All quite on the Lead Shot Front

[Zapp]

 

Mr Moderator you need to consider the bigger picture and whether this forum is being used for peoples own subversive and perverted agendas and close this threat down.

 

And then three more threads spring up on the same topic but now with people howling about us taking sides.

 

We can detect as well as you can posters who have an agenda on either side of the argument. So too can the vast majority of members, which I suspect is why they stay away from threads on this subject in droves - a shame as it is an important issue from which a lot of people feel driven out.

 

As long as it doesnt degenerate into personal attacks (as they usually do) it will stay open.

[Underdog]

OK, I confess. I do have a hidden agenda.

To my shame in winter I get this terrible urge to eat duck!

I know I know, disgusting perversion I know.

No bird twitcher group and certainly no taxing organisation is ever going to stop this perverted action of mine!

Closed seasons yes, a dictate on how, no. Why? Because I don't prostrate myself to an equally flawed human/s.

So that's my hidden agenda, now, just where is the harm?

 

Divide and conquer, that is the hidden agenda from them and most here flop straight on in. Look how divided you all are, they aren't. Stop trying to appease.

Even the one basc representative here has run off now lol. Oh and err basc did sell us down the river last time. Ignoring my letters I recall so I withdrew my support years ago.

[wymberley]

 

And then three more threads spring up on the same topic but now with people howling about us taking sides.

 

We can detect as well as you can posters who have an agenda on either side of the argument. So too can the vast majority of members, which I suspect is why they stay away from threads on this subject in droves - a shame as it is an important issue from which a lot of people feel driven out.

 

As long as it doesnt degenerate into personal attacks (as they usually do) it will stay open.

 

 

And then three more threads spring up on the same topic but now with people howling about us taking sides.

 

We can detect as well as you can posters who have an agenda on either side of the argument. So too can the vast majority of members, which I suspect is why they stay away from threads on this subject in droves - a shame as it is an important issue from which a lot of people feel driven out.

 

As long as it doesnt degenerate into personal attacks (as they usually do) it will stay open.

It could just be that those who have made up the 3093 views of this thread so far have nothing to add to the 125 opinions so far expressed.

 

What I don't understand, is what is all this about 'agendas'. If it means that expressing an opinion as well as one is able in an attempt to ensure that a sport which one have enjoyed for some 60 years is able to continue unabated, then, yes, I plead guilty. I have an agenda.

[RossEM]

I am glad that BASC is looking after the interest of shooting,

 

I certainly would not trust any information about the strategies and tactics of the defence of lead shot disclosed openly on this forum.

 

All I see here are anarchists and conspiracy theorists looking underneath their beds for reds! Going round and round in circles like a mad dog biting its own tail.

 

You can only imagine how the organisations who are against the use of lead shot look and rub their hands in glee.

 

In fact I wonder whether the anarchists on this forum I've not got a perverted agenda of their own!

 

Mr Moderator you need to consider the bigger picture and whether this forum is being used for peoples own subversive and perverted agendas and close this threat down.

 

I am glad that BASC is looking after the interest of shooting,

 

I certainly would not trust any information about the strategies and tactics of the defence of lead shot disclosed openly on this forum.

 

All I see here are anarchists and conspiracy theorists looking underneath their beds for reds! Going round and round in circles like a mad dog biting its own tail.

 

You can only imagine how the organisations who are against the use of lead shot look and rub their hands in glee.

 

In fact I wonder whether the anarchists on this forum I've not got a perverted agenda of their own!

 

Mr Moderator you need to consider the bigger picture and whether this forum is being used for peoples own subversive and perverted agendas and close this threat down

 

As am I. However, even a cursory glance at the various threads relating to this topic reveals that the conduct with the LAG of John Swift and Dr John Harradine (while Chief Executive and Chief Scientific Advisor respectively of BASC) has been less than representative of the views of shooters.

 

It is far too simplistic to label shooters who are genuinely concerned about the BASC'S involvement with the LAG and their position on lead as 'conspiracy theorists.' What some of us have done is conduct minor investigations which have turfed up some highly questionable actions made on our behalf, and understandably we want to know the truth.

 

The point here is that BASC represent us, we pay for them to do it, so we expect policy to reflect the views of the membership. In this instance, we're perfectly entitled to pose certain questions, as at least two of their most senior (now former) employees have apparently conspired to support a ban on lead shot. Thankfully BASC's current CO has a more robust defensive position and I would hope so does their current Scientific Advisor. I am still a diehard BASC supporter; that's why I want answers and haven't just cancelled my membership.

 

Regarding visibility of this thread, if we can't debate the more serious issues facing shooting, we might as well give up now. It's reasonable to assume that within protectionist conservation organisations, like the RSPB, internal wrangling goes on - I wonder how their members, for instance, are taking this recent news:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/11655089/RSPB-ignores-widows-wishes-and-looks-to-sell-land-for-housing.html

[Savhmr]

 

 

As am I. However, even a cursory glance at the various threads relating to this topic reveals that the conduct with the LAG of John Swift and Dr John Harradine (while Chief Executive and Chief Scientific Advisor respectively of BASC) has been less than representative of the views of shooters.

 

It is far too simplistic to label shooters who are genuinely concerned about the BASC'S involvement with the LAG and their position on lead as 'conspiracy theorists.' What some of us have done is conduct minor investigations which have turfed up some highly questionable actions made on our behalf, and understandably we want to know the truth.

 

The point here is that BASC represent us, we pay for them to do it, so we expect policy to reflect the views of the membership. In this instance, we're perfectly entitled to pose certain questions, as at least two of their most senior (now former) employees have apparently conspired to support a ban on lead shot. Thankfully BASC's current CO has a more robust defensive position and I would hope so does their current Scientific Advisor. I am still a diehard BASC supporter; that's why I want answers and haven't just cancelled my membership.

 

Regarding visibility of this thread, if we can't debate the more serious issues facing shooting, we might as well give up now. It's reasonable to assume that within protectionist conservation organisations, like the RSPB, internal wrangling goes on - I wonder how their members, for instance, are taking this recent news:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenpolitics/planning/11655089/RSPB-ignores-widows-wishes-and-looks-to-sell-land-for-housing.html

 

 

An excellent choice of words that just about perfectly sums up the situation for many of us.

[gunsmoke]

 

It could just be that those who have made up the 3093 views of this thread so far have nothing to add to the 125 opinions so far expressed.

 

What I don't understand, is what is all this about 'agendas'. If it means that expressing an opinion as well as one is able in an attempt to ensure that a sport which one have enjoyed for some 60 years is able to continue unabated, then, yes, I plead guilty. I have an agenda.

 

Good point, many PW members do not post, as they have been hound off other threads in the past, I have 10-12 ex-PW members emailing and messaging me with ideas for my posts. It does not mean I agree with all they say but I take it on broad.

 

As for "agendas" my agenda is to try and get to the truth. Its that simple. I believe that some organisations see forums as a way of forming opinions of shooters.

 

The compliance report is a prim example of this. It has become the shooting mans very own "Dodgy Dossier" that has been "sexed up" and proclaimed by the powers that be to be kosha, where in fact it is wrong and libellous.

 

Once again when I start producing the facts the moderators talk about closing the thread down. If I remember rightly the last time Basc staff throw a hissy fit and then the moderators started to threaten closing the thread down, the thread was closed down.

Edited June 7, 2015 by gunsmoke

[RossEM]

I have doubts about BASC's often quoted "no sound evidence, no change" soundbite.

 

There is a wealth of evidence on the effects of lead shot on human and animal health available to the LAG. I can't claim to have read it, but several reports have claimed that many of the papers are well and truly biased (due to their authorship.) Bearing in mind that the LAG apparently view it as such, is this what BASC are referring to as sound evidence?

 

PW member Littlerob pointed out on another (related) topic that there is thousands of tons of corroding, unexploded ordnance lying in coastal estuaries.

I suspect lead shot is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with some of the pollutants which are routinely deposited in and around the UK. I wonder if the WWT/RSPB will also address this?

[Zapp]

Once again when I start producing the facts the moderators talk about closing the thread down. If I remember rightly the last time Basc staff throw a hissy fit and then the moderators started to threaten closing the thread down, the thread was closed down.

 

Well then let's not ignore the 'facts' regarding the thread, which were that a member suggested it be closed, and I said it wouldnt be as long as people were civil:

 

 

As long as it doesnt degenerate into personal attacks (as they usually do) it will stay open.

 

[shaun4860]

 

 

 

Well then let's not ignore the 'facts' regarding the thread, which were that a member suggested it be closed, and I said it wouldnt be as long as people were civil:

 

 

Lets not let the facts about our impartiality get in the way of a good rant

 

[RossEM]

Same as Gunsmoke, I have no other agenda than to find out the truth about the conduct of Harradine & Swift. They are seen by DEFRA as representatives of the shooting community; on the contrary they have profoundly misrepresented us and I would like to see them held to account. Even a statement from JS explaining his position would be a start.

 

On a wider point, it is a frightening thought that if lead is indeed banned due to its toxicity and supposed subsequent effects on human and animal health, it will be so very easy for the RSPB/WWT to start the same process with steel shot - does anyone really think that given the chance of restricting shooting to the point where it is almost impossible to practice is a chance that those two groups would let pass? By failing to defend lead shot and aligning themselves with the RSPB & WWT representatives, Harradine and Swift have (I believe the appropriate and proportionate phrase is) "sold us out." Though BASC have now officially distanced themselves from Swift and withdrawn support from the LAG, it is not going to have any effect and he will of course produce a biased report. The shooting community's best hope is that DEFRA disregard the report due to the numerous perversions of due process made by the LAG.

That said, this would only be a delay in lead being banned worldwide. AEWA policy is to phase-out lead shot and it will happen eventually, barring the production of definitive evidence proving a negligent effect on animal and human health (I'm not holding my breath.) In the event of a ban we are going to need all shooting organisations to give serious thought to an amalgamation, or risk being steamrollered with prohibitive legislation without adequate defence.

[Underdog]

It won't happen for economic reasons.

[RossEM]

Economic reasons?

[Underdog]

The money turned over from lead and revenue generated is too great.

Lead is being toted as evil, it is not really and is a very important element to the world economy.

Political pressure to be seen to be doing something is why we are being picked on.....again. However it is to big a tax generator!

Also it can be made at home, shot that is. Once banned itwill just become a black market ccommodity, generating no revenue!

 

Bring it on :-)

[Scully]

The money turned over from lead and revenue generated is too great.

Lead is being toted as evil, it is not really and is a very important element to the world economy.

Political pressure to be seen to be doing something is why we are being picked on.....again. However it is to big a tax generator!

Also it can be made at home, shot that is. Once banned itwill just become a black market ccommodity, generating no revenue!

 

Bring it on :-)

I'm all for circumventing idiotic authority and while it's a nice thought do you not think suspicions will be aroused when sales of steel shot slump but sales of reloading gear spiral ? Even if we all started muzzle loading the huge increase in BP license applications and sales of powder, percussion caps and or flints would soar likewise.

If it does happen, it will be interesting to see how our shooting organisations try to 'sell' us the ban in light of much scepticism of evidence and impartiality.

What I don't understand is why it wasn't banned some time ago, given that it has already been decided lead shot is poisoning our wildfowl, otherwise why the ban on foreshore and inland duck shooting which currently applies in England and Wales? Despite 'no sound evidence, no change'

Edited June 8, 2015 by Scully

[gunsmoke]

 

Though BASC have now officially distanced themselves from Swift and withdrawn support from the LAG,

 

Sorry about just picking one point out of a very fine post but BASC issued a press release saying they have withdraw their support for the LAG is true.

 

However, they could not resign as they where not full members of the LAG, they only took the Minutes and managed the web site. By withdrawing their support does this mean they will no longer be managing the web site and will no longer be taking the minutes of LAG meetings? If they continue to do both how have they withdraw their support for the LAG?

 

As for BASC membership I have not paid my BASC membership since 2010 after being given a copy of the Research Committee minutes.

 

I've supported WAGBI/BASC for 40 years and to say I fell betrayed is an understatement.

 

I would like to see the result of the steel shot test they've done on standard proof cartridges?

 

I would like to see some defence of lead in the shooting press, perhaps BASC could issue a press release in support of the CA paper on the "Case for Lead" that is being used by Norway and NZ to help fight the lead bans in their own countries. The case for lead highlighted many of the points I made in the Lead shot-gate articles.

[Savhmr]

I suspect that sadly, support for many shooting organisations (including the shooting media) in the event of a ban (it is not a done deal so lets focus on the positives....as yet a lack of credible evidence), will slump, with a predictable loss of fight remaining from resources being stretched thinner, so we owe it to ourselves to work more closely with those that represent us to ensure that fair play is strictly adhered to. Look at the membership and funds of those that we are fighting over this issue. They haven't won anything yet, but (and already have) resorted to dirty tricks to blacken the name of shooting and shooting conservation, and it's high time we stood up to them. Fewer shooters means less shooting conservation which will have a negative impact on the environment. We need to be fighting this proposal on many fronts, not just one, and we need that fight to be orchestrated with the shooting organisations. Together we will win, divided we shall not and that I am afraid is a cold, hard fact.

 

It could be argued that it's not just the BASC, but all of those we pay money to to represent us that would have been ridden roughshod over by just two organisations with a clear agenda, of which lead is really only part of the bigger picture. It will be the thin end of the wedge. That's why we need some proactive fighting campaigns on our behalf and less sitting on the fence waiting to see which way the wind will blow. We know which direction that wind is blowing already, so we do need to get on with it. Potential future enforcement will also become a massive issue. Law abiding or not, shooters will come under increased scrutiny, so the challenge then is to increase accountability of those who represent us (as that has sadly been proven necessary) yet for those of us so far disenfranchised, perhaps we will need to rally back. The difficulty is where we are now and what needs to be done to get to where we need to be. Unless things change rapidly, the unified support from the shooting community for those representing us just might not happen, or happen too late.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Savhmr

[wymberley]

Superbly well said, Savhmr.

 

Unfortunately, in order to get the support detailed in your final sentence there is one major obstacle to be overcome. It is one that for some reason prevails in many aspects of our sport: Apathy.

[panoma1]

Remember it was individual shooters complaints that got the proposed inclusion of the Greylag on the general licence 'kicked into touch' despite shooters representative organisations who mostly supported the proposal!......... Against the wishes and opinion of shooters and the Wildfowling community!

In fact they didn't even ask us before making a decision on our behalf!

 

Why should it be any different with lead shot.....I suspect Messrs Swift and Harradine et Al have for years worked within BASC to bring about a ban on lead shot, I further suspect the original ban including the species specific clause was due to a lack of real opposition (except token) from our representative organisations.

 

I too want the truth.

[panoma1]

Apparently Austria are the latest country to call a halt to the phasing out of lead in ammunition! even more ammunition for our representative organisations to not only head off further restrictions on lead shot....but to seek repeal of the unfair and unnecessary 'Species Specific' element in English and Welsh law?

[wymberley]

What percentage of Austrian hunters (shooters) are members of an association?

[Scully]

I totally agree that shooters need to back up their organisations to continue to fight, but when it turns out that shooters end up having to fight the very organisation which is supposed to be representing them, then basically we're ********. How many organisations have sprung into being simply because some have felt under-represented by the one they are a member of, or because they have wholeheartedly disagreed with policy decisions?

We already have a partial lead ban in existence; where was the opposition to this, and why now are we having to fight the very people who have for years been telling us they represent us? It beggars belief, it really does. Those who oppose us must be wetting themselves with laughter. What is going on, does anyone know?

[Salopian]

If I may , could I perhaps change tack on this thread?

BASC proclaims to be the voice of shooting!

When this Lead shot issue first arose I think possibly Dr.John Harradine took the easy option and whole heartedly embraced Steel shot as the viable alternative non toxic to Lead shot.

What he didn't factor in was that standard steel loads are virtually useless and HP Steel loads are more expensive than a good efficient Lead load.

He also forgot that his research showed that the majority of shooters and BASC members can not accurately judge distance, and therefore mistakenly shoot at birds that are far in excess of 40 yards, which just happens to be the accepted efficient range of a shotgun, and also the maximum effective range of steel shot , thus in a stroke leading to crippling.

As BASC say "no sound evidence = no change" so rather than waste more time and money promoting the use of useless or poor alternatives to Lead, let us and BASC spend time and money robustly defending the use of Lead shot .

Perhaps if we used and promoted the use of lighter loads 24 gram and 21 gram and shot within the light loads capability, worked at reducing noise levels and used biodegradable wads instead of this filthy plastic pollutant, the environmentalists would embrace us and our cause.

We could all then use our wonderful British made historical (and perfectly sound) SxS rather than dispose of them.

Hopefully this would stop J.W. Tolley, Stanley Duncan , and Peter Scott turning in their graves.

 

Finally let us not forget that BASC do assist wildfowling clubs to secure land rights and access to the foreshore, in return most wildfowling clubs insist that their members are also BASC members.

BASC need to realise that it is a members association without which BASC would cease to exist .

Captain Cook learned to his peril not to upset the natives .

BASC could do with remembering history on many, many fronts and to not upset the natives.

[Underdog]

Thought the foreshore was no mans land.

I asked years ago for exemption for muzzleloaders and older breech loaders. Fell on deaf ears then too!

[gunsmoke]

Under dog: We had the common law right to hunt [shoot] duck and wildfowl on the foreshore until BASC got the crown licence.

 

Salopian, you make some very good point but if we are going to defend lead then why should be reduce loads?

 

There was a plan for a 15 year phase out of lead, 5 years then they stop making lead cartridges, 5 years on and ban the sale of lead cartridges, then total ban in 15 years.

 

The other plan is to reduce the loads, not a good idea.

[RossEM]

If I may , could I perhaps change tack on this thread?

BASC proclaims to be the voice of shooting!

When this Lead shot issue first arose I think possibly Dr.John Harradine took the easy option and whole heartedly embraced Steel shot as the viable alternative non toxic to Lead shot.

What he didn't factor in was that standard steel loads are virtually useless and HP Steel loads are more expensive than a good efficient Lead load.

He also forgot that his research showed that the majority of shooters and BASC members can not accurately judge distance, and therefore mistakenly shoot at birds that are far in excess of 40 yards, which just happens to be the accepted efficient range of a shotgun, and also the maximum effective range of steel shot , thus in a stroke leading to crippling.

As BASC say "no sound evidence = no change" so rather than waste more time and money promoting the use of useless or poor alternatives to Lead, let us and BASC spend time and money robustly defending the use of Lead shot .

Perhaps if we used and promoted the use of lighter loads 24 gram and 21 gram and shot within the light loads capability, worked at reducing noise levels and used biodegradable wads instead of this filthy plastic pollutant, the environmentalists would embrace us and our cause.

We could all then use our wonderful British made historical (and perfectly sound) SxS rather than dispose of them.

Hopefully this would stop J.W. Tolley, Stanley Duncan , and Peter Scott turning in their graves.

 

Finally let us not forget that BASC do assist wildfowling clubs to secure land rights and access to the foreshore, in return most wildfowling clubs insist that their members are also BASC members.

BASC need to realise that it is a members association without which BASC would cease to exist .

Captain Cook learned to his peril not to upset the natives .

BASC could do with remembering history on many, many fronts and to not upset the natives.

Salopian, I'm so tired of hearing this drivel about steel shot. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro lead, but to say steel shot is "virtually useless" is NOT TRUE.

In mine and countless others experience, standard steel is more than suitable for live quarry.

With or without Harradine's recommendation, I KNOW it works. I've cleanly killed snipe, greylag, pinkfoot, canada, wigeon, pheasant, partridge, woodcock, pigeon, rabbit, crows, mallard and teal with 20 bore Express 24g 4s at all sorts of ranges - I will PM you with the names of PW members who witnessed the shots if you like.

 

Those cartridges in particular kill more cleanly than lead at up to 40 yards - I stand by that statement firmly as I have extensive experience of their use. In 99% of situations I don't raise my gun to anything over 50 yards, whatever the gun is loaded with, but I have shot pigeons at well over the supposed effective range of steel and I can tell you honestly the birds I hit were retrieved dead, due I believe to the tighter-than-lead pattern that steel retains.

 

I do want BASC to robustly defend lead. I use lead. I'm not denying it's the ideal material to use. If anything the subject of steel shot is a distraction here.