Jump to content

UK REACH lead ammunition review


Recommended Posts

Responding to today’s UK REACH announcement regarding the consideration of further restrictions on all lead ammunition, Ian Bell, BASC CEO, said:

“The UK’s leading shooting organisations are already engaged in a voluntary five-year transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. Encouraging progress has already been made, with manufacturers working hard to bring new products to market to ensure shooting is sustainable.

“The UK already has legislation in place banning the use of lead shot over wetlands and for the shooting of wildfowl. Game dealers have made significant progress in minimising the amount of lead contained in game sold to the public. Cartridge companies are developing new products but producing the amount of non-lead ammunition required for the UK with the current production facilities is a significant challenge.  

“The UK REACH consultation encompasses all lead ammunition and reaches well beyond the voluntary transition. They must avoid the failure of the EU REACH process which failed to listen to the shooting, land management, conservation and farming communities and produced unreasonable and unworkable regulations. 

Continued engagement with the shooting organisations is critical to ensure any proposals are proportionate, feasible and enforceable while recognising the significant investment and time required to deliver proportionate and effective change.”

For a BASC blog on the review click the link below:

https://basc.org.uk/two-year-uk-lead-ammunition-review-threat-or-opportunity/

For the Defra press release about the review click the link below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/plans-announced-to-phase-out-lead-ammunition-in-bid-to-protect-wildlife

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Front page of today’s telegraph has the lead shot ban - both the protection of wildfowl and because “toxic” lead being found in game. The wildlife argument has some legs, toxicity of lead shot in game in my view doesn’t - I assume BASC have been pushing how we have eaten game shot with lead for hundreds of years and no one has ever been ill as a result? The tone of the telegraph article implies it isn’t safe to eat game shot with lead. 

Edited by oscarsdad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Continued engagement with the shooting organisations is critical to ensure any proposals are proportionate, feasible and enforceable while recognising the significant investment and time required to deliver proportionate and effective change.”

Let's hope that this doesn't turn out to be in the same vein as, 'safe, effective, affordable and non-toxic'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oscarsdad said:

Front page of today’s telegraph has the lead shot ban - both the protection of wildfowl and because “toxic” lead being found in game. The wildlife argument has some legs, toxicity of lead shot in game in my view doesn’t - I assume BASC have been pushing how we have eaten game shot with lead for hundreds of years and no one has ever been ill as a result? The tone of the telegraph article implies it isn’t safe to eat game shot with lead. 

The tone of the article was definitely anti shooting without saying so, it even said that the Shooting orgs where looking into using other than lead but where not working hard enough at it, when we know they have.  Certainly needs a response from BASC in the Daily Telegraph at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Centrepin said:

You sold us out on lead without consultation. 

Nothing else you say or do will ever mean anything to me.

In a nut shell :good:

BASC in my view are active participants in the banning of lead in firearm projectiles, it wont stop at shotgun use, or game , or quarry...
Banning lead will severely curtail shooting in general, in ALL disciplines, this will lead to shooting sports and pest control becoming a niche activity, a preserve for the elite.

So if BASC 'support' a lead ban, they are laying the foundations for an end to shooting , at least for the likes of the common man.
The best bit is , we are paying them for the privilege .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Centrepin said:

Not if everybody left BASC 

Which would then leave us completely unrepresented?  As I don't see the PW Anti-BASC-brethern forming an organisation with legs any time soon.  Would involve getting up from their armchairs.

Seriously, the BASC bashers have had their say.  Can we please remain on-topic within this thread?  It's getting damn tedious.  And yes, we understand your point, to paraphrase - 'without BASCs lead shot 'ban' we wouldn't be in this position' - we've heard it ad nauseum.

This thread should, in my opinion, be about the response to the government's consultation.  The consultation is in response to the EU's  REACH proposals, not BASC's lead 'ban' /voluntary phase-out. If you read the government consultation webpage, the lead-phase out doesn't get a mention, so isn't on their radar.

My concern is the tone on the webpage.  Seems the government has already made up its mind.

And yes, if the OP could reassure us that the DT will be 'challenged' that would be appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Which would then leave us completely unrepresented? 

But they arent representing us are they ?
Do the membership support a lead ban ? No.

 

41 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

My concern is the tone on the webpage.  Seems the government has already made up its mind.

Well it will do if BASC 'The voice of shooting' tell them its all good with us.
When clearly it isnt.

BASC get bashed BTW,  because they deserve it.
In what way ,shape or form does a voluntary lead ban help us ?
If the governments(s) are/were going to ban it anyway, in what way does doing it voluntarily give us any benefit ?

But then , none of these questions can be answered, because without membership consultation, they just did it anyway.
If you belonged to a political party, and they changed their direction and did the direct opposite of what you want them to do , would you still keep paying your subs ?

Edited by Rewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Well it will do if BASC 'The voice of shooting' tell them its all good with us.

Once again, this isn't even on the government's radar.

This is EU-driven legislation that the government is considering implementing.

The EU legislation has more holes in it than (non EU) Swiss Cheese, and we are already in line with the spirit of the proposed legislation anyway.  No, not by dint of BASC's 'ban' but because wildfowlers have been using steel over wetlands for 20+ years.

 

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

In what way ,shape or form does a voluntary lead ban help us ?

First of all a voluntary ban is a contradiction in terms, so can we all please stop using that term.

Secondly, a voluntary phase-out will drive market forces to innovate better lead replacements.

Do I agree with how BASC and the other organisations launched the phase out?  No, it was a bit of a cluster.  But please, we've had our say on this, ad vomuium

Let's keep this thread on-topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Which would then leave us completely unrepresented?  As I don't see the PW Anti-BASC-brethern forming an organisation with legs any time soon.  Would involve getting up from their armchairs.

Seriously, the BASC bashers have had their say.  Can we please remain on-topic within this thread?  It's getting damn tedious.  And yes, we understand your point, to paraphrase - 'without BASCs lead shot 'ban' we wouldn't be in this position' - we've heard it ad nauseum.

This thread should, in my opinion, be about the response to the government's consultation.  The consultation is in response to the EU's  REACH proposals, not BASC's lead 'ban' /voluntary phase-out. If you read the government consultation webpage, the lead-phase out doesn't get a mention, so isn't on their radar.

My concern is the tone on the webpage.  Seems the government has already made up its mind.

And yes, if the OP could reassure us that the DT will be 'challenged' that would be appreciated.

I was under the impression that the UK REACH has nothing to do with the disastrous EU version and that Brexit has given us the opportunity to do our own thing - whether we want to or not. If that is not correct, then we 're in more trouble than we thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BASC bashing lead issue is pointless here. It would appear that DEFRA have made up their mind - as the Gov’ web page is blatantly condemning and biased.  Quotes and figures from the Wetlands and Wildfowl Trust (WWT) is supporting spurious non-evidence at best or blatant lies at worst. We all know the WWT paper is mainly based on superstition and conjecture, yet it is being spun here for all to see, as gospel. This is not the beginning of a true consultation - a search for evidence - to support wise policy. It would appear that this is merely an exercise in ‘ground preparation’ for a decision already made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, wymberley said:

We are told that just £100,000 from the £1,000,000 fighting fund was utilised in the GL fiasco. Could not some of this residue be transferred over to combat this current biggest threat we face by funding corrective truths to be published in a cross section of newspapers?

Yes - that would seem a reasonable idea in principle. It may also be worth pointing out that Organophosphates (OP)  pesticides have been banned in 80 countries - action following a global moratorium. Yet the UK still allows the mass application of these dreadful poisons. They are far more environmentally harmful than lead shot ever has been. The real problem is that Jo public generally has little or no awareness of these rural issues. He/she is therefore easily persuaded by flashy media hits like this one. When did evidence and truth ever guide populist governments? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the hour long Lead Alternative video on FSC fieldtesters, bio wads don't look great if they get wet and not used, a huge disaster waiting to happen, your BASC etc. insurances will be very important in the future. Maybe that the orgs. plan to increase membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thibk fieldsports did a teat with each type of shot by putting them ib what is basically stomach acid, steel looked damn awful after a short period.. Lead hardly reacted to it. And dare i say about where water came from to get into your kettle or pan or glass for how many years. But yes game shot with lead is a huge issue and it must be banned. So many more important issues to deal with yet lead shot 'anti shooting' story makes the rags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ShootingEgg said:

I thibk fieldsports did a teat with each type of shot by putting them ib what is basically stomach acid, steel looked damn awful after a short period.. Lead hardly reacted to it. And dare i say about where water came from to get into your kettle or pan or glass for how many years. But yes game shot with lead is a huge issue and it must be banned. So many more important issues to deal with yet lead shot 'anti shooting' story makes the rags

I saw that episode and the steel was the worst of the lot it did look truly awful and was proved to be toxic if digested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Rewulf said:

 

In a nut shell :good:

BASC in my view are active participants in the banning of lead in firearm projectiles, it wont stop at shotgun use, or game , or quarry...
Banning lead will severely curtail shooting in general, in ALL disciplines, this will lead to shooting sports and pest control becoming a niche activity, a preserve for the elite.

So if BASC 'support' a lead ban, they are laying the foundations for an end to shooting , at least for the likes of the common man.
The best bit is , we are paying them for the privilege .

This in spades!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the research in trying to ban lead shot and projectiles is being skewed by poor research and biased opinions on what someone's thinking or the opinion of someone with a vested interest in banning fieldsports in general, can BASC and the other orgs not just take this to court as the government and public are being deliberately mislead rather than allowing the public to have their minds filled with anti shooting  propaganda. 

People can hardly cry wolf about lead when a popular spot for walking, and biking near me is a former lead mine.

Edit to say this lead mine is within 2 miles of a very popular wildfowling area!

Edited by Rob85
Adding text
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...