The demise of lead shot and small bore shot guns

[Walker570]

Just now, rbrowning2 said:

Exactly I know  so let’s ban the game shooting and replace it with say simulated game days presenting clay targets. No game to enter the food chain then so not an issue what shot is use.

The way things are going, I can see that happening, hopefully not in my lifetime.

[grahamch]

1 hour ago, Old farrier said:

Still waiting for the email to arrive 

if I wasn’t on the forum I as yet would have no knowledge of this 

very poor show 

BASC have our email addresses for the so called Fast Track service, this surely if anything should have been sent out to members via that route? 

Another BASC  ******* up

[Scully]

7 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Exactly I know  so let’s ban the game shooting and replace it with say simulated game days presenting clay targets. No game to enter the food chain then so not an issue what shot is use.

Seriously?

[rbrowning2]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

Seriously?

Is that not what wild justice want, lead shot was just one issue to bash us with but they won’t now leave us alone just because we are now all going to use non toxic shot. As I perceive what they want is an end to driven grouse shooting, an end to releasing non native game birds and general licences replaced with personal individual licences.

all that this has done is show how wrong we have been over the past years claiming game was heathy if shot with lead when in fact it obviously was not because nothing has suddenly changed that has changed the toxicity of lead shot in use.
 

what a mess shooting as a sport and industry is in.

Edited February 25, 2020 by rbrowning2

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Is that not what wild justice want, lead shot was just one issue to bash us with but they won’t now leave us alone just because we are now all going to use non toxic shot. As I perceive what they want is an end to driven grouse shooting, an end to releasing non native game birds and general licences replaced with personal individual licences.

all that this has done is show how wrong we have been over the past years claiming game was heathy if shot with lead when in fact it obviously was not because nothing has suddenly changed that has changed the toxicity of lead shot in use.
 

what a mess shooting as a sport and industry is in.

Yes, it's exactly what WJ and others want; so as a shooter ( i'm assuming you are one ) why would you suggest such a thing as banning game shooting? Unless you're a clay shooter only, in which case this doesn't effect you! 

We weren't wrong about lead, we even had the backing of our shooting organisations in the campaign to save lead. Lead is toxic, that's a fact which cannot be disputed. Our argument back then was based on whether it did any harm to people who ate game shot with meat, and even though a safe level has never been agreed upon, science STILL claim that game meat shot with lead eaten in 'large' amounts can 'potentially' be harmful. I don't know of anyone who eats lead shot game in 'large' amounts, or even 'frequently', which is another term used by them. So the science, as far as I can tell, hasn't changed. 

Our shooting organisations are now using the same argument that helped stave off that ban, to justify why rifles are exempt from this ban, namely that 'wound channels can be removed'. 

I totally understand your anger, but think it should be pointed at our representative organisations, rather than elsewhere. 

It's worth noting that only the CPSA would survive as a one discipline organisation, with or without lead. Whereas if lead doesn't go, then game shooting cannot survive, and if that happens BASC and the NGO will die with it, and every other live quarry shooter soon afterwards. Both organisations depend extensively on live quarry shooting for their revenue. Love them or loathe them, we need commercial shooting to survive as much as we do the organisations. 

 

[rbrowning2]

 

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, it's exactly what WJ and others want; so as a shooter ( i'm assuming you are one ) why would you suggest such a thing as banning game shooting? Unless you're a clay shooter only, in which case this doesn't effect you! 

We weren't wrong about lead, we even had the backing of our shooting organisations in the campaign to save lead. Lead is toxic, that's a fact which cannot be disputed. Our argument back then was based on whether it did any harm to people who ate game shot with meat, and even though a safe level has never been agreed upon, science STILL claim that game meat shot with lead eaten in 'large' amounts can 'potentially' be harmful. I don't know of anyone who eats lead shot game in 'large' amounts, or even 'frequently', which is another term used by them. So the science, as far as I can tell, hasn't changed. 

Our shooting organisations are now using the same argument that helped stave off that ban, to justify why rifles are exempt from this ban, namely that 'wound channels can be removed'. 

I totally understand your anger, but think it should be pointed at our representative organisations, rather than elsewhere. 

It's worth noting that only the CPSA would survive as a one discipline organisation, with or without lead. Whereas if lead doesn't go, then game shooting cannot survive, and if that happens BASC and the NGO will die with it, and every other live quarry shooter soon afterwards. Both organisations depend extensively on live quarry shooting for their revenue. Love them or loathe them, we need commercial shooting to survive as much as we do the organisations. 

 

Do we really need game shooting to survive?

it gets most of the bad press given it is perceived as just killing for fun. If it went why would simulated game shooting not replace it?
Just like in the past when live pigeon shooting was replaced with glass balls and now clay pigeons. The live game shooters would just have to adjust to the change just like now adjusting to the use of non toxic shot. And on the plus side their would be no closed season so it may bring more money and more people into it.

all other forms of shooting are more justified, it is the game shooting that is most contentious.

and yes I shoot and have done for very many years, done all types over the years.

And if basc die well that is just evolution is it not?

Edited February 25, 2020 by rbrowning2

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

On a small syndicate shoot I was in last year, the first offer is to the beaters and virtually all of them will take a brace.  Always birds left lying by the guns.  I always take at least a brace and infact buy 20, four bird oven ready packs to go in our freezer.  £3 a pack has to be a cheap meal for four people.  Unfortunately over the last 50yrs and more so in the last 20yrs I have seen the approach from guns as just treating the birds as targets as they would on clays and they have no affinity with the countryside even, let alone how those birds are provided.  They might as well be made of plastic and thrown from a trap.

I suspect its because most people wouldn't know how to prepare a pheasant for the table. 

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

 

Do we really need game shooting to survive?

it gets most of the bad press given it is perceived as just killing for fun. If it went why would simulated game shooting not replace it?
Just like in the past when live pigeon shooting was replaced with glass balls and now clay pigeons. The live game shooters would just have to adjust to the change just like now adjusting to the use of non toxic shot. And on the plus side their would be no closed season so it may bring more money and more people into it.

all other forms of shooting are more justified, it is the game shooting that is most contentious.

and yes I shoot and have done for very many years, done all types over the years.

And if basc die well that is just evolution is it not?

I think so yes. I for one enjoy game shooting. It has its faults admittedly, but I'd hate to see it go. If it went I'd take up clays no doubt, but I'd miss shooting live quarry. What is the difference between killing for fun and killing for sport? 

Unless you're involved in pest control ( and even some of the reasons trying to justify aspects of that can be dubious and highly debatable; not all farmers like to see things being shot, pests or otherwise ) all live quarry shooting involves killing things for no other reason than self satisfaction, which none of us need to do. None of us need to be killing things to survive; the supermarkets and shops are full of things to eat.

If BASC die, would I mourn their passing? Not really, but I would mourn live quarry shooting. 

Without game shooting the rest of live quarry shooters would be easy pickings to be rid of. 

 

[islandgun]

2 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

Exactly I know  so let’s ban the game shooting and replace it with say simulated game days presenting clay targets. No game to enter the food chain then so not an issue what shot is use.

WJ would have an issue with BOP's eating any lead shot birds that have not been bagged/collected 

[rbrowning2]

20 minutes ago, Scully said:

I think so yes. I for one enjoy game shooting. It has its faults admittedly, but I'd hate to see it go. If it went I'd take up clays no doubt, but I'd miss shooting live quarry. What is the difference between killing for fun and killing for sport? 

Unless you're involved in pest control ( and even some of the reasons trying to justify aspects of that can be dubious and highly debatable; not all farmers like to see things being shot, pests or otherwise ) all live quarry shooting involves killing things for no other reason than self satisfaction, which none of us need to do. None of us need to be killing things to survive; the supermarkets and shops are full of things to eat.

If BASC die, would I mourn their passing? Not really, but I would mourn live quarry shooting. 

Without game shooting the rest of live quarry shooters would be easy pickings to be rid of. 

 

Indeed Scully I enjoy game shooting to but a good day in a pigeon hide is as much if not more enjoyable and serves a purpose of crop protection. So I think if game shooting went it does not follow that all live quarry shooting would be easy picking. The same can be said now with lead shot ban it for live quarry then to eliminate any issues with policing that it just got a whole lot simpler to just ban all lead shot.

lots of interesting debate going on about all this on the forum, which is good.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by rbrowning2

[Scully]

4 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Indeed Scully I enjoy game shooting to but a good day in a pigeon hide is as much if not more enjoyable and serves a purpose of crop protection. So I think if game shooting went it does not follow that all live quarry shooting would be easy picking. The same can be said now with lead shot ban it for live quarry then to eliminate any issues with policing that it just got a whole lot simpler to just ban all lead shot.

lots of interesting debate going on about all this on the forum, which is good.

 

I enjoy a good day in a hide more than a good driven day, but I'm still doing either because I enjoy it, and so are you. I don't need to do it, any more than you; there are plenty of others who would do it if you or I didn't. If they're not your crops then why are you doing it? 

Just because you enjoy protecting crops by killing pigeons or crows, why do you think pigeon shooting would survive? Think of the revenue lost to live quarry organisations if all game shooters took up clays instead. Would they survive? Who knows? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it, and certainly not on the same level they do now. Who would represent your needs when you needed them? Certainly not the CPSA. Another new organisation? With an insignificant membership? Representing who exactly? A few hundred/thousand blokes who like to sit on the foreshore and kill geese, or pigeons and crows under the guise of pest control? What about the revenue lost to the gun trade and cartridge manufacturers? Would they survive? Think about it. 

Like I've already said, lose the game shooters and losing lead will be the least of our worries. 

[rbrowning2]

7 minutes ago, Scully said:

I enjoy a good day in a hide more than a good driven day, but I'm still doing either because I enjoy it, and so are you. I don't need to do it, any more than you; there are plenty of others who would do it if you or I didn't. If they're not your crops then why are you doing it? 

Just because you enjoy protecting crops by killing pigeons or crows, why do you think pigeon shooting would survive? Think of the revenue lost to live quarry organisations if all game shooters took up clays instead. Would they survive? Who knows? Possibly, but I seriously doubt it, and certainly not on the same level they do now. Who would represent your needs when you needed them? Certainly not the CPSA. Another new organisation? With an insignificant membership? Representing who exactly? A few hundred/thousand blokes who like to sit on the foreshore and kill geese, or pigeons and crows under the guise of pest control? What about the revenue lost to the gun trade and cartridge manufacturers? Would they survive? Think about it. 

Like I've already said, lose the game shooters and losing lead will be the least of our worries. 

All good points, shooting and the shooting industry is not in a healthy place now really is it?  I think at my age I have lived through the best of it and change will continue and I think in time game shooting will be gone and yes with new technology even shooting for crop protection but by then I expect so will I.

 

[Centrepin]

https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/opinion/lead-makes-you-beautiful-and-healthy/

Blatantly copied from another web site.

The Lady loves lead❤

[spurs 14]

 

The long and short of it is that we all know at some point there was going to be a lead shot ban , what all the organisations have done is got together to pre ems it happening over night 

 it’s not coming into force at the moment , voluntary to 2024, so gives another four years for cartridge manufacturers to develope alternatives , more choice than we have know , my understanding is at the moment the concern is game shooting , clay shooting at clubs will be unaffected you can carry on even with plastic wads ! 

The market for lead shot game has been gradually shrinking now many won’t take it supermarkets etc bow to public pressure and we do need an outlet for the game that is produced , argue Til you’re blue in the face if the public won’t buy , dealers won’t buy and it leads to more anti shoot feeling when the game goes to waste 

I like most people wish we could carry on as before and not be lectured too or told what to do but it happens , it’s no good jumping up and down blaming basc or others for not fighting it , we now have a time period to still use lead shot while quality alternatives are found , tested , made and used or would you rather it happened overnight and lead shot was suddenly universally banned , personally I think this was the best way out 

[mick miller]

There is virtually no current market for game. To suggest that using steel shot will lead to a miraculous and wholesale acceptance of pheasant, partridge or grouse by the wider public is, frankly, utter ********.

This is simply throwing everyone that doesn't 'enjoy' a 500 bird day on a commercial shoot under the proverbial bus. Simply to protect the interests of a minority from increasing scrutiny. By the way, it won't work. RSPB, WJ et al are not morally opposed to lead, or pest shooting, or deer stalking - they are morally opposed to the annual release of tens of thousands of non-native, formally captive birds, held in place with feed and dogs to provide 'sport' shooting.

Tell me, if releasing cage pigeons to the gun is so reprehensible as to be outlawed for years, what makes game shooting so acceptable? Is the lack of a wicker box or the size of the bank accounts of those that take part?

Edited February 26, 2020 by mick miller

[Scully]

2 hours ago, mick miller said:

There is no virtually no current market for game. To suggest that using steel shot will lead to a miraculous and wholesale acceptance of pheasant, partridge or grouse by the wider public is, frankly, utter ********.

This is simply throwing everyone that doesn't 'enjoy' a 500 bird day on a commercial shoot under the proverbial bus. Simply to protect the interests of a minority from increasing scrutiny. By the way, it won't work. RSPB, WJ et al are not morally opposed to lead, or pest shooting, or deer stalking - they are morally opposed to the annual release of tens of thousands of non-native, formally captive birds, held in place with feed and dogs to provide 'sport' shooting.

Tell me, if releasing cage pigeons to the gun is so reprehensible as to be outlawed for years, what makes game shooting so acceptable? Is the lack of a wicker box or the size of the bank accounts of those that take part?

What do you suggest we do? 

[rbrowning2]

Well said Mick Miller, I felt like a loan voice, what do to is simple either end game shooting completely and replace it with simulated game shooting using clays as happened with live pigeon shooting or limit the number of birds released by the large shooting estates who do it for financial reasons to make lots of money.  
Yes it will be a massive change but voluntary banning lead shot will never satisfy the like of WJ and in practice given the significant difference in price of cartridges due to the need for biodegradable wads will never work. And if lead is not a problem today why at the end of the transition period does it suddenly become a problem. Either it is or it is not a problem if it is it needs an immediate ban.

i don’t think the orgs could have made a bigger mess of this if they tried just look at basc Facebook pages and see the comments, who ever came up with this strategy wants removing from the job. 
 

Edited February 26, 2020 by rbrowning2

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Well said Mick Miller, I felt like a loan voice, what do to is simple either end game shooting completely and replace it with simulated game shooting using clays as happened with live pigeon shooting or limit the number of birds released by the large shooting estates who do it for financial reasons to make lots of money.  
Yes it will be a massive change but voluntary banning lead shot will never satisfy the like of WJ and in practice given the significant difference in price of cartridges due to the need for biodegradable wads will never work. And if lead is not a problem today while at the end of the transition period does it suddenly become a problem. Either it is or it is not a problem if it is it needs an immediate ban.

i don’t think the orgs could have made a bigger mess of this if they tried just look at basc Facebook pages and see the comments, who ever came up with this strategy what’s removing from the job. 
 

Which do you want, an ‘end to game shooting’ or ‘limit the number of birds released’ ? 
What do you think either will achieve? 

[islandgun]

I Imagine an agreed number of birds released per hectare, with consultation from all,   including DEFRA, WJ, GWCT, BASC etc  Les expensive non toxic shot will be perfected for use in old guns    

[lancer425]

2 hours ago, mick miller said:

There is no virtually no current market for game. To suggest that using steel shot will lead to a miraculous and wholesale acceptance of pheasant, partridge or grouse by the wider public is, frankly, utter ********.

This is simply throwing everyone that doesn't 'enjoy' a 500 bird day on a commercial shoot under the proverbial bus. Simply to protect the interests of a minority from increasing scrutiny. By the way, it won't work. RSPB, WJ et al are not morally opposed to lead, or pest shooting, or deer stalking - they are morally opposed to the annual release of tens of thousands of non-native, formally captive birds, held in place with feed and dogs to provide 'sport' shooting.

Tell me, if releasing cage pigeons to the gun is so reprehensible as to be outlawed for years, what makes game shooting so acceptable? Is the lack of a wicker box or the size of the bank accounts of those that take part?

Game shooting is a fantastic way of using the countryside, it benefits in so many ways. We release non resident species protect them as young, keep them safe keep them off roads and feed them regularly worm them , stop them being stolen and watch them grow and thrive.  Then when the are grown we round them up drive them with dogs then they come to the final part of their lives.  We do this with SHEEP.  Only they then After rounding up they get to be slaughtered.  The Pheasants get to fly over the guns and are harvested most of them.  Some get to be rounded up and get to breed and the cycle goes on . So in some ways just like the sheep we rear, only sheep are better marketed.

There are no real down sides to game shooting its a win win win situation and a brilliant utilisation of our countryside offering jobs sport health leisure and much more to our beautiful countryside.

The lack of a market for game meat here is down to current trends attitudes and pitt poor marketing.  NOW! The latter we do need to address.  The failure to utilise this commodity is a huge let/loss  down to the game shooting industry as a whole.  It can be turned around for good and i feel this Vaulantary ban is as good a place to start as any. 

 We have reached a bizarre situation in this country where Come the End of a typical shoot day we have guns leaving birds instead of rushing to take them home.

Only to leave the farm gate get on the phone to the wife and probably order in a curry from the local Indian or chines meal etc. It has got that stupid.  Now if this is the fact they do not want the work of preparing the birds and cooking them, or is it they would not eat them, or their spouses / offspring will not eat game. Its about changing hearts and minds, its as fundamental as that.

 Perhaps if shoots attended country fairs with game cookery and started to get the public involved that way directly through their stomachs it might be a positive.  The salesmanship needs to focus on the positive aspects, show the life of a pheasant grouse or whatever, the care devotion that goes into the breeding/ husbandry and growth of the birs through its life, then the harvest we have nothing to fear if its done well, it will be both sporting clean and humane and we at least can show out harvesting with a degree of pride. we have no muddy loading areas hurdles dogs pushing into trucks long travel and unloading into slaughter house and waiting in line cattle prodded to an inevitable end.

Some of our harvest gets another spin of the dice, like other animals we rear in our countryside.

It is about telling others what we do what we are about, the fact we exist is a good thing, we have nothing to fear from the antis knowing what we do, we are not a seedy bunch of closet psychopaths as they would like us portrayed.

We need to get out there sell our sport, not fester away in this us and them mentality, no one wins that way. ignorance is bliss and we will just fade away.

We need to adapt to survive and if swapping a toxic shot type for a non toxic shot type is the start of it then fine lets start now.

[mick miller]

Smaller shoots, where the participants take home the vast majority of birds for personal consumption, is likely the ethical limit of what could be argued as acceptable, to my mind anyway.

[rbrowning2]

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Which do you want, an ‘end to game shooting’ or ‘limit the number of birds released’ ? 
What do you think either will achieve? 

It needs a proper re assessment as I expect WJ hope the JR they have auctioned this week will achieve  

https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/wild-justice-seeks-judicial-review-of-gamebird-releases/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/26/defra-challenged-over-unlawful-release-of-57m-game-birds-in-uk

any positive from the press re the lead shot ban has very quickly been replaced by the above, then we have a council calling game shooting barbaric and university ending game shooting on its land.

large estates have made game shooting into an industry to make big money and the conservation benefits are negligible and questionable like heather burning the whole business because it is a business is a failing business model in 2020. 

 

[lancer425]

Just now, mick miller said:

Smaller shoots, where the participants take home the vast majority of birds for personal consumption, is likely the ethical limit of what could be argued as acceptable, to my mind anyway.

WHY is that?

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Smaller shoots, where the participants take home the vast majority of birds for personal consumption, is likely the ethical limit of what could be argued as acceptable, to my mind anyway.

So why do you think smaller shoots are more ‘suitable’? Suitable to who, you? What has this to do with banning lead shot? 
And what do you believe the outcome would be for UK shooters? 

[mick miller]

3 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

WHY is that?

Because the impact to other flora and fauna is lessened as fewer birds are released, there is little waste - most of the shot birds are taken home by people that actually eat them, rather than look on them as simply 'flying targets', less pressure on keepers (usually part-time) to produce 'big bags' and the associated problems with what is poorly termed 'raptor persecution' as a result. It's all less intensive without relying on a fantasy of selling birds into the food industry.
 

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

So why do you think smaller shoots are more ‘suitable’? Suitable to who, you? What has this to do with banning lead shot? 
And what do you believe the outcome would be for UK shooters? 

I no longer have any involvement with game shooting and haven't for some years, precisely because I struggle with the ethics of it.