to The BASC Board who are normal people who have sort and gained election to office by ballot to which BASC members voted and elected said board. The Chair is Alan Jarrett an avid wildfowler who in the past has upset a good many fellow wildfowlers. If you have an axe to grind with BASC, harangue the Chair and let the Board deliberate and take the necessary actions and if their actions do not meet with your approval, complain further. I think that David has paddled this canoe on his own for far too long , may I ask you all to not shoot the messenger.

 

One thing is for sure BASC have dallied for far too long and now it is coming home to roost.

We (BASC) members need to look inwardly at ourselves and what we are doing or we will have a similar debacle that saw the foundation of the NGO.

We need to sort this mess out very quickly before the membership marches with it's feet to a rival organisation.

[Kes]

I think that a few things need to be said to straighten the record.

David BASC came onto this site to try and appease members including me that are discontented with BASC's stance on Lead Shot.

He doesn't have to reply , but he does do his best , remember his hands are very often tied due to politics.

BASC as an organisation is actually responsible in its operation to The BASC Board who are normal people who have sort and gained election to office by ballot to which BASC members voted and elected said board. The Chair is Alan Jarrett an avid wildfowler who in the past has upset a good many fellow wildfowlers. If you have an axe to grind with BASC, harangue the Chair and let the Board deliberate and take the necessary actions and if their actions do not meet with your approval, complain further. I think that David has paddled this canoe on his own for far too long , may I ask you all to not shoot the messenger.

 

One thing is for sure BASC have dallied for far too long and now it is coming home to roost.

We (BASC) members need to look inwardly at ourselves and what we are doing or we will have a similar debacle that saw the foundation of the NGO.

We need to sort this mess out very quickly before the membership marches with it's feet to a rival organisation.

 

David represents BASC on this site (during work hours and mostly after) and has confirmed so. Everyone recognises he may not be able to change much at BASC but what BASC does or does not do affects us all. I'm not in BASC now but have given David the benefit of the doubt here - for that read BASC. If BASC does something positive then thats good. I am also asking my org - NGO what it is doing given this massive breach of trust. Maybe it will take BASC members to get of their collective **** and demand some action about JS from its Council. Thats down to its members. The reaction to the messages he puts out on behalf of BASC on this site is known to BASC and any reaction from Marford is also a response to your concerns expressed here. Greylag Geese ?

David is not the messenger he is the message - its his job, something he has also said.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Kes

[RossEM]

I'd love to know why we're being represented on the LAG by the CA?! I have always supported BASC as the voice of shooting, not the CA as they concentrate on wider rural issues - this is a shooting issue. I think shooting interests have been undermined from the start by not being represented by BASC on the LAG panel. I don't see any advantage to representation by proxy.

 

JS states (in so many words) that although lead is known to be harmful to wildlife and humans (obviously), the effects are unknown - yet he makes it plain that he is in favour phasing lead shot out.

 

Any recommendations included in the Chairman's report should be made in response to the discovery of conclusive evidence of a direct link between current lead shot dispersal and a significant negative effect on both wildlife and human health. As far as I'm aware, no such evidence has been discovered at present.

 

 

My issue with the content of JS' statement, and it's very obvious, is that no LAG panel member should be making indiscreet, opinionated statements of this nature, even in private, no matter what their personal opinion is. BASC should seek his removal on this basis.

[rjimmer]

In 2013 David BASC posted: "The Chairman is no longer employed by BASC since he retired, consequently BASC do not have any active role in the group".

[Pinkfooty]

Wildfowlers have a particularly critical view of this subject. The bans (different in Scotland, England & Wales and N. Ireland) were brought in despite very strong opposition from BASC in a situation where there was no serious evidence to support the bans. Did BASC fight hard enough then?

 

I would have liked to have seen them fight much harder (or at least longer) - simply to keep faith with their wildfowling membership.

 

But, make no mistake - even if BASC had thrown 105% of their total resources into that fight, and bankcrupted the organisation in the process, they would still have lost. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever.

 

The purpose of BASC supporting the setting-up of the LAG was to try to avoid such a situation developing again. Instead of fighting any further bans, irrespective of evidence either way, they signed up to a process that should result in hard evidence being produced. If the evidence supports an extension of the current bans, BASC will not be obliged to fight them. If (as we all hope) the evidence does not support further bans, then the government should accept that.

 

But do we trust politicians? If not, it is them we should be worrying about - not BASC, an organisation that we will still need irrespective of what happens to lead ammunition.

[RossEM]

Did BASC 'sign up' for their outgoing chairman to sit on the LAG, consequently losing representation at the point he retired, and were they aware that he (privately) is anti-lead? Would they have been agreeable to his chairmanship if his private views had been known?

 

Let me be clear, I am not BASC-bashing, I'm a proud member and I am also a confident user of non-HP steel, but I think mistakes have been made here.

 

I agree that if conclusive evidence is found then we'll have to agree to convert - but I won't be satisfied without a clear, concise, transparent peer-reviewed report - from 'the scientists' not from the LAG.

[grahamch]

this thread seems to be full of claim and counter claim, who did what, who said what and very little positive or progresive content.

 

We as a shooting community are in a hole and should be pulling together to develop a way forward to try and make the best of a mess not mud slinging.

 

Divide and conquer seems to be winning at present.

 

With an election in a few months in would make sense to consider who to vote for and remember the spiteful way the handgun ban was enacted by Labour against the advice of the review committee.

Edited February 14, 2015 by grahamch

[RossEM]

This has got nothing to do with the general election - as if any of us are going to vote Labour! We're having a debate about the Lead Ammunition Group, and engaging with BASC (as members) to try to improve the current situation.

[wymberley]

- but I won't be satisfied without a clear, concise, transparent peer-reviewed report - from 'the scientists' not from the LAG.

Have I got this all wrong? Isn't it the idea that the LAG is designed to produce the science so that Defra can make a decision based on their final report as what action is required and then to recommend such to the Government? My problem, rightly or wrongly I know not which, is that it seems to me that all the creditable science backed by qualifications is all on one side and sadly it isn't ours.

[panoma1]

I don't believe there is a vast amount of scientific evidence one way or the other, that is why those who want to ban lead shot are leaking deliberate misinformation via dubious claims and propaganda into the public domain, it is cynically designed to get public opinion on their side, On the supposition that if they shout it long enough and loud enough it will become fact!

 

I further believe that the real reason the WWT and RSPB raised and exaggerated the toxicity of lead as an issue is not through concern as to any adverse effect lead has on humans and animals, but to curtail live quarry shooting, as a step in their aim to end all live quarry shooting in this country (and further afield in the future)

 

I also strongly suspect that certain elements within BASC wish to see the end of lead shot and are subverting the struggle to defend it.

 

From the start the protectionist house appears to have been built on sandy ground, using emotional misinformation.

 

If BASC can maintain their stated position of no conclusive scientific evidence, no change and any required change proportionate to conclusively proven scientific evidence, then if honesty and fairness stand for anything? lead should still be legal to use in ammunition Well into the future!

[scotslad]

Panamma's post is spot on, there is very little real scientific studies that prove anything relating to lead.

 

The anti's or 'alleged conservationists' have to give out fasle truths or mis information because they are wrong, shooting is good for the countryside and the management it funds, so they have to go for the emotive argument hoping to grab headlines esp among people who do not know much about it.

 

For them the whole lead debate is an easier way to curtail shooting, nothing more. They know they are fighting a losing battle to ban shooting outright so are trying to ban it by the back door

[gunsmoke]

I would like to know what damage rusted steel shot would do to wild fowl that had injested it ? Has any body seen anything relating to this ?

Harnser

 

That is a very good point, one that I made four years ago and still waiting for an answer.

Edited February 14, 2015 by gunsmoke

[Kes]

Any updates today?

[Salopian]

With regard to a proposed ban on Lead ammunition, I think considering the time this subject has been with us there has been insufficient scientific research in investigating the issues.

North American Wildlife trusts backed very heavily financially imposed a Lead ban with very little resistance, many other Countries for want of a better description jumped on the band wagon.

Since then Sweden have highlighted issues in using Soft Iron ( steel shot ) because of damage to its Soft Timber Industry.

Norway have recently asked it's Government to reconsider , as no suitable alternative has been found that is efficient as Lead.

The USA have highlighted that tungsten based materials may well be carconagenic which effectively eliminates all alternatives TMX, HeviShot.

Here in the UK we have many areas in Cornwall and Shropshire where Lead mining has been going on since pre- Roman times. As far as I am aware there is no scientific evidence that the local populations have suffered any noticable ill effects from working or living in a supposedly Lead polluted environment. Indeed Darwin was born and brought up in Shrewsbury and it didn't do his evolution much harm. Ellis Peters, A E Houseman wandered around and we cannot identify any mental health issues there.

Perhaps it is about time we robustly defended the use of Lead shot until such time that it can be shown to be harmful.

[gunsmoke]

 

Perhaps it is about time we robustly defended the use of Lead shot until such time that it can be shown to be harmful.

 

If they had the evidence it would not have taken the LAG 5 years to finish its report. They have not got the evidence as the emails clearly show and we now know there is a question over using Tungsten but reading the emails the writer seems to think there is not a problem. That is because they have had a preconceived outcome all along, TO BAN LEAD.

[scotslad]

I think the 2 above points are spot on,

 

When i done up my house about 12ish years ago there was a grant to replace the lead supply pipes if it was above a certain level. This waer had sat in pipes for 6-8months with no taps turned on and still the lead levels where only 25% of wot i neded to get a grant.

If it was as toxic as some are making out there would be a great many with health problems, will stil be miles and miles of lead water pipes in use.

 

Even copper as used in some rilfe bullets can be poisinous to many plants.

[RossEM]

Have I got this all wrong? Isn't it the idea that the LAG is designed to produce the science so that Defra can make a decision based on their final report as what action is required and then to recommend such to the Government? My problem, rightly or wrongly I know not which, is that it seems to me that all the creditable science backed by qualifications is all on one side and sadly it isn't ours.

 

Wymberley I think that is their remit, but the evidence they require to ban lead is not in existence. What is concerning is that it sounds like the LAG is coming down on the side of a lead ban without having the evidence.

[wymberley]

 

Wymberley I think that is their remit, but the evidence they require to ban lead is not in existence. What is concerning is that it sounds like the LAG is coming down on the side of a lead ban without having the evidence.

On the other hand it could be interpreted that those who are in the know and who favour such have realised that it's looking as though there will be no outright ban recommended and have stuffed a damned great spanner in the works in an attempt to achieve their objective. We're just going to have to wait and see.

[Kes]

On the other hand it could be interpreted that those who are in the know and who favour such have realised that it's looking as though there will be no outright ban recommended and have stuffed a damned great spanner in the works in an attempt to achieve their objective. We're just going to have to wait and see.

I dont have anything like as much information as the LAG but I cant find anything which conclusively confirms lead shot is sufficiently dangerous to be a significant danger to wildlife and human health except perhaps when deposited in wetlands for the former but even that is far from certain based on the Ebro study.

There was a tide running on lead which it serves some to push forward but the JS leaks suggest (for God knows only what reason) that the evidence amassed by the LAG is overwhelming EXCEPT that Mr Spunner (CA) has not been convinced. So how is it and for what reason that JS has squandered his impartiality in this way.

We will shortly find he is the new CE of the RSPB ?

I am really struggling to understand how he could have been so partial or maybe just so stupid to 'lead' here and not simply 'guide' based on evidence.

[gunsmoke]

Some people are trying to show that BASC have nothing to do with the LAG and it is John Swift working alone. I think that it is not that simple.

 

In October 2012 Christopher Graffius was an observer on the teleconference of the LAG.

 

It is recording in the LAG minutes:

1.2. Christopher Graffius was invited to sit in on the teleconference and agreed to be bound by the FSA embargo and LAG confidentiality agreements. No objections were raised to his presence.

 

This allows me to make two points.

1. Its shows that along with Dr Matt Ellis running the Secretariat for the group and the LAG web site and Dr Harradine on the Risk Assessment group other BASC staff are involved in the LAG.

 

2. It states that there is a FSA embargo and LAG confidentiality agreement in place, How does that allow the Chairman to brief out side bodies on the workings of the LAG before the final report. John Swift came to the Deer Initiative meeting in May 2010 when he was make chairman and Nov 2014 reporting on new reports the LAG where look at.

[Kes]

Some people are trying to show that BASC have nothing to do with the LAG and it is John Swift working alone. I think that it is not that simple.

 

In October 2012 Christopher Graffius was an observer on the teleconference of the LAG.

 

It is recording in the LAG minutes:

1.2. Christopher Graffius was invited to sit in on the teleconference and agreed to be bound by the FSA embargo and LAG confidentiality agreements. No objections were raised to his presence.

 

This allows me to make two points.

1. Its shows that along with Dr Matt Ellis running the Secretariat for the group and the LAG web site and Dr Harradine on the Risk Assessment group other BASC staff are involved in the LAG.

 

2. It states that there is a FSA embargo and LAG confidentiality agreement in place, How does that allow the Chairman to brief out side bodies on the workings of the LAG before the final report. John Swift came to the Deer Initiative meeting in May 2010 when he was make chairman and Nov 2014 reporting on new reports the LAG where look at.

These are good points and clearly, having broken confidentiality once before, JS broke it in a really big way this time - no doubt hoping it would never get out.

 

Again I wonder whether it was on his own initiative he subverted the role of Chairman of the LAG or by dint of some wider purpose. I have formed 3 conclusions (partially).

1. JS was convinced by data that we are not privvy to (which we all believe does not exist) and 'changed sides' or, more correctly, decided he could confide this in DEFRA - rather stupidly. Perhaps someone at DEFRA used the FOI to reveal this opinion. (some one should ask, via FOI who it was.)

2. He is so arrogant that he expected to be able to voice his opinion, contrary to his role and allegiance (known to DEFRA) and thus exposed himself through arrogant stupidity.

3. The role he undertook was a ruse to allow lead to be banned in ammunition in a way that would seem 'acceptable' to the shooting community and this direction stemmed from DEFRA or the Government. He would therefore be the sacrificial 'head', as he was retiring. (Hansard statement re reporting date.) This would mean, if it were true, that some benefit for the personal vilification JS would receive, must come to JS eventually.

 

Or is he just a silly man who broke all his own rules ?

He doesn't strike me as a man who is really stupid, he does strike me as a man who wants to be even more a part of the 'establishment'. He also strikes me perhaps as a man who might be at odds with BASC, for the manner of his leaving but that is purely speculation and suggested only by these leaks.

One thing is however probably true, until BASC take it further and condemns his actions in a justified way - speculation is possible and damaging. If they do not, some of the improbable scenarios become more likely and the mud generated will stick to all.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Kes

[gunsmoke]

Kes

 

Why would he be at odds with BASC? He managed BASC for 25 years as CEO and we have the research committee minutes.

 

I believe that BASC staff know what was going on. What BASC tell us on PW and shooting times does not mean they where not working with John Swift to ban lead.

 

However I do not believe that all BASC staff know what was going on at the Mill. I believe that staff where on a need to know. It could be that only a small group of staff know the truth.

 

If you look at my posts I'm not BASC bashing, I'm only questioning their view and management of the lead issue.

[RossEM]

I don't know why anyone at BASC would have an anti-lead agenda. It's all very well making the accusation - but what's their motive supposed to be?

 

Kes, I'm also mystified as to why JS is anti-lead, and if the truth ever comes out it will be interesting reading. As will the 'science bit' of his report!!

 

I believe BASC have the stomach to fight a lead ban, they have their membership, the other organisations and all shooters right behind them. Why would they risk alienating their membership?