gunsmoke Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 So BASC know John Swift's views. Extract from BASC AGM John Swift’s address. AGM Minutes 2013Saturday 8th June 2013 at Abbots well Hotel, Chester Present: 3. Outgoing Chief Executive’s and Incoming Chief Executive’s Address John Swift: “We had to deal with lead shot ammunition from those very early days. I have been working with lead for 40 years. All I would say on this occasion is that shooting sports must think very carefully about what their right course of action is. I continue as Chairman of the DEFRA FSA Lead Ammunition Group so I am careful what I say, but if you try to defend lead on the grounds that it is “just another metal” and moreover kid yourself that it’s not a potential problem, you are not doing your case any favours. Lead is a nasty poison. Shooting needs to think very carefully about the impacts of using a poisonous substance in recreational activity, and where that could lead in the future.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) The really frustratingly annoying aspect of this, is that no one is disputing the toxicity of lead; that isn't the issue. The issue is what amount of effect that toxicity in lead shot has on the environment, the quarry we shoot, and human health. And the answer is very much still open to debate. The science so far has failed to prove any threat is more than negligible, even the comments by (allegedly JS) only speculate as to the extent this toxicity has on those aspects under scrutiny. And hence we go round again, in ever increasing circles. Could it be taking so long to arrive at a decision simply because no one can prove or disprove something which doesn't actually exist to the extent which satisfies what their respective agendas require? Edited February 20, 2015 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 So BASC know John Swift's views. Extract from BASC AGM John Swift’s address. AGM Minutes 2013 Saturday 8th June 2013 at Abbots well Hotel, Chester Present: 3. Outgoing Chief Executive’s and Incoming Chief Executive’s Address John Swift: “We had to deal with lead shot ammunition from those very early days. I have been working with lead for 40 years. All I would say on this occasion is that shooting sports must think very carefully about what their right course of action is. I continue as Chairman of the DEFRA FSA Lead Ammunition Group so I am careful what I say, but if you try to defend lead on the grounds that it is “just another metal” and moreover kid yourself that it’s not a potential problem, you are not doing your case any favours. Lead is a nasty poison. Shooting needs to think very carefully about the impacts of using a poisonous substance in recreational activity, and where that could lead in the future.” Tend to disagree with your opening sentence. Taken in context with the part of his speech in which it appears, and in view of the words, "potential" and "recreation" and ignoring his apparent subsequent action, to me it seems only right and proper that this potential should receive due consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 The really frustratingly annoying aspect of this, is that no one is disputing the toxicity of lead; that isn't the issue. The issue is what amount of effect that toxicity in lead shot has on the environment, the quarry we shoot, and human health. And the answer is very much still open to debate. The science so far has failed to prove any threat is more than negligible, even the comments by (allegedly JS) only speculate as to the extent this toxicity has on those aspects under scrutiny. And hence we go round again, in ever increasing circles. Could it be taking so long to arrive at a decision simply because no one can prove or disprove something which doesn't actually exist to the extent which satisfies what their respective agendas require? Well posted. A definitive precis of the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 The really frustratingly annoying aspect of this, is that no one is disputing the toxicity of lead; that isn't the issue. The issue is what amount of effect that toxicity in lead shot has on the environment, the quarry we shoot, and human health. And the answer is very much still open to debate. The science so far has failed to prove any threat is more than negligible, even the comments by (allegedly JS) only speculate as to the extent this toxicity has on those aspects under scrutiny. And hence we go round again, in ever increasing circles. Could it be taking so long to arrive at a decision simply because no one can prove or disprove something which doesn't actually exist to the extent which satisfies what their respective agendas require? I agree with Wymberley - interesting post Scully. But I think some people are pretending that lead is not a potential problem. I haven't got round to reading all Gunsmoke's postings on the link he gave me, but I have seen some other 'science' that is of concern but haven't critically reviewed it yet for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 The really frustratingly annoying aspect of this, is that no one is disputing the toxicity of lead; that isn't the issue. The issue is what amount of effect that toxicity in lead shot has on the environment, the quarry we shoot, and human health. And the answer is very much still open to debate. The science so far has failed to prove any threat is more than negligible, even the comments by (allegedly JS) only speculate as to the extent this toxicity has on those aspects under scrutiny. And hence we go round again, in ever increasing circles. Could it be taking so long to arrive at a decision simply because no one can prove or disprove something which doesn't actually exist to the extent which satisfies what their respective agendas require? The last sentence is more or less how I see it! The LAG are never going to reach agreement because of the polarised positions of the members and a reported absence of independent scientific evidence......therefore how are they ever going to unanimously agree the content of a report to DEFRA? Are all LAG members to submit their own reports? as It seems any conclusions will be an individual conclusion which can only be based on individual personal opinion and emotion based on bias and to suit their own agenda. Is this the basis for good law? Of course it isn't! Why should one individual opinion hold any more weight than another? If the LAG cannot reach an agreed position then they have failed....and should therefore be desolved with immediate effect, there should be no change to the current restrictions on lead shot, and a watching brief should be adopted by DEFRA, pending future conclusive independent scientific evidence becoming available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 and a watching brief should be adopted by DEFRA, pending future conclusive independent scientific evidence becoming available. How would you answer DEFRA coming to you for an opinion with this in their hands? http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dq3h64x#page-1 or http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306945/#r14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Well, I'd draw their attention to the first sentence of Para. 3) of the first reference and likewise a similar early reference in the second and ask to see the evidence that spent shot is a serious danger to humans and also ask how many have died as a direct result of eating game shot with lead. Then, when Defra starts to splutter and mumble, I'd tell them that as that writing is flawed it discredits anything that follows and bid them, good day. As they're shutting the gate, I might just call out, "show me something 'home grown". Edited February 20, 2015 by wymberley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 I don't want to develop this any further on a public forum, especially as I don't want to see lead banned but I'm not sure, from what you have said, that the writing is flawed. And there are more data out there - both animal and human. Whatever you do, make sure you do all you can to ensure there is a conservative majority government at the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 How would you answer DEFRA coming to you for an opinion with this in their hands? http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6dq3h64x#page-1 or http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306945/#r14 A consensus statement of scientists is not good science or scientific fact it is only a consensus. I believe that the Norwegian Government rejected this statement and repealed the lead ban for game shooting. What we need is someone to question this so-called consensus science, I’m trying to do what I can but I was hoping that BASC having the renowned scientists in this field might have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkield Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 3 months of debate and 26 pages, as everyone has had a fair chance to air their views, so this seems like a sensible time to close this one off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts