Thanks BASC for committing us to a voluntary lead ban ahead of the ECHA having its proposals.

[enfieldspares]

https://newsletter.echa.europa.eu/home/-/newsletter/entry/controlling-lead-in-ammunition-and-fishing-balancing-benefits-and-viability

Selected points to note might be the two immediate paragraphs and then the seemingly abject surrender lead by BASC noted in the third paragraph:

"The intention is not to stop hunting, sports shooting or fishing. “Our job is to establish if there are risks from the use of lead in these different activities and, if so, to explore how effective a regulation could be to control those risks and what the wider impacts of a regulation on different elements of society would be. We are interested in whether some or all of these activities could continue without lead or, with lead, but with specific risk management measures in place,” Mr Logtmeijer explains and continues, “The use of lead could continue if the risks are adequately controlled or where alternatives are not technically suitable or turn out to be too expensive. Regulation should not result in disproportionate socio-economic impacts.”

"People, companies or organisations can also be contacted as a follow up to individual comments submitted through calls for evidence. These might open up new paths of investigation. One example of such an activity was a visit to a shooting range at the invitation of the Finnish Sports Shooting Federation. “During our visit, we were able to see in practice how lead ammunition can be captured and collected rather than being dispersed into the environment. This was a good example of risk mitigation,” Mr Logtmeijer explains.

“We’ve learnt about interesting developments through our stakeholder cooperation. For example, in the UK the major shooting and hunting organisations have expressed their wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used in shotguns within five years,” Mr Simpson adds.

Edited July 26, 2020 by enfieldspares

[Terry2016]

15 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

https://newsletter.echa.europa.eu/home/-/newsletter/entry/controlling-lead-in-ammunition-and-fishing-balancing-benefits-and-viability

Selected points to note might be the two immediate paragraphs and then the seemingly abject surrender lead by BASC noted in the third paragraph:

"The intention is not to stop hunting, sports shooting or fishing. “Our job is to establish if there are risks from the use of lead in these different activities and, if so, to explore how effective a regulation could be to control those risks and what the wider impacts of a regulation on different elements of society would be. We are interested in whether some or all of these activities could continue without lead or, with lead, but with specific risk management measures in place,” Mr Logtmeijer explains and continues, “The use of lead could continue if the risks are adequately controlled or where alternatives are not technically suitable or turn out to be too expensive. Regulation should not result in disproportionate socio-economic impacts.”

"People, companies or organisations can also be contacted as a follow up to individual comments submitted through calls for evidence. These might open up new paths of investigation. One example of such an activity was a visit to a shooting range at the invitation of the Finnish Sports Shooting Federation. “During our visit, we were able to see in practice how lead ammunition can be captured and collected rather than being dispersed into the environment. This was a good example of risk mitigation,” Mr Logtmeijer explains.

“We’ve learnt about interesting developments through our stakeholder cooperation. For example, in the UK the major shooting and hunting organisations have expressed their wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used in shotguns within five years,” Mr Simpson adds.

Firstly how do you know the transition was lead by BASC? it was signed by CA, NGO, SACS to name a few?

Secondly - to see in practice how lead ammunition can be captured and collected rather than being dispersed into the environment. This was a good example of risk mitigation,” Mr Logtmeijer explains. this was on a range? and is not comparable to shotgun shooting live quarry in the countryside

Edited July 26, 2020 by Terry2016

[enfieldspares]

It beggars belief.

Tens of Thousands Pounds spent on lobbying MPs with a day on the birds at Cattoon Hall...yet who stops ECHA's train in its tracks?

The Czech Republic - BASC's new release I've linked to says this:

"Victory for those that wanted a very wide-ranging ban looked certain until the Czech Republic intervened." 

The BASC Catton Hall "gravy train" achieved exactly what here? When push comes to shove it's the Czechs that get the task sorted.

https://basc.org.uk/voting-shelved-on-europe-wide-lead-shot-ban/

Yet of course BASC has caused us, in the UK, a self-inflicted wound by ALREADY voluntarily committing the UK to a lead ban. 

In the very opening sentence BASC says that the proposals were "illogical". 

Yet clearly not illogical enough for BASC to decide that the UK ought to ban lead shot use anyway. 

Please if anyone here is still thinking that BASC is worth paying your subscriptions to please think again. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by enfieldspares

[saddler]

Never been a member of their club & never intend to join

Have heard a lot of illegal advice given as "gospel" by BASC, which could see SGC holders charged with an absolute offence if discovered.
Contacted them to point out their error to be told I was wrong...!

As I have never been a member, the bigger question is, WHO told them that they could speak on my behalf??

Edited July 29, 2020 by saddler

[matone]

23 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

It beggars belief.

Tens of Thousands Pounds spent on lobbying MPs with a day on the birds at Cattoon Hall...yet who stops ECHA's train in its tracks?

The Czech Republic - BASC's new release I've linked to says this:

"Victory for those that wanted a very wide-ranging ban looked certain until the Czech Republic intervened." 

The BASC Catton Hall "gravy train" achieved exactly what here? When push comes to shove it's the Czechs that get the task sorted.

https://basc.org.uk/voting-shelved-on-europe-wide-lead-shot-ban/

Yet of course BASC has caused us, in the UK, a self-inflicted wound by ALREADY voluntarily committing the UK to a lead ban. 

In the very opening sentence BASC says that the proposals were "illogical". 

Yet clearly not illogical enough for BASC to decide that the UK ought to ban lead shot use anyway. 

Please if anyone here is still thinking that BASC is worth paying your subscriptions to please think again. 

Got to say that many people that I`ve spoken to are deeply unhappy with BASC ,many of whom I didn`t think would have been bothered too much.Subscription numbers will be the test!  The condescension shown towards anyone who dares to criticise them  on this forum certainly shows a contempt of the membership imho.

[Perazzishot]

When you get into bed with Eley then invest with the British Game Alliance and take positions within the company who's only aim is to sell lead free game and make millions! Dream on no-one cares except you highlighting the fact to Waitrose. 

Game sells and is eaten by those who want to eat it no massive exponential growth will be seen if it says shot with steel. In fact it could put people off as that is tooth breaking material!

If they can assure the meat is shot free then they can with lead pellets to.

Our own issue now is they have sold the idea and we are leaving the EU so the ruling has very little bearing on us from January.

Thank You BASC for selling your members and non members down the river from your lofty tower!

Wonder how long your free Eley cartridges will last!

 

[mick miller]

B***** All Successfully Concluded

[Terry2016]

On 29/07/2020 at 17:36, enfieldspares said:

It beggars belief.

Tens of Thousands Pounds spent on lobbying MPs with a day on the birds at Cattoon Hall...yet who stops ECHA's train in its tracks?

The Czech Republic - BASC's new release I've linked to says this:

"Victory for those that wanted a very wide-ranging ban looked certain until the Czech Republic intervened." 

The BASC Catton Hall "gravy train" achieved exactly what here? When push comes to shove it's the Czechs that get the task sorted.

https://basc.org.uk/voting-shelved-on-europe-wide-lead-shot-ban/

Yet of course BASC has caused us, in the UK, a self-inflicted wound by ALREADY voluntarily committing the UK to a lead ban. 

In the very opening sentence BASC says that the proposals were "illogical". 

Yet clearly not illogical enough for BASC to decide that the UK ought to ban lead shot use anyway. 

Please if anyone here is still thinking that BASC is worth paying your subscriptions to please think again. 

Enfield,  seriously ..... there is no lead BAN.. 

Many are still shooting lead.  many will shoot steel 

personally i think the TRANSISTION is a positive thing. it definitely puts a better light on shooters as conservationists... 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Terry2016

[BrowningB7]

38 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Enfield, have you lost the plot? seriously ..... there is no lead BAN.. 

Many are still shooting lead.  many will shoot steel 

personally i think the TRANSISTION is a positive thing. it definitely puts a better light on shooters as conservationists... 

It does nothing to put shooters in a better light.

Those who want to know about shooting and Conservation will seek the truth, those who want to seek an end to blood sports will always continue on their quest. For everyone else they really couldn't give a fiddlers f*rt. 

Edited July 30, 2020 by BrowningB7

[captainhastings]

19 minutes ago, BrowningB7 said:

It does nothing to put shooters in a better light.

Those who want to know about shooting and Conservation will seek the truth, those who want to seek an end to blood sports will always continue on their quest. For everyone else they really couldn't give a fiddlers f*rt. 

Your bang on no one is going to swap teams and those that don't care still won't care

[stuartyboy]

8 hours ago, captainhastings said:

Your bang on no one is going to swap teams and those that don't care still won't care

You’re right in what you say to an extent but it’s the folk that aren’t pro or anti shooting that will ultimately have a say on shooting. And they’re the ones that we need to reach or positively influence.

Less than 1 % of the UKs population hold tickets. So if we guesstimate that 5 % of the population are pro field sports, we could guess that maybe also 5 % are very anti shooting. Using these very rough figures, that leaves 90% of the population who have no knowledge or view or interest/care either way. The anti shooting minority won’t realistically change their views so little point in reaching out to them. And there’s not much point spending too much time and effort with educating the pro shooting folk as they’re on side anyway.

That leaves the neutral 90% who have the potential to influence political decision making. They are the ones that we need to educate and try to get onside.

BASC may or not be up to this job, that’s up to BASC and the members to decide. I don’t think they are and that’s why I’m no longer a member. However, I respect the BASC reps coming on here with their views and think the forum is better for it.

With the issue of lead, BASC has got it right. It’s regarded by the public as a poison and as conservationists we can’t argue we’re benefiting the countryside if we’re seen to be contaminating the land that we are supposed to love and protect. The average person only knows of lead through banning the use of it in petrol, paint etc. All negative images. Yes, you can argue that you’ve eaten lead shot all your life and it’s done no harm or ‘where are the countless dead wildfowl suffering from lead poisoning ‘ but it’s proven that lead is poisonous and more importantly, the vast majority of people know this. So we have to be seen to take action.

Shooting is fighting for its life in its present state and I don’t think it’s got a good future, but for any chance of survival we need to fight for hearts and minds. And it’s the neutral 90% of the population that we need to reach and hopefully influence.

[captainhastings]

I guess you are right. The days of plodding along doing your own thing and assuming you will left too it are gone. There are people out there actively try to stop it all.
The countryside is a shadow of its former self and not for the better. It all started with the hunting act and not just the fox hunting but the lurcher chaps and hare coursing. We used to have some cracking game fairs in the this area. Lovely little country shows with bit of lurcher racing etc.
All long gone. Now a days walking down the road with a shovel over your shoulder and a ferret and lurcher in tow you feel like a criminal.

The whole country has shifted with all the small farms long gone and bought out by the big guys with there industrial size milking setups or bought out by town folks. The amount of wild life has also declined with now in this area we have loads of foxes, rats and bloody badgers. The badger population is through the roof here now at stupid and to be honest dangerous level where letting my dog off during the day in certain fields is best avoided

 

[Yellow Bear]

58 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

It’s regarded by the public as a poison

To the extent that in areas where the soil lead levels are naturally high as a planning requirement for housing the top soil has to be stripped and replaced.  I now live in one of these areas and the locals mostly live to a ripe old age and the incidence of lead poisoning does not seem to exist, but the public perception is still "lead is poisonous"

Being pragmatic we stand more chance of keeping shooting if we ditch the lead shot.  It is nowt to do with whether the shot is, or is not a danger, it is all to do with the perception re lead of the vast majority of the, dare I say it, of the non anti or pro public. 

[islandgun]

2 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

You’re right in what you say to an extent but it’s the folk that aren’t pro or anti shooting that will ultimately have a say on shooting. And they’re the ones that we need to reach or positively influence.

Less than 1 % of the UKs population hold tickets. So if we guesstimate that 5 % of the population are pro field sports, we could guess that maybe also 5 % are very anti shooting. Using these very rough figures, that leaves 90% of the population who have no knowledge or view or interest/care either way. The anti shooting minority won’t realistically change their views so little point in reaching out to them. And there’s not much point spending too much time and effort with educating the pro shooting folk as they’re on side anyway.

That leaves the neutral 90% who have the potential to influence political decision making. They are the ones that we need to educate and try to get onside.

BASC may or not be up to this job, that’s up to BASC and the members to decide. I don’t think they are and that’s why I’m no longer a member. However, I respect the BASC reps coming on here with their views and think the forum is better for it.

With the issue of lead, BASC has got it right. It’s regarded by the public as a poison and as conservationists we can’t argue we’re benefiting the countryside if we’re seen to be contaminating the land that we are supposed to love and protect. The average person only knows of lead through banning the use of it in petrol, paint etc. All negative images. Yes, you can argue that you’ve eaten lead shot all your life and it’s done no harm or ‘where are the countless dead wildfowl suffering from lead poisoning ‘ but it’s proven that lead is poisonous and more importantly, the vast majority of people know this. So we have to be seen to take action.

Shooting is fighting for its life in its present state and I don’t think it’s got a good future, but for any chance of survival we need to fight for hearts and minds. And it’s the neutral 90% of the population that we need to reach and hopefully influence.

very sensible post..👍

[oowee]

2 hours ago, stuartyboy said:

You’re right in what you say to an extent but it’s the folk that aren’t pro or anti shooting that will ultimately have a say on shooting. And they’re the ones that we need to reach or positively influence.

Less than 1 % of the UKs population hold tickets. So if we guesstimate that 5 % of the population are pro field sports, we could guess that maybe also 5 % are very anti shooting. Using these very rough figures, that leaves 90% of the population who have no knowledge or view or interest/care either way. The anti shooting minority won’t realistically change their views so little point in reaching out to them. And there’s not much point spending too much time and effort with educating the pro shooting folk as they’re on side anyway.

That leaves the neutral 90% who have the potential to influence political decision making. They are the ones that we need to educate and try to get onside.

BASC may or not be up to this job, that’s up to BASC and the members to decide. I don’t think they are and that’s why I’m no longer a member. However, I respect the BASC reps coming on here with their views and think the forum is better for it.

With the issue of lead, BASC has got it right. It’s regarded by the public as a poison and as conservationists we can’t argue we’re benefiting the countryside if we’re seen to be contaminating the land that we are supposed to love and protect. The average person only knows of lead through banning the use of it in petrol, paint etc. All negative images. Yes, you can argue that you’ve eaten lead shot all your life and it’s done no harm or ‘where are the countless dead wildfowl suffering from lead poisoning ‘ but it’s proven that lead is poisonous and more importantly, the vast majority of people know this. So we have to be seen to take action.

Shooting is fighting for its life in its present state and I don’t think it’s got a good future, but for any chance of survival we need to fight for hearts and minds. And it’s the neutral 90% of the population that we need to reach and hopefully influence.

very sensible post..👍

It does not matter if it is shooting, fishing, motor racing or boating, it is unacceptable, for the sake of sport, to dump crud into the environment. We are sportsman that love, respect and hold our countryside playground close to our hearts. Surely that ethos is incompatible with putting lead (and plastic) into the environment we love? 

[harkom]

18 minutes ago, oowee said:

It does not matter if it is shooting, fishing, motor racing or boating, it is unacceptable, for the sake of sport, to dump crud into the environment. We are sportsman that love, respect and hold our countryside playground close to our hearts. Surely that ethos is incompatible with putting lead (and plastic) into the environment we love? 

On the basis of restrictions to "dumping crud in the environment", surely the depositing of lead pellets - (often on particular plots of land where recovery would be possible ) -should be lower in the list of priority to clean up the ecosystem.

 It would seem reasonable to promote action on the basis of a priority list, which could include diesel, kerosene, heating oil emissions, plastics, agrochemicals ( eg glyphosate, neonicotinoids, etc ). ....  I leave it to the reader to add to this list and place them in priority.

[London Best]

Plastic has to be number one.

[243deer]

far fewer humans has to be number one - the only real long term solution

[clangerman]

40 minutes ago, London Best said:

Plastic has to be number one.

absolutely spot on trying to tell joe public this is about the environment when shot still comes out of a large piece of plastic is trying to take him for a fool FATAL ERROR! 

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, harkom said:

On the basis of restrictions to "dumping crud in the environment", surely the depositing of lead pellets - (often on particular plots of land where recovery would be possible ) -should be lower in the list of priority to clean up the ecosystem.

 It would seem reasonable to promote action on the basis of a priority list, which could include diesel, kerosene, heating oil emissions, plastics, agrochemicals ( eg glyphosate, neonicotinoids, etc ). ....  I leave it to the reader to add to this list and place them in priority.

I agree but the point here is about presenting shooting in the best possible light for its very survival to continue. 

All the above chemicals and pollution are bad and their use needs to be looked at to eliminate their impact on the environment. However, none of them can be blamed on shooting. 

We all need to do our bit, and more importantly to be seen to be do our bit. In my opinion, BASC has got this right. They can say “Yes, lead has proven to be harmful in certain circumstances and that’s why we are taking action to reduce the environmental risk lead causes” rather than “Yes, lead has proven to be harmful in certain circumstances but we’ve not done anything about it”, which portrays an image of not caring.

As said before, I’m not sticking up for BASC but the world is changing and folk are a lot less tolerant of shooting. If we can’t prove that we are willing to evolve and make small changes to help nature, environment and ultimately, our sport we will have even more public opinion garnered against us followed by further legislation and restrictions.

1 hour ago, 243deer said:

far fewer humans has to be number one - the only real long term solution

100% agree. The worlds population has over doubled in the last 50 years but unfortunately it’s too contentious issue to deal with. Easier to target minority sports

[stuartyboy]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

Plastic has to be number one.

Plastic is a big issue and shows how the public can jump on the bandwagon regarding environmental issues. Few years it was never mentioned then suddenly it became fashionable to be disgusted by it. This is the sort of issue that shooting needs to avoid to by being as environmentally green as possible.

Ultimately, we will need to use a non plastic environmentally friendly wad or be able to recover fired plastic wads (clay ground possibly)

2 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

Plastic is a big issue and shows how the public can jump on the bandwagon regarding environmental issues. Few years ago it was never mentioned then suddenly it became fashionable to be disgusted by it. This is the sort of issue that shooting needs to avoid by being as environmentally green as possible.

Ultimately, we will need to use a non plastic environmentally friendly wad or be able to recover fired plastic wads (clay ground possibly)

 

[enfieldspares]

Lead can be harmful. That is true. But steel, in the real world, delivers also, without doubt, hazard and an obvious cause of harm.

Yes lead has risk, but then so are many many other things in daily life bleach being one. Yet allow the sale and use of bleach as cost for cost there is nothing similar that does the job as effectively in the real world compared to alternatives. And we manage that risk. As for the last century or more we have with lead shot in shot game and lived with it safely.

Lead has a unique combination of cheapness, uses less consumable energy to make into shot and offers softness and density that it performs better at safe pressures that than steel and in old guns, some with iron, not steel actions, and/or with barrels of damascus steel or other wrought iron barrels and can be used with traditional fibre wads in paper cases and is safe in both those old guns and also today's modern guns regardless of choke.

We must however take account not only at what obvious "harm" lead pellets cause but also what obvious (but strangely the steel shot lobby overlooks this) "harm" that steel shot can cause. Danger of ricochet and that steel shot is banned from being used in many woodlands harvested for timber. But the biggest "harm" of steel that directly affects us is the risk of damage to teeth when eating game with steel shot in it.

That is the "harm" of steel and why I no longer eat shot wild duck and, if steel comes into widespread use for pheasant and partridge why I will no longer then eat any shot wild game. BASC and the BGA may sing the matra of "lead bad, steel good" in the hope that it may somehow protect the selling of shot game by the "big bag boys" into the supermarkets.

But once the "no win no fee" actions start to come thick and fast, as unarguably they will, from teeth broken when eating game shot with steel shot then Waitrose et al will stop selling it. And from what I see here in Leicestershire alone there have already been two Waitrose stores that have closed so is BASC and the BGA betting its hand on what clearly seems more and more, with Waitrose, to be a busted flush?

So inevitably steel will not save driven game shooting and those of the "big bag boy" camp who promote it are disingenuous.

[enfieldspares]

New Zealand has this commonsense approach:

Non Toxic Shot Regulations | Fish and Game

In New Zealand it is compulsory to use non-toxic shot when hunting waterfowl with any gun using a 10 or 12 gauge cartridge for all areas,

 fishandgame.org.nz

Which says:

Fish & Game will continue the planned phase out in 2020 of lead shot for waterfowl hunting.

Since 2004, most hunters who use 10 or 12 gauge shotguns have been required to use non-toxic shot when hunting waterfowl within 200 metres of open water.

This year the focus is on smaller shotguns, such as the 20 gauge, which were exempt earlier because of the availability of non-toxic ammunition.

Over this season – from the opening (Date TBA)– owners of smaller gauge shotguns will be encouraged to use up their stocks of lead ammunition, and begin investigating the use of non-toxic shot.

The existing ban on 10 or 12 gauge owners use of lead shot will be strictly enforced.

In 2020, a hunter hunting waterfowl on DOC or Fish & Game-controlled land with sub-gauges must use non-toxic shot, nothing else.

From 2021, non-toxic shot will be required for waterfowl hunting over open water in all shotguns except the .410. This applies to all public (including DOC) and private lands.

The exemption has been given because .410 shotguns are sometimes used by beginner hunters, and non-toxic shot loads are not currently available for them.

The phase out of lead shot follows research which shows that waterfowl get poisoned when they pick up fired lead shot and eat it as a grit substitute to help them digest their food. New Zealand research showed the problem was the same here as in overseas countries.

Non-toxic shot does not contain lead and the most commonly available type uses steel pellets. Steel shot is already widely used in New Zealand.

Check out some frequently asked questions about Non-Toxic Shot here.

Read more about lead poisoning in game birds here

Why ban lead shot?

Lead shot has been banned or restricted in many parts of the world for many years because it's been shown to poison ducks that accidentally eat it as grit.

Studies showed that New Zealand was no different to other countries that had already switched to non-toxic shot. The Government made the decision to go non-toxic, and requested Fish & Game to implement a staged and progressive introduction of non-toxic shot provisions several years ago.

Who's affected?

1. ALL waterfowl hunters including private landowners hunting on their own property
2. ALL waterfowl hunters hunting or killing waterfowl within 200m of water
3. ALL hunters of waterfowl (swans, ducks and pukeko)

Who's exempt?

1. ALL hunters of upland game (all quail and pheasants) are exempted. That's because research has shown these birds are not affected because the shot "in the uplands" is so widely dispersed
2. Users of a .410 bore shotgun
3. All hunters who pass the "200m rule test" (see below)

200-metre rule test:

• If you're hunting waterfowl (swans,geese, ducks and pukeko), MORE THAN 200 metres from a water body, which is taken as any stream, river, lake or tidal area, "more than 3m wide," you can continue to use lead shot, if you wish. Lead shot that falls on land away from water is not a significant risk to waterfowl
• If you are within 200m of a waterway, over 3 metres in width, and while upland game bird hunting with lead and encounter a duck, then either don't shoot at it with lead or cover your risk by using only non-toxic shot
• If you are hunting BOTH upland AND waterfowl within 200m of a waterway, more than 3m in width, then you must use ONLY non-toxic shot
• If you are hunting waterfowl within 200m of a waterway, more than 3 metres wide and you are in possession of BOTH lead and non-toxic ammunition you will be prosecuted. If your intention was to hunt upland game later with lead shot, or to hunt waterfowl with lead later beyond the 200m rule, you need to be completely unambiguous about this. For instance, by keeping the lead ammunition back in the vehicle when you are hunting waterfowl within the 200m zone
• Because of the current wording of the law, you could currently use gauge inserts to convert a 12 gauge into a 20 gauge or the like to avoid the non-toxic restrictions. If you choose this approach and a ranger catches you with a single 12 gauge lead cartridge it will be assumed that you are defying the law and a prosecution will be likely
• If you hunt in a tidal area, then the 200m rule applies from the Mean High Water Mark. So you may be 500 metres away from the water's edge at low tide, but this is not a defence. Similarly, if you're hunting next to floodwaters it is the edge of the floodwater at that time that you measure the 200m from.

Why is it so complicated?
The 200m rule may sound like an odd exemption, but it does allow, for instance, hunting waterfowl over paddocks with lead. The Government originally proposed that ALL lead shot be banned for all activities, including ALL upland game bird hunting, ALL clay target shooting and ALL farm pest control. Fish & Game was successful in having this extreme requirement softened.

The 200m rule recognises that lead is not a problem away from waterways.

While the 200m rule could be criticised, no one has yet thought up a better rule to fit the circumstances. The concessions have been hard fought for to allow for paddock shooting of ducks and parries especially, please respect them.

[243deer]

'The 200m rule recognises that lead is not a problem away from waterways.'

'except the .410'

BASC you need to talk to New Zealand

[Scully]

4 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Lead can be harmful. That is true. But steel, in the real world, delivers also, without doubt, hazard and an obvious cause of harm.

Yes lead has risk, but then so are many many other things in daily life bleach being one. Yet allow the sale and use of bleach as cost for cost there is nothing similar that does the job as effectively in the real world compared to alternatives. And we manage that risk. As for the last century or more we have with lead shot in shot game and lived with it safely.

Lead has a unique combination of cheapness, uses less consumable energy to make into shot and offers softness and density that it performs better at safe pressures that than steel and in old guns, some with iron, not steel actions, and/or with barrels of damascus steel or other wrought iron barrels and can be used with traditional fibre wads in paper cases and is safe in both those old guns and also today's modern guns regardless of choke.

We must however take account not only at what obvious "harm" lead pellets cause but also what obvious (but strangely the steel shot lobby overlooks this) "harm" that steel shot can cause. Danger of ricochet and that steel shot is banned from being used in many woodlands harvested for timber. But the biggest "harm" of steel that directly affects us is the risk of damage to teeth when eating game with steel shot in it.

That is the "harm" of steel and why I no longer eat shot wild duck and, if steel comes into widespread use for pheasant and partridge why I will no longer then eat any shot wild game. BASC and the BGA may sing the matra of "lead bad, steel good" in the hope that it may somehow protect the selling of shot game by the "big bag boys" into the supermarkets.

But once the "no win no fee" actions start to come thick and fast, as unarguably they will, from teeth broken when eating game shot with steel shot then Waitrose et al will stop selling it. And from what I see here in Leicestershire alone there have already been two Waitrose stores that have closed so is BASC and the BGA betting its hand on what clearly seems more and more, with Waitrose, to be a busted flush?

So inevitably steel will not save driven game shooting and those of the "big bag boy" camp who promote it are disingenuous.

All shot game which is processed  for the food chain via the high street passes through metal detectors as part of that process, even those shot with lead. 
The counties biggest chicken processing plant also accepts shot game ( we used to supply them with with all manner of game ) which is scanned for ‘foreign’ objects before being sent on its way. 
Steel shot and potential teeth damage, will only be an issue for those of us who process and eat our own birds.
It matters not that lead shot won’t be found In shot game either, it is the fact it has been shot with toxic shot that makes the difference. 
Give an indifferent ( to shooting ) housewife with young children a choice between meat shot with non-toxic shot and that shot with toxic shot, which do you think she would choose?