Lead Ammmunition Group

[Glenshooter]

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?

 

You're right. The BASC are totally in support of the continued use of lead as it is now. I asked some very searching questions this weekend at the stand and I'm in no doubt. Whatever the views of an ex chief exec is a different question. But no matter what the LAG outcome, not likely I would assume before the election, if we have a conservative government after the election, it is unlikely anything much will change, IMHO. A 'negative' report from the LAG and a labour/Lib/Scot Nat government, then that's a different possibility.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2015 by Glenshooter

[Kes]

 

You're right. The BASC are totally in support of the continued use of lead as it is now. I asked some very searching questions this weekend at the stand and I'm in no doubt. Whatever the views of an ex chief exec is a different question.

 

 

 

 

Its hard to APPEAR to be totally in support of lead when the man who developed the policy led BASc and retired with plaudits has now changed his mind - apparently.

Equally, not everyone can talk to BASC personally and nothing is available for those who cant, except a ref to JS not being CE or a BASC Member now. Some would say rather inadequate.

I also find the view that 'if its kept quiet, who will know'? Well, the RSPB do and the CA and no doubt everyone on the LAG - why no criticism, why not a fullsome repudiation as I have said before?

I've spoken to a few BASC members today who I know and their collective view is - roughly translated - well, what did you expect, my own experience was ....... So, from pistol ban to personal experience - not good.

[RossEM]

All points towards merging the associations for stronger representation...but that's another story.

 

I agree, BASC must be furious with JS (as would be anyone who shoots and has read the email) as it's going to be tough to distance themselves.

 

I'm 100% behind BASC - no it doesn't look good when they've presided over the pistol and lead shot restrictions, but the CA presided over the hunting ban and look at the defence they mounted against that - unfortunately some things are beyond pressure groups' control...however, the lead issue is one fight we do have a chance of winning. BASC have got it right from the start by stating 'no evidence, no change' - who can argue with that?

[spanj]

All points towards merging the associations for stronger representation...but that's another story.

 

I agree, BASC must be furious with JS (as would be anyone who shoots and has read the email) as it's going to be tough to distance themselves.

 

I'm 100% behind BASC - no it doesn't look good when they've presided over the pistol and lead shot restrictions, but the CA presided over the hunting ban and look at the defence they mounted against that - unfortunately some things are beyond pressure groups' control...however, the lead issue is one fight we do have a chance of winning. BASC have got it right from the start by stating 'no evidence, no change' - who can argue with that?

JS seemingly

[Scully]

All points towards merging the associations for stronger representation...but that's another story.

 

I agree, BASC must be furious with JS (as would be anyone who shoots and has read the email) as it's going to be tough to distance themselves.

 

I'm 100% behind BASC - no it doesn't look good when they've presided over the pistol and lead shot restrictions, but the CA presided over the hunting ban and look at the defence they mounted against that - unfortunately some things are beyond pressure groups' control...however, the lead issue is one fight we do have a chance of winning. BASC have got it right from the start by stating 'no evidence, no change' - who can argue with that?

We aint going to merge; that is never going to happen so we can forget about that. In fact over the years quite the opposite has happened because of one organisation or anothers lack of impetus or whatever.

Soundbites are all well and good, but 'no evidence, no change' is just that. It didn't after all, prevent the current lead shot bans we already have in place. If they weren't based on 'evidence' then what were they based on and why do they now exist?

The fact that lead is toxic is beyond doubt, the effect that lead shot has on human health and our wildlife is the issue here, but for some reason JS has attributed the former with the latter. It would be nice to know why.

[Kes]

Extract from another forum - no link.

 

Having attended a deer initiative event some years ago where John swift was questioned on this issue it was clear his mind was made up. We have been let down by John swift both during his tenure with basc and the lag. His stance has always been conciliatory rather than proactively defensive. I also recall Peter green being extremely cross at the meeting due to mr swifts comments and the 'scientist' working on behalf of basc knowing very little about ballistics. The whole process is very sad. Doubly so that js has been allowed to steer the process. Take note of that leaked memo: it proves the cosy little relationships on which our collective death by a thousand cuts is based. Basc and particularly John swift should be ashamed of the position in which they have allowed the shooting community to be placed. I can only say that it is up to those good men within basc to attempt to rectify this and for members to vote with their conscience and their feet.

 

Plenty of other opinions but I suggest we all need to look for them. Experience here dictates that BASC's position was known and has been obvious to some, including Gunsmoke, "some years ago". Wasnt he CE then !

I am placing here other peoples opinions - its not BASC bashing and, heaven help us, the knowledge that JS was a 'sleeper' suggests his views have been known and kept under wraps for some time - it beggars belief I'm afraid.

[Bear68]

Kes, I agree fully with you. I hope for robust action from BASC, and that JS's apparent transgresion will not go unchecked...the membership deserves this at least.

[gunsmoke]

Kes and Bear68

 

Question: how many BASC staff at the Mill have the same feelings about lead as John Swift?

 

If John Swift was a 5th columnist for the anti lead movement how many more are still in BASC at the Mill?

 

I've said this before, one BASC member of staff told me 5 years ago, "lead's died, get use to it" that was not John Swift.

[Glenshooter]

Kes and Bear68

 

Question: how many BASC staff at the Mill have the same feelings about lead as John Swift?

 

If John Swift was a 5th columnist for the anti lead movement how many more are still in BASC at the Mill?

 

I've said this before, one BASC member of staff told me 5 years ago, "lead's died, get use to it" that was not John Swift.

 

A good number of the folk at HQ are tearing their hair out re John Swift, AFAIK.

 

I've spoken to about 5 people in HQ over the last few weeks, a few at the Show last weekend, and none of them think that. They don't want to see lead banned.

[Kes]

I do agree that many staff will still feel that BASC's position is unchanged but that ignores 2 critical facts.

1. the game has plainly changed and JS is no longer fit to lead an impartial review if the evidence we have seen is prima facie, correct.

2. Those who are the genuine ones are not in positions of power and CANNOT turn the oil tanker back to its original course - it needs the senior elected and unelected management to do that with, pardon the pun, a very strong steer on JS.

Well intentioned staff there will be - many. The revelations we have seen suggest strongly that the previous senior management under JS were either unable or incapable of doing anything.

 

Would you want to be part of an organisation who's management seemingly has a problem with breweries and heavy drinking ? I'll happily withdraw that - when somebody does something suitably cathartic. The organisation could be argued to be mired in a damaging indecision.

 

edit SP

Edited February 17, 2015 by Kes

[Bazooka Joe]

Having attended a deer initiative event some years ago where John swift was questioned on this issue it was clear his mind was made up. We have been let down by John swift both during his tenure with basc and the lag. His stance has always been conciliatory rather than proactively defensive. I also recall Peter green being extremely cross at the meeting due to mr swifts comments and the 'scientist' working on behalf of basc knowing very little about ballistics. The whole process is very sad. Doubly so that js has been allowed to steer the process. Take note of that leaked memo: it proves the cosy little relationships on which our collective death by a thousand cuts is based. Basc and particularly John swift should be ashamed of the position in which they have allowed the shooting community to be placed.

 

 

So the way I read it is that BASC's hierarchy knew years ago about JS position on lead, & just let it carry on regardless..?..

[wymberley]

 

So the way I read it is that BASC's hierarchy knew years ago about JS position on lead, & just let it carry on regardless..?..

Getting a tad iffy now. We've all had a few days to express our disgust (choose your own word should you wish) at Swift's action. Anything else is is pure conjecture. The problem is that once the conspiracy theories take hold, they become increasingly more likely to be believed even though they have no basis in fact. In this event there's only one body that is going to suffer damage. It's not too big a leap to amend, "and just let it carry on regardless.." to read, 'and obviously condoned it'. Consequently, while allowing a few days to prepare their statement, if BASC do not make some form of formal announcement very soon, then the damage they will suffer could well turn out to be irrepairable: certainly their credibility has already suffered a catastrophic blow.

Edited February 17, 2015 by wymberley

[Glenshooter]

No idea what you're on about re breweries.

 

But, I agree that the people who matter to us on a daily basis in BASC are top people. I've had a fair few dealing with them over the years, due to licensing issues, and they're been great every time. I thing JS has gone feral but, and it's a big but, (I'm a chemist by training) - when you look into the science of lead over grasslands and the impact on varying species, there may be more to this than meets the eye and maybe, JS has seen this data. But he may also just be a twait.

 

But he should still be booted out of any position he has due to crass stupidity, although he's no longer a member of BASC in any case. I guess the reason he didn't join BASC after leaving the organisation may well hold a clue as to the background to all this.

 

I'd put money on the boys (and girls) in BASC are all queuing up to give him a 'swift' kick in the balls if they had the chance.

[Kes]

No idea what you're on about re breweries.

 

Organising, or rather not, a ****-** in a brewery ?

[gunsmoke]

 

No idea what you're on about re breweries.

 

Organising, or rather not, a ****-** in a brewery ?

 

you might have to say "boose up, in a brewery" if he has not worked it out.

[Desiato]

Having spoken to numerous parties over the course of the Shooting Show, the following would appear to be evident, firstly Many at BASC are clearly shocked at JS antics , should they be ? I don't think so, I believe there are those at certain levels within BASC who, if not complicit were certainly aware of his opinions but allowed him to proceed unchecked, there has been at least one resignation from LAG and as I understand it that's from the shooting representation side, which undoubtedly weakens our position.

In my opinion Shootings representation on the LAG is poor and always has been, but it is now incumbent upon those representatives to do there upmost to pull this situation round on behalf of the Shooters they claim to represent and whose membership money they are only to happy to take!

[Kes]

For Info and from the CA website - they clearly feel a bit let down and arent afraid to say so.

 

The 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 5 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.

[Bear68]

It would be reassuring to see a similar statement on ths BASC website. It is now a week since Shooting Times reported the email story.

[Kes]

The Norwegian parliament today (3 February) resolved by 79 votes to 16 to reintroduce lead shot for live quarry hunting outside wetlands. The decision follows a lengthy campaign by the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers – the Jegernes Interesseorganisasjon (JI).

In a statement issued on 29 January last week jointly with Norway’s Weapons Council (Våpenrådet), the JI had said that the country’s four main political parties were supportive of the move to bring back lead shot for hunting in spite of “massive pressure from a smaller group of researchers and veterinarians against lead ammunition”. “The fact that these parties have not been affected by excessive argumentation on the basis of campaign based research commands respect,” the statement said.

Banned in 2005

The JI has been campaigning to bring back lead – which it sees as “the most suitable material in hunting ammunition” – since the Norwegian government brought in a lead shot ban in 2005. The organisation criticised the ban on the grounds that it lacked a solid evidential basis and that the use of alternative ammunition posed animal welfare risks. Non-lead ammunition does not kill as cleanly or as efficiently as lead, and therefore causes unnecessary suffering to quarry, the JI has argued. It also maintains that the potential adverse effects of such substitute materials on health and the environment have not been studied in sufficient detail.

This is not the first time that proposals to repeal the lead shot ban have come before Norway’s politicians and in 2013, a move to bring lead back was defeated when a parliamentary majority voted against it.

Political support

However, last year, the tide appeared to be turning again, and the JI received statements of support for partial repeal from Norway’s Conservative Party, Progress Party, Christian Democratic Party, Center Party and the Social Democratic Party, which it believes should give the proposals a clear majority in a parliamentary vote.

In spite of their optimism over the latest vote, the JI remains conscious that the lead shot issue is still a live one. It said: “The case is probably not over even though parliament now chooses to lift the ban. The pressures from those who want to ban all lead based ammunition are most likely maintained and they will probably try to find new ways to succeed. They already have their focus towards a ban for lead based rifle bullets. We as dedicated hunters, shooters and professionals must keep up the commitment that our victory is to be a permanent one.”

“The conclusion now reached by the Norwegians that there is insufficient evidence to justify the continued ban of lead shot outside of wetlands and clay shooting grounds clearly shows that one should only act on firm scientific evidence when considering restrictions to types of ammunition. We should also not be told to use alternatives when the full impact of those to the environment and human health remain unknown.”

 

This is what 'no compromise' looks like.

JS is way behind the curve and we have simply confirmation that he is no longer.....

 

He does however retain an involvement with FACE, as treasurer (?) which BASC regularly attends. Face has very strong links to international bird groups and may well have a different view on lead. Given JS's stance, should BASC perhaps argue for JS to be removed from both FACE and LAG, or doesn't it really matter.

Anyone who finds compromise difficult would probably say - YES, it does matter and its an obligation.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Kes

[Desiato]

It would be reassuring to see a similar statement on ths BASC website. It is now a week since Shooting Times reported the email story.

You may be waiting a long time for this!, I believe they are very much on the back foot with this , for the last 10 yrs they have played political games with this issue instead of concentrating on a Robust defence , it would appear to have returned and bitten them on the **** , this will not be the first or last time they get a shooting topic wrong ( Remember The Raised Cages Debacle ) . I will be extremely interested to see how they deal with this over the coming weeks and months.

[Kes]

You may be waiting a long time for this!, I believe they are very much on the back foot with this , for the last 10 yrs they have played political games with this issue instead of concentrating on a Robust defence , it would appear to have returned and bitten them on the **** , this will not be the first or last time they get a shooting topic wrong ( Remember The Raised Cages Debacle ) . I will be extremely interested to see how they deal with this over the coming weeks and months.

I think you may find they dont - its interesting that the CA comment I posted confirms "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.

This comment alone suggests that, although ridiculed for it Gunsmoke has been correct. If this statement is true and I have no evidence to suggest it isnt, then JS was fixed in his views, now revealed, whilst CE of BASC. You tell me how BASC can fight a ban realistically when its CE was 'set on his conclusions before the LAG was formed'.

I am afraid all that follows will be damage limitation in one form or another. BASC is a business - it will treat this as a 'setback', its easy however to see it as a betrayal by the organisation which still says 'no evidence-no ban' - shame the former CE wasnt 'on-message'.

[Cranfield]

The whole subject of the possible ban, or restriction, of the use of lead ammunition is a major issue for all shooters.

Sensible debate and analysis of what action we should, or could, be taking is very important.

 

Devoting 24 pages almost entirely of heaping criticism on the BASC, for the apparent role of their ex CEO in the whole matter, is not very positive or fair.

[spanj]

Its hard not to really, the sense of betrayal is palpable, even if JS has gone rogue he WAS CE of BASC for a looooooooooong time

[wymberley]

The whole subject of the possible ban, or restriction, of the use of lead ammunition is a major issue for all shooters.

Sensible debate and analysis of what action we should, or could, be taking is very important.

 

Devoting 24 pages almost entirely of heaping criticism on the BASC, for the apparent role of their ex CEO in the whole matter, is not very positive or fair.

As you mention, "fair", to be fair this did not start until Page 12 following the announcement of swift's activity. However, you make a valid point with regard to it not being positive or even productive. As it seems at the moment that the dead donkey has been dropped, perhaps we should all take a breather until such time as further announcements as to what is happening are made.

[Salopian]

Very ironic that at the top of this page an advert is telling us that more than 130,000 shooters know the value of BASC. They can't even get that right ! Nowhere near 130,000 shooters belong to BASC. I would guess even less, come renewal time.

Who used to be the CEO was it John or Judas?