Jump to content

The EU strikes again


Rob85
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course those that bash the EU have looked at it from the "banned it" point of view.

So let us compare what the EU proposed with what the "good old British" BASC have proposed. And then decide if in fact the "spin" on this is all wrong.

The EU have proposed a ban on lead shot over or within one hundred metres of "wetlands". Which is pretty much what already is in place in Scotland? 

BASC have proposed a ban on the use of lead shot for all live quarry shooting anywhere and everywhere regardless of if a wetland or not. Correct, yes?

So under EU REACH a pigeon shooter could still decoy pigeons over stubbles or coming to roost using lead shot if that isn't over a wetland? Yes or not so?

And under BASC (and those others that signed up) those British associations have in fact now committed the UK pigeon shooter to a total ban on lead shot.

Bash the EU if you wish but do at least compare what their proposals is with BASC's.

 

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, BASC has not proposed a ban - get your facts right! We, together with many of the other shooting organisations have proposed a voluntary phase out over 5 years.

Secondly, before you praise the EU proposals, please check what is to be defined as a wetland and the buffer around it, you will then see how much of the UK will be out of bounds for lead shot.

Thirdly, please look at how quickly the EU would want to see this ban in place and then assess how much alternative to lead ammunition would available within that time scale...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David BASC said:

We, together with many of the other shooting organisations have proposed a voluntary phase out over 5 years.

 

So BASC and others have proposed a voluntary phase out. Totally. For the use of lead shot everywhere for all live quarry be that pigeons over rape, squirrels in trees, partridge over stubbles even if that terrain in those circumstances is neither a wetland nor within one hundred metres of a wetland? And for all gauges and bores of guns even down to and including 9mm Rimfire an .22" Rimfire garden guns? If there's no response "No" then the answer can be taken as a "Yes" can't it.

And what EU REACH have set in motion is a ban of lead shot only over wetlands. Nowhere else. But only over wetlands. Again if there's no response "No" then the answer can be taken as a "Yes" can't it. And with what BASC and others have proposed there arises neither question of "what is defined as a wetland" nor of "how much of the UK will be out of bounds" as the proposals of BASC and others is for a total voluntary ban over all of the UK.

So regardless of any question of "what is defined as a wetland" the BASC and others have committed live quarry shooters to a total ban. Everywhere. No demarcation of "how much" or not how much but everywhere is included but every single piece, parcel and bundle of land. 100%. Even the disused railway bed of the Great Central Line. The lot. All of the UK. In its entirety. With not even one square metre excluded. 

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, David BASC said:

Firstly, BASC has not proposed a ban - get your facts right! We, together with many of the other shooting organisations have proposed a voluntary phase out over 5 years.

So - in effect a ban - in 5 years?? Doesn't matter how you try to spin it with a "voluntary phase out" etc..

And I am saying this as a clay shooter - personally don't do live but that is my choice (with the exception of pest control - rats) but I have no issue with those that do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David BASC said:

Firstly, BASC has not proposed a ban - get your facts right! We, together with many of the other shooting organisations have proposed a voluntary phase out over 5 years.

 

the ban voluntary or not WAS the doing of BASC and everybody knows it and as we are talking facts EVERYONE is watching the situation of the member who is being bullied by the police where is the BASC claim you stand up for members rights the FIRST priority of basc should be a innocent member has been intimidated and black mailed members rightly expect the strongest of action on this situation and everyone is watching to see basc take it at chief constable and commissioner level 

Edited by clangerman
mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, discobob said:

So - in effect a ban - in 5 years?? Doesn't matter how you try to spin it with a "voluntary phase out" etc..

And I am saying this as a clay shooter - personally don't do live but that is my choice (with the exception of pest control - rats) but I have no issue with those that do.

Well BASC and others (unlike the EU REACH) will ban using even a garden gun in 9mm R/F or .22" R/F for those rats too. Be they in a stable, henhouse, barn or even a concrete floored prefabricated Atcost building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reasons behind the phase out are on the BASC website, and all the other organisations web site who are together on this.

No the EU is not just 'wetlands' as you seem to think it just applies to coastal areas , marsh etc, it does not under the EU proposals, its far wider than that , plus the 100m buffer zone, plus of course there are further offences for having lead shot  with you if you are within the buffer zone of wetlands, so think about that too. Again as I say look at the legislation and then you will see how wide such an EU ban would be by 2023

Edited by David BASC
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we keep it on topic please chaps?  This thread is about the EU's proposed ban on lead over *any* body of water.  People have already made their feelings clear on BASC and the voluntary phase out - which some seem to insist on conflating with a (total, immediate) ban - on countless  other threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started this thread as a reaction to more forced rules from the EU. On some reading about it there was very little clarity about what constitutes a body of water. So what I was thinking was, did this mean that a driven shoot that has a field that flooded due to unseasonal weather could find themselves at odds with this ruling as this could be termed as a "body of water".

If this was accepted you can bet your backside that someone will be waiting with a camera to catch us out and spread it over the front pages of the sun newspaper.

Another take on it with the "body of water" argument could possibly hit pigeon decoyers on stubbles. A lot of stubble fields I have shot over have  drainage channels along there edges, these can be classed as a body of water as they are designed to carry water. so unless the fields are massive you will therefore have to use non toxic shot no matter where you set your hide up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David BASC said:

 

No the EU is not just 'wetlands' as you seem to think it just applies to coastal areas , marsh etc, it does not under the EU proposals, its far wider than that , plus the 100m buffer zone, plus of course there are further offences for having lead shot  with you if you are within the buffer zone of wetlands, so think about that too. 

Don't please assume to educate me or others about what or is not a "wetland". I owned a SSSI for near on twenty years and before that my family for near on fifty years before that. I know perfectly well what a "wetland" is defined as. And I also know that what a "wetland" isn't is the inside of a concrete Atcost bulding yet....Yes or No....you proposals will, will they not, require a voluntary ban on shooting rats with lead shot loaded 9mm R/F and .22" R/F garden guns in such and similar structures...henhouses, back gardens, outhouses and stores and etc., etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have presumed nothing I can assure you. But have you looked at the proposals from the EU on how broad the definition of wetland could be? Potentially not just what you and I would traditionally consider a wetland or SSSI. That is the issue and that is why BASC is opposing the EU / Reach proposals. 

There may well be exceptions too, just like there is with fishing weights for example, I am also aware or work being done on 22rf by Hornady, Federal/CCI, and Winchester have been coming up with nonlead rimfire offerings since 2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, David BASC said:

I have presumed nothing I can assure you. But have you looked at the proposals from the EU on how broad the definition of wetland could be? Potentially not just what you and I would traditionally consider a wetland or SSSI. That is the issue and that is why BASC is opposing the EU / Reach proposals. 

There may well be exceptions too, just like there is with fishing weights for example, I am also aware or work being done on 22rf by Hornady, Federal/CCI, and Winchester have been coming up with nonlead rimfire offerings since 2011.

I’m disappointed that you fail to answer a straight forward question. I expect the correct answer is No you will not be expected to use any form of lead shot anywhere if you are complying with the voluntary phase out of lead shot.

This evasion of questioning on the part of BASC reeks of political manoeuvring and does little to instill confidence in the organisation. It will inevitably lead to lack of confidence in the organisation and reinforce the feeling that BASC is not representing the best interests of those who shoot as a hobby/passion as opposed to commercial shooting. I have been a member since the days of WAGBI and will probably continue to be a member of BASC but their stance on lead shot outwith wetlands was close to making me reconsider being a member as does this lack of a straightforward answer to a straightforward question.

if various threads are continually ending up criticising BASC then surely that is a reflection of the strength of opinion against the BASC decision to support a voluntary phase out of lead. If a vote had been taken on members stance on the use of lead shot outwith wetlands and if BASC represented the outcome of that members vote then members would have been more likely to accept the outcome and BASC would have avoided all the negative feedback it is presently experiencing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note the comments about possible exceptions as "with fishing weights". The law on fishing weights in the UK is that you can only use lead weights if they’re .06 grams or less or more than 28.35 grams.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/815/pdfs/uksiem_20150815_en.pdf

In terms of spherical lead shot 0.06 grams is .925 of a grain and 28.35 grams is 437 grains or in "old money" one ounce. 

So in practical terms based on what shot sizes are actually in use that is UK #9 shot or #10 and #12 sizes (UK #8 weights .97 grain, UK #9 weighs .75 grain). Or a one ounce 12 bore lead slug which latter at least will keep those who use slug on deer happy even if they've then "lost" AAA lettered shot and will have to use something above the 350 grains presently in the relevant deer legislation regarding shotguns.

So perhaps BASC need at least as a start to address the matter of (as a beginning not an end) exemptions for lead shot cartridges with shot of less than 0.06 grams which would allow at least suitably loaded 9mm R/F and .22" R/F to be totally exempted. 

And...and make no apology for yet again re-posting the link...to examining what has been done in New Zealand in gthat nation's legislation regarding lead shot.

https://fishandgame.org.nz/game-bird-hunting-in-new-zealand/hunting-regulations/non-toxic-shot-regulations/

Finally just as with regards to lead in petrol there was an exemption (such that leaded petrol remains still legally available) for so called "classic" cars made before a certain date there should also be consideration for an exemption (so that they may continue to use lead shot) in "classic" smoothbore guns.

By either any maker's date that is know for that gun (such as by records of the maker or known serial number ranges) or if that cannot be ascertained by the date of first proof when that gun was originally made and not any subsequent re-proof date that it may have stamped on it.

Which could be anything made before certain date. As the UK "Rules of Proof" make it easy to age a gun by looking at its original proof marks this "certain date" could be easily set using one of those benchmarks.

The Rules of Proof changes being 1925, 1954, 1986 and 2006.

My suggestion is if this is to come that a fair date would be any gun able to be shown to be made from:

1) The maker's records

2) Known serial number ranges for that maker (already accepted by the UK Government for the date purposes as set out in s7.1 and s7.3 of the Firearms Act).

3) Proof mark stamped when first proofed - so the earliest in time mark that the gun bears not the latest in time

4) Knowledge that the "A and Co" gunmaker or "B and Sons" manufacturer had ceased trading at a date before the year WXYZ.

5) Family knowledge of when a gun was first acquired by that family as, of course, it had to have existed at that date to have been so acquired.

So therefore in my mind perhaps the year 1954 might suffice or, indeed even fairer maybe 1986. 

BASC et al clearly don't seem to have thought this through and it is hugely disappointing that nothing as above seems to have been considered and indeed ought still to be considered.

And last but not least there is still a gut feeling among some that this voluntary ban has been the work of Quislings within certain ammunition makers who wanted to secure a commercial advantage for themselves.

But be it lead shot for shotguns or lead shot for fishing weight surely nobody would ever do such a thing as that would they:

https://www.advnture.com/news/lead-weights-ban-plan

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

I note the comments about possible exceptions as "with fishing weights". The law on fishing weights in the UK is that you can only use lead weights if they’re .06 grams or less or more than 28.35 grams.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/815/pdfs/uksiem_20150815_en.pdf

In terms of spherical lead shot 0.06 grams is .925 of a grain and 28.35 grams is 437 grains or in "old money" one ounce. 

So in practical terms based on what shot sizes are actually in use that is UK #9 shot or #10 and #12 sizes (UK #8 weights .97 grain, UK #9 weighs .75 grain). Or a one ounce 12 bore lead slug which latter at least will keep those who use slug on deer happy even if they've then "lost" AAA lettered shot and will have to use something above the 350 grains presently in the relevant deer legislation regarding shotguns.

So perhaps BASC need at least as a start to address the matter of (as a beginning not an end) exemptions for lead shot cartridges with shot of less than 0.06 grams which would allow at least suitably loaded 9mm R/F and .22" R/F to be totally exempted. 

And...and make no apology for yet again re-posting the link...to examining what has been done in New Zealand in gthat nation's legislation regarding lead shot.

https://fishandgame.org.nz/game-bird-hunting-in-new-zealand/hunting-regulations/non-toxic-shot-regulations/

Finally just as with regards to lead in petrol there was an exemption (such that leaded petrol remains still legally available) for so called "classic" cars made before a certain date there should also be consideration for an exemption (so that they may continue to use lead shot) in "classic" smoothbore guns.

By either any maker's date that is know for that gun (such as by records of the maker or known serial number ranges) or if that cannot be ascertained by the date of first proof when that gun was originally made and not any subsequent re-proof date that it may have stamped on it.

Which could be anything made before certain date. As the UK "Rules of Proof" make it easy to age a gun by looking at its original proof marks this "certain date" could be easily set using one of those benchmarks.

The Rules of Proof changes being 1925, 1954, 1986 and 2006.

My suggestion is if this is to come that a fair date would be any gun able to be shown to be made from:

1) The maker's records

2) Known serial number ranges for that maker (already accepted by the UK Government for the date purposes as set out in s7.1 and s7.3 of the Firearms Act).

3) Proof mark stamped when first proofed - so the earliest in time mark that the gun bears not the latest in time

4) Knowledge that the "A and Co" gunmaker or "B and Sons" manufacturer had ceased trading at a date before the year WXYZ.

5) Family knowledge of when a gun was first acquired by that family as, of course, it had to have existed at that date to have been so acquired.

So therefore in my mind perhaps the year 1954 might suffice or, indeed even fairer maybe 1986. 

BASC et al clearly don't seem to have thought this through and it is hugely disappointing that nothing as above seems to have been considered and indeed ought still to be considered.

And last but not least there is still a gut feeling among some that this voluntary ban has been the work of Quislings within certain ammunition makers who wanted to secure a commercial advantage for themselves.

But be it lead shot for shotguns or lead shot for fishing weight surely nobody would ever do such a thing as that would they:

https://www.advnture.com/news/lead-weights-ban-plan

Very well said 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

I note the comments about possible exceptions as "with fishing weights". The law on fishing weights in the UK is that you can only use lead weights if they’re .06 grams or less or more than 28.35 grams.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/815/pdfs/uksiem_20150815_en.pdf

In terms of spherical lead shot 0.06 grams is .925 of a grain and 28.35 grams is 437 grains or in "old money" one ounce. 

So in practical terms based on what shot sizes are actually in use that is UK #9 shot or #10 and #12 sizes (UK #8 weights .97 grain, UK #9 weighs .75 grain). Or a one ounce 12 bore lead slug which latter at least will keep those who use slug on deer happy even if they've then "lost" AAA lettered shot and will have to use something above the 350 grains presently in the relevant deer legislation regarding shotguns.

So perhaps BASC need at least as a start to address the matter of (as a beginning not an end) exemptions for lead shot cartridges with shot of less than 0.06 grams which would allow at least suitably loaded 9mm R/F and .22" R/F to be totally exempted. 

And...and make no apology for yet again re-posting the link...to examining what has been done in New Zealand in gthat nation's legislation regarding lead shot.

https://fishandgame.org.nz/game-bird-hunting-in-new-zealand/hunting-regulations/non-toxic-shot-regulations/

Finally just as with regards to lead in petrol there was an exemption (such that leaded petrol remains still legally available) for so called "classic" cars made before a certain date there should also be consideration for an exemption (so that they may continue to use lead shot) in "classic" smoothbore guns.

By either any maker's date that is know for that gun (such as by records of the maker or known serial number ranges) or if that cannot be ascertained by the date of first proof when that gun was originally made and not any subsequent re-proof date that it may have stamped on it.

Which could be anything made before certain date. As the UK "Rules of Proof" make it easy to age a gun by looking at its original proof marks this "certain date" could be easily set using one of those benchmarks.

The Rules of Proof changes being 1925, 1954, 1986 and 2006.

My suggestion is if this is to come that a fair date would be any gun able to be shown to be made from:

1) The maker's records

2) Known serial number ranges for that maker (already accepted by the UK Government for the date purposes as set out in s7.1 and s7.3 of the Firearms Act).

3) Proof mark stamped when first proofed - so the earliest in time mark that the gun bears not the latest in time

4) Knowledge that the "A and Co" gunmaker or "B and Sons" manufacturer had ceased trading at a date before the year WXYZ.

5) Family knowledge of when a gun was first acquired by that family as, of course, it had to have existed at that date to have been so acquired.

So therefore in my mind perhaps the year 1954 might suffice or, indeed even fairer maybe 1986. 

BASC et al clearly don't seem to have thought this through and it is hugely disappointing that nothing as above seems to have been considered and indeed ought still to be considered.

And last but not least there is still a gut feeling among some that this voluntary ban has been the work of Quislings within certain ammunition makers who wanted to secure a commercial advantage for themselves.

But be it lead shot for shotguns or lead shot for fishing weight surely nobody would ever do such a thing as that would they:

https://www.advnture.com/news/lead-weights-ban-plan

There will be no exemptions for ‘classic‘, ‘ vintage’ or whatever you want to call guns of a certain age, because it’s not about conserving those guns, it’s about LEAD SHOT IN GAME, and the sale of that commodity. 
The environment without doubt plays a part in the decision also, but the top priority of BASC, NGO and all other signatories to the phase out, is the saleability of shot game, and nothing more. 
You constantly seem to be overlooking this fact. 
No one cares about your ‘classic’ or ‘vintage’ guns, it is all about the saleability of shot game. It’s an industry; a huge business that without, gives us absolutely no justification for shooting game in the UK. 
If driven shooting has no outlet for its produce, then it will die, and with it all our shooting organisations and ultimately game shooting in the UK. 
I will eat lead shot game, and my kids would and have too, and you can argue til the cows come home about how long you’ve been eating lead shot game, and it’s never done you any harm, but it matters not a jot because the public perception is that lead is not only poisonous, but seriously detrimental to the environment, and if the buying public won’t buy a product because of a lead trace element, or because it’s not ‘green’, then it has to go, to ensure the future of UK driven shooting. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Scully said:


If driven shooting has no outlet for its produce, then it will die, and with it all our shooting organisations and ultimately game shooting in the UK. 
 

Utter rubbish. Twaddle. Public perception of shooting won't change if we ban lead shot. And you seem to overlook this below.

In forty plus years of shooting even with bags of one hundred plus it is only once outside of commercial "let days" that I have been in a syndicate where the game was ever sold and in all the others it was shared between beaters, pickers-up, guests and guns in that order. There never was any sold. Ever.

The saleability of game has absolute irrelevance to the farm shoot, the syndicate of friends, or the old school traditional walked-up syndicate where it is shared on the day and there never has been any game sold. So leave it out and stop banging on about "no outlet" for game meaning that shooting will die. 

For those where we don't sell what we shoot but retain it we don't care about this fetishistic "outlet" fixation of the British Game Alliance. 

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

Utter rubbish. Twaddle. Public perception of shooting won't change if we ban lead shot. And you seem to overlook this below.

In forty plus years of shooting even with bags of one hundred plus it is only once outside of commercial "let days" that I have been in a syndicate where the game was ever sold and in all the others it was shared between beaters, pickers-up, guests and guns in that order. There never was any sold. Ever.

The saleability of game has absolute irrelevance to the farm shoot, the syndicate of friends, or the old school traditional walked-up syndicate where it is shared on the day and there never has been any game sold. So leave it out and stop banging on about "no outlet" for game meaning that shooting will die. 

For those where we don't sell what we shoot but retain it we don't care about this fetishistic "outlet" fixation of the British Game Alliance. 

Twaddle eh? 😀

You just don’t get it do you? No one cares about you or your piddling little syndicate, or your amble through the countryside with a few mates on your farm shoot ( I’m in a piddling little syndicate too, and a farm rough shoot ) nor ‘ a brace or two ‘ to take home at the end of the day.
I’ve never been in a syndicate where the bag was sold either, but it’s not about you or your ‘sporting’ shots, it’s about politics and survival. 
You’re right about one thing, the banning of lead won’t change the public’s perception of shooting, but what do you think that perception will be if our enemies make large of the fact that UK shooters don’t give a damn about the environment, despite us claiming to be conservationists? It’s politics. 
Wake up and smell the roses; whether you care or not about the British Game Alliance, if it all goes pear shaped you can kiss your little syndicate bye bye. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the majority of those brought up with shooting care very much about all the piddling little syndicates and ambling through the woods etc . I’d imagine that will be still there long after the commercial big bag shoots are gone. The scale of over production to satisfy a shooting market which then cannot market its game is not sustainable. When shoots are having to pay game dealers to take the bag away something is far wrong. Perhaps we should be moving away from big bag driven shoots. There are few commercial shoots where I shoot but many small syndicates and people ambling the countryside I don’t think one depends on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chance's are those that don't eat game now aren't going to start eating it because it's not been shot with lead.

It's as simple as that. 

We all know that lead isn't the issue, and banning it won't change things a jot because the big supermarkets are more interesting in selling these new 'meat free' products than free range healthy game meat because it's not the in fashion thing to being eating so therefore people aren't going to buy it.

Edited by Farmboy91
Missed a word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...