Anyone?

[Konor]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks.

I will read through the evidence for 1 and 2, Thank you. I just wanted to ensure that the material I source on line contains the information being used to drive the decisions being made. 

Ive quoted some of answer 3 above as it seems from responses on this forum  and from my own experience there is minimal shift towards the use of non toxic shot. 

4) In the event that a voluntary ban is shown not to be an effective means of reducing the use of lead shot over non wetland areas would BASC support the introduction of legislation to enforce a ban

Lastly 

5) Would BASC be minded to negotiate exceptions where lead could continue to be used in Damascus barreled or short chambered small bore Shotguns under a set of limited circumstances. A yes, no or maybe here would be welcome. 

Edited January 22 by Konor
Addition

[mgsontour]

18 hours ago, Scully said:

Do any live quarry shooters ( except wildfowlers ) and in particular driven game shooters on PW, know of anyone who has foregone lead shot for non toxic? 

I know of 1 shoot and its repeated in most pre shoot speeches but never ever enforced. Like yourself I'm always interested what people have used when we tidy up and this year have seen far more lead getting used than previous years

[Konor]

4 minutes ago, mgsontour said:

I know of 1 shoot and its repeated in most pre shoot speeches but never ever enforced. Like yourself I'm always interested what people have used when we tidy up and this year have seen far more lead getting used than previous years

Do you think the increase you've noted might be due to some shooters clearing their stock of lead ammunition in preparation for change? 

[Scully]

13 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Complete non-issue. Stomach acid isn't actually that concentrated, it's mostly there to make life difficult for pathogens and provide the correct pH for optimal protease activity. Iron powder (with a massively higher surface area) is added to some breakfast cereals as a form of iron supplementation. So swallowing an errant pellet isn't going to cause an issue (unless you're about to have an MRI scan). 

@Conor O'Gorman It may be worth having discussions with our price-gouging cartridge manufacturers, for if bio-steel cartridges were offered at competetive rates or cheaper than existing lead cartridges, takeup would be greater, but when you're paying more money for a product which:

1. Has inferior ballistic performance; 

2. Has a risk (perceived or real) of causing damage to your gun; and, 

3. Has an unknown shelf-life,

then it's not difficult to see why people just don't bother.

Good points well made. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

I will read through the evidence for 1 and 2, Thank you. I just wanted to ensure that the material I source on line contains the information being used to drive the decisions being made. 

Ive quoted some of answer 3 above as it seems from responses on this forum  and from my own experience there is minimal shift towards the use of non toxic shot. 

4) In the event that a voluntary ban is shown not to be an effective means of reducing the use of lead shot over non wetland areas would BASC support the introduction of legislation to enforce a ban

Lastly 

5) Would BASC be minded to negotiate exceptions where lead could continue to be used in Damascus barreled or short chambered small bore Shotguns under a set of limited circumstances. A yes, no or maybe here would be welcome. 

4) In the event that a voluntary ban is shown not to be an effective means of reducing the use of lead shot over non wetland areas would BASC support the introduction of legislation to enforce a ban

The following text from BASC's consultation response may help (but do read further into the response as there is wider context also in that response on this)

Section 6.1 Lead shot for live quarry shooting.

BASC is opposed to the HSE’s proposed restrictions for lead shot for live quarry shooting because the shooting sector voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting addresses the evidenced exposure risks identified by the HSE for food and the environment. Restrictions on the use and the sale of lead shot for target shooting as a means of enforcing restrictions on the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting are not appropriate because this is mission creep and outside the scope of the HSE review.

If there is a restriction recommended for lead shot for live quarry shooting it must be evidence based and proportionate to the evidenced risk. We encourage the regulator to work closely with the sector to secure realistic transition periods that account for global supply chain issues.

As such, there should also be a review by an independent body to ensure the availability of the c80 million cartridges needed across all gauges of shotgun before any legislation comes in to force. This review should be conducted by an external independent body such as Cranfield University and be funded by Defra/HSE.

BASC remains committed to the shooting sector’s voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting. The transition so far has been a success, given the challenges faced, such as the war in Ukraine and Covid. 

 

5) Would BASC be minded to negotiate exceptions where lead could continue to be used in Damascus barreled or short chambered small bore Shotguns under a set of limited circumstances. A yes, no or maybe here would be welcome. 

 

BASC's consultation response highlights to the HSE that there are currently no small gauge sustainable cartridges (non-lead shot, non-plastic wad) available such as .410 .28g, 9mm, .22, and these gauges are used in more than 22% of live quarry shooting whether it be game or pest control; and that the HSE should ensure that suitable alternatives are available before any legislation comes into effect. 

In other words, the exceptions that may need to be argued for as regards continued use of lead shot for live quarry shooting in the event of restriction proposals will be about allowing longer transition times for smaller gauges until non-lead alternatives become available. By default that includes your interest in ' Damascus barreled or short chambered small bore Shotguns'. However, at this stage the HSE has not made its recommendations to Defra so let's see what they are and then we can look afresh at next steps in our fight against a lead ban. 

 

Edited January 22 by Conor O'Gorman

[HantsRob]

Did anyone else see this going off the rails and has been pleasantly surprised at the quality and wholesomeness of this thread?

Great questions and answers.  I hope that remains, a proper quality public forum discussion

[Penelope]

5 hours ago, islandgun said:

I may well have missed it, but could it be that the real opposition to lead shot is to do with potential risk to BOP after ingesting lead by dining on game birds that have been lost

No, we kill stuff, that's what the real opposition is.

[islandgun]

35 minutes ago, Penelope said:

No, we kill stuff, that's what the real opposition is.

Aye, first and foremost, maybe second, risk of ingesting by other birds, third, perceived risk to environment fourth, risk of ingestion by humans..... actually 1-2-3-4 are about rich toffs in tweed killing things and the rest can follow

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

However, at this stage the HSE has not made its recommendations to Defra so let's see what they are and then we can look afresh at next steps in our fight against a lead ban. 

Thank you for taking the time to answer 4) and 5) I’d numbered the questions up to enable you to answer briefly but your answers were more comprehensive than expected.

I have read the documents that you had sourced most of your replies on but to have someone connected put that information in a context is helpful and adds a layer of clarification that is welcome.

It looks like I will be preparing for change with a bit more focus and I think I will be using a few different guns with a selection of ammunition to suit the circumstances surrounding each outing. Inevitably there will have to be compromises.
 My main worry is for those keen to take up shooting but the expense in doing so prohibits it. It’s easier for waged older people like myself who have invested in the necessary gear and whose only real expense is ammunition to accept change but if you are starting out and have a list that ranges from wellington boots to a suitable shotgun and everything in between to add on to the cost of your ammunition you’d have to be very determined to persevere. It’s those who fail to persevere and are “robbed” of the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of sport, that many on this forum have enjoyed and maybe partly taken for granted , that I feel sorry for. Part of my reasoning for including the “concessions for old guns “content is that I can picture a grandfather keen to pass down his old Damascus barrel 20 bore 2 1/2 inch chambered gun to his grandson to enjoy in the field and I’d like to see that continue to be a viable option.

 

 

[Gordon R]

A small point:-

Quote

BASC remains committed to the shooting sector’s voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting. The transition so far has been a success,

I would be interested in where the proof for this statement is. The replies on this forum and statistics cited would suggest the complete opposite.

 

 

[holloway]

2 hours ago, HantsRob said:

Did anyone else see this going off the rails and has been pleasantly surprised at the quality and wholesomeness of this thread?

Great questions and answers.  I hope that remains, a proper quality public forum discussion

Completely agree 👍

[holloway]

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

A small point:-

I would be interested in where the proof for this statement is. The replies on this forum and statistics cited would suggest the complete opposite.

 

 

I suppose even a small percentage could be described as a success but not sure were actual proof could come from ,i suppose a survey on actual gun shop sales figures would be the most reliable source .

[Gordon R]

holloway - I was surprised at the claim that it is a success, in any degree at all. It seemed like a very bold claim.

Edited January 22 by Gordon R

[London Best]

7 hours ago, Poor Shot said:

I started this season with the aim of making the switch to completely non-toxic for all of my game shooting this year. I already used HP steel for wildfowling so why not make the switch full time? 

A few observations I have made: (Warning, anecdotal evidence ahead) 

1. It's incredibly expensive, a slab of 32g Gamebore Dark Storm Steel running at £145 when purchased at the end of last season. I don't buy the 'You're spending £1000's on a days shooting so a few extra £'s for a box of cartridges isn't the end of the world' **** pushed on us. The most I've ever paid for a days shooting is £250. I do not and cannot frequent 400 bird days at £5k+ per peg. I'm shooting on a small syndicate shoot with the total cost for the entire season being less than £1000. The additional and upfront cost of really expensive cartridges does add on. Near enough an extra £6 per box compared to a 30g lead 6 cartridge which is more than adequate for our shooting. The 3" Dark Storm alternative are near £190 for 250 or £0.75 per shot. 

2. The 2 3/4" standard rated steel as mentioned above are nowhere near as effective as the lead alternative. I've had quite a few birds hit fairly hard (puff of feathers and all that on impact) with a steel cartridge only for it to continue to fly on and be a pain to retrieve as its still a fairly strong runner. I've opened up the birds after the pellets just don't seem to be very far into the bird. I've breasted a few Mallard out to find the steel pellets sat up against the breast bone just under the breast meat. Similarly with pheasants with very little penetration. Those ducks tend to come down onto a pond and require a team of dogs to retrieve it while it submarines about the place. A complete pain in the *** and not fair on the bird. Very little of what we shot is more than 40 yards away as the terrain on the ground doesn't produce 'high birds'. 

I know steel can be effective on wildfowl when in HP 3" or 3.5" format but the standard steel isn't cutting it. I used some 3" HP steel on the last syndicate day duck drive and spent half hour picking up the plastic wads when the drive was done. 

Until such a time that our proof specs are changed in line with the higher speed requirements for steel shot to be effective and the manufacturers and retailers start letting them out at a reasonable cost then I'll return to lead until such a time that it is no longer lawfully permitted. I'm not particularly happy with the current offerings and we need an alternate solution. Paying £1.50 - £2+ a shot for bismuth or ITX isn't a valid solution for the vast majority of users. 

My thoughts on your first paragraph are that more expensive cartridges will only increase your costs on your small syndicate shoot by the same percentage as if you were shooting more expensive days. 
This has to be the case as you may only be firing a couple of boxes per season compared to a couple of boxes per drive?

[Old farrier]

1 hour ago, holloway said:

I suppose even a small percentage could be described as a success but not sure were actual proof could come from ,i suppose a survey on actual gun shop sales figures would be the most reliable source .

Or input from game dealers can’t be too difficult to run a magnet over the birds 

would be very interesting to see what the sale of birds actually is and see if it’s increasing after lockdown or maybe there is a year on year decline in sales 

[holloway]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

holloway - I was surprised at the claim that it is a success, in any degree at all. It seemed like a very bold claim.

Yes i wasn't disagreeing, i am also fairly sceptical of such claims ,but if clutching at straws 1 or 2 % could be described as a success of sorts if desperate ,i would very much like to hear were the evidence is taken from as i do believe in this case that Basc s information might prove to be inaccurate . 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Konor said:

Thank you for taking the time to answer 4) and 5) I’d numbered the questions up to enable you to answer briefly but your answers were more comprehensive than expected.

I have read the documents that you had sourced most of your replies on but to have someone connected put that information in a context is helpful and adds a layer of clarification that is welcome.

It looks like I will be preparing for change with a bit more focus and I think I will be using a few different guns with a selection of ammunition to suit the circumstances surrounding each outing. Inevitably there will have to be compromises.
 My main worry is for those keen to take up shooting but the expense in doing so prohibits it. It’s easier for waged older people like myself who have invested in the necessary gear and whose only real expense is ammunition to accept change but if you are starting out and have a list that ranges from wellington boots to a suitable shotgun and everything in between to add on to the cost of your ammunition you’d have to be very determined to persevere. It’s those who fail to persevere and are “robbed” of the opportunity to enjoy a lifetime of sport, that many on this forum have enjoyed and maybe partly taken for granted , that I feel sorry for. Part of my reasoning for including the “concessions for old guns “content is that I can picture a grandfather keen to pass down his old Damascus barrel 20 bore 2 1/2 inch chambered gun to his grandson to enjoy in the field and I’d like to see that continue to be a viable option.

 

 

Thank you, I am glad that the answers helped. BASC and other organisations have been working on these policy issues for many years and I think all those involved share those concerns and are trying to secure the best possible outcome for all shooting disciplines. It is by no means an easy task.

I apologise for labelling you a 'belligerent BASC basher'. On reflection I think I have misjudged you.

[Sweet11-87]

just as a baseline before i start i use steel for wildfowling,  on the odd pigeon and personally i find it acceptable, i can get on with it and can and have killed with it plenty of times. but for everything else i use lead and always use fibre wad.  i get why BASC put forward the voluntary transition and for the most part actually support it. why sink millions into an unwinnable fight make the best of a bad situation and do it on shooters terms and show we can negotiate.

the core reason im still using lead is this....  i feel like im (the everyday man) the only one taking the hit and carrying the weight. the ballistics are inferior how much isnt relevant but its agreed lead is better.  why am i being told i should be using and encourage others to use something that costs  over £525 a thousand when im currently using something that costs about £325 a thousand that only 2 years ago i was paying about £200 for and can still get on the continent for about £280?......that british made  cartridges btw.

might be worth convincing the cartridge manufacturers to not cream us every time they get the excuse or opportunity to hike the price and maybe take a hit as we've taken the last 5 or 6 off the bat. were all in this together right?

 

 

Edited January 22 by Sweet11-87

[rbrowning2]

Apparently Express has announced a price increase from the 19th February, so do not expect cartridge to come down just to support a ban on lead.  Bottom line as the likes of WJ see it is you should pay what ever it costs to use non toxic and biodegradable wads if you want to shoot, that being a small price to protect the environment, flora and fauna.

[8 shot]

Still no mention of the cost for essential pest control with very little or no return, Plastic wads are definite No No....and Eco wads are just to expensive.

[Konor]

32 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thank you, I am glad that the answers helped. BASC and other organisations have been working on these policy issues for many years and I think all those involved share those concerns and are trying to secure the best possible outcome for all shooting disciplines. It is by no means an easy task.

I apologise for labelling you a 'belligerent BASC basher'. On reflection I think I have misjudged you.

P. M  sent 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

A small point:-

I would be interested in where the proof for this statement is. The replies on this forum and statistics cited would suggest the complete opposite.

 

 

Thanks, it is a valid point to raise. The reference you have commented on is taken from the BASC response in my answer to Konor on a sperate query and I think that reference is best read in the context of the BASC response but I appreciate that most will not read the BASC response and that explains my reluctance to provide extracts from that response - rather referring people to read the whole thing - there are always holes to pick out of context - but that is perhaps unrealistic also on reflection -  so a balance to be struck between the two approaches, and I hope you will appreciate that.

In essence, 'success' in the context of the BASC response is in relation to innovation with the creation of new non-lead products and changes in attitudes. We have seen lots progress on both fronts despite all the obstacles of world events. 

Here is an extract from BASC's response with the first point in mind:

BASC’s assessment is that the HSE has misunderstood the complications associated with a transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting and this has been further exacerbated by the war in Ukraine meaning that components are in short supply. The HSE has stated within the consultation documents that it may consider a shorter period of transition for Live quarry shooting with shot. Within the opinion document the HSE has stated that steel shot for live quarry shooting is already available. This is a clear oversight and not a true reflection of the industry and there are a significant number of challenges that
need to be addressed before we are able to go completely lead free for live quarry shooting with shot.

There are 142 types of steel shot cartridges currently available, however there is a shortage in the supply of components such as powder. This issue has been brought on by the war in Ukraine. Military ammunition uses the same double based powders as some steel shot cartridges and the military have a priority over supplies, leaving domestic ammunition to utilise what is left.

There are currently 74 variants of 12 and 20-gauge cartridges available with steel shot and biodegradables wads, and a further 68 options made up of alternative shot such as bismuth, tungsten and tin zinc and alloy mixes. This is a significant progress; however, demand is now outstripping supply and the production of steel shot cartridges is slower than that of lead, therefore many manufacturers are investing heavily, acquiring new machinery to meet
the demand of cartridges. There is also an issue with acquiring such machines that are produced in Europe at a rate of roughly 1 per year, and due to demand the time has risen to 3 years. However, we are in a position where the UK needs several such machines in a very short space of time. 

Also, BASC references figures from the 2022 GunsOnPegs Game Shooting Census and Shoot Owner Census survey undertaken by GunsOnPegs that estimated that: 70% of shoots will insist on guns going lead free; 43% were going lead free and encouraging other to do so; 60% had plans to go lead free for the coming season; and 77% of guns said they would be happy to change of a shoot requested them to do so.

More information is coming about the transition including the results of the recent BASC attitudes survey that recently closed. I think it is right to be positive and optimistic about the transition - and there would certainly be a tragic irony if PW members' evidence was used by the antis as a stick to beat us with!

For those new to this the BASC response can be downloaded as two documents from the following webpage:

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

[rbrowning2]

Also, BASC references figures from the 2022 GunsOnPegs Game Shooting Census and Shoot Owner Census survey undertaken by GunsOnPegs that estimated that: 70% of shoots will insist on guns going lead free; 43% were going lead free and encouraging other to do so; 60% had plans to go lead free for the coming season; and 77% of guns said they would be happy to change of a shoot requested them to do so.

2022 Is it just me ? all shoots total 100% yet

70% of shoots will insist on guns (all guns) going lead free so for 23/24 season that’s 70% lead free

60%  of shoots were going lead free 23/24 season

total 130% ! lead free for 23/24 season

Then 43% we’re going lead free sometime may be 23/24 may be not and encouraging others ? who left to encourage ?

Help I give up, does not make any sense to me, someone correct me.

Proof will be when the likes of WJ do a sample check.

[Conor O'Gorman]

22 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Also, BASC references figures from the 2022 GunsOnPegs Game Shooting Census and Shoot Owner Census survey undertaken by GunsOnPegs that estimated that: 70% of shoots will insist on guns going lead free; 43% were going lead free and encouraging other to do so; 60% had plans to go lead free for the coming season; and 77% of guns said they would be happy to change of a shoot requested them to do so.

2022 Is it just me ? all shoots total 100% yet

70% of shoots will insist on guns (all guns) going lead free so for 23/24 season that’s 70% lead free

60%  of shoots were going lead free 23/24 season

total 130% ! lead free for 23/24 season

Then 43% we’re going lead free sometime may be 23/24 may be not and encouraging others ? who left to encourage ?

Help I give up, does not make any sense to me, someone correct me.

Proof will be when the likes of WJ do a sample check.

They will be different percentages based on answers from a sample to different questions. They are not meant to be added together if that make sense. There will also be results of various surveys published this year with further insights, including BASC's recent survey.

 

[rbrowning2]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

They will be different percentages based on answers from a sample to different questions. They are not meant to be added together if that make sense. There will also be results of various surveys published this year with further insights, including BASC's recent survey.

 

However they all relate to the same common subject, shoots going non toxic so are not mutually exclusive.