Lead Ammmunition Group

[David BASC]

Again it comes back to the impact assessment, if for example there is no evidence that 22rf causes problems, I doubt there will be any recommendation to restrict of ban, remember when lead was banned from fishing weights due to the environmental impacts, it only applied from 0.06g up to 28.35g - as there was no evidence that outside of this range the shot caused problems.

[victorismyhero]

there is another aspect to this as well......

 

what about places and permissions upon which you can only use FIBRE wads???

 

has any of the manufacturers yet produced a SATISFACTIORY fiber shot cup for steel?

 

or are we going to be faced with the prospect of our barrels being shredded ?

 

I'm lucky, I have a modern gun that is proofed for HP steel and chambered 3"

 

so steel itself aint an issue for me...(though I'll be ****** if i cant use my .410)

Edited December 7, 2014 by victorismyhero

[Scully]

i agree it will be the end of the .410 . However the 28g will survive but with specialists loads imo . With regards to .22 lr it wont just be the humble "rimfire " it will affect all calibres too. They all have lead cores . Take the .243 a 90 grain soft point head still has approximately 70 grains of lead .

Do people really belive that IF there successful it will just stop at lead shot ?

 

Just food for thought .

It can't just stop at lead shot; logic says it can't. It has already been suggested that the atomised particles of lead left as debris within a wound poses a potential threat to health. Total ******** of course, but it would be very hypocritical to suggest that while lead shot has to be banned, lead cored bullets don't need to be.

Lead shot has been falling over this country and onto its waterways, ponds and lakes for hundreds of years now, if it is such a threat to our wildlife as it is claimed, wouldn't we be finding our wildlife, and in particular wildfowl, now on the endangered list?

Panoma 1 isn't the only one who feels he is being shafted.

[panoma1]

I agree there are differences between the Scottish and English systems, but remember shooting on or over all RAMSAR wetlands is banned in Scotland inland or foreshore.Also, please remember that the LAG is there to simply look at the scientific evidence on the potential risks of lead shot to the environment and human health from published literature and other sources, all of which are on the LAG site. LAG were not there to discuss, debate or make any recommendations on the terminal ballistics of lead shot or any other lead shot, or many of the other issues raised here, and are most certainly not simply a platform for a RSPB/WWT ban lead shot campaign.I can assure you that BASC were actively involved in the evidence groups that reviewed the literature. May I also remind you that the Chairman was not a former employee of BASC for most of the lifetime of the LAGThe key issue will be when the LAG makes its final report to DEFRA and what recommendations are in that report.It will be then up to DEFRA to do something or nothing, who knows, but its at that point the lobbying can beginI do find you quote from the above post:'if it is wrong (it must be because they made it illegal?) to shoot geese and duck with lead shot, how is it right to shoot other birds/animals with lead shot?'Very interesting indeedDavid

Was it not Ms D Pain from the WWT who wrote a paper (with which the RSPB gave their full support) on amongst other things the dangers to pregnant women and their unborn child of lead in Game meat that was the driving force in the government (DEFRA) forming the LAG?

She later forced their hand when she arbitrarily released scientifically dubious and deliberately scaremongering information designed to bolster her equally dubious claims and stir up public concern!

So you may not see it as a protectionist anti shooting platform but I bet they do! And I bet they are prepared to do/say anything to further this agenda! Lead is the means to their end, to deal a blow to shootings vitals!

As for my comment on the species specific element of the lead ban which you quoted! On what basis did the government ban the shooting of geese and duckwith lead shot?.........why was this question not asked at the time? I can see no basis for it? But I recognised years ago that as soon as this was made law leads days were numbered

Edited December 7, 2014 by panoma1

[andrewluke]

there is another aspect to this as well......

 

what about places and permissions upon which you can only use FIBRE wads???

 

has any of the manufacturers yet produced a SATISFACTIORY fiber shot cup for steel?

 

or are we going to be faced with the prospect of our barrels being shredded ?

 

I'm lucky, I have a modern gun that is proofed for HP steel and chambered 3"

 

so steel itself aint an issue for me...(though I'll be ****** if i cant use my .410)

 

it would be an issue for you if permissions only allow fibre wads whether you have a modern gun or not if fibre wad steel cartridges are not available,what steel cartridges would you use??

 

andrew

[mudpatten]

In response to earlier comments about BASC not fighting the lead ban for waterfowling.

 

The fact is that BASC fought against it successfully for over 25 years. I know this because I played a small part in that fight, a fight that BASC alone took up from the outset when all the other shooting organisations ignored it.

 

BASC did`nt "give away" lead shot for fowling, any more than it is not fighting now.

 

What happened is that the GOVERMENT elected to ignore and override BASC`s viewpoint. The GOVERNMENT simply does`nt care about rendering the .410,or any other bore size obselete and nor does it care about the problems of using plastic wads.

 

It was the GOVERMENT that banned lead for fowling, and it is the GOVERNMENT that may well ban it for other forms of shooting.

 

BASC fought hard - but it lost. We all need to plan our future shooting strategy to cope with the fact that we might lose again and, fight as hard as we may, no amount of wailing,gnashing of teeth and attacking our own organisations will change this.

[andrewluke]

Was it not Ms D Pain from the WWT who wrote a paper (with which the RSPB gave their full support) on amongst other things the dangers to pregnant women and their unborn child of lead in Game meat that was the driving force in the government (DEFRA) forming the LAG?

She later forced their hand when she arbitrarily released scientifically dubious and deliberately scaremongering information designed to bolster her equally dubious claims and stir up public concern!

So you may not see it as a protectionist anti shooting platform but I bet they do! And I bet they are prepared to do/say anything to further this agenda! Lead is the means to their end, to deal a blow to shootings vitals!

As for my comment on the species specific element of the lead ban which you quoted! On what basis did the government ban the shooting of geese and duckwith lead shot?.........why was this question not asked at the time? I can see no basis for it? But I recognised years ago that as soon as this was made law leads days were numbered

 

things could get much much worse,alcohol could next on the list at WWT,

 

i am a non toxic teetotal

[David BASC]

If you look at the literature on the long run up to the restrictions on lead shot, it was seen that the key species at risk were wildfowl, hence the restrictions on the use of lead in their key habitats in the UK - ie the foreshore.

 

It also looked to restrict lead shot use inland in areas were these species were most likely to be found. In England for example the restriction was species specific, in Scotland for example it is habitat specific.

 

Out of interest which do you think is better?

 

BASC will continue to resist further restrictions on lead shot as we have said and have been saying for many many years - full details on our web site

[Steppenwolf]

Again it comes back to the impact assessment, if for example there is no evidence that 22rf causes problems, I doubt there will be any recommendation to restrict of ban, remember when lead was banned from fishing weights due to the environmental impacts, it only applied from 0.06g up to 28.35g - as there was no evidence that outside of this range the shot caused problems.

I can understand what you are saying. You think that these things are done for the best of mankind. I can understand your utopic views, I wish the world worled like that but behind many of these decisions which we think: "common sense" or "for the benefit of all" are mostly agendas and political scheming, limiting freedom and banning things due to commerical interests or ideological interests.

 

I beleive that the lead ban is promoted by bitter peopel that realised that they weren't gettign anywhere by trying to ban guns and hijacked the environmental movement to push their lead ban thus anti gun agenda.

[wymberley]

 

Also, please remember that the LAG is there to simply look at the scientific evidence on the potential risks of lead shot to the environment and human health from published literature and other sources, all of which are on the LAG site. LAG were not there to discuss, debate or make any recommendations on the terminal ballistics of lead shot or any other lead shot, or many of the other issues raised here, and are most certainly not simply a platform for a RSPB/WWT ban lead shot campaign.

 

 

In which case as they haven't had to actually do anything other than sit and read and talk, how the hell has it taken them 5 years (it will be as I wouldn't take any bets that the report is issued prior to May 2015) with no sign of completion in sight?

[fenboy]

In answer to your question David , the only sensible option is for a the lead ban to be habitat specific.

[panoma1]

In response to earlier comments about BASC not fighting the lead ban for waterfowling.

 

The fact is that BASC fought against it successfully for over 25 years. I know this because I played a small part in that fight, a fight that BASC alone took up from the outset when all the other shooting organisations ignored it.

 

BASC did`nt "give away" lead shot for fowling, any more than it is not fighting now.

 

What happened is that the GOVERMENT elected to ignore and override BASC`s viewpoint. The GOVERNMENT simply does`nt care about rendering the .410,or any other bore size obselete and nor does it care about the problems of using plastic wads.

 

It was the GOVERMENT that banned lead for fowling, and it is the GOVERNMENT that may well ban it for other forms of shooting.

 

BASC fought hard - but it lost. We all need to plan our future shooting strategy to cope with the fact that we might lose again and, fight as hard as we may, no amount of wailing,gnashing of teeth and attacking our own organisations will change this.

No one said BASC "Gave it away" I have no issues about the uk complying with the AEWA instigated ban on depositing lead shot over wetlands, but banning lead to shoot geese and duck was never a requirement for compliance with the AEWA! So how did this get past shootings representatives? For what purpose was the banning of lead shot to shoot geese and duck in England and Wales bought in? What was it supposed to achieve?

[David BASC]

I think my post 83 answers the question of what were the restrictions supposed to achieve.

 

As to the LAG, yes most of the work has been reviewing published papers, agreeing on which papers were relevant, and then developing suggestions for risk assessment and protocols to minimise risks, and finally agreeing on those terms. However, that's my view, you may well get a better answer form the LAG

[panoma1]

If you look at the literature on the long run up to the restrictions on lead shot, it was seen that the key species at risk were wildfowl, hence the restrictions on the use of lead in their key habitats in the UK - ie the foreshore.

 

It also looked to restrict lead shot use inland in areas were these species were most likely to be found. In England for example the restriction was species specific, in Scotland for example it is habitat specific.

 

Out of interest which do you think is better?

 

BASC will continue to resist further restrictions on lead shot as we have said and have been saying for many many years - full details on our web site

But it doesn't just protect wildfowl from ingesting lead shot over wetlands and in their key habitats in the uk does it? Killing a duck or a goose with lead shot fired from a shotgun is a totally different issue...it dies from being shot not from ingesting lead shot.......

My own view is if England and Wales had the Habitat specific ban as in Scotland, shooting would not now be facing a total ban on lead ammunition, there would be no 'ammunition' for the protectionists because they could not scream non-compliance after buying duck shot with lead from game dealers (as they do now) because it would not be illegal!!

I really hope BASC do fight to protect shooting from a total lead shot ban, because I believe this is not about the dangers or otherwise of lead shot.....but an excuse by the protectionists to attack shooting and shooters

[panoma1]

I think my post 83 answers the question of what were the restrictions supposed to achieve.As to the LAG, yes most of the work has been reviewing published papers, agreeing on which papers were relevant, and then developing suggestions for risk assessment and protocols to minimise risks, and finally agreeing on those terms. However, that's my view, you may well get a better answer form the LAG

No David I do not think your post #83 does answer my question!

 

Why did "it (?) looked to restrict lead shot use inland where these species were most likely to be found"? Ingestion of lead shot is one thing killing a duck with lead by shooting it is a different issue altogether!

 

How does your quote (above) in inverted commas explain why?

Edited December 7, 2014 by panoma1

[RossEM]

Ok great, you like steel, use steel. Don't force the reat of us to use it and don't cite erroneous surveys to make us feel guilty for using lead. What is it with shooting in britain where some people need to dictate to others what gun, scope, mount and ammunition (whether steel or lead) they need to use.

 

If it works for you fine, but it might not work for everyone. After all variety is the spice of life.

Steppenwolf, with the greatest respect, where in my post did I cite an 'erroneous survey' and dictate what equipment to use?

 

What prompted me to post my experiences using steel was some of the posts in this thread (and in many, many other threads) which point to steel as not being a viable alternative to lead. I completely disagree with this, and I know it works well because I've used a lot of it at varying ranges on a variety of species.

 

I don't use steel exclusively - my personal opinion is that Scotland have it right with the ban on lead use over wetlands.

[Steppenwolf]

Killing a duck or a goose with lead shot fired from a shotgun is a totally different issue...it dies from being shot not from ingesting lead shot.......

 

Oh but you see, in Politically Correct Britain killing a duck with steel shot is okay, but killing it with lead shot is NOT okay. The duck still gets killed. Common sense? Logic? Nah this is Britain.

[David BASC]

panoma1, the objective of the current restrictions on the use of lead shot is, as we all know, aimed at preventing the deposition of spent lead shot onto key habitats were wildfowl for example are most likely to be.

 

This excludes the use of lead on all foreshore across the UK.

 

Over and above this, as we all know, wildfowl will also inhabit other areas inland, and these areas also need protection from spent lead shot deposition.

 

The English government decided the best way was to make the restriction apply to specific habitats that are SSSI's as listed in the regulations as well as species specific. I can only assume the latter was on the basis that wildfowl are primarily going to be found by shooters in wetland areas.

 

Scotland took the alternative view and simply excluded specific habitats, as listed under RAMSAR, regardless of the species found there.

 

David

[wymberley]

Also, please remember that the LAG is there to simply look at the scientific evidence on the potential risks of lead shot to the environment and human health from published literature and other sources, all of which are on the LAG site. LAG were not there to discuss, debate or make any recommendations on the terminal ballistics of lead shot or any other lead shot, or many of the other issues raised here, and are most certainly not simply a platform for a RSPB/WWT ban lead shot campaign.

 

 

 

The key issue will be when the LAG makes its final report to DEFRA and what recommendations are in that report.It will be then up to DEFRA to do something or nothing, who knows, but its at that point the lobbying can begin

 

 

Below are the terms of reference for LAG.

(a) the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition, the respective levels of those risks and to explore possible solutions to any significant threats;

( B) possible options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition.

 

Looking quickly at Item ( B) first,as NTS was already in use when the Group was formed, what is this INCREASED exposure?

 

Turning our attention to (a), and the, " explore possible solutions to any possible threat" in particular, as this "possible threat" is defined in the Group title, then it would appear that the above quoted raison d'etre for the Group is at odds with its stated terms of reference. It is simply not possible to explore a potential solution without looking at its performance. "I once shot a pigeon at 80 yards with a No 6 steel shot" does not cut the mustard. So, one has to ask, if the LAG aren't going to do it, who is at a scientific/reasoned level?

 

It is also worth noting that Defra/FSA cannot "do" anything. Their only remit would be to pass the LAG findings and their own recommendations on to parliament for any final decision. So at the current rate of knots, we're probably safe for another 10 years or so.............and if you believe that..............

 

PS For some reason, I can't get rid of the 'smileys for Item ( B) See what I mean - ( B)

Edited December 8, 2014 by wymberley

[panoma1]

panoma1, the objective of the current restrictions on the use of lead shot is, as we all know, aimed at preventing the deposition of spent lead shot onto key habitats were wildfowl for example are most likely to be.

 

This excludes the use of lead on all foreshore across the UK.

 

Over and above this, as we all know, wildfowl will also inhabit other areas inland, and these areas also need protection from spent lead shot deposition.

 

The English government decided the best way was to make the restriction apply to specific habitats that are SSSI's as listed in the regulations as well as species specific. I can only assume the latter was on the basis that wildfowl are primarily going to be found by shooters in wetland areas.

 

Scotland took the alternative view and simply excluded specific habitats, as listed under RAMSAR, regardless of the species found there.

 

David

David, site specific is in line with AEWA , species specific is not! Shooting duck or geese inland over stubbles or other fields with lead has nothing whatsoever to do with the ingestion of lead shot by wildfowl over wetlands! Therefore it is not asked for nor a requirement in order to comply with AEWA..........so there must be another reason to make shooting wildfowl with lead shot illegal? That's what I would like an answer to......surely BASC should have contemporaneous notes from the meetings at the time that disclose the reason for this, assuming they were present?

 

P1

[David BASC]

The only reasons / rationale that I know of are those I have posted

[rbrowning2]

In response to earlier comments about BASC not fighting the lead ban for waterfowling.

 

The fact is that BASC fought against it successfully for over 25 years. I know this because I played a small part in that fight, a fight that BASC alone took up from the outset when all the other shooting organisations ignored it.

 

BASC did`nt "give away" lead shot for fowling, any more than it is not fighting now.

 

What happened is that the GOVERMENT elected to ignore and override BASC`s viewpoint. The GOVERNMENT simply does`nt care about rendering the .410,or any other bore size obselete and nor does it care about the problems of using plastic wads.

 

It was the GOVERMENT that banned lead for fowling, and it is the GOVERNMENT that may well ban it for other forms of shooting.

 

BASC fought hard - but it lost. We all need to plan our future shooting strategy to cope with the fact that we might lose again and, fight as hard as we may, no amount of wailing,gnashing of teeth

and attacking our own organisations will change this.

 

Then come 2015 vote UKIP and treat the current and past GOVERNMENTS the same way they treat us the shooter.

[panoma1]

So it appears we both don't know then David! But arn't you curious? Doesn't someone at BASC actually know/care enough to provide an answer?

 

I will repeat.....if it's wrong (how/why is it wrong?) to shoot wildfowl with lead shot (presumably it must be because they banned it!!!) how can it be right to shoot other birds and animals with lead shot?

 

Shootings position on lead shot has in my opinion been made untenable because this unfair species specific ban was allowed to pass into law!

 

P1

Edited December 8, 2014 by panoma1

[David BASC]

I have given the best explanation I can, I will ask if there is a better one.

 

The lead shot restrictions are not about the shot the kills the bird, but about the shot that misses and ends up in the environment

 

And the environmental aspect of the LAG is looking at the very question you ask...

 

David

[panoma1]

I have given the best explanation I can, I will ask if there is a better one.

 

The lead shot restrictions are not about the shot the kills the bird, but about the shot that misses and ends up in the environment

 

And the environmental aspect of the LAG is looking at the very question you ask...

 

David

If it's "not about the shot that kills the bird ( duck or geese) but about the shot that misses and ends up in the environment" why is it illegal to shoot duck and geese with lead shot but not Pheasant, Grouse, Partridge, Pigeon, Clays etc. etc. etc? It all lands in the environment!

 

As I said when this unfair species specific element of the lead shot ban came into law, all other shooting with lead shot was in the firing line....Did not our representatives see this? Did our representatives not understand the implications of this? Did our representatives not argue it? Did our representatives not ask/demand to know why? Did our representatives not appeal or ask for a judicial review?

 

Or, I hate to ask but was it that our representatives were not up to the job?