Lead Ammmunition Group

[wymberley]

David,

 

Thank you. Your reply leaves no room for any doubt.

[grrclark]

Scully, I would go a bit further than your statement and say that there is no common sense nor logic applied to a great swathe of legislation in this country and not just limit it to shooting.

 

For whatever reasons we have some absolutely daft applications of legislation despite the level of scientific advice and intensive lobbying from very influential stakeholders.

Edited December 8, 2014 by grrclark

[panoma1]

Just like to say a quick "Thank you" to David for his sterling work on our behalf.

 

I notice that his last post was well after 5pm,long after I`d have been out of the office door. There`s dedication for you, especially since today is his birthday.

 

You have the patience of a saint mate. We`re lucky to have you working for BASC.

I wish I didn't keep coming across questions!! but..........

 

One of David BASC apologists maintains David BASC comes on here as an employee of BASC but does not deserve to be asked searching questions relating to BASC issues because......what is it grrclark in your response to me? it amounts to Hectoring and badgering by self appointed vigorous examiners and barrack room lawyers? Your words!

 

Then another David BASC apologist posts ......that David BASC posted, quote "well after 5pm, long after I'd have been out of the office door" intimating that David BASC does post during the working day, which is easily proven by checking the time of his postings!

 

The third David BASC apologist maintains that David BASC posts in his own time? (presumably because of this as an individual) again easily proved or disproven by checking the times of his postings.

 

If David posts in his own time then there may be a case for jumping to his defence.....but if David BASC posts when he is being paid by BASC (or more correctly BASC members) then he is fair game!

 

Come on David BASC please clarify! are you representing BASC on BASC's time.........or yourself on your own or BASC's time?

 

I apologise David BASC this is not a personal attack on you, it is me defending myself against those who would try to intimidate and attack me because I asked for answers to probing questions from you as an employee of BASC....

[Blunderbuss]

Apologists??? Strange choice of words. Nobody is apologising for him and why should they?

[panoma1]

Apologists??? Strange choice of words. Nobody is apologising for him and why should they?

 

Apologist.....definition...........a defender by argument......

[David BASC]

A few points in reply

 

1. No one is on here to apologise for me

2. I am a BASC member too so I pay the same towards my salary as any of you do, so don't play the 'I pay your wages card'

3. If you are that interested in my working time, I am typically at my desk by 7am, and rarely leave before 5.30

4. I am not fair game for anyone - I am not here to be shot at

5. It is not unusual for me to post well outside of the normal working day; look back at my almost 3500 posts that proves the point

6. I am here to represent BASC, regardless of what time I post

7. I am still waiting for clarification of precisely which questions, probing or otherwise I have failed to answer

[grrclark]

Panoma1, yep you were hectoring and badgering. Taking on quite the persona of a barrack room lawyer. You are not alone there have been quite a few self appointed vigorous examiners on all manner of subjects having a go at David. I have said similar to them as well.

 

You may well have strong opinions on a subject, but because David participates in the discussions on here you mistake that as some right of entitlement for you to harangue him relentlessly until your absolute satisfaction just because he is an employee of BASC. You don't have a right of exclusivity or entitlement to demand an answer to your every point.

 

It wasn't searching questions, it had quite simply become hectoring and to be blunt of very little value, just subjective and un substantive noise, but you were determined that as an individual you had to best him.

 

For absolute clarity, I am no apologist of David or BASC, I am not defending him or his organisation, he is more than capable and better equipped to do that for himself.

 

What I am saying is that as a member of both this forum and BASC it frustrates me immensely to see individuals want to ride roughshod over everyone else because they are on some sort of self appointed crusade against BASC and using this forum to pursue that agenda. I appreciate that BASC employees post in this forum and I would like to see that continue and I see the continual relentless and obsessive analysis of his posts as a risk to that.

 

To be much more succinct, I actually think that it is disrespectful to David as an individual, whether he is an employee or not. You are perfectly entitled to disagree if you choose to.

 

I suspect that Blunderbuss and Yellow Bear look at this the same way I do.

 

Edit to add: David, apologies for talking about you continually in the 3rd person.

Edited December 8, 2014 by grrclark

[Scully]

I understand your point Scully about your shoot, however, as you say the law is not always logical!

Thanks David, but where does that leave us regarding BASC's 'no sound evidence, no change'? It doesn't sound to me like BASC will have any say in the matter given our agreed opinion regarding logical laws. One just has to look at the difference in English and Scottish lead shot laws.

 

The English laws targeted specific sites that were seen to be vulnerable, some sites were removed of course at a later date

Vulnerable in what way?

 

Scottish law targets all wetlands, and if your shoot was in Scotland of course you would not be able to legally use lead at al by the sounds of it

I realise that of course, but with all respect don't see what point you're trying to make. Either the science proves a claim or it doesn't, otherwise it has nothing to do with lead or its toxicity.

 

But, the law in England allows you to use lead in the circumstance you state, it does not force you to, you have the flexibility to use non lead shot in those circumstances if you wish to

i know this also, but with all respect I don't follow your point really. It can't be about lead if one Government can ignore the science whilst another doesn't.

 

As to the ducks that the WWT found to have high blood lead levels, I think you will find that BASC later discovered and made the point publically (2012) that these ducks were tested from sites that historically had heavy lead contamination and had not been shot over for years, and it was the historical lead that was causing the problem, it was not as WWT proposed, and example of non-compliance with the current laws.

Ok, so was the historically heavy lead contamination caused by spent shot from game shooting? Also, when do current lead levels become historical lead levels?

 

As to the presence or absence of carcasses, well my shoot is very different from yours, we very seldom find carcasses of any species on our shoot.

Fair enough. Of all the creatures we know inhabit our shoot, the only carcasses we don't find are Fox, Otter and Duck.

Remembering that all the animals that live on the shoots we know will die eventually of other causes such as disease or starvation, and thinking of the number of animals that will inhabit the land we shoot over it is surprising how few carcasses we see .

Agreed, yes it is surprising. Which makes it all the more surprising when you consider how those who have a vested interest in finding, in particular lead poisoned duck, can find them in sufficient numbers in the wild. Makes you wonder eh?

[panoma1]

Panoma1, yep you were hectoring and badgering. Taking on quite the persona of a barrack room lawyer. You are not alone there have been quite a few self appointed vigorous examiners on all manner of subjects having a go at David. I have said similar to them as well.

 

You may well have strong opinions on a subject, but because David participates in the discussions on here you mistake that as some right of entitlement for you to harangue him relentlessly until your absolute satisfaction just because he is an employee of BASC. You don't have a right of exclusivity or entitlement to demand an answer to your every point.

 

It wasn't searching questions, it had quite simply become hectoring and to be blunt of very little value, just subjective and un substantive noise, but you were determined that as an individual you had to best him.

 

For absolute clarity, I am no apologist of David or BASC, I am not defending him or his organisation, he is more than capable and better equipped to do that for himself.

 

What I am saying is that as a member of both this forum and BASC it frustrates me immensely to see individuals want to ride roughshod over everyone else because they are on some sort of self appointed crusade against BASC and using this forum to pursue that agenda. I appreciate that BASC employees post in this forum and I would like to see that continue and I see the continual relentless and obsessive analysis of his posts as a risk to that.

 

To be much more succinct, I actually think that it is disrespectful to David as an individual, whether he is an employee or not. You are perfectly entitled to disagree if you choose to.

 

I suspect that Blunderbuss and Yellow Bear look at this the same way I do.

 

Edit to add: David, apologies for talking about you continually in the 3rd person.

 

You are entitled to your opinion grrclark but I have not resorted to name calling and personal insults, but you and blunderbuss and (by his support) yellow bear have, can I suggest that if you haven't got anything constructive to say relating to the topic on which we are supposed to be commenting.....you should consider butting out!

[grrclark]

Scully, I am genuinely not trying to be antagonistic in this question, but can I ask what answer you hope to get from David in your last set of questions?

 

Is it a statement that sometimes the law makers wont listen to the lobbying of BASC and do something contrary to their stated aims to represent the shooting community?

Do you want BASC to admit that there is contradictions in the use of scientific findings compared to the application of the law?

 

If it is just a general discussion around the vagaries of our legislation and a sometimes absurd representation of scientific data then fair enough, but it does read as though you are setting a bear trap. It was the same with some of the questions from Panoma1. In fact in so many of these threads it really does look like BASC baiting.

 

I am really not trying to be antagonistic and I apologise if it comes across that way, but it does look like there is an agenda at play and it baffles me as I really don't understand what value is to be gained other than a bit of "na na na, you said...!"

 

Edit to add: Scully, please feel free to ignore the above it really isn't my place to ask you to justify your questions, it is a wee bit arrogant on my part and out of order. The point behind my post was really about what looks like baiting questions to BASC and my lack of understanding in what people hope to gain from that on this forum.

 

I have left the post intact as many will have read it and it would be poor form to delete the content.

Edited December 8, 2014 by grrclark

[David BASC]

No sound evidence...it means we will fight against further restrictions plus any proposal to change the legislation in the UK, including a commonality of laws must be based on sound evidence.

 

Vulnerability - The SSSI's on the English list are areas where larger numbers of wildfowl are likely to congregate, that's my understanding.

 

Scottish law - England and Scotland took different views on the application of the AEWEA, for better or worse, that was my only point

 

Non lead - my point being that we have some flexibility, but due to this we can make the decision on what shot to use, as a scientist, and a human biologist to boot, I have no doubt as to the toxicity of lead, it has no biological function and cannot be metabolised, it tends to build up over time

 

Duck samples - whether the shot came exclusively from one form of shooting or another I do not know, but as lead does not readily break down in the environment, it has the potential to accumulate. In this specific context the land where the ducks were samples has not been sot over for over 10 years. However, I can tell you we have had to pay insurance claims for chickens poisoned by spent shot, fruit and veg contaminated with lead shot

 

Duck sample 2 - I think that the ducks sampled came from reserves - so there were plenty of 'samples' to take for blood tests....

Edited December 8, 2014 by David BASC

[David BASC]

PS I don't come onto this or any other forum because I am duty bound, its not part of my job description, I come on here because I want to and I want to try and help, I freely admit I may miss questions from time to time, if I do please tell me, ask the question and I will answer if I can

[panoma1]

A few points in reply

 

1. No one is on here to apologise for me

2. I am a BASC member too so I pay the same towards my salary as any of you do, so don't play the 'I pay your wages card'

3. If you are that interested in my working time, I am typically at my desk by 7am, and rarely leave before 5.30

4. I am not fair game for anyone - I am not here to be shot at

5. It is not unusual for me to post well outside of the normal working day; look back at my almost 3500 posts that proves the point

6. I am here to represent BASC, regardless of what time I post

7. I am still waiting for clarification of precisely which questions, probing or otherwise I have failed to answer

This is getting quite pithy isn't it? in answer......

 

1) An apologist is a defender by argument

2) I didn't play any card it is a fact that members (including yourself as a member) pay your wages

3) I aint interested in your worktime providing it is spent working for your employers.

4) If you are working for BASC during your worktime you are there to serve your employer

5) Very commendable, but you are a shooter too so why wouldn't you?

6) Thanks for the clarification

7) so am I.......waiting for you to answer my questions that is!

[wymberley]

To return to the original thrust of this thread, it looks unlikely that LAG is going to comply with its own Terms of Reference (ToR) in regard to that relating to the exploration of possible solutions. If steel shot is so deemed, then to explore it requires an assessment of its capability/effectiveness. As said, our foreshore 'fowlers have done us and themselves proud. Starting from a position of a relatively poor quality product and a totally misleading and glib, "go up 2 shot sizes" they've now got it sorted for their own particular species and their knowledge of which can be transferred to inland use.

 

Despite our best efforts, it is just possible that we will have to repeat this exercise for the more usual inland species and game. Yep, it is obvious that some PWers already have this sorted (it is equally obvious that some manage to defy the laws of physics) but as yet it is probably fair to say that the vast majority of inland shooters will not have any real idea when (if) hit with a lead shot ban. Consequently, if LAG does not conform to its ToR and should a total lead shot ban be forthcoming, then are the inland guys going to have to go through the same trouble, but to a lesser extent because of the higher quality products and knowledge already gained, as did the foreshore guys? Surely, it would not cost the earth in terms of time and expense to produce a contingency plan such that a guide to the effective ranges of various shot sizes in relation to the various quarry species was available. Then, in the event that common sense prevailed and it proved not to be totally required, it would still remain advantageous. You never know, someone may just have this in hand.

 

I was just going to hit 'Add Reply' when I suddenly remembered that PW, because of the Herulean effort of one member, nearly had such a plan except for an extra few simple calculations this time last year. However, even that doesn't currently answer the opening gambit regarding small loads/chambers.

 

 

 

 

 

[Blunderbuss]

You are entitled to your opinion grrclark but I have not resorted to name calling and personal insults, but you and blunderbuss and (by his support) yellow bear have

 

Would you care to point out the names I have called you, or the personal insults?

[Scully]

No sound evidence...it means we will fight against further restrictions plus any proposal to change the legislation in the UK, including a commonality of laws must be based on sound evidence.

I can agree any legislation should be based on sound evidence, but all the evidence seems to point to the demise of lead unfortunately. The lack of logic in current legislation flies in the face of the science on which it is supposedly based, so I would be very surprised to find any pending legislation had its roots based in logic. I genuinely believe the demise of lead in shot is a foregone conclusion and that our shooting organisations work remit regarding this consists primarily of damage limitation to membership numbers.

 

Vulnerability - The SSSI's on the English list are areas where larger numbers of wildfowl are likely to congregate, that's my understanding. Thanks. This however, merely reinforces the science behind the claims, which doesn't bode well for lead.

 

Scottish law - England and Scotland took different views on the application of the AEWEA, for better or worse, that was my only point Fair enough. My only point was that I find it confusing that two countries can agree on the validity of the science but interpret it in different ways.

 

Non lead - my point being that we have some flexibility, but due to this we can make the decision on what shot to use, as a scientist, and a human biologist to boot, I have no doubt as to the toxicity of lead, it has no biological function and cannot be metabolised, it tends to build up over time Agreed, but I don't know of anyone who shoots steel unless obliged to do so by law.

 

Duck samples - whether the shot came exclusively from one form of shooting or another I do not know, but as lead does not readily break down in the environment, it has the potential to accumulate. In this specific context the land where the ducks were samples has not been sot over for over 10 years. However, I can tell you we have had to pay insurance claims for chickens poisoned by spent shot, fruit and veg contaminated with lead shot If chickens can be poisoned by spent ( I'm assuming you meant lead ) shot I'm assuming pheasant, pigeon and other species can be also. It's not looking good is it?

 

Duck sample 2 - I think that the ducks sampled came from reserves - so there were plenty of 'samples' to take for blood tests....Were these ducks dead when samples were taken? If so what was deemed to be the cause of death? Wouldn't mind a link to this study if you can provide one please.

[grahamch]

I find it sad that theres a lot of energy being spent here debating side lines. We should be defending the freedom to continue to use lead for non waterfowl shooting and no be defeatist.

 

Steel is no where near as effective as lead for most inland shooting and the cartridge makers have given up on making non steel alternative for a variety of reasons.

 

If we get a lead ban an awful lot of folk will give up.

[panoma1]

Would you care to point out the names I have called you, or the personal insults?

Re-read your post no 108 again......you implied my attitude was somehow wrong and/or at fault, you accused me of being sarcastic, rude and having a self important sense of entitlement, all your words!

This is name calling and personally insulting to me because none of it is true...... but I don't suppose you care as I'm pretty sure that was your intention when you wrote it!

[Scully]

 

If we get a lead ban an awful lot of folk will give up.

Yes, you're right, they will, and some will be forced to give up.

It's impact on the environment will effect clay shooting grounds also. Once the link has been verified by a lead ban it is only a short step to apply it to lead cored bullets on the grounds of the potential threat to human health.

[David BASC]

Scully, the relevant paper is referenced here on the BBC web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19822198

 

P1 - I have asked you several times to clarify which questions you claim I have ignored, but you keep refusing to comply with this simple request, but keep baiting me to answer, so for the final time, confirm exactly which questions I have not answered.

 

Will people give up? Exactly the same thing was said about wildfowling in the 1990's

[Harnser]

Re-read your post no 108 again......you implied my attitude was somehow wrong and/or at fault, you accused me of being sarcastic, rude and having a self important sense of entitlement, all your words!

This is name calling and personally insulting to me because none of it is true...... but I don't suppose you care as I'm pretty sure that was your intention when you wrote it!

 

If blunderbuss genuinely believe what he has said is true then is can hardly be intended as an insult . Do you know what? I tend to agree with him .

 

Harnser .

[Harnser]

Scully, the relevant paper is referenced here on the BBC web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19822198P1 - I have asked you several times to clarify which questions you claim I have ignored, but you keep refusing to comply with this simple request, but keep baiting me to answer, so for the final time, confirm exactly which questions I have not answered.Will people give up? Exactly the same thing was said about wildfowling in the 1990's

David ,ignore him and carry on your sterling work for the BASC .

 

Harnser

[grrclark]

Yes, you're right, they will, and some will be forced to give up.

It's impact on the environment will effect clay shooting grounds also. Once the link has been verified by a lead ban it is only a short step to apply it to lead cored bullets on the grounds of the potential threat to human health.

 

Do you genuinely think so?

 

What do you think the ultimate objective would be/is if that was/is the case?

[Scully]

Scully, the relevant paper is referenced here on the BBC web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19822198

 

Will people give up? Exactly the same thing was said about wildfowling in the 1990's

Thanks David, will have a gander.

Yes, some will give up. Do we know ALL wild fowlers continued shooting?

 

Do you genuinely think so?

 

What do you think the ultimate objective would be/is if that was/is the case?

Yes. The link has already been suggested. The ultimate objective of those who have already tried to make the link is to further damage the future of shooting.

[grrclark]

Yes. The link has already been suggested. The ultimate objective of those who have already tried to make the link is to further damage the future of shooting.

 

I get that some of the anti groups on the LAG working group may have that agenda, but there would need to be a willingness for that to happen at Government level. I genuinely struggle with the suggestion that agenda exists, there are far more emotive and straight forward blunt tools the government could use if it was so inclined.

 

I can completely understand your arguments of selective use of scientific evidence, so if there is a desire to be rid of lead I can understand an ulterior motive there, but as part of a grand conspiracy against shooting I do struggle. Maybe I am blissfully ignorant or naive.

 

Is the use (or otherwise) of lead not an international concern as well, so not driven by any singular national agenda?