Lead ban & BASC

[Farmboy91]

17 minutes ago, wymberley said:

They've been, they've seen and they've legged it.

Yep I noticed David browsing a few times. 

Think that about sums up their whole stance on the matter.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Farmboy91

[rbrowning2]

28 minutes ago, wymberley said:

They've been, they've seen and they've legged it.

They have yet to even email their members personally to explain the u turn.

[Papercase]

2 hours ago, lancer425 said:

Exactly was there saw it going on,  drop out of the NUM just to ride the bus in and get paid. As long as not stopped from earning/ shooting lead its all good. It fits definitely.

  You might not love BASC anynore than you loved scargill, but like he said all the pits will go, lead will go. only Unions are giving us a chance of a transition that is painless and if anything we / the environment will benefit, not just for us but those in future times, we can not go on throwing tons of lead all over the place just because we think steel is for tame wildfowlers not other shooters.

Get with the plan there is no picket lines no hunger no loss just common sence clear cut advice given on a smoother transition to a brighter future for our sport.

Couldn't have put that better myself mate

[wymberley]

14 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

They have yet to even email their members personally to explain the u turn.

I simply don't understand this. I left BASC after half a lifetime of membership because of the lead shot situation back along and also the dumbing down of the education programme (with hindsight, this is not necessarily a criticism as you can't run courses of any substance if nobody wishes to attend). They did well with the GL fiasco, but now again the lead. One simply has to ask who it is that is advising them regarding their relationship with and consideration for their membership. As soon as this was announced someone should have hit the e-mail send button or posted the info' as appropriate which had already been prepared and ready to go.

[Kalahari]

Before we all go down the road of slagging off BASC look at the signatories on this statement!

https://www.gwct.org.uk/news/news/2020/february/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/?utm_source=All+Contacts&utm_campaign=9ec9b5b0b4-Morning+Briefing+240220&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dd843c5cb6-9ec9b5b0b4-21861007&mc_cid=9ec9b5b0b4&mc_eid=596bcb1286

 

David.

[Papercase]

1 minute ago, wymberley said:

I simply don't understand this. I left BASC after half a lifetime of membership because of the lead shot situation back along and also the dumbing down of the education programme (with hindsight, this is not necessarily a criticism as you can't run courses of any substance if nobody wishes to attend). They did well with the GL fiasco, but now again the lead. One simply has to ask who it is that is advising them regarding the relationship and consideration of their membership. As soon as this was announced someone should have hit the e-mail send button or posted the info' as appropriate which had already been prepared and ready to go.

So you would expect them to fall onto their own sword in a battle they know there is little no chance of winning - with bigger ones on the horizon? Just because some of the members insist that there should be no movement from the traditional line? If they have chosen this path then it is because it's the right thing to do - and/or that will only damage and hamper other campaigns in the future.

[Smokersmith]

I guess when you sense it's not going to go well, you have a choice.

Wade into the storm … or bide your time, wait for the penny to drop with a few folks, and go from there.

Perhaps we have a new term … leamoaners ….

[wymberley]

49 minutes ago, Papercase said:

So you would expect them to fall onto their own sword in a battle they know there is little no chance of winning - with bigger ones on the horizon? Just because some of the members insist that there should be no movement from the traditional line? If they have chosen this path then it is because it's the right thing to do - and/or that will only damage and hamper other campaigns in the future.

What do you expect from me? after all, i'm that thing that you created - a scab - remember? Scab, basher, hater, all designed to prevent honest genuine criticism from those who care and thus permit any organisation to do whatever it wishes irrespective of the wishes of its membership. Such criticism is therefore healthy; stifling it most certainly not.

[PeterHenry]

On a serious note - I was furious about this when I read about it last night.

Today though, with the benefit of a little clarity,  I think it's an inspired move.

1 - the EU is our largest market for game meat,  and also in the process of banning lead ammunition. It would spell all sorts of trouble for exports in the future if we couldent export because of lead shot in game.

2 - public perception of lead is at an all time low, and those who are against our sport were makeing hay with this fact.

3 - those against shooting always try and present it as something that is rigid and unadaptable - an anachronism in today's world. There is also the problem in that as much as Wild Justice are able to poke and prod with legal actions, and otherwise be very proactive, we by comparison are somewhat lumbering, and always on the defensive. Unlike America, we cant fall back on constituional law to defend our possition proactively to any great extent, so we dig in. By seizing the initiative, and admittedly jumping before we were pushed, not only have we take some of the wind out of our enemy's sails, we (from a P.R perspective, and sadly this is what it's going to be won or lost on) have shown we can take proactive action, change for the good in the eyes of the public (who mostly think 'lead, ugh, poisonous'), and avoiding damaging a large market.

 

Sadly, it was going to happen anyway, and what could have been an all round defeat, has been made more manageable and a P.R coup to boot.

 

[Scully]

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

On a serious note - I was furious about this when I read about it last night.

Today though, with the benefit of a little clarity,  I think it's an inspired move.

1 - the EU is our largest market for game meat,  and also in the process of banning lead ammunition. It would spell all sorts of trouble for exports in the future if we couldent export because of lead shot in game.

2 - public perception of lead is at an all time low, and those who are against our sport were makeing hay with this fact.

3 - those against shooting always try and present it as something that is rigid and unadaptable - an anachronism in today's world. There is also the problem in that as much as Wild Justice are able to poke and prod with legal actions, and otherwise be very proactive, we by comparison are somewhat lumbering, and always on the defensive. Unlike America, we cant fall back on constituional law to defend our possition proactively to any great extent, so we dig in. By seizing the initiative, and admittedly jumping before we were pushed, not only have we take some of the wind out of our enemy's sails, we (from a P.R perspective, and sadly this is what it's going to be won or lost on) have shown we can take proactive action, change for the good in the eyes of the public (who mostly think 'lead, ugh, poisonous'), and avoiding damaging a large market.

 

Sadly, it was going to happen anyway, and what could have been an all round defeat, has been made more manageable and a P.R coup to boot.

 

Good post. 👍

[Smokersmith]

2 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

On a serious note - I was furious about this when I read about it last night.

Today though, with the benefit of a little clarity,  I think it's an inspired move.

1 - the EU is our largest market for game meat,  and also in the process of banning lead ammunition. It would spell all sorts of trouble for exports in the future if we couldent export because of lead shot in game.

2 - public perception of lead is at an all time low, and those who are against our sport were makeing hay with this fact.

3 - those against shooting always try and present it as something that is rigid and unadaptable - an anachronism in today's world. There is also the problem in that as much as Wild Justice are able to poke and prod with legal actions, and otherwise be very proactive, we by comparison are somewhat lumbering, and always on the defensive. Unlike America, we cant fall back on constituional law to defend our possition proactively to any great extent, so we dig in. By seizing the initiative, and admittedly jumping before we were pushed, not only have we take some of the wind out of our enemy's sails, we (from a P.R perspective, and sadly this is what it's going to be won or lost on) have shown we can take proactive action, change for the good in the eyes of the public (who mostly think 'lead, ugh, poisonous'), and avoiding damaging a large market.

 

Sadly, it was going to happen anyway, and what could have been an all round defeat, has been made more manageable and a P.R coup to boot.

 

I'm in a similar boat ....

Already thinking about ammo possibilities.

[Rob85]

It's kinda a kick in the teeth for people like me who can just about afford to shoot as it is. My guns are both half and full choke, a 1960s aya yeoman and a 1980s sarasketa over under. Both guns in no way made to shoot steel shot and have very little commercial value and the big point is they were all I could afford so now I will have to go and put almost the same amount of money again in to them to get the chokes opened up. This also runs the risk of going wrong and my guns patterning all over the place.

Maybe BASC could subsidise me seeing as they are leading the charge?

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Rob85
Adding text

[rbrowning2]

Unfortunately those against shooting are exactly that against rearing game for the sole purpose of shooting them for sport or fun and the casual killing of pest birds so no matter what we shoot them with they will never be happy.

 

[PeterHenry]

1 minute ago, rbrowning2 said:

Unfortunately those against shooting are exactly that against rearing game for the sole purpose of shooting them for sport or fun and the casual killing of pest birds so no matter what we shoot them with they will never be happy.

 

I totally agree, but its public perception that we / they,  will win / loose, on - and this is great P.R for us, as well as being snatched from the jaws of an inevitable defeat.

[rbrowning2]

Just now, PeterHenry said:

I totally agree, but its public perception that we / they,  will win / loose, on - and this is great P.R for us, as well as being snatched from the jaws of an inevitable defeat.

May be may be not they are already saying to little to late and was inevitable ........... and now we have opened the door to the government for a quick and total ban on all lead in all shot and ammunition without a shot fired in defence.

 

[David BASC]

I am happy to help re insurance questions, but I am not going to get involved with the rest of the discussion, so please refer to the BASC website for answers and you may find the FAQ of help..

The short answer regarding insurance is yes its covered.

[rbrowning2]

2 minutes ago, David BASC said:

I am happy to help re insurance questions, but I am not going to get involved with the rest of the discussion, so please refer to the BASC website for answers and you may find the FAQ of help..

The short answer regarding insurance is yes its covered.

Thank you David, so In normal day to day use, using a cartridge for which the gun was never designed or proofed for is covered on the insurance both for personal injury and third party injury?  Is that correct?

 

[PeterHenry]

12 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

May be may be not they are already saying to little to late and was inevitable ........... and now we have opened the door to the government for a quick and total ban on all lead in all shot and ammunition without a shot fired in defence.

 

Mark Avery is saying it's too little to late,* but what else would you expect him to say?

He's been deprived of one of his personal bugbears - he was not directly involved, and it's been done in the face of, and contrary to everything he has been saying about BASC, CA, etc. He will be fuming that he cant chalk it up as another personal victory.

Ok, he didnt actualy say that now that I have re-read his blog post, but that's his overall tone.

Edited February 24, 2020 by PeterHenry

[David BASC]

The insurance covers damage or injury to a third party due to your negligence.

Similarly, you are covered for personal accident while engages in a reactional shooting / conservation activity

[Rob85]

1 minute ago, David BASC said:

The insurance covers damage or injury to a third party due to your negligence.

Similarly, you are covered for personal accident while engages in a reactional shooting / conservation activity

So that means no not really then and your gun is not covered for the damage caused. Because it could be argued that you were negligent in using steel in a gun not proofed for it

[rbrowning2]

4 minutes ago, David BASC said:

The insurance covers damage or injury to a third party due to your negligence.

Similarly, you are covered for personal accident while engages in a reactional shooting / conservation activity

So every time we go shooting and use steel shot in a gun not designed or proofed for it we will be acting and knowingly be negligent then, interesting situation to be in. 

[Old farrier]

1 minute ago, rbrowning2 said:

So every time we go shooting and use steel shot in a gun not designed or proofed for it we will be acting and knowingly be negligent then, interesting situation to be in. 

Probably the same with heavy shot bismuth and home loads your gun wasn’t proofed with them 

[Scully]

6 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

So every time we go shooting and use steel shot in a gun not designed or proofed for it we will be acting and knowingly be negligent then, interesting situation to be in. 

Mmmm....exactly what I was thinking! Knowingly using steel shot in a gun not proofed for steel shot can be deemed as negligent? I don't suppose it matters as long as they pay up, but what an odd situation if true. Surely not. 

Have emailed NGO to clarify. 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Scully

[Farmboy91]

3 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Probably the same with heavy shot bismuth and home loads your gun wasn’t proofed with them 

That's the individual's choice though isn't it, this is something that the average shooter, which I imagine most of us are, won't have any control over.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Farmboy91

[Scully]

1 minute ago, Farmboy91 said:

That's the individual's choice though isn't it, this is something that the average shooter, which I imagine most of us us won't have any control over.

Yes, but unless we all submit our non steel shot guns to reproof FOR steel, then what choice do we have but to use them for steel? If there's a lead ban then they're obsolete and worthless.

On that note, it will be interesting to see how this lead ban effects prices of all those guns not proofed for steel but still merrily in day to day use.