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

[Scully]

39 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The grey partridge study published in 2005 almost 20 years ago showed that grey partridge ingest lead shot in their gizzard and I think was one of the first studies to consider the impacts of lead shot in terrestrial situations - much of the research having focused on uptake of lead shot by wildfowl in wetlands.

Since then studies across Europe have found bird species mistaking various sizes of lead shot as grit in terrestrial situations.

Whether in wetland or on dry land when birds ingest lead shot it grinds in their acidic gizzards and toxic lead salts are absorbed into the blood stream and find their way into the tissues of vital organs and bone causing sub-lethal or lethal effects depending on the species and how much lead shot that species of bird eats. 

A study of red grouse in Scottish and Yorkshire moors published in 2009 almost 15 years ago found that when high levels of lead were found in the bones of grouse the source was lead shot using lead isotope analysis, with the authors recommending mitigation measures including the use of non-lead shot on grouse moors to reduce exposure risks. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19264349/
 

If that was known almost 20 years ago, why did BASC dispute and oppose the findings of the LAG ( including the claims made by the Wetlands Trusts Debbie Paine ) less than 20 years ago which resulted in their ( the LAG etc ) claims being soundly trounced and rejected by a group of politicians led by Liz Truss following their debate after hearing claims in support of and against the use of lead shot, with the exception of shooting fowl of course? 

I can’t be bothered to trawl back through all the pages we got to on this forum to find out, but did you dispute that claim 20 years ago? If not why not? If you did dispute it, why do you support it now? 

[Rewulf]

13 hours ago, Scully said:

I can’t be bothered to trawl back through all the pages we got to on this forum to find out, but did you dispute that claim 20 years ago? If not why not? If you did dispute it, why do you support it now? 

Because they changed their minds 

What BASC , and Conor in particular, consistently fail to do , is say WHY they changed their minds.
What they also failed to do , is discuss with their membership ('Because BASC doesnt work like that' ~ Conor) the direction they were now going in.

Its pointless discussing it with Conor , he gives nothing but politician style non answers to difficult questions.

[Conor O'Gorman]

13 hours ago, Scully said:

If that was known almost 20 years ago, why did BASC dispute and oppose the findings of the LAG ( including the claims made by the Wetlands Trusts Debbie Paine ) less than 20 years ago which resulted in their ( the LAG etc ) claims being soundly trounced and rejected by a group of politicians led by Liz Truss following their debate after hearing claims in support of and against the use of lead shot, with the exception of shooting fowl of course? 

I can’t be bothered to trawl back through all the pages we got to on this forum to find out, but did you dispute that claim 20 years ago? If not why not? If you did dispute it, why do you support it now? 

That was due to a change in strategic direction by the shooting organisations which was announced and explained in February 2020.

The following recent BASC blog post provides some more recent context for that:

https://basc.org.uk/uk-reach-where-are-we-now/

Also have a look at the BASC AGM 2020 minutes for a Q&A on that change in strategic direction:

https://basc.org.uk/agm/

Change can be a gradual process and organisations are run by people and its taken some time for awareness and acceptance of the growing weight of evidence - and that's ongoing since nine countryside organisations started encouraging a voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting 3 years ago.

The following paper 'Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark' makes for interesting reading in that regard. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-018-1125-9

The same has been happening at different timelines in countries across mainland Europe - however time is running out for awareness, testing of non-lead options and voluntary approaches because there is a push by the EU for a complete lead ban which we are fighting together with FACE - just as we are fighting the HSE lead ban proposals here in the UK.

Also worth noting that the lead shot regs came into effect from 1999-2003 across the UK. That was after decades of research into the impacts of lead shot on birds in wetlands and testing of non-lead options; and with lead shot restrictions first being proposed in a 1983 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

That was due to a change in strategic direction by the shooting organisations which was announced and explained in February 2020.

So the shooting organisations decide what WE the shooters are going to do ?
No consultation, so the 'voice' of shooting speaks for us , without listening to what WE might want ?
Whichever way you look at that , there is a clear disconnect between the orgs and their members no ?

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

https://basc.org.uk/uk-reach-where-are-we-now/

Also have a look at the BASC AGM 2020 minutes for a Q&A on that change in strategic direction:

https://basc.org.uk/agm/

Load of old bumph.

'More revolution than evolution, change has been imposed on shooting through legislation. So, when staring down the barrel of a change in the law (if you pardon the pun), and mounting evidence of the environmental and health risks of lead, is it better to fight stubbornly until forced to budge or get ahead of the curve?

That was the tough decision faced by nine shooting organisations when together we called for a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting in shotguns.

BASC remains wholly committed to this voluntary transition and believes it remains a far more favourable route than legislation. It was a move taken in consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for the healthiest game products, at home and abroad.'

There is no legislation as yet , but we only have 2 years left of your so called 'voluntary' lead ban, which coincides nicely with the probable government timeline for an actual ban coming into effect.
State for the record Conor , that you didnt know the timeline , or had inside information from the government that this ban was coming, and above all , promised the government that you would 'ease' it through the shooting public, by pretending it was voluntary.

Is the 'mounting' evidence , the same evidence you used to fight LAG only a few years back ?

Tough decision, which wasnt yours to make , was it ?

Taken into consideration of wildlife ?
Th same wildlife that gets shot by the million every year ?
The wildlife you have invested heavily in being processed , and sold ?

I dont expect answers, you avoid all difficult questions.

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Rewulfyou are quick fire on the questions and fellow PW members might wonder if you take the time to read or reflect on the answers to your questions before you launch you next missive. Your conspiracy theories are absurd and ridiculous and the answer is no. BASC is an organisation for those who shoot, governed by those who shoot and led by those who shoot. Doing shooting down would be destroying itself.  If you have an interest in the good of shooting PW members might wonder why you publicly continue to try to put down shooting organisations and what your reasons/motivations are for doing so.

[Weihrauch17]

On 20/02/2023 at 21:50, 243deer said:

The thing is that the so called representative bodies of shooting who will have considerable weight in the consultation process continue to make unqualified generalised statements that will have the effect by their repetitive nature of being accepted as true when there is no unequivocal scientific  evidence to support the claims.

If English courts ran on the basis of as you say 'it would seem a sensible belief' there would be far more convictions, especially for rape, but they run on evidence.

The 'evidence' being quoted by Conor is decades old so if a serious danger from lead shot was known to BASC and the other organisations why were they not calling for a phasing out of lead shot all those years ago on conservation grounds? Could we still have a decent population of grey partridge if our shooting organisations had been genuinely conservation minded? Now they trot out this 'evidence' when it is convenient for their current narrative. 

It does not make sense to me, too much inconsistency.

 

Lead has been used for hundreds of years with absolutely no issues so why are they pursuing this ruinous policy?  It stinks as much as the ruinous Nett Zero currently bankrupting the country for absolutely no reason.  It is simply a tool to stop people shooting (along with ever more hoops to jump through) just as Nett Zero is a tool to control and impoverish the Plebs.  Question is why have shooting organisations gone belly up for absolutely no reason.  The answer I feel is they have been infiltrated at the upper levels just like the WEF stooges we have in Govt and the royal family.

[Rewulf]

59 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@Rewulfyou are quick fire on the questions and fellow PW members might wonder if you take the time to read or reflect on the answers to your questions before you launch you next missive

Try answering the questions, take your time. 

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Your conspiracy theories are absurd and ridiculous and the answer is no.

The answer is no to what? 

Did BASC know that the lead ban proposed by the HSE was coming, or not? 

Why did BASC change its policy. 

Why did it not consult its membership, saying 'that's not how we do things' is not an answer.? 

Do you at BASC decide the future of all shooting sports? 

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

BASC is an organisation for those who shoot, governed by those who shoot and led by those who shoot

You speak for everyone? Without consultation, you don't even speak for BASC members! 

Simple question, do you believe the majority of BASC members support your 'voluntary phase out'? 

Think carefully about the answer to that one 😂

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

If you have an interest in the good of shooting PW members might wonder why you publicly continue to try to put down shooting organisations and what your reasons/motivations are for doing so.

Because you're all a bit rubbish really, you look after your own interests first, and the plebs can put or or shut up. 

The 'voice' of shooting is your voice, not all shooting sports, and your voice says one thing, then let's government do what it likes. 

Do I need to re list BASCs failures of late? 

[neutron619]

1 hour ago, Weihrauch17 said:

Lead has been used for hundreds of years with absolutely no issues so why are they pursuing this ruinous policy?

See my earlier musings on the precautionary principle and, to answer your specific question, "because it is possible to do so" (and I don't just mean that from a cynical perspective).

If:

• the year is 1800
• child mortality is 25%
• the average adult within reach of lead-shot birds is a wealthy landowner who keeps / hunts game on his land
• who is poorly educated by modern standards, but
• can afford the attention of doctors, but
• will still die, on average, before the age of 40 of what we now consider common, treatable infections, and
• comes into contact on a regular basis with far more dangerous toxins

then the relative harm of eating lead-shot game, which might be

• as much as a couple of points off IQ over a lifetime of doing so regularly, and
• a small amount of organ damage from accumulation (it mostly goes to, and stays in bones, where the body keeps it out of the way), and
• the loss of a few days or weeks of life which might otherwise have been enjoyed

is totally insignificant compared to the risks of encountering dangerous diseases like measels, typhus, typhoid, cholera or the kinds of chemicals which were used in products designed to enhance people's lives at the time, for example:

• residual methanol in alcoholic beverages
• white lead (i.e. lead carbonate) in paint, beauty products and toothpastes
• mercury (in leather products and many "remedies" for medical conditions)
• sulphur, cadmium and other unpleasant toxins contained within house coal and more besides.

Returning to the theme of moral argument, it's impossible to argue in the year 1800 that one should ban lead on health grounds since there are so many other more dangerous forms of exposure prevalent in the general population - any doctor proposing to ban what was then thought to be a harmless, inert metal (elemental lead, that is, not the salts of lead) would have been laughed out of town.

Fast forward 200 years and most, if not all of those problems have been solved. Lead is no more poisonous than it was and the human body no more likely to absorb or suffer it than in years past - in fact, generally, exposure is far lower, even if one eats game. But because the other larger sources of risk have essentially been eliminated, by food standards, antibiotics and stricter chemical controls, lead's risk is now perceived to be far more serious than it was previously.

Again, there's been no absolute change in any of it and in fact, probably a significant reduction in overall risk because of the removal of other sources of lead exposure (e.g. areosols from combustion of old petrol). It's just that everything else is dealt with, and motivated politicians and anti-shooting organizations can make a case more easily because the numbers now look a lot scarier compared to other, even smaller risks.

For a corollory, consider deaths from cancer: it used to be the case that hardly anyone died of cancer (although almost everyone diagnosed did, at one time). But that was only because environmental toxicity, infection, heart disease and stroke killed most people before cancer could develop.

Cancer is now a major killer because we're much better at treating those other problems with long-term medication and management - so life expectancy goes up and people live long enough to get cancer and die from that instead. It wasn't that cancer wouldn't have happened and wouldn't have killed people in 1800 - if they'd all lived to 70+, it would have been as common, or moreso than it is today - but they didn't, so back then, it was a rare illness.

In short, it all depends on how you look at things - but the precautionary principle is the problem because it forces those in power to look at risk (and only risk) without considering absolute harm,  harm done in historical terms, or indeed, whether society considers the harm to be acceptable. It also does so from a population perspective, which essentially forbids the informed individual from accepting a greater risk than his peers, because the balance of risk and reward is different for him / her.

Edited February 22, 2023 by neutron619

[Scully]

On 22/02/2023 at 11:16, Conor O'Gorman said:

That was due to a change in strategic direction by the shooting organisations which was announced and explained in February 2020.

The following recent BASC blog post provides some more recent context for that:

https://basc.org.uk/uk-reach-where-are-we-now/

Also have a look at the BASC AGM 2020 minutes for a Q&A on that change in strategic direction:

https://basc.org.uk/agm/

Change can be a gradual process and organisations are run by people and its taken some time for awareness and acceptance of the growing weight of evidence - and that's ongoing since nine countryside organisations started encouraging a voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting 3 years ago.

The following paper 'Lessons learned from 33 years of lead shot regulation in Denmark' makes for interesting reading in that regard. 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-018-1125-9

The same has been happening at different timelines in countries across mainland Europe - however time is running out for awareness, testing of non-lead options and voluntary approaches because there is a push by the EU for a complete lead ban which we are fighting together with FACE - just as we are fighting the HSE lead ban proposals here in the UK.

Also worth noting that the lead shot regs came into effect from 1999-2003 across the UK. That was after decades of research into the impacts of lead shot on birds in wetlands and testing of non-lead options; and with lead shot restrictions first being proposed in a 1983 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report.

Thanks for replying. I stated some time ago I believed BASC were told by ministers that ‘lead is going, get your membership use to the idea’, and your stated claim a ‘change in strategic direction’ just confirms that suspicion. 
I know BASC and our other so called representatives have no real power and very little influence ( which is why it never consults its membership ) it’s effectiveness totally dependant on lobbying and persuasion, but once again this entire issue, like everything which has gone before, depends entirely on a strategy of damage limitation. 

[Rewulf]

58 minutes ago, Scully said:

this entire issue, like everything which has gone before, depends entirely on a strategy of damage limitation. 

I see it more as appeasement , with a forlorn hope their interests arent next up for the chop.

[Conor O'Gorman]

@neutron619 very interesting posts above and earlier - lots of food for thought on the bigger picture.

@Scully your suspicions don't make any sense to me if you don't mind me saying so and that's from the perspective of being closely involved in fighting lead ban proposals with BASC for over a decade. Nine countryside organisations started encouraging a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting for the reasons that were stated 3 years ago. And as mentioned previously the Q&A at BASC's 2020 AGM provides further insight. As regards how BASC makes policy decisions in consultation with members that was also covered earlier.
 

[neutron619]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

@neutron619 very interesting posts above and earlier - lots of food for thought on the bigger picture.

Well, thank you - I'm glad they were interesting, although I have to admit, I'm now wondering whether you and BASC ought to have been aware of the historical context before now?

More generally, folk with an axe to grind will grind their axes; anyone concerned with population-level health and economic effects might (and clearly do) feel that lead toxicity is an issue of significance - a few QUALYs lost across a population of 70 million is a measurable (but small) effect that might reduce economic output somewhat. But to the individual, the loss, assuming one isn't shovelling handfuls of #6 down with a tablespoon, will be so insignificant as to be unnoticeable.

On the basis that gamebirds can't vote, it ought to be possible to make this argument to someone in Westminster?

Edited February 24, 2023 by neutron619

[harkom]

THE FIELD magazine Feb 2023 -   BASC attacks lead shot review -

BASC has accused the HSE of serious failings.....after it chose not to respond to feedback and pushed ahead with proposals to restrict severely the use of lead shot ammunition....

DR COG from BASC - "...... our collective feedback was clearly not listened to because HSE ploughed on regardless with lead ban proposal...."

Well ????      Who would ever have thought that a Gov dept would ignore BASC

This bunch of clowns have a delusional perception of their importance as an adviser to those who formulate Gov. policy ...... as well as their own effectiveness in fighting for shooting sports.

And the report adds ..." there have been concerns about the appointment of profs D Pain and Rhys Green to HSE independent Scientific Expert Pool who have lobbied for a ban on lead ammunition."

The BSAC muppets were  a pushover for the anti-shooting activists.

 

 

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, harkom said:

DR COG from BASC - "...... our collective feedback was clearly not listened to because HSE ploughed on regardless with lead ban proposal...."

At least they had the decency to pretend to ask.......

[Conor O'Gorman]

20 hours ago, neutron619 said:

Well, thank you - I'm glad they were interesting, although I have to admit, I'm now wondering whether you and BASC ought to have been aware of the historical context before now?

More generally, folk with an axe to grind will grind their axes; anyone concerned with population-level health and economic effects might (and clearly do) feel that lead toxicity is an issue of significance - a few QUALYs lost across a population of 70 million is a measurable (but small) effect that might reduce economic output somewhat. But to the individual, the loss, assuming one isn't shovelling handfuls of #6 down with a tablespoon, will be so insignificant as to be unnoticeable.

On the basis that gamebirds can't vote, it ought to be possible to make this argument to someone in Westminster?

Thanks @neutron619 I think what you have been writing could make for a good article in the sporting press as I have not seen anyone writing about this in the way that you have - if of interest please DM me to discuss. The HSE has adopted a zero risk approach in its recommendations when it should be targeting the risk - and uses of lead ammunition that pose nil or negligible risk should not be targeted. The precautionary principle is a factor in this (wildfowling has been unfairly targeted also) but there will also be enforcement considerations - where a ban on sale and use provides clarity. BASC is fighting back on all these fronts.

Edited February 25, 2023 by Conor O'Gorman

[Conor O'Gorman]

7 hours ago, harkom said:

THE FIELD magazine Feb 2023 -   BASC attacks lead shot review -

BASC has accused the HSE of serious failings.....after it chose not to respond to feedback and pushed ahead with proposals to restrict severely the use of lead shot ammunition....

DR COG from BASC - "...... our collective feedback was clearly not listened to because HSE ploughed on regardless with lead ban proposal...."

Well ????      Who would ever have thought that a Gov dept would ignore BASC

This bunch of clowns have a delusional perception of their importance as an adviser to those who formulate Gov. policy ...... as well as their own effectiveness in fighting for shooting sports.

And the report adds ..." there have been concerns about the appointment of profs D Pain and Rhys Green to HSE independent Scientific Expert Pool who have lobbied for a ban on lead ammunition."

The BSAC muppets were  a pushover for the anti-shooting activists.

 

 

@harkom that's rather disingenuous paraphrasing the quote. The full context was as follows:

In March 2021, the UK government announced a two-year review of lead ammunition under the UK’s new post-Brexit chemical regulations referred to as UK REACH and the HSE was tasked with carrying this out.

Since then HSE has had ample opportunity to consider the evidence and objectively identify proven exposure risks in a UK context and then to propose workable solutions.

Firearms and ammunition manufacturers, shooting organisations, gun shops, clay grounds, rifle ranges, clubs and syndicates and individual shooters have all shown a willingness to engage constructively in a two-month call for evidence in 2021.

However, given the contents of the HSE proposals published in May 2022, our collective feedback was clearly not listened to because the HSE ploughed on regardless with a lead ban proposal, largely cut and pasted from proposals published by the European Chemicals Agency a year earlier.

When the lead ammunition review was announced BASC made a promise to the shooting community – if we have concerns that the resulting legislative proposals are disproportionate and will damage shooting, we will lobby for them to be revised.

If the HSE continues down its current path there will be a political battle ahead and BASC will fight our corner.

The Field article you have misquoted from was about BASC submitting evidence to the House of Commons Environment Audit Committee, highlighting concerns about the way in which the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has developed its lead ban proposals and based on the following November 2022 BASC blog post:

https://basc.org.uk/basc-exposes-process-failures-in-lead-ban-proposals/

Edited February 25, 2023 by Conor O'Gorman

[enfieldspares]

So two things come to mind that remain unaddressed that's shotguns in 9mm Rimfire and .22" Rimfire. Neither are suitable for a walled wad such as used presently on 12 bore steel shot. The case capacity is so small as have little if any room if such a wad is used. Given that there is no bismuth load for either AND that certainly .22" Rimfire shotshells use shot smaller that English #8 (reference again the size vis a vis lead angling shot law) and most are used for vermin there needs to be a complete exemption for these. Yet still no direct response from BASC to disclose of they have requested such.

Edited February 25, 2023 by enfieldspares

[neutron619]

I just came across an article in the Mail which piqued my curiosity. See:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11776645/UKs-worst-air-pollution-hotspots-area-risk.html

Apparently, the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory have just published their data for 2022. This is mostly concerned with carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and so on but I noticed that it also contained figures for lead, which led me to wonder how our exposure to lead game might compare to atmospheric exposure.

Following through to this link, there is an interactive map which shows the recorded measurements of all the pollutants in graphical form: https://naei.beis.gov.uk/emissionsapp/

Looking at the map for lead, it's clear that there's a wide variation between cities and rural areas and that this correlates strongly with the routes major roadways - one of the conclusions the Mail reports is that even 20 years after the removal of lead in petrol, its still floating around all over the place and is being picked up but the NAEI's monitoring stations.

I followed the link from the map through to the data sets, presented here: https://naei.beis.gov.uk/data/map-uk-das

This image is presented, along with the various raw data:

I have dug into the data a bit and run som queries against the interactive map. I found that my area seems to average around 20kg/km² of lead emitted every year and this is pretty normal for any location within a few miles of a main road or a town or city.

That set me thinking - it's quite a small quantity of lead over a very large area, but how much is it to the average human being?

On the basis that lead is a heavy element and will tend to "sink" if it's airborne, and, on the basis that nearly all of the measuring stations will be set at altitudes of 100m or less, I thought that I could approximate a concentration of airborne lead by dividing mass by volume and find out how much there is floating around per unit volume.

The volume of air in 1km² to a height of 100m is

1000m * 1000m * 100m = 100,000,000m³

This means that to find the concentration, we do

20kg / 100,000,000m³ = 0.0000002kg/m³ = 0.0002g/m³

On the basis that a human being breathes approximately 11000 litres (11m³) of air per day, we can calculate a daily exposure of:

11m³ * 0.0002g/m³ = 0.0022g/day

or:

0.0022g/day * 365.25 days = 0.80355g/year

or:

0.80355g/year * 75 years = 60.266g of lead in an average lifetime, just by existing.

Measured in units of English #6 (270 pellets/oz; pellet weight = 0.105g), that's equivalent to eating:

60.266g / 0.105g = c. 574 pellets of #6 shot

Assuming that one tries to remove shot from birds and that there is a 50% chance of a single pellet being left in a piece of meat and eaten, this is equivalent exposure to eating game once every 3 weeks for the entirety of the aforementioned 75 year life span.

Now here's where it gets interesting:

There are parts of the country, mostly around major cities and motorways where the average emissions of lead are measured in the hundreds of kilograms. Parts of London and Birmingham have area emissions averages of up to 500kg per km³ and individual measurements (for a single km³) of three times that.

Maintaining all of the assumptions above, if one lived in one of those areas, here are the numbers:

Concentration: 500kg / 100,000,000m³ = 0.000005kg/m³ = 0.005g/m³

Daily Exposure: 11m³ * 0.005g/m³ = 0.055g/day

Yearly Exposure: 0.005g/m³ * 365.25 = 20.089g/year

Lifetime Exposure: 20.089g * 75 years = 1.507kg of lead in an average lifetime, just by existing.

#6 Shot Equivalent: c. 14,349 pellets

Or (with a 50% chance of finding a pellet): equivalent exposure to eating game once every 2 days for the entirety of the aforementioned 75 year life span.

Afterthoughts

Of course, not all the lead that goes in, stays in. Most 75-year-old Londoners don't have over a kilogram of lead accumulated in their bones / kidneys / brain and unlike mercury (for example) the body can clear lead, albeit slowly.

The main take-away point however, is that even if you live in a nice clean part of the country with plenty of fresh, unpolluted air, you're still going to have to work very hard at eating lead-shot game to be able to match the lifetime exposure of someone living and working in a city who never touches a single pheasant breast or venison loin.

Furthermore, since we aren't seeing huge numbers of lead poisoning cases amongst Londoners and Brummies, we can reasonably conclude that even that level of exposure is tolerable, if not ideal. That being so, exposure to shot for humans is a non-issue. Birdlife must be significantly more sensitive to lead than humans if there are genuine "epidemiological" effects.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Dangerous stuff, I believe planting trees on major roads is thought to be beneficial in forming a barrier to houses and exposure..

It all goes to show that the lead is not the problem it is portrayed as, it is the fact that we have the audacity to own weapons and shoot with them!

[Conor O'Gorman]

21 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

So two things come to mind that remain unaddressed that's shotguns in 9mm Rimfire and .22" Rimfire. Neither are suitable for a walled wad such as used presently on 12 bore steel shot. The case capacity is so small as have little if any room if such a wad is used. Given that there is no bismuth load for either AND that certainly .22" Rimfire shotshells use shot smaller that English #8 (reference again the size vis a vis lead angling shot law) and most are used for vermin there needs to be a complete exemption for these. Yet still no direct response from BASC to disclose of they have requested such.

We asked the HSE to consider providing extended transition periods for small gauge shotgun calibres of 28 bore and smaller.

Our overall position currently is as follows:

Target shooting

• No restrictions for airguns when target shooting
• No restrictions for shotguns when clay pigeon shooting and target shooting
• No restrictions for rifles when target shooting

Live quarry shooting

• Shotguns – commit to the shooting community’s voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting
• Centrefire rifles (below 6.5mm) – extend the derogation period and allow time to develop satisfactory alternatives
• Rimfire rifles – Extend derogation period and allow time to develop satisfactory alternatives
• Air rifles – No restriction

[harkom]

On 25/02/2023 at 20:18, Conor O'Gorman said:

 that's rather disingenuous paraphrasing the quote

Disingenuous? huh? .... if you say so, but I am sure you are well aware of that in relation to bsac public stance on lead shot ?

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

It all goes to show that the lead is not the problem it is portrayed as, it is the fact that we have the audacity to own weapons and shoot with them

This. 

It's not about lead, it's about guns. 

If BASC don't think this is going to blow a massive hole in shooting in general, and those who participate, then they are clearly delusional. 

[enfieldspares]

59 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We asked the HSE to consider providing extended transition periods for small gauge shotgun calibres of 28 bore and smaller.

Given that AFAIK there are now NO UK MADE 9mm R/F shotshell nor .22" R/F shotshell these are all imported from outside the UK.

The .22" R/F from the USA. As the UK market for .22" R/F is a tiny tiny fraction of 1% of the US maker's total market there will be no non-lead .22" R/F shotshell loadings.

Can you, please, ask of the UK makers if the above is correct regarding .22" R/F shotshell?

With regard the 9mm R/F shotshell can you, please, again ask the question. As far as I know Fiocchi make the only 9mm R/F shotshell presently imported into the UK. Could the question of non-lead 9mm R/F be asked?

For unless BASC knows something other I think there is no possibility IMHO of there EVER being any non-lead 9mm R/F or .22" R/F.

Edited February 26, 2023 by enfieldspares

[Fellside]

56 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We asked the HSE to consider providing extended transition periods for small gauge shotgun calibres of 28 bore and smaller.

Our overall position currently is as follows:

Target shooting

• No restrictions for airguns when target shooting
• No restrictions for shotguns when clay pigeon shooting and target shooting
• No restrictions for rifles when target shooting

Live quarry shooting

• Shotguns – commit to the shooting community’s voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting
• Centrefire rifles (below 6.5mm) – extend the derogation period and allow time to develop satisfactory alternatives
• Rimfire rifles – Extend derogation period and allow time to develop satisfactory alternatives
• Air rifles – No restriction

Hi Conor,

Thanks for clarifying. I think the 410 needs more than an ‘extended transition period’ as this caliber is a vital youth entry gun. It is also essentially a lead dependent gun - as steel pellets large enough for game/vermin shooting just aren’t a practical proposition. Equally, other heavy metals are prohibitively expensive (bismuth and tungsten). If this caliber isn’t protected by ‘derogation’ it will become the dinosaur of the gun world, wiped out by a catastrophic financial extinction. Can I urge you to raise this with BASC strategists please?

[neutron619]

47 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Can I urge you to raise this with BASC strategists please?

Consider that request seconded.