Scully Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 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, I haven't made the suggestion there is a Government agenda regarding damaging shooting. there are far more emotive and straight forward blunt tools the government could use if it was so inclined. Exactly, but again, I haven't suggested the Government is so inclined. The link David BASC has posted is from a BBC report on a paper co-authored by Dr Debbie Pain ( well worth reading as there are figures as well as much of her unproved opinion ) who is not known for her impartiality in her work for the Trust and has no qualms about hiding her agenda, and a couple of years ago made the claim that pregnant women could be putting at risk the health and development of their unborn children through eating game shot by lead. Her claims were shown to be alarmist and inaccurate (their is apparently more lead in chocolate and baby feed supplements than in lead shot game) but that hasn't stopped her very recently repeating the claims. The Government will be swayed by public opinion, regardless of the facts or a lack of agenda. Whether there is a willingness on the part of the Government time will tell no doubt. 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. I don't recall claiming there is a grand conspiracy. There are many groups and organisations whose agenda is to see the end of shooting, whether it is all a co-ordinated or otherwise grand conspiracy I have no idea. Is the use (or otherwise) of lead not an international concern as well, Yes, it is. so not driven by any singular national agenda?Not as far as I know. Again, I haven't claimed otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted December 8, 2014 Report Share Posted December 8, 2014 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, I haven't made the suggestion there is a Government agenda regarding damaging shooting. there are far more emotive and straight forward blunt tools the government could use if it was so inclined. Exactly, but again, I haven't suggested the Government is so inclined. The link David BASC has posted is from a BBC report on a paper co-authored by Dr Debbie Pain ( well worth reading as there are figures as well as much of her unproved opinion ) who is not known for her impartiality in her work for the Trust and has no qualms about hiding her agenda, and a couple of years ago made the claim that pregnant women could be putting at risk the health and development of their unborn children through eating game shot by lead. Her claims were shown to be alarmist and inaccurate (their is apparently more lead in chocolate and baby feed supplements than in lead shot game) but that hasn't stopped her very recently repeating the claims. The Government will be swayed by public opinion, regardless of the facts or a lack of agenda. Whether there is a willingness on the part of the Government time will tell no doubt. 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. I don't recall claiming there is a grand conspiracy. There are many groups and organisations whose agenda is to see the end of shooting, whether it is all a co-ordinated or otherwise grand conspiracy I have no idea. Is the use (or otherwise) of lead not an international concern as well, Yes, it is. so not driven by any singular national agenda?Not as far as I know. Again, I haven't claimed otherwise. Scully, I didn't mean to misrepresent your thoughts or opinions and apologies if it came across that way, just rambling on my part really. I can totally understand how participants in the process very much have a vested interest, I guess that is true on both sides. My rambling was really just to say that despite there being a vested interest it would take real government willingness to do something about it and so far, at least from my perspective, that doesn't seem to exist just now. I can see and understand the argument that if the anti shooting lobby can misrepresent the facts or science behind lead that they will see that as a victory of at least inconveniencing the shooting community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 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. Shouldn't we also be fighting to roll back legislation? If we are only fighting against losing more then we will always lose something. We have to fight to roll back some legislation in case we do lose in the future we will have more of a balance. This is not meant to be a criticism to you just some constructive words to maybe which policy may be formulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) 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! Had I realised from the outset you were such a sensitive and fragile soul, I would have tip toed a little more gently. I called you sarcastic because you 'explained' to David what question marks were for. Lift your blinkers for just one second, and honestly tell me if you think that might be construed as sarcasm? I called you rude and self important because like a stuck record, you constantly badgered David DEMANDING that he forensically disected your posts and answered YOUR questions. To his great credit he offered to do so if you would save him the effort of trawling through it all, but that was too much effort. There are thirty four thousand registered users on pigeon watch. You have no more or less right to demand anything of anybody on here, than any one of them. If you think you have, then that is a misplaced sense of self importance and entitlement. Not an insult, a fact which is self evident to most people on here. Edited December 9, 2014 by Blunderbuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Scully, not all wildfowlers carried on shooting, but then again abut 30,000 people per year give up shooting (home office statistics) I don't disagree with what you say Steppenwolf, but as I say any change in the lead shot legislation must be solidly based on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 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 BASC I have asked questions on this thread for all to see, and requested you answer them, they are there for all to see, but you refuse to do so....I will not repeat them nor continue requesting you to answer them......as I see it a waste of my time! As for your/BASC's apologists they appear more interested in defending you and BASC by attacking me that standing up and entering an adult debate on an important issue with the potential to adversely affect shooters and shooting in the future......I will be diverted and respond no more to personal baiting...........and will follow the topic in question and only respond to this and where I feel appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 With all due respect P1, In my view I have answered the questions that have been asked. In other posts, where I have not, other members of this forum have been courteous enough to re-ask the question or ask for clarification, which I have done. I am not refusing, nor have I ever refused to answer questions I have simply asked for clarification. I accept you are not going to clarify , so we will leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 In relation to post 139, I think it is very fair to say that the wildfowling community has a steep learning curve as the restrictions came in. It is also fair to say that there have been some significant improvements in several of the lead alternatives, especially steel Lager bore rifle bullets are available in lead alternatives, and many use them, but again there is an equally vociferous debate among stalkers as to the merits / effectiveness of such. I know there are lead alternatives available for airguns Consequently, and not least of all because of the first two points, there is and indeed will be more information available on the use of alternatives. At the end of the day, regardless of what shot type you use or have to use, its worth patterning you gun if you change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted December 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 In relation to post 139, I think it is very fair to say that the wildfowling community has a steep learning curve as the restrictions came in. It is also fair to say that there have been some significant improvements in several of the lead alternatives, especially steel Lager bore rifle bullets are available in lead alternatives, and many use them, but again there is an equally vociferous debate among stalkers as to the merits / effectiveness of such. I know there are lead alternatives available for airguns Consequently, and not least of all because of the first two points, there is and indeed will be more information available on the use of alternatives. At the end of the day, regardless of what shot type you use or have to use, its worth patterning you gun if you change David, I think I can be forgiven should I be wrong, but I'm going to take the quoted post as your reply to my Personal Message relating to Post #139. Similarly, and whereas I can understand any organisation keeping its cards close to its chest when circumstances would dictate as such being advisable and particularly with regards to a non member (even one who was for some 35 years), I am reluctantly forced to take your answer to my question regarding BASC having any current contingency plans in the event that there is a total lead ban (as I asked for a comment on such in said Personal Message) as a 'no'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yep is was in reply to the PM Contingency plan in the context of a ban on lead shot I assume - .... IF there was such a ban the key issues will include: Ensuring good communications with shooters regarding the new law Ensuring good supplies for ammunition in gunshops Ensuring good communication about the different ballistic properties on the new ammunition Delivering practical assistance through our network of coaches and affiliated grounds for those who want it ....and more And I can assure you BASC will be on the front foot should this ever happen. Others no doubt will follow, they will have no choice, but BASC will lead. BUT more importantly we are nowhere near that yet, what will happen is that in the not too far distant, LAG reports to DEFRA, DEFRA will make recommendations to Parliament, no one knows what those recommendations will be or subsequently exactly what our response will need to be...but again I can assure you that BASC will be on the front foot, others will follow, BASC will lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRDS Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Why are they discussing the efficacy of alternatives to lead shot? Has science evaluated, proven categorically and provided evidence that the level of danger (in all situations) of lead shot from shooting sports to humans and wildlife requires legislation to further ban lead shot? will the conclusions in the final report be based on such scientific evidence? or will it be unduly influenced by biased opinion, unscientific reports, anti shooting rhetoric and speculation? If science has determined a level of risk from lead shot used in shooting sports to humans and wildlife needs addressing, is any proposed/recommended action appropriate and proportional to that risk? Cast your mind back to why the late John Humphries resigned from BASC over the leaked BASC minutes issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted December 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yep is was in reply to the PM Contingency plan in the context of a ban on lead shot I assume - .... IF there was such a ban the key issues will include: Ensuring good communications with shooters regarding the new law Ensuring good supplies for ammunition in gunshops Ensuring good communication about the different ballistic properties on the new ammunition Delivering practical assistance through our network of coaches and affiliated grounds for those who want it ....and more And I can assure you BASC will be on the front foot should this ever happen. Others no doubt will follow, they will have no choice, but BASC will lead. BUT more importantly we are nowhere near that yet, what will happen is that in the not too far distant, LAG reports to DEFRA, DEFRA will make recommendations to Parliament, no one knows what those recommendations will be or subsequently exactly what our response will need to be...but again I can assure you that BASC will be on the front foot, others will follow, BASC will lead. Thank you, David. I note that my assessment of the current situation was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 And cast you mind back to the fact the said minute in no way had any impact on BASC policy and also that John came back as a member of BASC and a good friend - much missed And Wymberley, remember anyone who make a firm contingency plan based on what may happen, when all the facts are not known and before they properly address what will happen is wasting their time and setting false hopes.. but if you are comfortable with your perception of the piece so be it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted December 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 And Wymberley, remember anyone who make a firm contingency plan based on what may happen, when all the facts are not known and before they properly address what will happen is wasting their time and setting false hopes.. but if you are comfortable with your perception of the piece so be it There used to be a sign near the entrance to RAF Bruggen in Germany that read, "Your task in peacetime is to train for war and don't you forget it". Noting your word, "firm", I would tend to agree with your statement to a certain extent. However doing nothing until, Heaven forbid, the worst happens is not an option. If BASC choose to do so - "IF there is such a ban the key issues WILL (my capitals) include" - your words, then at that point BASC will immediately be on the back foot with no chance of leading anything anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 I did not say we were doing nothing did I? No BASC will not be on the back foot regardless of what happens. There will, no doubt, be changes in the future for shooting, we will lead those shooters who choose to face the future and understand that we live in a changing world, we will help them. Those who refuse to change will, I am afraid, probably end up worse off and grumble the most and spend lots of time finding someone to blame.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 And out of all this, the most annoying fact is that there is absolutely nothing any of us can do to prevent the government from doing exactly what it wants to do. They may decide to do nothing, and let's hope so. The best we can hope for otherwise is damage limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I did not say we were doing nothing did I? No BASC will not be on the back foot regardless of what happens. There will, no doubt, be changes in the future for shooting, we will lead those shooters who choose to face the future and understand that we live in a changing world, we will help them. Those who refuse to change will, I am afraid, probably end up worse off and grumble the most and spend lots of time finding someone to blame.... A lot of the problems today are caused by ill conceived ideas and concepts that are implemented and are not thought though to the stage where there is a tangible benefit at the other end. There is a change culture that is fuelled only by the fact that delivering change would mean ancilliary work ( such as that described in your post #160 ) as a causal effect which has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue tabled. The actual outcome that we want is DO NOTHING and not to develop cottage industry outputs and unnecessary work as a consequence. I'm sure the BASC would like this role/work but on this occasion be very clear that the majority your members don't want you to do it as we would have lost the fight. Please remember that the methods and equipment used for game shooting in these Isles have stood the test of time and do not need to be tampered with. Thank you. Edited December 9, 2014 by Whitebridges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 I am sure that if, as, and when changes happen, the vast majority of our members would not want BASC to do nothing, the vast majority would very reasonably look to BASC for help and guidance. That is not to say that BASC will nor resit change, I have already made it absolutely clear as I posted before but to save people scrolling back here it is again: At BASC our arguments are backed by solid, scientific evidence and we refuse to countenance any decisions proposed by policy-makers, regulators or others that are not soundly evidence-based. An attack on shooters will be seen as an attack on the countryside itself. And as we provide clear evidence to support our case we will expect those who seek to restrict any aspect of shooting to do the same. They must back their claims with hard evidence. Let me make BASC’s position on lead totally clear: no sound evidence, no change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Unless I have missed it can you also confirm that BASC's position remains unchanged in that it will not countenance changes that are not proportionate to any proven evidence based risk? Sorry for asking yet another question! I hope I have not typed this in a DEMANDING, rude, sarcastic and what was it? self important fashion, and I hope it doesn't attract the same vitriolic response from the people who regularly post in your and BASC's defence! I admit that the above comment could possibly be construed as Sarcasm! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yes, absolutely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Yes, absolutely David ,you really should ignore him . He likes to play the devils advocate. He comes across as a very sad and lonely person who lives his life on Internet forums . Carry on your good work with the BASC there are many of us on here who appricate what you and the the rest of your colleges are doing for shooting as a whole . The snidi comments and questions do not help our course what so ever . Harnser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 David ,you really should ignore him . He likes to play the devils advocate. He comes across as a very sad and lonely person who lives his life on Internet forums . Carry on your good work with the BASC there are many of us on here who appricate what you and the the rest of your colleges are doing for shooting as a whole . The snidi comments and questions do not help our course what so ever . Harnser Oh dear!! it did! never mind!........ Harnser....what's a snidi? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitebridges Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Oh dear!! it did! never mind!........ Harnser....what's a snidi? Just because you are a smart **** and Harnser has had a very busy day doesn't mean you can enjoy a laugh. You have been on here less than five minutes so go and have a shower. You probably have an IQ of 76 which may translate snidi to snide. Edited December 9, 2014 by Whitebridges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harnser Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Just because you are a smart **** and Harnser has had a very busy day doesn't mean you can enjoy a laugh. You have been on here less than five minutes so go and have a shower. You probably have an IQ of 76 which may translate snidi to snide. Yes indeed Whitebridges a very busy day . I managed to shoot 23 pigeons ,5 rooks and then a walk around one of the hedge rows and two nice COCKS for the pot . I do like to get out ,not just talk about it . Harnser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted December 9, 2014 Report Share Posted December 9, 2014 Just because you are a smart **** and Harnser has had a very busy day doesn't mean you can enjoy a laugh. You have been on here less than five minutes so go and have a shower. You probably have an IQ of 76 which may translate snidi to snide. Mate of yours then? figures Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts