Savhmr Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Point is, whatever surveys have been done may be statistically irrelevant David and I think you well know that. Surveying a small percentage of the UK shooting population from a select group proves nothing other than that group sample's knowledge, understanding and stated compliance. They do not represent the UK shooting population as a whole. What many are afraid of here is that statistics are being banded about as evidence, when it is not sufficient by any means to draw fully meaningful conclusions spread throughout the UK. Ditto for duck being sold found to contain lead. We wont know from what percentage of shooters the source of duck is from...it is likely to be a very very small percentage, so again, it seems odd to base proposed changes in law on that. It looks as though any excuse is being tabled to railroad through changes that as yet are unproven to be necessary on environmental grounds. This repeating of compliance with the law is not the same as fighting the proposed ban on other fronts such as the damage steel shot can indeed cause to barrels, to the fact it cannot expend energy as efficiently as lead which perversely could see more injured animals than at present and the limitation on chokes used. Bismuth shot is better but is from from relatively scarce resource (byproduct of lead for one) and too expensive as a replacement for lead; likely to become more expensive if lead production is ramped down. Range is not going to be as good without heavier loads and many other issues of contention. Of course there are counter arguments which will no doubt be used. At the minute, it seems to many looking in from the outside David, that the BASC will sit on the fence and allow WWT/RSPB/DEFRA to call the shots, then advise its members "to comply with the law". There is scant evidence at present, depiste what's been claimed, to the contrary. I will believe it when I see it. That, I would argue, is not the way that the campaign should be run in the eyes of most law abiding shooters and shooting conservationists. I feel badly let down and many others no doubt feel the same way. It just seems very one sided Edited June 6, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Full details of the survey its findings and the WWT examination of duck have all been on the DEFRA web site for almost 5 years! Have a look, no need for any FOI, its in the public domain I may be wrong but I think he was referring to the minutes, not the findings. I have no idea if the minutes are in the public domain. Edited June 6, 2015 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Point is, whatever surveys have been done may be statistically irrelevant David and I think you well know that. Surveying a small percentage of the UK shooting population from a select group proves nothing other than that group sample's knowledge, understanding and stated compliance. They do not represent the UK shooting population as a whole. What many are afraid of here is that statistics are being banded about as evidence, when it is not sufficient by any means to draw fully meaningful conclusions spread throughout the UK. Ditto for duck being sold found to contain lead. We wont know from what percentage of shooters the source of duck is from...it is likely to be a very very small percentage, so again, it seems odd to base proposed changes in law on that. It looks as though any excuse is being tabled to railroad through changes that as yet are unproven to be necessary on environmental grounds. This repeating of compliance with the law is not the same as fighting the proposed ban on other fronts such as the damage steel shot can indeed cause to barrels, to the fact it cannot expend energy as efficiently as lead which perversely could see more injured animals than at present and the limitation on chokes used. Bismuth shot is better but is from from relatively scarce resource (byproduct of lead for one) and too expensive as a replacement for lead; likely to become more expensive if lead production is ramped down. Range is not going to be as good without heavier loads and many other issues of contention. Of course there are counter arguments which will no doubt be used. At the minute, it seems to many looking in from the outside David, that the BASC will sit on the fence and allow WWT/RSPB/DEFRA to call the shots, then advise its members "to comply with the law". There is scant evidence at present, depiste what's been claimed, to the contrary. I will believe it when I see it. That, I would argue, is not the way that the campaign should be run in the eyes of most law abiding shooters and shooting conservationists. I feel badly let down and many others no doubt feel the same way. It just seems very one sided I made a similar point regarding the validity of the scale of the survey and was informed by a BASC representative that this was the accepted norm of such surveys and therefore perfectly valid as an indication of the relevant population as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 I may be wrong but I think he was referring to the minutes, not the findings. I have no idea if the minutes are in the public domain. I was talking about the minutes they are in the public domain after my FOI request. I have posted a link to the PDF file if anyone is interested in reading them. see my last post. The question is if the LAG come out to a recommendation for a lead ban, which is likely reading the John Swift emails, are BASC going to be on the front line with me in the fight to save lead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Perhaps you missed my post above, which puts BASC's position clearly, but for the avoidance of doubt I will answer your question in your last sentence as simply as possible...YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 ...YES David, That was one hell of a punch - it caught me square on the jaw and I'm still trying to clear my head. Now, I'm happy to admit that there could well be things going on in the background and to which we are not privy. I am equally happy to say that it can be prudent that for the time being that is where they should stay. However, it does mean that we can only comment on things that we have been made aware of. Thanks to Scully's efforts we are now aware that the doubts that some of the LAG members expressed regarding the veracity of some of the evidence gathered and ultimately which caused some to resign, have been resolved. Now, what we don't know is what that means. It could be that highly qualified people in the disciplines involved have been called in to give evidence. This would certainly answer Sir Barney's points raised in his resignation letter. Neither do we know which way that evidence points. It might just be that it provides the 'sound evidence' that BASC speaks of. I take, "no sound evidence - no change" to equally mean, 'sound evidence could mean change'. Consequently, as I'm possibly not fully in the picture, as far as I'm now aware your answer can only mean that, thankfully at last, BASC has changed its stance in this matter to, simply - 'No Change' - otherwise if the evidence supplied by LAG was uncompromising in its validity, why would BASC fight it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 So, for the avoidance of any doubt it would appear that we are all on the same hymn sheet, David included. That is a relief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) All I can do is repeat BASC's firm position, as we provide clear evidence to support our case we expect others to do exactly the same We would expect all shooters and all shooting organisations to support this, and work as one, There is not and never have been any 'behind closed doors' deals done , as some have suggested. The simple fact is that we will keep defending the use of lead, but at the same time we expect those who have to use non lead shot under the law to comply with the legislation Can we please stop the conspiracy accusations and move forward as one, as we go through the next and very important phase of the lead shot issue over the coming months Together we can win, divided we will most certainly fail Edited June 6, 2015 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) The compliance issue is rockall to do with the shooting organisations, Why was BASC ever involved? the law was introduced, we are led to believe, despite the alleged best efforts of the BASC (and others?) to prevent it! not only that, we in England got the unnecessary (not required to be in compliance with the AEWA) species specific element! If there was any lack of compliance it was because shooters couldn't understand the reason or need for the ban (and still can't!!) and any non compliance was most likely perpetrated by shooters or shoots who didn't (or didn't want to?) know or accept it applied to them! Why was a ban enacted? when no enforcement ever took place and was never going to! After all who was going to enforce it? the Police? don't make me laugh! it was always going to be the protectionist vigilantes who were going to police it! (similar to the Hunt Sabs, RSPCA, Hunt Monitors et al) and in doing so they could "expose" (make up 'evidence' and/or deliberately misinterpret any statistics!) of any alleged lack of compliance and use this to further extend the ban on lead shot (or more honestly attack live quarry shooting!) Which brings us to where we are now, the protectionists have built a case for banning lead shot out of conjecture, biased opinion, false assertions, and misrepresentation ....the real guilt is with our representative organisations who have (maybe unwittingly?) let them do it!................now everyone knows that certain elements formerly within BASC have for years been working behind the scenes to facilitate a lead shot ban, it answers a lot of questions as to why BASC did little if anything to fight their (our) corner in opposing the lead shot ban and the 'toxic' species specific element contained within!.....the non compliance allegations come from and empower the protectionists vigilantes as it is only a non compliance offence because of the species specific element of the lead shot ban. Edited June 6, 2015 by panoma1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 (edited) Can we please stop the conspiracy accusations and move forward as one, as we go through the next and very important phase of the lead shot issue over the coming months Are we to assume then, that by this comment you know the LAG to still be very much alive and functioning to the extent it will publish its findings to DEFRA and the FSA despite the resignations of over 50% of its committee members? Many have been wondering and asking if the LAG can still function and meet its remit. By your comments above it would seem it not only can but is, yet there has been no information forthcoming either way, leaving shooters to form their own conclusions. Another organisation I spoke to failed to see how The LAG could possibly function. No one seems to know what is going on. Does BASC know what is going on? Do the CA or the CLA? If so why aren't shooters being told? Is it a secret? Are the organisations not talking to each other, as well as not talking to their members, or just their members? Edited June 6, 2015 by Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 6, 2015 Report Share Posted June 6, 2015 Together we can win, divided we will most certainly fail How does one tell whether the war is won or lost? The only certain way is to spell out the objectives before battle commences. This also means that performance can be assessed. Additionally, it helps if the troops know what they're fighting for. As BASC needs our support as you say, would the Association care to detail the precise conditions for the ongoing use of lead which if achieved would mean that it and we had been victorious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossEM Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 When BASC sent out the compliance questionnaire, they would've done well to add the following: Regarding opinions on game killed with lead, have they been harmed by ingesting it Secondly to ask if the participant has recognised symptoms of lead poisoning (through ingestion) in a wild animal Thirdly, their opinion of the law - whether they believe the lead restrictions in Scotland or England/Wales/NI to be appropriate, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underdog Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 How many centuries have we been using lead shot for now? Chernobyl is a far worse health issue for Britain! Just anti shooting rubbish all this is. Let them ban it. Won't stop many. Bit like fox hunting. Still goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) the law was introduced, we are led to believe, despite the alleged best efforts of the BASC (and others?) to prevent it! I can tell you that statement is false, untrue and misleading. BASC did not fight the lead ban from wildfowling. I worked for the department of the environment at the time and BASC supported the WWT for a Lead BAN. One grade 7 in the wildlife office ask me one day, WHY is BASC not fighting your corner, I did not have an answeer. Edited June 7, 2015 by gunsmoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) I think RossEM, that your third point is all that was required since by definition it ought to wrap up points one and two. The simple question is "Is current legislation adequate?" The answer is "Yes" for a vast majority of us but the second more pertinent point is: "Are current restrictions adequately policed and enforced" ...since like anything else, the law abiding are often punished for the inadequate enforcement and policing of these matters by those with that responsibility. We have seen all too often in recent times, the blanket ban used as an attempt by central government to both save money and to increase controls. We have numerous examples of this with gun law over the past 25 years, where inappropriate actions by those in authority, the failure to properly vet and enforce has resulted in blanket changes that have affected all of the law abiding community. It is no different with lead shot. The only difference in this specific case is that we have a relentless crusade by the RSPB and WWT to ban anything and everything shooting related. The RSPB are already in hot water for their inappropriate spending of charitable funds (allegedly only 26% of contributions go towards conservation, the rest being spent fighting legal battles such as the accusations made against Sir Ian Botham who now has his lawyers threatening to sue the RSPB for libel). They will argue that any proposed changes will not affect our "sport" when one can only assume their wish is for a good number of the shooting community to then turn their backs on shooting for good in disgust. They have underestimated the shooting community if that is part of their thinking. Edited June 7, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 Gunsmoke, Your last statement is totally false,accusing BASC of supporting the restrictions for wildfowling. and I am totally sick and tired of this accusation being thrown about by you. I thought we had turned a corner, but evidently not, there is absolutely no point engaging with you No more from me on this tread, any news will be on our web site or in our mag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 No more from me on this tread, any news will be on our web site or in our mag I can only assume it is a secret then. I wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 Why do I have to keep defending myself? BASC should be on my side? Why is Davebasc still defending the compliance report? It wrongfully accuses shooting of 70% non-compliance. It did not know where the birds it tested came from. I’ve trashed in and many PW members have to. Why has BASC never apologised for their full blown part in in compliance report now being use to hit us over the head with? Many of you may be wondering how we got here, there are two document you should read. The WWT/BASC compliance report and the email I got from AC in 2010 point out issue with the report. The other two articles I add are my reports published in the Coutryman’s Weekly in 2010 after John Swift, then CEO of BASC spoke at the DI meeting on the work of the LAG. He had just been made chairman. https://ianthegun.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/lead-shot-gate-part-1.doc https://ianthegun.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/lead-shot-part-2.doc I’ve added a PDF copy of the compliance report to my blog. https://ianthegun.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/wc0730_9719_frp1.pdf This is the email I got from AC back in 2010 https://ianthegun.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/wwt-report-issues-1a.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 How does one tell whether the war is won or lost? The only certain way is to spell out the objectives before battle commences. This also means that performance can be assessed. Additionally, it helps if the troops know what they're fighting for. As BASC needs our support as you say, would the Association care to detail the precise conditions for the ongoing use of lead which if achieved would mean that it and we had been victorious? And THAT is what is lacking (sadly) from BASC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 No matter what anyones opinion as to the impartiality of those organisation involved with the LAG, the methods by which the alleged lead shot birds were 'verified' and which formed the evidence for the ensuing report, are without doubt questionable and well worth reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWAG Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 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 think that TWAG must be a friend of David BASC. I know who I believe on the forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 For anarchy to exist would mean that BASC or any other shooting organisation you care to mention, are in authority, which they aren't. Rest assured the lead shot issue is no secret and its 'defences and strategies' you refer to TWAG which you think should take place behind closed doors, unfortunately are sadly lacking. What defences and strategies are you referring to? 'No sound evidence, no change'? The change has already taken place, that is why we have the lead shot ban already in existence for wildfowl. The thread can be closed at any time of course, but that wont necessarily mean that Swift isn't being duplicitous, or that the LAG is no more, nor indeed that the WWT or the RSPB has the nations best interests at heart, nor will it mean assumptions will cease to be made. I have contacted the WWT, the CA, the NGO and the LAG, asking what effect the resignations have on the LAG's capacity to function. The WWT aren't replying, the CA haven't replied as yet, possibly because I'm not a member; the NGO have replied but as they aren't privy to details don't know anymore than the rest of us. The chairman of the LAG has replied and I get the impression from his email that he considers everything to be hunky dory and that he's busy preparing to submit the final report. So as we only have one shooting organisation on the forum in a position to know, due to their prominent position as regarding the LAG, I've asked their representative on here, David, who has chosen not to answer. People will form their own assumptions as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsmoke Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 , due to their prominent position as regarding the LAG, What prominent postition? You have seen the posts from Davidbasc, BASC have no member on the LAG John Swift no longer works for them, BASC don't run the web site that is owned by the LAG And they only put out invites to meetings. How should they know that is going on? Where is fact the run the web site, do the minutes and set John Swift a drift on this own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savhmr Posted June 7, 2015 Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) 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. Absolute twaddle Mr TWAG. Last time I looked, it was a free country and everyone on here has the right to express an opinion whether you agree with it or not. Perhaps the manner in which some those opinions are expressed is open to criticism, but you have no right whatsoever to criticise anyone for holding an opinion nor for suggesting that such opinions are controlled! (The more hysterical at this point might add "How dare you accuse anyone of being an anarchist! What an insult".) There have been some very valid issues raised which all responsible shooters ought to be looking at and educating themselves about. The emphasis here is on the word "education". If you want to take the word of any organisation on blind faith, then go ahead. I personally have no personal agenda nor an axe to grind other than there are a lot of questions yet to be answered. If we are to take the word of anyone, and without those answers, questions will continue to be asked and rightly so. It is you who are missing the bigger picture. No-one is trying to defend the indefensible at all and that is scaremongering and judgemental and an utterly ridiculous thing to say without a shred of evidence to back it up. There are those that want to be sure that they have the complete picture before making their own minds up and those that don't. One thing is for sure and that is that we currently do NOT have the complete picture nor is there (understandably) much confidence in statistics which have been banded about as evidence, unless you would care to enlighten us? Edited June 7, 2015 by Savhmr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts