Johnson and LEAD SHOT what are our organisations BASC and Etc. doing post 6 June confidence vote?

[Dave at kelton]

13 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Good points well made. However please bear in mind the HSE report relies, in part, upon biased data generated by certain interests shall we say. Junk science and wild guestimates in places. It would seem that the HSE have poorly evaluated much of the so called science and it’s source. 

That’s why I said this. When you actually read the report you start to see how many weaknesses there are in the proposals and supporting rationale. I would also like to know when HSE  developed an environmental responsibility as, when you read this, much of what is written is environmentally based and with no direct link to public health. That link derives purely from broad assumptions or “ifs”. Eg.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest that adverse effects on individual terrestrial birds from different species are having an effect at the population level in GB. However, the studies that would be necessary to establish this have not been carried out, and it is unknown how much mortality due to lead can be compensated for before population level effects are observed.

and

As lead is a non-threshold neurotoxic substance, risks to humans from the consumption of game shot with lead ammunition cannot be excluded and exposure to lead should be reduced as far as possible.

There are numerous leaps from unproven assumptions to conclusions requiring the banning of lead shot. The fact that many on here have been eating game for decades and have not exhibited neurotoxicity is surely evidence that it is not a risk we should be legislating about. However it goes back to the underlying point about markets. If the public perception is that lead shot game is a health risk then there is no market and that is what this all comes down to…. ensuring a market for game. So if the public is going to eat game HSE is going to make sure it is under no health risk.

Just my interpretation of it all but having spent my working life as an arbitrator I am used to assessing facts and reaching conclusions, ignoring the BS in the process.

 

 

 

 

[8 shot]

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

Good points well made. However please bear in mind the HSE report relies, in part, upon biased data generated by certain interests shall we say. Junk science and wild guestimates in places. It would seem that the HSE have poorly evaluated much of the so called science and it’s source. 

Just read 200 pages of it and it's does seem that a lot of it is supposition or a "SWAG". Not much of it is 100% proven as we've been lead to believe, too many if,buts and maybe's. But we will still end up being shafted

[Pushandpull]

The NGO is running an advert (Shooting Times) that talks of "fighting against a blanket ban". The website doesn't seem to have any further detail.

[harkom]

23 hours ago, scarecrow243 said:

BASC  hahahaha fat chance they don't help at all that's why i left them years ago

...And BSAC is actually leading the anti-lead agenda.

 

[Fellside]

For those completing the questionnaire (the more the better!) - it is worth emphasising the conclusions and reg’s in New Zealand. They have ‘evaluated’ and state no significant terrestrial impacts. NZ is well respected re environmental policy. They have only banned lead shot over wetlands….!!

[Fellside]

P.S This from the NZ Fish and game Dep’t:

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)

My add’: 

* 200 meters is distance from open water. 
* 410s are exempt as they are important for teaching children and are non significant re national % shot volume. 

[clangerman]

53 minutes ago, harkom said:

...And BSAC is actually leading the anti-lead agenda.

 

sssh your supposed to ignore that part and scapegoat the hse lol 

[Fellside]

18 minutes ago, clangerman said:

sssh your supposed to ignore that part and scapegoat the hse lol 

Hey Clangerman, have you filled in the HSE questionnaire yet?

[Scully]

17 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Hey Clangerman, have you filled in the HSE questionnaire yet?

😂

[enfieldspares]

I mentioned the New Zealand rules to BASC to be rebuked with words that "NZ wasn't the same as the UK". Be certain that the only thing NOT THE SAME is big bag commercial shooting.

As I keep saying, and continue to say, this is all about, BASC's promoted ban, about protecting that group. For it is seeking to defend saturation level release of a non-native species (the thrust of Packham's attacks) on the spurious basis that what is shot enters the food chain.

This could have been achieved AS I HAVE SAID by big bag commercial shoots insisting on non-lead cartridges. But again this was rejected by BASC. Simply put everybody else goes under the bus to protect BASC's big bag commercial shoot cronies and the British Game Alliance.

Yet still the mugs keep renewing with BASC. And syndicates keep insisting on guns having "insurance through BASC". Like a dog that get's kicked by its master and goes back for more of the same.

[udderlyoffroad]

11 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Simply put everybody else goes under the bus to protect BASC's big bag commercial shoot cronies and the British Game Alliance.

Yet still the mugs keep renewing with BASC. And syndicates keep insisting on guns having "insurance through BASC". Like a dog that get's kicked by its master and goes back for more of the same.

The sooner you accept that, in the eyes of the public,  the distinction between big commercial shoots and your little DIY syndicate is zero, the sooner we can move forward.  Big shoots have a sustainability problem = we all have a problem.  Nuance is a thing that the mainstream media, and their audience simply don't 'do'.

 

1 hour ago, Fellside said:

Hey Clangerman, have you filled in the HSE questionnaire yet?

We all eagerly await a contribution from Clangerman other than ad hominem

[clangerman]

 can’t be bothered on a thread where one can’t even present a decent bait and the other chucked everyone who shoots pigeons under the bus by claiming pest control is not needed and unnecessary lol 

[enfieldspares]

12 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The sooner you accept that, in the eyes of the public,  the distinction between big commercial shoots and your little DIY syndicate is zero, the sooner we can move forward.  Big shoots have a sustainability problem = we all have a problem.  Nuance is a thing that the mainstream media, and their audience simply don't 'do'.

 

 

The "public" don't care if lead is used or non-lead. If you think that stopping using lead will somehow "save" shooting from calls to ban all shooting of the new wokism of "sentient animals" you are, Sir, blinded and blinkered and living in a fools' universe. 

Banning lead will not do anything except hasten the demise of all live quarry shooting and decimate the "hay bale" clayshoot, the twenty-eight day clay ground and all other "open field" shotgun artificial target shooting. It will kill our sport not "save" it!

[8 shot]

4 hours ago, Pushandpull said:

The NGO is running an advert (Shooting Times) that talks of "fighting against a blanket ban". The website doesn't seem to have any further detail.

I can only imagine they’ve moved slightly in there stance because I would think there membership has plummeted considerably over the last yet or two, as I’ve said before I spoke to a rep and had to put the phone down on him because of his appalling attitude.  On a slightly different note the decline in availability of birds for this season has caused, 4 of the shoots I’ve drilled cover crops for this season, to cancel there season due to there poults order being cancelled in the last 5 days. They’ve all said if there is any sign of this next season that’s it. The shoots will be wound up and the cover crops put back in to being farmed. Conservation will be taking a back seat. Something for the BASC might like to consider.

[Scully]

4 hours ago, clangerman said:

 can’t be bothered on a thread where one can’t even present a decent bait and the other chucked everyone who shoots pigeons under the bus by claiming pest control is not needed and unnecessary lol 

As usual you’re always very quick to criticise and blame others but can never ‘ be bothered’ when the debate gets a bit tricky for you. 
I haven’t thrown anyone under a bus; you yourself stated in another thread some time ago, that when you had shot your quota of pigeons you called it a day. That isn’t pest control of any necessity. 
Some farmers regard it as a necessity, others don’t. That’s a fact whether you like it or not. 

[clangerman]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

As usual you’re always very quick to criticise and blame others but can never ‘ be bothered’ when the debate gets a bit tricky for you. 
I haven’t thrown anyone under a bus; you yourself stated in another thread some time ago, that when you had shot your quota of pigeons you called it a day. That isn’t pest control of any necessity. 
Some farmers regard it as a necessity, others don’t. That’s a fact whether you like it or not. 

the FACTS are in your comments mate everyone on here can read I suggest they do so and judge for their self   

[Scully]

5 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

I mentioned the New Zealand rules to BASC to be rebuked with words that "NZ wasn't the same as the UK". Be certain that the only thing NOT THE SAME is big bag commercial shooting.

As I keep saying, and continue to say, this is all about, BASC's promoted ban, about protecting that group. For it is seeking to defend saturation level release of a non-native species (the thrust of Packham's attacks) on the spurious basis that what is shot enters the food chain.

This could have been achieved AS I HAVE SAID by big bag commercial shoots insisting on non-lead cartridges. But again this was rejected by BASC. Simply put everybody else goes under the bus to protect BASC's big bag commercial shoot cronies and the British Game Alliance.

Yet still the mugs keep renewing with BASC. And syndicates keep insisting on guns having "insurance through BASC". Like a dog that get's kicked by its master and goes back for more of the same.

As many know, I’m among the first to bash BASC, but this proposed lead shot ban hasn’t been caused by BASC. They have promoted a phase out yes, but the proposed ban has come from elsewhere. 
It really does no one any good when people allow their own bias to get in the way of the facts, however well intended it may be. 
Yes, we’re all angry about this; we can all see right through the stated claims of just how detrimental to us lead shot is, but it’s nothing to do with BASC, nor that of commercial game shooting, big bag or otherwise. 

5 minutes ago, clangerman said:

the FACTS are in your comments mate everyone on here can read I suggest they do so and judge for their self   

Exactly! They may be facts you don’t like, but I’m pleased we’re in agreement for once. 👍

[Westley]

8 hours ago, harkom said:

...And BSAC is actually leading the anti-lead agenda.

 

NOT like they have done in the past, one hopes  ?

[Feltwad]

What we see today goes back too Hungerford  That was when the writings were on the wall  all the shooting and hunting organisations should have amalgamated then under one roof and things may have been different today  But back then the motto of these organisation was if it does  not bother me I am not interested or I shoot rifle not shotgun or I shoot game not a clay shooter even to the present day

I have been a shooter now for 74 years and seen many changes since I bought my first ten shilling gun licence from my local post office will things get better  or worse requires a ? mark

Feltwad

[Scully]

16 minutes ago, Feltwad said:

What we see today goes back too Hungerford  That was when the writings were on the wall  all the shooting and hunting organisations should have amalgamated then under one roof and things may have been different today  But back then the motto of these organisation was if it does  not bother me I am not interested or I shoot rifle not shotgun or I shoot game not a clay shooter even to the present day

I have been a shooter now for 74 years and seen many changes since I bought my first ten shilling gun licence from my local post office will things get better  or worse requires a ? mark

Feltwad

Indeed, and this is why there must be no derogation/ exemption for any shooting discipline. This way everyone that this proposal potentially effects will be prone to act, respond and object. Otherwise those not effected will just sit back and do nothing as it doesn’t effect them, just as happened following Hungerford and Dunblane. Our shooting orgs are just as guilty of this as individuals. 
There has been far too much of this in the past. 
In the relevant sections of the HSE consultation I pointed out that there must be no derogation for ‘athletes’ as that would be grossly unfair and hypocritical. Lead is either toxic or it’s not. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Scully

[enfieldspares]

33 minutes ago, Scully said:

Indeed, and this is why there must be no derogation/ exemption for any shooting discipline. 
In the relevant sections of the HSE consultation I pointed out that there must be no derogation for ‘athletes’ as that would be grossly unfair and hypocritical. Lead is either toxic or it’s not. 

And with that I have agreed always. 100%. Indeed those Olympic pistols shooters at the London 2012 Games should IMHO have gone to the range on competition day. benched their pistols (for which they had one of these derogatioons) and walked out. Having tipped off the press. Everyone remembers the black power salute at Mexico 1968. Agree with them or not those men there had the courage to make a very public protest. The British 2012 Olympic shooters by accepting the derogation gave consent to the Tory fullbore (and subsequent Labor smallbore) ban were merely self-serving. A disgrace.

Edited June 9, 2022 by enfieldspares

[Vince Green]

On 08/06/2022 at 17:48, 51/50 said:

Something else to think about...

 

If,according to the HSE & FSA etc,there are no safe levels of lead because it is such a health hazard why do they allow our drinking water & food processing water to be treated with flouride that is a hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertiliser industry which amongst other nasties contains LEAD,mercury & arsenic,they do not treat our water with pharmaceutical grade flouride because that's way too expensive.

I personally cannot prove this,i am no scientist but i would like to see trustworthy scientific tests carried out to prove this to be correct or incorrect,if proven to be correct surely it would give the shooting fraternity some decent ammunition (pardon the pun!) in the fight against an outright lead ban?

 

 

Lead occours naturally in very large amounts in many parts of Great Britain. Its been mined since Roman times and probably long before that. It was a flourishing industry

Practically every roof on every house has lead flashings. So what? everyone knows lead seals itself. The oxide layer creates an impenetrable skin. Thats why lead pipes are still tolerated in houses. They self seal.

OK but you can't have it both ways 

To suddenly politicise lead in ammunition as some environmental disaster is just the looney left in the guise of concerned environmentalists doing what they seem to do best. ie LIE. Make up the evidence, shock horror. Pluck random figures out of thin air, if you are going to tell a lie tell a whopper.

Lead in food? yeah gottit. Don't necessarily agree but I will run with it.

Anybody here got a recipe for clay pigeon ? Or paper targets? or steel plates?  or air rifle falling targets?

Food?

I don't think so?

Stop getting bogged down in the detail. Its a political hijack, focus on the big picture. While people argue about individual cartridges and .410s thats what they want to see.  

Edited June 9, 2022 by Vince Green

[wymberley]

On 09/06/2022 at 19:55, Feltwad said:

What we see today goes back too Hungerford  That was when the writings were on the wall  all the shooting and hunting organisations should have amalgamated then under one roof and things may have been different today  But back then the motto of these organisation was if it does  not bother me I am not interested or I shoot rifle not shotgun or I shoot game not a clay shooter even to the present day

I have been a shooter now for 74 years and seen many changes since I bought my first ten shilling gun licence from my local post office will things get better  or worse requires a ? mark

Feltwad

I'm not so sure whether it's better or worse. We should, perhaps, toss different into the equation. I've had the pleasure of shooting with folk who are subject to many of the regulations - call it what you will - which we seem not to want and/or are afraid of and yet as a whole are perfectly content with their lot.

In truth there are not many facts stated here - the vast majority of comments, however forcefully expressed, are simply opinions Having said that, here's a fact: it's all about money - inescapably so as it always is.

[clangerman]

32 minutes ago, wymberley said:

In truth there are not many facts stated here - the vast majority of comments, however forcefully expressed, are simply opinions Having said that, here's a fact: it's all about money - inescapably so as it always is.

facts are thin on the ground but one consumers won’t miss is our now trying to blame them by claiming they  asked for steel so there will be even less sales pretty ironic 

[Fellside]

25 minutes ago, clangerman said:

facts are thin on the ground but one consumers won’t miss is our now trying to blame them by claiming they  asked for steel so there will be even less sales pretty ironic 

I respectfully disagree. The average consumer has no clue re the steel/lead issue. They are too busy worrying about the Russia situation, the cost of living and fuel costs. Some will be more concerned about what their favourite trash celebs are up to. For the most part, what kind of shot people kill birds with, won’t even register.