Lead ban & BASC

[rbrowning2]

31 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

BECAUSE THE DUCK SHOOTERS OF THE GAME SHOOTING WORLD LIED THEY BANGED DUCKS FULL OF LEAD IN GAME DEALERS 

And why do you think it will be any different with the voluntary ban for pheasant, partridge and grouse?
Who will pay £440.00 for steel cartridges in biodegradable wads to go shoot pigeons? Or on a diy game shoot.
They have badly managed this it should have been introduced gradually, the large commercial shoots, selling the 70 percent of game, first then expanding from that as the cartridges became more available and hopefully lower in price. 
however I think the price will remain high for a very long time to allow the manufactures to recover their investment costs.

[Scully]

38 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Ill say you could be wrong too. Never seen so much pistol gear crop up its like it started growing once the pistol ban came in. You went to bed at night got up in the morning and cupboards were overflowing with stuff people never eben knew they had.

Not sure what you’re getting at here; you could only claim for items you could prove you actually owned.

[Terry2016]

38 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Where on Earth did you get that from?

You kind of missed the point. You stated that BASC have an elected council to represent the view of their members.

But if they don't know what that view is, how can they  

hence my statement about the council being elected (or NOT as the case maybe) on the grounds of a voluntary ban on lead and plastic.

Did the 9 organisations agree, I've seen convicting statements where some have said they were told things which appear to not be true 

The membership are their bread and butter, without them they are nothing.

That some can't see that is just funny... laughable

Absolutely. They all should have. They are after all the ones who pay the wages. At the very least they should have kept them informed.

For now!!!

9 organisations that deal with this day to day do what is right for shooting. 

The council is voted in by members and decisions such as this are discussed with them.  if these orgs should have gone to the members then what os the point of a council ? 

As I understand it going by what i have read, yes all 9 were in agreement and still are. 

As for being kept informed this has been coming for months if not years and it is voluntary over a 5 year period.. would you have preferred 10 years or a warm up to the warm up ? 

"We are are thinking of promoting best practice" is that ok with the members?  

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Terry2016

[lancer425]

2 minutes ago, McSpredder said:

You have hit the nail on the head.   They have a member elected council to represent the views of the membership, but they do not consult the membership.

They have no idea what my views might be, and have made not the slightest attempt to find out.   When seeking election, did any of those council members say "I want to see lead shot banned within five years"?

Executive decisions are made in all walks of life and in a minor one like swapping one shot type  for another, because the members could not be trusted to obey the civil  law despite repeated warnings and yet carry on in breach of the law Which if convicted of that crime it is highly probable these criminals would lose their shotgun/ firearms certificates, and then face any further prosecutions the game dealers might want to bring to bear regarding being sold ducks full of lead when its not legal to do so in England and Wales. anywhere.    Sorry but a group of individuals so lost so corrupt and so comfortable robbing and stealing off unsuspecting game dealers. Its really no small wonder a respectable group of shooting organisations might have considered it better to try and help such people rather than consult them on anything law abiding.  They deserve a medal for persevering with all this they are actually protecting many of our shooters from their own criminal selves.

Sorry if it smarts a bit folks but if the cap fits and all that swaddling, wear it.

13 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

And why do you think it will be any different with the voluntary ban for pheasant, partridge and grouse?
Who will pay £440.00 for steel cartridges in biodegradable wads to go shoot pigeons? Or on a diy game shoot.
They have badly managed this it should have been introduced gradually, the large commercial shoots, selling the 70 percent of game, first then expanding from that as the cartridges became more available and hopefully lower in price. 
however I think the price will remain high for a very long time to allow the manufactures to recover their investment costs.

No idea but complying might just might be the answer.

[Terry2016]

27 minutes ago, wymberley said:

Yep, I take your point, absolutely correct, but 52 pages and counting suggests that the foreseeable consequences of this action and not necessarily the action itself would have warranted such consideration for the membership.

Agreed, although there are 156, 000 members in BASC and near on 100,000 in CA let alone the other 7 orgs. 

I only see the same handful posting here... I think the silent majority says a lot.. 

I think if 9 organisations made this decision .. it is for a good reason and the future of shooting. 

I will not post anymore on this, I have said my bit heres to the future 🍺

 

[lancer425]

10 minutes ago, Scully said:

Not sure what you’re getting at here; you could only claim for items you could prove you actually owned.

PM you a link . .

[rbrowning2]

2 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Were are thinking of promoting best practice is that ok with the members?  

Not all members can afford to shoot game or shoot game on a very limited budget, these members are hurting as this sends a clear message that the shooting organisations will not fight a total ban on lead in ammunition. Now I know some think this is going to happen anyway but in truth we do not know when this may be happening or the scope of any ban.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Agreed, although there are 156, 000 members in BASC and near on 100,000 in CA let alone the other 7 orgs. 

I only see the same handful posting here... I think the silent majority says a lot.. 

I think if 9 organisations made this decision .. it is for a good reason and the future of shooting. 

I will not post anymore on this, I have said my bit heres to the future 🍺

 

Visit basc Facebook page I think the rest are on that.

[Newbie to this]

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

9 organisations that deal with this day to day do what is right for shooting. 

If you say so. Others say different.

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

The council is voted in by members and decisions such as this are discussed with them.  if these orgs should have gone to the members then what os the point of a council ? 

Again it was you that stated that the council is elected to represent the members view, I'm just pointing out the hole in the statement. How can they represent the members view if they do NOT bother to get it .

I also pointed out that, did any of these elected council members state in the election that a voluntary ban was on the future agenda if elected 

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

As I understand it going by what i have read, yes all 9 were in agreement and still are. 

We must be reading different material.

I've read that at least one of the orgs was told that the cartridge manufacturers were consulted and on board, before they signed off on this. I then read various cartridge manufacturers state they were NOT consulted 

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

As for being kept informed this has been coming for months if not years and it is voluntary over a 5 year period.. would you have preferred 10 years or a warm up to the warm up ? 

I would have preferred them to have kept on fighting. 

If not then to at the very least kept the members informed. They are the ones who pay the wages after all.

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Were are thinking of promoting best practice is that ok with the members?  

Who decides what is best practice for the members. Surley the members should have a say.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Newbie to this

[8 shot]

53 minutes ago, stagboy said:

The padre has discovered that the soldiers have agreed to try non-lead ammo...

 

 

 

👍🤣🤣

[Newbie to this]

16 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

Executive decisions are made in all walks of life and in a minor one like swapping one shot type  for another, because the members could not be trusted to obey the civil  law despite repeated warnings and yet carry on in breach of the law Which if convicted of that crime it is highly probable these criminals would lose their shotgun/ firearms certificates, and then face any further prosecutions the game dealers might want to bring to bear regarding being sold ducks full of lead when its not legal to do so in England and Wales. anywhere.    Sorry but a group of individuals so lost so corrupt and so comfortable robbing and stealing off unsuspecting game dealers. Its really no small wonder a respectable group of shooting organisations might have considered it better to try and help such people rather than consult them on anything law abiding.  They deserve a medal for persevering with all this they are actually protecting many of our shooters from their own criminal selves.

Sorry if it smarts a bit folks but if the cap fits and all that swaddling, wear it.

Is this more insider information into how BASC etc came up with a voluntary ban, or is it just another theory or as one could say conspiracy theory 

As for the criminals, well criminals by nature don't care about breaking the law so what is a voluntary ban going to do 

[Terry2016]

12 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

If you say so. Others say different.

Again it was you that stated that the council is elected to represent the members view, I'm just pointing out the hole in the statement. How can they represent the members view if they do NOT bother to get it .

I also pointed out that, did any of these elected council members state in the election that a voluntary ban was on the future agenda if elected 

We must be reading different material.

I've read that at least one of the orgs was told that the cartridge manufacturers were consulted and on board, before they signed off on this. I then read various cartridge manufacturers state they were NOT consulted 

I would have preferred them to have kept on fighting. 

If not then to at the very least kept the members informed. They are the ones who pay the wages afyer all.

Who decides what is best practice for the members. Surley the members should have a say.

If you say so. Others say different.  Thats fine 

Again it was you that stated that the council is elected to represent the members view, I'm just pointing out the hole in the statement. How can they represent the members view if they do NOT bother to get it . They do not have to get it, they are voted on and then appointed.  organisations do not go out to members for decisions. 

I also pointed out that, did any of these elected council members state in the election that a voluntary ban was on the future agenda if elected  There is no BAN 

We must be reading different material.

I've read that at least one of the orgs was told that the cartridge manufacturers were consulted and on board, before they signed off on this. I then read various cartridge manufacturers state they were NOT consulted  Yes i did read this, i also read that the cartridge manufactures were consulted and A senior representative of one of the cartridge manufacturers gave a presentation on the sustainable alternatives to lead shot in January to members of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Shooting and Conservation.

I would have preferred them to have kept on fighting. 

If not then to at the very least kept the members informed. They are the ones who pay the wages afyer all. That is why its a 5 year transition 

Who decides what is best practice for the members. Surley the members should have a say. Best practice is science and evidence based normally agreed by a number of organisations, nothing to do with members.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Terry2016

[8 shot]

36 minutes ago, Scully said:

Yes, best cartridge out there in my opinion. 

Steel ?

[Terry2016]

https://basc.org.uk/basc-issues-further-statement-on-non-lead-ammunition/

[lancer425]

1 minute ago, Newbie to this said:

Is this more insider information into how BASC etc came up with a voluntary ban, or is it just another theory or as one could say conspiracy theory 

As for the criminals, well criminals by nature don't care about breaking the law so what is a voluntary ban going to do 

I beg your pardon this is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. its clear and very well documented too if you do a search online.

It did not do any of us shooters any favours, and why should anybody trust any of us now. we can not even obey clear rules why should we be allowed to pick and chose what we do with the very shot media we have been so dishonest and untrustworthy with in the past.  .

[GingerCat]

If it gets rid of 100 yard pheasants it's not a bad thing (tin hat on). 

[clangerman]

12 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

I beg your pardon this is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. its clear and very well documented too if you do a search online.

It did not do any of us shooters any favours, and why should anybody trust any of us now. we can not even obey clear rules why should we be allowed to pick and chose what we do with the very shot media we have been so dishonest and untrustworthy with in the past.  .

WE? if you have any evidence anyone has broken the law mate get it up quick time please so far as i’m concerned the ONLY one with a stink the size of a mackerel trawler in tow is basc everyone else is innocent especially basc members 

[8 shot]

4 minutes ago, GingerCat said:

If it gets rid of 100 yard pheasants it's not a bad thing (tin hat on). 

How will it do that ? Will they be happier to fly lower to be shot by non toxic cartridges. 

[8 shot]

Any Game Dealers on here, pressures now on to sell every pheasant, partridge and pigeon shot from today onwards and pay a decent price to. No more freebies and paid to take away

[Newbie to this]

44 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

They do not have to get it, they are voted on and then appointed.  organisations do not go out to members for decisions. 

Remember I was quoting your statement, not my own.

44 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

There is no BAN

I didn't mention ban, I mentioned voluntary ban, I was of the belief that this was what it was being called.

44 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Best practice is science and evidence based normally agreed by a number of organisations, nothing to do with members

A membership based organisation that ignores or disregards it members should do so at it's own peril.

Or do BASC feel that they are far too intertwined now for the members to vote with their feet so members don't matter one iota 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Newbie to this

[Newbie to this]

35 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

beg your pardon this is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. its clear and very well documented too if you do a search online.

Like I said before. I'll take your word for it.

I was more referring to you inferred claim that BASC had done this to protect the criminals from themselves and as to whether you had insider information into this statement or if it was just another theory.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. 

[lancer425]

20 minutes ago, clangerman said:

WE? if you have any evidence anyone has broken the law mate get it up quick time please so far as i’m concerned the ONLY one with a stink the size of a mackerel trawler in tow is basc everyone else is innocent especially basc members 

Evidence is there and lots and lots of them broke the law no idea who but they know who they are, and yes i for one am totally innocent. Its not a moot point clangerman. Shooters shot ducks with lead shot and sold them to game dealers knowing they had been shot with lead. Shoot captains were technically liable i believe but this did not seem to worry anyone very much. It went on year on year. We are clearly not trustworthy so we need protecting from our selves.

[GingerCat]

20 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

How will it do that ? Will they be happier to fly lower to be shot by non toxic cartridges. 

Because it will have neither the power nor the pattern and thusly there won't be lots of wounded birds from idiots shooting at these extreme pheasants. 

[Terry2016]

1 minute ago, Newbie to this said:

Remember I was quoting your statement, not my own.

I didn't mention ban, I mentioned voluntary ban, I was of the belief that this was what it was being called.

A membership based organisation that ignores or disregards it member should do so at it's own peril.

Or do BASC feel that they are too intertwined now for the members to vote with their feet so member don't matter one iota 

listening to the comments on the thread I am happy the 9 organisations did not consult as shooting would not have a chance. 

it is a voluntary transition , there is no ban, it is not legislation therefore you do not have to do it. 

BASC and the other 8 organisations do not need input from members about the direction of their organisation this is done via council.

The codes of good shooting practice that are created by a number of organisations is evidence based.  Things like bird release numbers that do not have a negative impact on the environment.

It is the job of the orgs to undertake this work and direct the shooting community with what is in the best interest of shooters and the countryside. this is exactly what they have done. 

The fact that 9 organisations have done it must mean its quite substantial.  on many occasions the organisations will have had differing views however, on this it is very clear that they all agree this is the way forwards.  just think about that for a minute. 

 

[lancer425]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Like I said before. I'll take your word for it.

I was more referring to you inferred claim that BASC had done this to protect the criminals from themselves and as to whether you had insider information into this statement or if it was just another theory.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. 

If deliberate or not it adds up to the same thing you should thank them from protecting us from our selves.

[Terry2016]

For those who doubt the effectiveness of steel shot, Dave Carrie himself is very impressed dropping duck cleanly at 70 yds plus ( his words not mine) just shows if you can shoot you can shoot.... 

 

Edited March 8, 2020 by Terry2016