No logic to lead ban

[Conor O'Gorman]

Will the Health and Safety Executive will see common sense and drop its lead ban proposals? Click the link below to read an article from this week's Shooting Times.

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/no-logic-to-lead-ban-146906/

BASC’s consultation response considered every shooting discipline, both live quarry and target, and the documents submitted can be downloaded here:

https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-hse-lead-ammunition-consultation/

 

[markm]

As a former member and critic of the BASC stance on lead shot, these 2 articles make for constructive / productive / positive reading….

 

The glass half full / half empty is my worry that this may be too late and that BASC has been backed into a push / pull situation by its members - tail between its legs?
 

But credit where credit is due, well done….

Edited December 30, 2023 by markm

[Konor]

BASC has promoted a voluntary move away from the use of lead shot and critics of the continued use of lead shot state that there is little evidence of that move away from lead shot use occurring voluntarily and as a result insist that legislation should be brought in to ensure that a move away from the use of lead shot is enforced. How then is it possible for BASC to argue against that proposed legislation if it has been conceded by them that a move away from the use of lead shot is the preferred option.

Am I missing something here as it seems BASC is a bit confused about whether they are pro or anti lead. Is the proposed voluntary ban just a means of preventing legislation that  would then allow shooters to continue to voluntary opt to use lead instead of voluntarily opting to using non lead cartridges?

BASC’s insistence that they are now against any further restrictions on the use of lead ammunition seems to contradict its promotion of an insistence that shooters should choose to voluntarily cease to use lead shot inland.

Conor an honest straightforward explanation would be appreciated but please refrain from personal attack and I would be obliged if you kept to the subject being discussed.

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Konor

[rbrowning2]

Conor. is the full 280 page response available for members to read?

Frequently BASC states that an activity (target shooting) can continue to use lead shot if suitable risk management solutions are in place, but i cannot find any detail of what these risk management solutions are, when they would apply, who would enforce them and hence what they would cost to implement.

Has the HSE given any idea of when they will make public their recommendations.

 

[Scully]

I’m getting that now oh so familiar sense of dejavu! 🙂

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m getting that now oh so familiar sense of dejavu! 🙂

I feel obliged to question Scully as the whole debate has an aura of double speak surrounding it. There’s a big difference between wildfowlers accepting the lead ban and having the facility to rearm for their sport with comparatively cheap semi autos chambered in 3 and 1/2 inch magnum or 10 bore. It’s a lot different if you are an aficionado of British shotguns especially small bore and rough shoot  I wouldn’t be happy replacing my English 20 or 28 bore side by side with a bored out AYA yeoman or alternatively have to pay out for bismuth shot and its extra limitations but increased price. The British side by side market will be destroyed in the UK as a consequence of a legislated ban and British shooters will lose the ability to enjoy the variety of shotguns that the country is famous for. Where is the call from BASC to create exemptions for these historical guns that shooters have an understandable strong attachment to? But one of the BASC management bought an old Spanish gun in Newton Stewart and had it bored out probably for more than he paid for it and it’s still going strong, so where’s the problem. Yeah right ,as we say up here, when an argument is made on the back of inconsequence
As an aside I would be obliged if we could stick to debating the points raised and refrain from personal attack as it only serves to confuse and is a source of diversion that allows some contributors to avoid sticking to debating the issues raised. It would be even better if those disagreeing with points made address all the points in each post ,concede common ground where it exists and not go down the road of cherry picking a couple of points made in order to strongly disagree which inevitably leads to personal attack. 
Here’s to avoiding another locked thread and some clarification and honesty from all involved.😆

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2023 by Konor

[Graham M]

I find BASC's response to all of this very annoying. First they put forward an idea to "voluntarily"  ban lead shot, in order to make themselves look superior to the rest of us laymen. This is immediately taken up by the anti-shooting brigade who see this as the way forward to stopping much of the shooting that we do, and the first thing they do is demand that ALL ammunition is non-lead.

This causes a furore amongst shooters who want to know why this idea was put forward by BASC in the first place. It even causes division amongst different disciplines who then begin to squabble amongst themselves (If one discipline has to use non-lead why shouldn't ALL disciplines have to do the same). And if one or more different shooting sports are destroyed...............SO WHAT!!! (Yes it has been said on this very forum).

And now BASC are posturing like the cat who got the cream about how they are fighting to stop this lead ban and to make sure we are able to continue using lead.

For crying out loud Conor, it was BASC who set the *******' ball rolling in the first place.

[Gordon R]

Konor - I am relieved that I was not the only one left confused by the stance of BASC.

[Scully]

17 minutes ago, Konor said:

I feel obliged to question Scully as the whole debate has an aura of double speak surrounding it. There’s a big difference between wildfowlers accepting the lead ban and having the facility to rearm for their sport with comparatively cheap semi autos chambered in 3 and 1/2 inch magnum or 10 bore. It’s a lot different if you are an aficionado of British shotguns especially small bore and rough shoot  I wouldn’t be happy replacing my English 20 or 28 bore side by side with a bored out AYA yeoman or alternatively have to pay out for bismuth shot and its extra limitations but increased price. The British side by side market will be destroyed in the UK as a consequence of a legislated ban and British shooters will lose the ability to enjoy the variety of shotguns that the country is famous for. Where is the call from BASC to create exemptions for these historical guns that shooters have an understandable strong attachment to? But one of the BASC management bought an old Spanish gun in Newton Stewart and had it bored out probably for more than he paid for it and it’s still going strong, so where’s the problem. Yeah right ,as we say up here, when an argument is made on the back of inconsequence
As an aside I would be obliged if we could stick to debating the points raised and refrain from personal attack as it only serves to confuse and is a source of diversion that allows some contributors to avoid sticking to debating the issues raised. It would be even better if those disagreeing with points made address all the points in each post ,concede common ground where it exists and not go down the road of cherry picking a couple of points made in order to strongly disagree which inevitably leads to personal attack. 
Here’s to avoiding another locked thread and some clarification and honesty from all involved.😆

 

 

 

 

I’ll stay on topic if others do, but if anyone wants to comment about one aspect of shooting they consider detrimental to their chosen ‘sport’, then start another thread regarding their specific gripe, and I’ll come out to play. 🙂
If not then the entire thread will simply degenerate into the inevitable slanging match. 
Back on topic; Conor made the comment regarding ‘logic’, so therefore there can be no exemptions. Lead is either toxic or it isn’t, to apply exemptions is illogical. 
 

[Newbie to this]

20 minutes ago, Scully said:

Lead is either toxic or it isn’t, to apply exemptions is illogical. 

It's also illogical to call for a voluntary Lead phase out (ban), and claim to be pro Lead,  yet here BASC are doing just that, all whilst claiming to speak for us all.

'We're pro Lead, but stop using it'

Single use plastic it where BASC should have set their sights.

At the very least, they should have consulted their membership.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Newbie to this

[Konor]

49 minutes ago, Scully said:

Conor made the comment regarding ‘logic’, so therefore there can be no exemptions. Lead is either toxic or it isn’t, to apply exemptions is illogical

I accept your premise that lead is either toxic or not but the point I would make is that of scale and detriment to the environment and suggest that a limited amout of lead spread over a wide area of the countryside has minimal consequence as opposed to a lot of lead spread over a small area. I think Norway reversed their legislative ban on lead on those grounds ie that the shooting practices that they commonly used would not result in an appreciable increase in lead in the environment.

Making any exemption could potentially allow the continued use of a lot of historical guns with no discernible negative affect on the environment. In the long term those that are enthusiasts of such guns are a dying breed and recruitment from the younger generation is minimal.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Konor

[Konor]

41 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - I am relieved that I was not the only one left confused by the stance of BASC.

I was questioning myself whether I was just unable (ie too thick) to follow the argument but I reckon when  BASC now writes that they are against any legislation restricting the use of lead that it will be used by them in future and others to support that that has always been the position of BASC and the historic detail of their position will be lost in time. In theory if you have previously stated you strongly support a voluntary move away from lead and also state that you are against any further restrictions you can then quote either  statement to support either stance according to your audience.

[Old farrier]

There’s no logic to it at all 

so far it’s just devaluing all tight fixed choke guns all of the lightweight game guns and going to render small bore’s obsolete 

for what ?

to make game meat saleable !!? 

the environmental impact of lead by logic has to be the more you fire lead cartridges in a area the more impact it will have

so by logic the most environmental impact will be on the clay ground not the game shoot 

 

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

I accept your premise that lead is either toxic or not but the point I would make is that of scale and detriment to the environment and suggest that a limited amout of lead spread over a wide area of the countryside has minimal consequence as opposed to a lot of lead spread over a small area. I think Norway reversed their legislative ban on lead on those grounds ie that the shooting practices that they commonly used would not result in an appreciable increase in lead in the environment.

Making any exemption could potentially allow the continued use of a lot of historical guns with no discernible negative affect on the environment. In the long term those that are enthusiasts of such guns are a dying breed and recruitment from the younger generation is minimal.

I agree with everything you’ve written, but there is little logic applied to much of UK legislation regarding shooting, and this is simply yet another example. 
Initially the voluntary phase out applied to ( unless I’m wrong….its been a long and confusing campaign ) live quarry shooting, but if exemptions are made many will simply shoot live quarry with those exempted loads; I mean, who’s going to know let alone police it? 
We seem to be overlooking the fact there is an agenda at play here, and as illogical as that agenda may be, it’s a political driven agenda nonetheless, conducted by a government department. 

[Scully]

Perhaps it’s not BASC and our shooting organisations we should be arguing with, but rather our government representatives.

It is they who are intent on pursuing this agenda, an agenda which, given all those things consumed with far more of a ‘potential risk to health’ currently legal and enjoyed by many on a daily basis ( far more frequently than lead shot meat is consumed anyhow ) has to be the epitome of the meaning of illogical. 
Seriously, if lead in game is a ‘potential risk’ to human health, and the small minority of folk who eat it, then the risks of alcohol and tobacco given the numbers of folk who consume either, must be HHHHUUUUUUGGGE! 
Illogical? 🤔
 

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

 but there is little logic applied to much of UK legislation regarding shooting, and this is simply yet another example. 

We seem to be overlooking the fact there is an agenda at play here, and as illogical as that agenda may be, it’s a political driven agenda nonetheless, conducted by a government department. 

+1

And I’d add if the government choose to ban the use of lead for quarry shooting on what they consider legitimate grounds then if those grounds don’t apply to target or clay shooting then they should step up to police the illegal use of lead shot on live quarry and let target/clay shooting continue as is.

Is anyone really in any doubt that the main supporters of this proposed legislation are the anti field sports organisations and supporters whose only real concern is the abolition of all quarry shooting and possibly all livestock farming as it collides with how they wish the world to be ,for numerous reasons.

Edited December 31, 2023 by Konor

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

Perhaps it’s not BASC and our shooting organisations we should be arguing with, but rather our government representatives.

It is they who are intent on pursuing this agenda, an agenda which, given all those things consumed with far more of a ‘potential risk to health’ currently legal and enjoyed by many on a daily basis ( far more frequently than lead shot meat is consumed anyhow ) has to be the epitome of the meaning of illogical. 
Seriously, if lead in game is a ‘potential risk’ to human health, and the small minority of folk who eat it, then the risks of alcohol and tobacco given the numbers of folk who consume either, must be HHHHUUUUUUGGGE! 
Illogical? 🤔
 

+1    
I think BASC have a hard job of it certainly but it would not be in our best interests to not challenge or question their decisions and agenda no matter how inconvenient that might be for those who control the strings in BASC.Ideally I’d want the shooting community to be consulted prior to any major decisions being made that affect our sports future ,and for many people it’s not just a sport but a way of life.We should be entrusted with the truth if  BASC are to be entrusted with being the voice of shooting. 

[Konor]

19 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Will the Health and Safety Executive will see common sense and drop its lead ban proposals? 

As BASC have proposed a voluntary ban on the use of lead will they see sense and withdraw that recommendation now that they are stating that they are against any further legislation on the use of lead shot for live quarry and clay and target shooting. 
If not why not ?

[Conor O'Gorman]

@markm thanks for the feedback.

@Konor I would be happy to help you over the phone sometime next week, please PM me if that is of interest.

@rbrowning2  BASC's response was in two parts and both documents can be downloaded here:

https://basc.org.uk/basc-response-to-hse-lead-ammunition-consultation/ 

The HSE consultation documents are here:

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/lead-in-ammunition/ 

My understanding is that the HSE recommendations will be published at the same time as when they are submitted to the Secretary of State for consideration - this could be in the next few months - but could be longer depending on whether the HSE requests more time to review the responses - mindful that there was a 6 month extension given to HSE following last year's consultation.

[rbrowning2]

Thanks Conor, since in 2024 it is highly likely we are to have a General Election what potential impact could that have on any lead ban legislation?

 

[Konor]

46 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Konor I would be happy to help you over the phone sometime next week, please PM me if that is of interest.

 

I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to when you write that you are happy to help me. Personally I don’t think it is appropriate to respond to issues raised on the forum by offering your response in a private phone call.

It would however help immensely if you were to engage on the forum to clarify and address the points raised by those concerned by the impact future legislation might have on their sport and their ability to continue it free from the interference that such legislation would bring. Those concerned sportsmen are not politicians and I’m sure would prefer a straightforward insight into what is driving the contradictory approach to safeguarding our future sport.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Konor said:

+1    
I think BASC have a hard job of it certainly but it would not be in our best interests to not challenge or question their decisions and agenda no matter how inconvenient that might be for those who control the strings in BASC.Ideally I’d want the shooting community to be consulted prior to any major decisions being made that affect our sports future ,and for many people it’s not just a sport but a way of life.We should be entrusted with the truth if  BASC are to be entrusted with being the voice of shooting. 

I think BASC have a hard job of it too, but it’s a job they wanted. They put themselves forward and promoted their organisation as the ‘voice of shooting’, and they deserve to be challenged as they expect to be paid for that very job. 
I’m one of those for whom shooting is a way of life. 
BASC have argued for years now that there is a need for non toxic shot, supporting the claims by various government parties that lead shot is damaging to the environment and human health, and proposed not only for its members but for every shooting man and woman in the UK, a voluntary phase out of lead shot! 
Despite all this they claim they are opposed to a lead ban, yet have recently stated on this forum that they have sought and conducted surveys from shooters who claim they will be going non toxic as a direct result of BASC’s anti lead campaign! 
Now BASC is claiming there is no logic to a lead ban! Isn’t this exactly what we’ve been telling them since they started all this? 
So which is it BASC? 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Closing the stable door after Dobin has set off is rather too little too late.  

[Conor O'Gorman]

50 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Thanks Conor, since in 2024 it is highly likely we are to have a General Election what potential impact could that have on any lead ban legislation?

 

That is very much crystal ball territory - we could see nothing happen or rapid policy developments. It could get caught up in party manifestos. Lead ammunition regulations in England are for Westminster, whilst the regulation of lead ammunition is a devolved matter for governments in Wales, Scotland and NI.

33 minutes ago, Konor said:

I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to when you write that you are happy to help me. Personally I don’t think it is appropriate to respond to issues raised on the forum by offering your response in a private phone call.

It would however help immensely if you were to engage on the forum to clarify and address the points raised by those concerned by the impact future legislation might have on their sport and their ability to continue it free from the interference that such legislation would bring. Those concerned sportsmen are not politicians and I’m sure would prefer a straightforward insight into what is driving the contradictory approach to safeguarding our future sport.

Having a chat on the phone is not mutually exclusive to replying to queries on this forum. I have spoken with many PW members over the years and continue to engage on the forum with those same members also. I suggest we start with a phone call given your recent comments on this topic. 

[enfieldspares]

9 hours ago, Graham M said:

I find BASC's response to all of this very annoying. First they put forward an idea to "voluntarily"  ban lead shot, in order to make themselves look superior to the rest of us laymen. This is immediately taken up by the anti-shooting brigade who see this as the way forward to stopping much of the shooting that we do, and the first thing they do is demand that ALL ammunition is non-lead.

This causes a furore amongst shooters who want to know why this idea was put forward by BASC in the first place. It even causes division amongst different disciplines who then begin to squabble amongst themselves (If one discipline has to use non-lead why shouldn't ALL disciplines have to do the same). And if one or more different shooting sports are destroyed...............SO WHAT!!! (Yes it has been said on this very forum).

And now BASC are posturing like the cat who got the cream about how they are fighting to stop this lead ban and to make sure we are able to continue using lead.

For crying out loud Conor, it was BASC who set the *******' ball rolling in the first place.

I do find that I have to agree with the above.