Lead ammunition review extended by 6 months after 'overwhelming response'

[Old farrier]

18 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The NRA certainly did, it was how I found out about it.

Although their response left a lot to be desired. It was a we will be alright jack, response.

Not a member of the nra but it’s a bit of a shame that was the response of the organisation 🙄

[Newbie to this]

26 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Not a member of the nra but it’s a bit of a shame that was the response of the organisation 🙄

The response was mainly about how their ranges meet the requirements for lead to continue and that the NRA ranges should be exempt. They did brush on 22lr and pellets.

Not once did they pull up the biased unscientific 'evedence', the HSE were using for the consultation. No questioning the numbers, no questioning any of it really.

[Old farrier]

23 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

The response was mainly about how their ranges meet the requirements for lead to continue and that the NRA ranges should be exempt. They did brush on 22lr and pellets.

Not once did they pull up the biased unscientific 'evedence', the HSE were using for the consultation. No questioning the numbers, no questioning any of it really.

Beginning to think it’s a done deal and there just going through the motions 

 

[Scully]

14 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

The NRA certainly did, it was how I found out about it.

Although their response left a lot to be desired. It was a we will be alright jack, response.

The NRA is a typical self serving organisation, not in it for the ‘good’ of shooting. I remember well their attitude and response following Hungerford. 
An organisation completely unworthy of its title. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I have read the comments about the number of responses to last year's consultation being relatively low and whilst one can get frustrated by <1% engagement its the way of the world these days, and just underlines the magnified impact that each of us makes when we take the time to engage (such as many PW members in these lead ammo threads) and I have certainly found over the last 20 years at BASC that engagement gets less and less all the time on public consultations no matter what we throw at it.

The following article may be of interest in this regard.

https://www.scribehound.com/shooting-talk/s/shooting-debates/are-you-your-own-worst-enemy

There will be another public consultation by the HSE in due course - on the socio-economic impacts of its proposals. That consultation will be for only 60 days and probably launch around July. This final consultation was due to launch in February but that's been put back due to the 6 months extension in the process.

Let's each try and spread the news wide and far with those we know between now and then and get closer to the 10,000 mark or more for that consultation and keep the HSE busy analysing our responses.

Edited January 10, 2023 by Conor O'Gorman

[enfieldspares]

On 09/01/2023 at 07:55, Scully said:

The NRA is a typical self serving organisation, not in it for the ‘good’ of shooting. I remember well their attitude and response following Hungerford. 
An organisation completely unworthy of its title. 

Yes. And, just as did BASC with lead, the NRA said that "some" centrefire self-loading rifles should be banned but not all. To which one of the journalists present asked "Well, what's the difference then?" So BASC have done exactly the same. nay..worse...BASC actually proposed a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting and are now frantically back pedalling to exclude for use on live quarry use of lead if it's XXX, YYY, or ZZZ. Again leaving the goal wide open for the question t be asked "Well, what's the difference then?" Shambolic, amateur, incompetent.

Edited January 10, 2023 by enfieldspares

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

I have read the comments about the number of responses to last year's consultation being relatively low and whilst one can get frustrated by <1% engagement its the way of the world these days, and just underlines the magnified impact that each of us makes when we take the time to engage (such as many PW members in these lead ammo threads) and I have certainly found over the last 20 years at BASC that engagement gets less and less all the time on public consultations no matter what we throw at it.

The following article may be of interest in this regard.

https://www.scribehound.com/shooting-talk/s/shooting-debates/are-you-your-own-worst-enemy

There will be another public consultation by the HSE in due course - on the socio-economic impacts of its proposals. That consultation will be for only 60 days and probably launch around July. This final consultation was due to launch in February but that's been put back due to the 6 months extension in the process.

Let's each try and spread the news wide and far with those we know between now and then and get closer to the 10,000 mark or more for that consultation and keep the HSE busy analysing our responses.

 

Conor, i did respond to the HSE consultation, but my expectations in doing so were very low, because history has shown even when we make representation to the government for anything firearms related the chance of a positive outcome is less than zero, they have their own agenda and just go through the motion of seeing to have consulted, pistol ban, CF semi auto ban, GP reports for example.

So I can understand why the shooting community feel such consultation are a waste of time and a done deal, he’ll they even skew the questions to get the result they want.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

17 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Yes. And, just as did BASC with lead, the NRA said that "some" centrefire self-loading rifles should be banned but not all. To which one of the journalists present asked "Well, what's the difference then?" So BASC have done exactly the same. nay..worse...BASC actually proposed a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting and are now frantically back pedalling to exclude for use on live quarry use of lead if it's XXX, YYY, or ZZZ. Again leaving the goal wide open for the question t be asked "Well, what's the difference then?" Shambolic, amateur, incompetent.

BASC has not said that some centrefire self-loading rifles should be banned and BASC has not proposed a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting. There is no back peddling or U-turns because BASC has been fighting lead ammunition bans since they were first proposed in a 1983 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report. 

BASC updates are here: https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/

[enfieldspares]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

BASC has not said that some centrefire self-loading rifles should be banned and BASC has not proposed a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting.

I must go to Spec Savers I fear as clearly I've misread what is written below:

https://basc.org.uk/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/

Quote

In consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for the healthiest game products, at home and abroad, we wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years.

So what is "an end" if not a call for what would be a de facto ban?

Or are you saying that if I and others do not wish to stop using lead for taking all live quarry with shotguns that BASC (and the other signatories to the document) accepts that we should be free to carry on using lead shot for such purpose?

And regarding self-loading rifles perhaps you might care to re-read what I wrote:

Quote

And, just as did BASC with lead, the NRA said that "some" centrefire self-loading rifles should be banned but not all.

Nowhere do I claim or assert that BASC has made any comment on self-loading rifles. But suggest that by proposing that some use of an item be ended (BASC re lead and the NRA re self-loading rifles) it then becomes more difficult to oppose those who call for an absolute stop to all such use.

Edited January 11, 2023 by enfieldspares

[Conor O'Gorman]

@enfieldspares 

There are restrictions on the use of lead shot over wetlands and/or to shoot ducks and geese (the exact restrictions differ between home countries) and these restrictions have been in place for best part of 20 years.  A voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting is being encouraged by the shooting organisations. To answer your question, yes, if you wish to continue shooting live quarry with lead shot that's your individual choice. If you want to try alternatives to lead shot that's also your choice. 

The Health and Safety Executive is proposing a ban on the sale and use of most forms of lead ammunition for outdoor recreational shooting in England, Wales and Scotland. We are opposed to the HSE proposals. Find out more here: https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/

[enfieldspares]

12 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

@enfieldspares 

To answer your question, yes, if you wish to continue shooting live quarry with lead shot that's your individual choice. If you want to try alternatives to lead shot that's also your choice. 

Thank you. I think I'm happy with that option. 

[Scully]

1 minute ago, enfieldspares said:

Thank you. I think I'm happy with that option. 

That option only applies of course until lead shot is banned. 

[rbrowning2]

Conor - Oh what a tangled web we weave when at first we start to deceive.

[Weihrauch17]

20 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Yes. And, just as did BASC with lead, the NRA said that "some" centrefire self-loading rifles should be banned but not all. To which one of the journalists present asked "Well, what's the difference then?" So BASC have done exactly the same. nay..worse...BASC actually proposed a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting and are now frantically back pedalling to exclude for use on live quarry use of lead if it's XXX, YYY, or ZZZ. Again leaving the goal wide open for the question t be asked "Well, what's the difference then?" Shambolic, amateur, incompetent.

This, a total and utter betrayal of the Shooting Community.

[yickdaz]

If you could answer this conor  I don't get into the politics of shooting very often I tend to just get on with it  but this question has never been answered  and doubt it ever will but why can I shoot pigeons with lead  say on a Sept stubble nowhere near any wetland but if a duck happened to pass over in range  which has happened more than once  I would have to change over to non toxic shot quickly  to shoot it, I shoot steel now at everything anyway mainly so I have more options  to sell the pigeons on so wouldn't it be an issue nowadays the whole thing is just a contradiction in terms and not logical it has always baffled me and many others 

[scolopax]

27 minutes ago, yickdaz said:

If you could answer this conor  I don't get into the politics of shooting very often I tend to just get on with it  but this question has never been answered  and doubt it ever will but why can I shoot pigeons with lead  say on a Sept stubble nowhere near any wetland but if a duck happened to pass over in range  which has happened more than once  I would have to change over to non toxic shot quickly  to shoot it, I shoot steel now at everything anyway mainly so I have more options  to sell the pigeons on so wouldn't it be an issue nowadays the whole thing is just a contradiction in terms and not logical it has always baffled me and many others 

It was to help with enforcement of the law, that’s all, ie possession of a dead duck with lead in it and a person would have no excuses. But then Scotland decided to have its own different law which kind of defeated the aims of the English / Welsh law.

[yickdaz]

23 minutes ago, scolopax said:

It was to help with enforcement of the law, that’s all, ie possession of a dead duck with lead in it and a person would have no excuses. But then Scotland decided to have its own different law which kind of defeated the aims of the English / Welsh law.

Well the Scots have more common sense than us then 

[Penelope]

13 hours ago, yickdaz said:

Well the Scots have more common sense than us then 

Not really, in some respects.

[Scully]

17 hours ago, yickdaz said:

If you could answer this conor  I don't get into the politics of shooting very often I tend to just get on with it  but this question has never been answered  and doubt it ever will but why can I shoot pigeons with lead  say on a Sept stubble nowhere near any wetland but if a duck happened to pass over in range  which has happened more than once  I would have to change over to non toxic shot quickly  to shoot it, I shoot steel now at everything anyway mainly so I have more options  to sell the pigeons on so wouldn't it be an issue nowadays the whole thing is just a contradiction in terms and not logical it has always baffled me and many others 

There is little logic in firearms/shooting legislation. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

23 hours ago, yickdaz said:

If you could answer this conor  I don't get into the politics of shooting very often I tend to just get on with it  but this question has never been answered  and doubt it ever will but why can I shoot pigeons with lead  say on a Sept stubble nowhere near any wetland but if a duck happened to pass over in range  which has happened more than once  I would have to change over to non toxic shot quickly  to shoot it, I shoot steel now at everything anyway mainly so I have more options  to sell the pigeons on so wouldn't it be an issue nowadays the whole thing is just a contradiction in terms and not logical it has always baffled me and many others 

The reason for the restrictions was because the government signed up to the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) which required signatory countries to phase out on the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands. Scotland and NI implemented a wetlands focused ban. England and Wales implemented a ban for a list of designated wetlands plus a ban for ducks and geese. Its before my time but the enforcement angle suggested by @scolopax seems likely - and many's a time a logical evidence-led approach went pear shaped once legislation is drafted and amended in the political arena.

The EU has agreed to further restrictions on lead shot which member states have to put in place by 15 February 2023. This goes further than the AEWA recommendation by making it illegal to use or carry lead shot within any wetland and a 100m buffer zone. Because of the NI protocol this could potentially take effect in NI, however due to political situation in NI with no Assembly it is currently unclear if the change in law will actually come into force.

That said, the growing volume of evidence globally is that the impacts of lead shot on birds is not confined to ducks and geese in wetlands and that is why the shooting organisations in the UK are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry. 

 

[Weihrauch17]

22 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The reason for the restrictions was because the government signed up to the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) which required signatory countries to phase out on the use of lead shot for hunting in wetlands. Scotland and NI implemented a wetlands focused ban. England and Wales implemented a ban for a list of designated wetlands plus a ban for ducks and geese. Its before my time but the enforcement angle suggested by @scolopax seems likely - and many's a time a logical evidence-led approach went pear shaped once legislation is drafted and amended in the political arena.

The EU has agreed to further restrictions on lead shot which member states have to put in place by 15 February 2023. This goes further than the AEWA recommendation by making it illegal to use or carry lead shot within any wetland and a 100m buffer zone. Because of the NI protocol this could potentially take effect in NI, however due to political situation in NI with no Assembly it is currently unclear if the change in law will actually come into force.

That said, the growing volume of evidence globally is that the impacts of lead shot on birds is not confined to ducks and geese in wetlands and that is why the shooting organisations in the UK are encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry. 

 

I haven't seen any of the 'evidence' you talk about, please share if you have it from a UK based perspective not including Vultures?  Also you sell yourself short, you proposed a ban on all Lead in Shooting which has a hugely negative effect on other shooting sports than shotgun shooting.  Rimfire, Airguns and many others with absolutely no valid reason.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Weihrauch17

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Weihrauch17 said:

I haven't seen any of the 'evidence' you talk about, please share if you have it from a UK based perspective not including Vultures?  Also you sell yourself short, you proposed a ban on all Lead in Shooting which has a hugely negative effect on other shooting sports than shotgun shooting.  Rimfire, Airguns and many others with absolutely no valid reason.

No shooting organisation has proposed a ban on all Lead in Shooting as you claim, least of all BASC, who have been fighting lead ammunition bans for decades.

For the latest information on what is happening visit the BASC website here:

https://basc.org.uk/ammunition/

If you are interested in the evidence a good starting point is the GWCT website here:

https://www.gwct.org.uk/advisory/lead-ammunition/
 

[Weihrauch17]

BASC’s response

Live quarry shooting

There is clear evidence of risk of primary poisoning of birds from lead shot and of the human health risk from exposure to lead in game meat.

Having assessed the evidence, we concluded that restrictions on the sale and use of both lead shot and expanding lead rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting would be effective at eliminating those proven risks.

Fighting a ban for decades, would that have started with John Swift?  The above was part of your official response to the UK Reach consultation.  Your evidence posted is absolute unproven propaganda.  BASC seem to be making it up as they go along, presumably because of the number of members leaving over their betrayal.  I left after John Swift betrayed the membership. 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Weihrauch17

[Scully]

11 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

BASC’s response

Live quarry shooting

There is clear evidence of risk of primary poisoning of birds from lead shot and of the human health risk from exposure to lead in game meat.

Having assessed the evidence, we concluded that restrictions on the sale and use of both lead shot and expanding lead rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting would be effective at eliminating those proven risks.

Fighting a ban for decades, would that have started with John Swift?  The above was part of your official response to the UK Reach consultation.  Your evidence posted is absolute unproven propaganda.  BASC seem to be making it up as they go along, presumably because of the number of members leaving over their betrayal.  I left after John Swift betrayed the membership. 

Can’t really argue with that!

I was at a meeting chaired by Swift ( special guest Robert Bucknall….great book! 🙂) when he tried to push the point ( when asked where were all the dead ‘fowl that had ingested lead shot ) that dead birds were very good at dying undiscovered, to which a good ole boy asked ‘ if they can’t be found then how can anyone prove they’re dying due to ingested lead?’ 
It was a valid point, and one to which shifty Swifty rapidly changed the subject. 🤷‍♂️
 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Scully

[Scully]

Sat in beaters wagon this afternoon, after the final drive, and the conversation ( at no prompting from me ) got around to steel shot, and I took the opportunity to point out to a non-shooting beater the level of response to the consultation, and all of a sudden it went embarrassingly quiet and everyone found great interest in looking anywhere but at me……with one exception ( an ex copper ) who said ‘it’s going to happen anyhow’. 
I agreed, and then asked him if he cared.
He said of course he did, but when I told him his lack of response gave those who matter, the impression he didn’t, he just shrugged and started a conversation about something else. 🤷‍♂️

So there we have it, complete and utter apathy. 
All those who didn’t respond have no right to whine, absolutely none at all. You had the opportunity to tell those who oppose us exactly what you thought, and you couldn’t be bothered.