The EU strikes again

[Konor]

7 minutes ago, Farmboy91 said:

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.

I think it’s solely down to the inability to export lead shot game to the EU ,not a problem on any of the shoots I’ve been with for the last fifty years probably not a problem for the majority of shooters either.

[Scully]

4 hours ago, Konor said:

I think it’s solely down to the inability to export lead shot game to the EU ,not a problem on any of the shoots I’ve been with for the last fifty years probably not a problem for the majority of shooters either.

Correct. That simple fact takes priority over all.
If there is no market ( whether in the UK or the European continent ) for shot game, then it will be the end of UK driven shooting, and from then on the rest of us wont be far behind. 
It’s just politics. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

The following update appeared on BASC website on 3 September:

BASC will fight the European Union’s latest restrictions on lead shot to ensure the UK’s five-year voluntary transition to sustainable ammunition is not impeded.

BASC has described the EU’s restrictions, which were voted through today (3 September), as ‘utterly unenforceable’ and a risk to the voluntary transition taken forward by the main shooting organisations and supported by Defra.

The EU REACH committee voted for a restriction of lead shot over wetlands that when enacted would see a buffer zone of 100m around any body of water, no matter the size, and all peatlands.

The regulation will now be put forward for approval and ratified at the latest by the beginning of 2021 and then take effect at the beginning of 2023 in EU member states.

The UK government may decide to adopt the regulation in 2023 depending on how it decides to legislate for REACH related laws. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland already have restrictions in place to mitigate the impact of lead shot on water birds.

Dr Matt Ellis, BASC’s head of science and chair of the FACE ammunition working group, said: “We are supportive of the current legislation in the UK regarding the use of lead shot over wetlands. The new EU restrictions are utterly unenforceable and places shooters at risk of criminality if they fail to spot a puddle in the field. No side should be celebrating bad law. BASC will be lobbying the UK government not to adopt this regulation.

“This is a clear sign of the EU’s intent with regards to restricting the use of lead, and with a full lead shot restriction next on the agenda, the pressure has never been higher.

“All our actions are focused on ensuring that moves in Europe do not compromise the UK shooting community’s plans for a five-year transition to sustainable ammunition and future.”

Read more here:

https://basc.org.uk/basc-stands-against-new-eu-restrictions-on-lead-shot/

For more context read a previous BASC update here:

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

 

See also

European Shooting Sports Forum:
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/the-lead-shot-over-wetlands-proposal-is-unworkable 

FACE members:
https://www.face.eu/2020/09/statement-of-the-face-general-assembly-on-the-decision-of-the-reach-committee/ 

FACE video:

 

 

[Rewulf]

24 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

All our actions are focused on ensuring that moves in Europe do not compromise the UK shooting community’s plans for a five-year transition to sustainable ammunition and future

Woohooo! Go BASC! You've saved UK shooting again 👍

Also BASC. We are committed to getting rid of lead shot use on live quarry in ALL scenarios. 

Take that EU 😂

 

[Konor]

If BASC aren’t fighting to retain the use of lead shot over non wetland areas  from Parliament legislation,which they aren’t, then I find their insistence that they are fighting on our behalf to protect our right to use lead shot over non wetland areas from EU  legislation to be highly hypocritical . The only difference is timescale and as  pointed out earlier in the thread BASC supports the curtailment of the use of lead shot over any habitat not just wetland with no exceptions.

Members money and membership numbers are being used by BASC to influence issues on behalf of and for the benefit of commercial shooting and to protect their ability to export game meat to the EU.

I am not hearing or reading anything that makes me think that this is not the case. 

[Farmboy91]

7 hours ago, Konor said:

I think it’s solely down to the inability to export lead shot game to the EU ,not a problem on any of the shoots I’ve been with for the last fifty years probably not a problem for the majority of shooters either.

I somehow doubt buying game shot with non toxic loads is going to be high on the EU's list of priorities going forward. 

There's too much noise from a tiny opposition which are doing a grand job of picking away at our way of life. 

In my opinion one of BASC's biggest problems is that whether your a member or not they are the 'voice of shooting', like it or lump it. 

PW probably represents a small but quite clearly diverse slice of the shooting community yet it's always the same handful banging the drum on BASC's behalf, it's not nice to see so many negative posted aimed at a group that's meant to have our best interests at heart but people are clearly not happy with the direction the ship is heading, the posts on this one forum alone should surely tell them something. 

No doubt this will be seen by some as a BASC bashing post but it's far from it, the more people shouting about the good we do as a community the better, but that only works when we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. BASC managed to drive a big wedge over the lead shot debacle, I can't see how it's benefited anyone other than the anti shooting lobby.

[Konor]

It’s as much about the excesses of commercial game shooting  and the unsustainably of its practice as it is about lead in the environment. 
The majority of shoots I would guess small 20 to 40 various birds a day bags whose members work to maintain the habitat for the benefit of wildlife as a whole should not be seen as an environmental negative. The six day a week shoots ,the large bag shoots that necessitate the release of thousands of birds and the accompanying negative press are the focus of attention. 
How far do we stand by commercial shoots and use them as a buffer to change when it seems to have resulted in having to sacrifice the use of lead shot as an ideal and accept the limitations of steel and should or can big bag shoots change to decrease criticism from middle ground conservationists that oppose shooting.

The whole “lead shot game is bad for your health” as a reason for banning lead shot is solely an anti shooting argument not a pro health one. 
If Governments were so keen to protect the nations health why has smoking not been banned when it’s use is conclusively linked to so many human deaths while in contrast lead shot consumption is linked to none.

Just my thoughts on the matter and I have no axe to grind with BASC I just question the validity of losing lead shot as a means to decrease a pollution problem and wonder how much of a problem the average syndicate contributes to degrading the environment by its use of lead shot and whether we would be better focussing our attention on the real global problem that is plastics and pollution through over consumption..
 

[Fellside]

Good post. 

It’s worth bearing in mind that generally, the average Jo citizen doesn’t give a damn about shooting either way - and has very little awareness (if any) re the lead / steel ammunition debate. 

I meet a lot of people and I am quite open about being a shooting man, if anyone I’m chatting with asks what I did at the weekend, I just tell them.... “I went shooting”. The vast majority are perfectly comfortable with it. It is worthy of note however, that the only negative replies I have ever experienced, relate to big estates shooting excessive bags - rumors of dumping game etc. I soon put their mind at rest by relating the modest bags that I’m involved with and so on, but nevertheless I’m quite surprised at their level of awareness re the excessive bags issue. Clearly this has a negative PR impact. If anything it is this issue which needs to be urgently addressed more than any other.

Never (and I mean never), has anyone mentioned the use of lead shot - not even re wildfowl. This debate has been generated and ‘milked’ for all its worth essentially by anti’ lobbyists, both within the EU context and domestically.  It is important to keep this in perspective. The average person on the street is not trying to stop us using lead. They have much more immediate and pressing matters to concern themselves with - especially during these rather strange times. 
 

 

[clangerman]

i’m now in favour of a lead ban immediately so shooters can learn the hard way it will change nothing our problems will still be the same but at least those responsible for it will feel our full wrath for taking us as fools roll on the ban and hang em high 

[enfieldspares]

5 hours ago, Konor said:

It’s as much about the excesses of commercial game shooting  and the unsustainably of its practice as it is about lead in the environment. 
The majority of shoots I would guess small 20 to 40 various birds a day bags whose members work to maintain the habitat for the benefit of wildlife as a whole should not be seen as an environmental negative. The six day a week shoots ,the large bag shoots that necessitate the release of thousands of birds and the accompanying negative press are the focus of attention. 
How far do we stand by commercial shoots and use them as a buffer to change when it seems to have resulted in having to sacrifice the use of lead shot as an ideal and accept the limitations of steel and should or can big bag shoots change to decrease criticism from middle ground conservationists that oppose shooting.

The whole “lead shot game is bad for your health” as a reason for banning lead shot is solely an anti shooting argument not a pro health one. 
If Governments were so keen to protect the nations health why has smoking not been banned when it’s use is conclusively linked to so many human deaths while in contrast lead shot consumption is linked to none.

Just my thoughts on the matter and I have no axe to grind with BASC I just question the validity of losing lead shot as a means to decrease a pollution problem and wonder how much of a problem the average syndicate contributes to degrading the environment by its use of lead shot and whether we would be better focussing our attention on the real global problem that is plastics and pollution through over consumption..
 

Excellent post. Indeed if they were invented now motorcycles would likely be banned.

[Konor]

9 hours ago, Fellside said:

Good post. 

It’s worth bearing in mind that generally, the average Jo citizen doesn’t give a damn about shooting either way - and has very little awareness (if any) re the lead / steel ammunition debate. 

I meet a lot of people and I am quite open about being a shooting man, if anyone I’m chatting with asks what I did at the weekend, I just tell them.... “I went shooting”. The vast majority are perfectly comfortable with it. It is worthy of note however, that the only negative replies I have ever experienced, relate to big estates shooting excessive bags - rumors of dumping game etc. I soon put their mind at rest by relating the modest bags that I’m involved with and so on, but nevertheless I’m quite surprised at their level of awareness re the excessive bags issue. Clearly this has a negative PR impact. If anything it is this issue which needs to be urgently addressed more than any other.

Never (and I mean never), has anyone mentioned the use of lead shot - not even re wildfowl. This debate has been generated and ‘milked’ for all its worth essentially by anti’ lobbyists, both within the EU context and domestically.  It is important to keep this in perspective. The average person on the street is not trying to stop us using lead. They have much more immediate and pressing matters to concern themselves with - especially during these rather strange times. 
 

 

Good points . It seems big business and over administration are the real problem.