Lead ban & BASC

[Penelope]

42 minutes ago, mick miller said:

In all honesty I think the game shooting fraternity should be looking at a voluntary ban on the release and subsequent shooting of all game birds within the next five years. Despite the evidence that game meat is sustainable and the allied activities benefit many other species, the general public is largely against the wholesale release of thousands of reared, non-native birds into the environment every year simply to be shot for sport. We don't need them for food and chickens are much more cost effective to raise anyway.

Whereas pigeon, rabbit and crow shooting can still hold the moral high ground, providing a valuable and free service to the farming community and the country as a whole (think of the cost of publicly funded pest species control), the game shooting industries can make no such claims. The tide of public opinion is marching inexorably onwards toward this outcome and, despite best efforts, it is clear that game shooting has been painted into a corner od sustainability and credibility.

It is with this in mind that I propose that all organisations get behind my suggested capitulation, despite any evidence to the contrary, and adopt this wholesale, voluntary, moratorium on game shooting as soon as possible. It is clear that this is the logical next step. We can kiss goodbye to the controversial muirburn policies, the tarring by association by unscrupulous game keepers and the accusations of raptor persecution. This would leave the rest of us in a much better place, those that simply shoot species such as deer, fox, rabbit, pigeon and crow for pest or species control without the fear of having the mud thrown at us for our legal, necessary activities, or the clay and target shooting communities whose activities take place in controlled and defined areas that do not affect SSSI's or any other sensitive area.

Whose with me?

Ain't a lot of difference, is there?

[lancer425]

12 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

This. And why when we have George Eustice as Environment Secretary who has already when at DEFRA said that he did not support a lead ban?

Be patient wait until the dogs have finished there is more to come out of this bit of scrub than we have seen so far.

[clangerman]

15 minutes ago, mick miller said:

 

good one in ten years it will all be over anyway so it won’t matter what shot you use when all we have left is a catapult 

[Scully]

3 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Is this Conor O'Gorman Head of BASC Policy and Campaigns? Or a different Conor O'Gorman?

I 've posted on this elsewhere. As others say welcome to the party.

Indeed the more I reflect on the BASC FAQ "reasons" the more the real reason seems clear. This voluntary lead ban is about protecting "big bag" commercial shoots which sell their game from a possible ban releasing reared game.

And to protect them the small driven shoot where the bag is shared, the gun who enjoys a traditional rough shoot walking up hedgerows and cover, the vermin shooter, all others too, all these have been sacrificed.

Why else the obsessing in BASC's FAQ with on shot game being sold into the EU? Why else the mention of game dealers and retailers refusing lead shot game? These are only relevant where bags are sold on by a shoot.

The FAQ window dressing may try to mask the intention but it now seems that the underlying reason is to save big bag shoots from a feared prohibition on large scale releasing of reared birds for commercial driven days.

And to achieve this the small time shooter and the hobby syndicate (in fact any activity we do where a huge surplus of game that has to be sold game doesn't get created) has been thrown under the bus.

And methinks this why the general "rank and file" BASC members perhaps weren't consulted in a Brexit style referendum. Because I think they wouldn't have supported this announcement.

It now must be that those that are BASC members demand an EGM, or ballot at an AGM, to order that the matter be put to a general ballot of all BASC members to decide who directs the policies of BASC. It's members? Or who?

The ancients had a two word test for the true actor of and motive behind an action.

Cui Bono? Who benefits?

So I'll match BASC's "cut and paste" of reasons for a lead ban with my own "cut and paste". This below:

"CUI BONO? Literally meaning "who benefits?," cui bono? is a rhetorical Latin legal phrase used to imply that whoever appears to have the most to gain from an action is probably behind it. More generally, it's used in English to question the meaningfulness or advantages of carrying something out."

If lead in shot pheasants shot with a shotgun is a poison then why is lead in shot deer shot with a rifle not a poison?

If lead in shot partridge shot with a shotgun is a poison then why us lead in shot rabbits shot with a rifle not a poison?

If lead shot in a limited defined area (a clay ground) isn't a problem then why is lead shot in the limited defined area of a rabbit warren a problem?

Or the limited defined area of a roost wood used by pigeons and shot in late February and early to mid-March?

The whole BASC FAQ is inconsistent nonsense.

Be clear this is ALL about protecting the "big boys" the commercial syndicates from a ban on releasing reared game and in order to do that the everyday shooter, the lad and dad shooting rabbits bolted with a ferret, the guy that enjoys a weekend a month out with his decoys, the February roost shooter have everyone been sacrificed as collateral damage.

 

Really? As much as I’m not a fan of the ban, nor of our organisations, I’m not sure your reasons for it ( namely to protect big bag commercial shoots and the release of huge numbers of reared birds ) stand up to scrutiny, and just one of the reasons is this: The commercial shoots which rear huge numbers of birds to release for the purpose of big bag days will still rear and release those birds; the only difference now is that they’ll be shot with steel! 
Have I missed something? 
 

[arjimlad]

https://robyorke.co.uk/2020/01/we-need-to-talk-about-lead-shot/ I thought this was an interesting read 

[theshootist]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

Really? As much as I’m not a fan of the ban, nor of our organisations, I’m not sure your reasons for it ( namely to protect big bag commercial shoots and the release of huge numbers of reared birds ) stand up to scrutiny, and just one of the reasons is this: The commercial shoots which rear huge numbers of birds to release for the purpose of big bag days will still rear and release those birds; the only difference now is that they’ll be shot with steel! 
Have I missed something? 
 

He's suggesting that if the commercial market for lead shot pheasants disappears then the commercial shoots will not be able to justify what they do. So they have decided that everyone should move to steel whatever game we shoot, rather than the commercial shoots themselves demanding its used so as to ensure they can sell the game. 

[mick miller]

4 minutes ago, theshootist said:

He's suggesting that if the commercial market for lead shot pheasants disappears then the commercial shoots will not be able to justify what they do. So they have decided that everyone should move to steel whatever game we shoot, rather than the commercial shoots themselves demanding its used so as to ensure they can sell the game. 

Bingo! Bango! Whose joining me under the bus?

Edited February 25, 2020 by mick miller

[clangerman]

22 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Bingo! Bango! Whose joining me under the bus?

if steel is so wonderful i think i should invite packham out for the day so he can see for himself what using steel in the field is really like 

[Scully]

8 minutes ago, theshootist said:

He's suggesting that if the commercial market for lead shot pheasants disappears then the commercial shoots will not be able to justify what they do. So they have decided that everyone should move to steel whatever game we shoot, rather than the commercial shoots themselves demanding its used so as to ensure they can sell the game. 

But none of us can justify what we do. Whether it's a big, small or indifferent syndicate, none of us shoot to provide a commercial market. We release birds to shoot, on whatever scale you happen to be talking about, to shoot. If you don't release birds, then you're shooting birds someone else has released. Pheasants would soon disappear from our countryside if their release was stopped.

If that's what people want then fine, but commercial shooting is big business, and whether we like it or not, the average shooter will soon disappear without them.  

Those whom are opposed to what we do, simply has to take our word for it that all those shot birds are eaten, whether it's a small walkabout or a big bag day.

 The big commercial shoots don't shoot to provide a market with poultry, they shoot to provide the demand for big bags. Whether it is morally or ethically right to continue to do so when there is no market is debatable, but that's a problem big commercial shoots need to rectify for all our sakes, because like I've said, like them or loathe them, if they go we will soon follow. 

If shooters themselves start demanding shooters are forced to justify what they do, then losing lead is the least of our worries! 

 

 

[Smokersmith]

Part of the problem here, is that a viable alternative isn't readily visible or available to game shooters.

The Eley product was I guess supposed to bridge the gap … but it's not really enough to cater for all.

By putting the 5 year timescale out, it will act as a deadline for the industry to work to, and I'm convinced there'll be significant development within that period.

[andrewluke]

is there any one else think this statement doesn't make sense

Liam Bell, chairman of the National Gamekeepers Organisation (NGO), adds: “Modern, non-toxic shot is just as effective as lead, providing of course that you shoot at things within range. The problems we had with the old steel cartridges are a thing of the past. The biggest issue that I see with steel shot, is the use of the plastic wads to shoot it. Rather an anomaly, seeing that we are using non-toxic shot to help protect the environment, while at the same time using single use plastic wads to push the pellets out of the barrels.”

[Smokersmith]

I think he's referring to the fact that big lead pellets retain lethal energy at ranges we'd consider 'out of range', and therefore kill stuff sometimes when the pattern's failed.

With steel … the energy goes quicker, and therefore the range thing is more defined.

[Newbie to this]

4 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

“Modern, non-toxic shot is just as effective as lead, providing of course that you shoot at things within range

So is lead shot more effective when out of range, or is the range of steel less than lead either way this statement is at best a half-truth 

[Scully]

I was hoping all this would result in a spate of panic sales ( there is a very nice Gamba I've got my eye on! ) before everything settles down again, as it will when common sense prevails, but nothing yet. Time yet though. 😉

 

7 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

So is lead shot more effective when out of range, or is the range of steel less than lead either way this statement is at best a half-truth 

I wouldn't have thought anything was effective if 'out of range'. Out of range is out of range, isn't it? 

[clangerman]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

I was hoping all this would result in a spate of panic sales ( there is a very nice Gamba I've got my eye on! ) before everything settles down again, as it will when common sense prevails, but nothing yet. Time yet though. 😉

 

I wouldn't have thought anything was effective if 'out of range'. Out of range is out of range, isn't it? 

don’t rush to buy the gamba scully the ban is another reason to use the rifle more and leave the beretta in the cabinet mate 

[Newbie to this]

13 minutes ago, Scully said:

I wouldn't have thought anything was effective if 'out of range'. Out of range is out of range, isn't it? 

Exactly,

so he must mean that the range of steel, is less than that of lead, which in turn does not make it as effective as he is trying to say. So it is indeed a half-truth 

[andrewluke]

has lead become more toxic in recent years,it was only a couple of years ago that talks of banning lead was a no go(BASC & shooters)

[mudpatten]

I have an interest in the history of shooting in the UK.

Wind back to the 1850`s and the introduction of the breach loading shot gun. There was a battle royal in the sporting and national press (Often one and the same back in the day.) between advocates of the old muzzle loaders and the new fangled breach loaders.

The sport would be ruined, birds would be exterminated by cads with quick firing guns, front loaders would become valueless overnight, breachloaders shot "weak" resulting in many lost birds etc, etc.

In less than a couple of years the whole thing was forgotten, everybody survived and we`re still shooting 170 years later.

And so it goes around and around.

[rbrowning2]

2 hours ago, lancer425 said:

We can only use what is there and it is not in law, we are at least showing willing at this stage which is all i think the organisation can reasonably expect at this very point in time.

So on shoot day one or two gun decides to continue to use lead and the rest go for steel, who will sort out the birds shot which contain lead, so the game dealer does not reject the lot? Always assuming those using lead own up to it, ring any bells with wild Fowler’s?

you can see the bad press now guns continue to shoot with lead despite a voluntary ban and knowing it is toxic, support grows for a legal ban on all lead in shot and ammunition.

this is all or none as I see it otherwise it is pointless. 
 

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

So on shoot day one or two gun decides to continue to use lead and the rest go for steel, who will sort out the birds shot which contain lead, so the game dealer does not reject the lot? Always assuming those using lead own up to it, ring any bells with wild Fowler’s?

you can see the bad press now guns continue to shoot with lead despite a voluntary ban and knowing it is toxic, support grows for a legal ban on all lead in shot and ammunition.

this is all or none as I see it otherwise it is pointless. 
 

To start with it’ll only effect those shoots which sell birds to dealers; it is up to the ‘keeper to specify which is allowed, in plenty of time for guns to acquire what they need. 
Next season I’ll be shooting lead predominantly, in our small syndicate. I may try steel now and then, as I’ve never shot pheasant or partridge with steel before. On beaters day I’ll be using whatever the ‘keeper specifies, as all birds on that particular shoot are collected by a game dealer. 

30 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Exactly,

so he must mean that the range of steel, is less than that of lead, which in turn does not make it as effective as he is trying to say. So it is indeed a half-truth 

😃I think he may have possibly meant within ranges suitable to steel. 

[Scully]

13 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

has lead become more toxic in recent years,it was only a couple of years ago that talks of banning lead was a no go(BASC & shooters)

I doubt it, but much has been made of its toxicity and if dealers are saying they can’t sell birds containing lead shot, then those commercial shoots which want to sell to dealers who specify no lead shot, then have little choice but to change to a non toxic shot. 
The science is there which states that lead shot meat eaten as part of a normal diet does no harm, means nothing if people aren’t persuaded.

It could be worse; the way things are going, if people stop eating game meat on ethical grounds, then it won’t matter what we want to shoot it with. It can be farmed if there’s a demand. Where would that leave us? The NGO would cease to exist for a start, closely followed by the CA and BASC. 
Wildfowlers kicked a hullabullu over the demise of WAGBI; were they really the only ones who couldn’t see that the organisation couldn’t survive representing them alone? 
In the end it’s all about survival, and for that you need revenue. BASC wouldn’t be where it is now ( wherever that is! 😀) on the revenue garnered from just Wildfowlers. 
 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

The science is there which states that lead shot meat eaten as part of a normal diet does no harm, means nothing if people aren’t persuaded.

That is very true.  There was an eminent senior medic/toxicologist Professor on the radio the other day talking about this.  He is very happy for himself, his family, grandchildren etc. to all eat game shot with lead, or drink water that has come through lead pipes.  He was 100% clear that there is NO harm from eating game shot with lead in the quantities that even someone who ate game several times a week would ingest.

It was his view that over the 150-200 or so years people have been eating game shot with lead there had been no deaths or illnesses reasonably attributed to the lead.

[Old farrier]

There’s plenty of good and interesting comments here 

however moving forward we need to be proactive about this and sort out few things for the cartridge manufacturers need to take on board 

good effective cartridges 

reloadable or recyclable case 

degradable wad 

In a case That the contents can be seen so a visual check is adequate to show that it none toxic and biodegradable (also for user safety) 

I personally would like to see a lot of effort by the shooting organisations pushing for the development of the cartridges and wads for all bores and chamber lengths 

 

[Scully]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

That is very true.  There was an eminent senior medic/toxicologist Professor on the radio the other day talking about this.  He is very happy for himself, his family, grandchildren etc. to all eat game shot with lead, or drink water that has come through lead pipes.  He was 100% clear that there is NO harm from eating game shot with lead in the quantities that even someone who ate game several times a week would ingest.

It was his view that over the 150-200 or so years people have been eating game shot with lead there had been no deaths or illnesses reasonably attributed to the lead.

And literally no less than five minutes ago, I have received an email from the NGO stating that more and more scientists are claiming lead shot in any quantities, no matter how small, DOES have a detrimental effect on ones health! 
I thought this had been done to death....with the full support of our shooting organisations! Is it any wonder people are angry?
If this is the case then it must apply to rifle ammunition also, surely. 

[Old farrier]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

And literally no less than five minutes ago, I have received an email from the NGO stating that more and more scientists are claiming lead shot in any quantities, no matter how small, DOES have a detrimental effect on ones health! 
I thought this had been done to death....with the full support of our shooting organisations! Is it any wonder people are angry?
If this is the case then it must apply to rifle ammunition also, surely. 

Of course it doesn’t apply to rifle ammunition the same as clay grounds say steel shot is dangerous but it’s safe in the countryside 🙄🤭