Conor O'Gorman Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Konor said: Perceived problem because I would maintain that in some areas being shot over the deposition of lead shot on the ground would be so small that it’s effect would not be measurable and probably of no consequence but the perception given by a blanket lead shot band would seem to indicate that lead deposition would be a significant environmental problem no matter where it occurred or the level of shooting involved. Conor I’m beginning to question the point of engaging with you. You seem to feign not understanding the question asked or ignore them altogether. It may work in politics but I think it is becoming obvious that your responding posts mimic a willingness to interact but the truth may lie closer to the fact that you have little to contribute. Perhaps in light of this you should reconsider how you interact with members on the forum and either step up to answer genuine concerns honestly to move the debate on or step out rather than continue going round in circles as you are the only poster doing so. Perhaps then take up your questions with GWCT? 4 minutes ago, Konor said: Do you understand the question now ? Sorry I still don't understand. It would help if you could ask a single question in a single sentence in plain English please. Edited April 13 by Conor O'Gorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Perhaps then take up your questions with GWCT? Anything but answer a straight question Conor, why not just state that you are unwilling to discuss rather than waste people’s time with your blethering. I’m sure you’ll be familiar with that Ulster /Scot’s term you appear to be the master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 17 minutes ago, Konor said: Anything but answer a straight question Conor, why not just state that you are unwilling to discuss rather than waste people’s time with your blethering. I’m sure you’ll be familiar with that Ulster /Scot’s term you appear to be the master. As I said it would help if you could ask a single question in a single sentence in plain English please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Sorry I still don't understand. It would help if you could ask a single question in a single sentence in plain English please I’m sorry you are incapable of understanding . I can write it out in plain English for you as I have done but unfortunately I can’t understand it for you,that’s where your intelligence should kick in. Never mind I didn’t expect you to answer given your track record and as you have obviously no intention of doing so am not too disappointed. Perhaps show the posts to a colleague on Monday and they can explain it to you. Don’t bother getting back to me though that boat has sailed. Edited April 13 by Konor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 31 minutes ago, Konor said: I was merely questioning why a more imaginative resolution to the perceived problem of lead shot in the environment could not be found.Do you therefore think that there are limitations to achieving that and what do you consider those limitations to be One last attempt Conor perhaps share with a friend and maybe they can explain. Someone in GWCT perhaps ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) One last attempt plus one What is standing in the way of a resolution of the lead shot /environmental impact issue that does not involve a blanket lead ban ? I’ve made quite an effort with this despite my better judgement but am interested to hear your response. Perhaps once you’ve answered this you can go through the whole thread and answer all the other questions and points you’ve avoided ,if you need the questions explained a few times for clarity I’m sure your colleagues will be only too willing to help out maybe convince one to take over your role on the forum if you are finding it too challenging Edited April 13 by Konor Addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said: What happens from 2025 onwards will be for the organisations that announced the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting with shotguns in 2020 to decide and announce. If the government dont decide to ban lead shot before . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigteddy1954 Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 Hi if the commercial shooting group changes from lead to steel which shoots thousands of lead cartridges a season over the same land and most of them do simulation days on the same piece of land in a year . So a crop and vermin shooter who may only shot a few hundred over the entire year be classed as the same as the commercial shooter. For contaminating the land with lead and plas wads. cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted April 14 Author Report Share Posted April 14 11 hours ago, Konor said: One last attempt plus one What is standing in the way of a resolution of the lead shot /environmental impact issue that does not involve a blanket lead ban ? I’ve made quite an effort with this despite my better judgement but am interested to hear your response. Perhaps once you’ve answered this you can go through the whole thread and answer all the other questions and points you’ve avoided ,if you need the questions explained a few times for clarity I’m sure your colleagues will be only too willing to help out maybe convince one to take over your role on the forum if you are finding it too challenging I think that is more of a riddle than a question. The voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting is voluntary - ie. it's a choice. The reason and purpose of the joint statement is here: https://www.gwct.org.uk/news/news/2020/february/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/ The voluntary transition is reducing the risks of birds eating lead shot as grit. There is no blanket ban on lead. Clearly this dialogue by text isn't working out, not least this is at least the third time you have seen fit to make personal comments, so I suggest we organise a phone to call to discuss further. Please email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk To be clear - I am not engaging with you any further on this thread until we speak on the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellside Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 1 hour ago, Bigteddy1954 said: Hi if the commercial shooting group changes from lead to steel which shoots thousands of lead cartridges a season over the same land and most of them do simulation days on the same piece of land in a year . So a crop and vermin shooter who may only shot a few hundred over the entire year be classed as the same as the commercial shooter. For contaminating the land with lead and plas wads. cheers In terms of what is currently being proposed - yes. Although, it’s easy enough to use fibre for both re lead shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 (edited) 2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said: I think that is more of a riddle than a question. The voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting is voluntary - ie. it's a choice. The reason and purpose of the joint statement is here: https://www.gwct.org.uk/news/news/2020/february/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/ The voluntary transition is reducing the risks of birds eating lead shot as grit. There is no blanket ban on lead. Clearly this dialogue by text isn't working out, not least this is at least the third time you have seen fit to make personal comments, so I suggest we organise a phone to call to discuss further. Please email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk To be clear - I am not engaging with you any further on this thread until we speak on the phone. I find it hard to believe that you are unable to understand the question despite my clarifications and the personal remarks made are in response to your refusal to engage constructively and your deliberate misunderstanding of my posts and the resulting frustration that has caused and incidentally not helped by your pompous and condescending tone as noted by other forum members. The crux of the matter is that I do not believe a blanket ban on lead shot use is proportional to the risk to the environment in certain cases. These cases would include rough shooting over a large area of ground where few cartridges are shot. If that was accepted to be the case prior to legislation being introduced then it would allow vintage guns to continue to be used with lead shot on a limited basis. Your maintaining that we are at present in a situation where a voluntary ban exists and that this will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future is not tenable as in 4 years there has been an insignificant move away from the use of lead shot. As BASC et al have conceded that the use of lead shot is so detrimental to the environment that it has to cease to be used then there will be little reason to prevent an all out legislated ban. This state of affairs could be partially avoided if BASC et al were minded to accept that in certain situations the use of lead shot is not significantly detrimental to the environment and if they were minded to fight for that to be accepted in law. As a result shooters could continue to use vintage guns with the shot they were designed to be used with on a limited basis and such guns would not be spiralling in value resulting eventually in a great loss of our sporting heritage. Your engagement so far Conor has been of limited if any value and as you already know I discuss issues openly on the forum and see no point in discussing anything on the phone privately as we both know it would achieve nothing. I have given up too much time already and cannot justify sacrificing any more when I can see no justification for it. You have intentionally refused to debate the issue and hide behind copy and paste so I see no value in continuing to discuss with you. Edited April 14 by Konor Addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said: There is no blanket ban on lead. Why not attempt to foresee where we are heading. Your “ There is no blanket ban on lead “mantra is akin to an ostrich with its head in the sand, not a good look for someone purporting to be protecting the future of our sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 1 hour ago, Konor said: I have given up too much time already and cannot justify sacrificing any more when I can see no justification for it. 🤣 and yet you post this :- 1 hour ago, Konor said: 58 minutes ago, Konor said: Why not attempt to foresee where we are heading. Your “ There is no blanket ban on lead “mantra is akin to an ostrich with its head in the sand, not a good look for someone purporting to be protecting the future of our sport. It's clear that BASC and others are looking at where we are likely to be heading hence all of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 oowee - I note that you comment on Konor making a further post, but ignore it when Conor O'Gorman has done the very same thing in the past. I think Konor has been restrained and stuck to the relevant matter rather than patronising anyone who questions BASC's rather feeble arguments. The BASC line is to post links, ignore questions or offer a phone call, the usefulness of which is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 4 minutes ago, Gordon R said: oowee - I note that you comment on Konor making a further post, but ignore it when Conor O'Gorman has done the very same thing in the past. I think Konor has been restrained and stuck to the relevant matter rather than patronising anyone who questions BASC's rather feeble arguments. The BASC line is to post links, ignore questions or offer a phone call, the usefulness of which is laughable. Your right. I just caught up with this today and it's been going around and around. It's disappointing when the argument resorts to attacking the person rather than the point of discussion (on both sides I might add). For me I wait to see which way the legislation ultimately falls but when I go to my local clay ground and see the piles of plastic in dumpy bags it's pretty appalling. I can't believe that we can't sort this plastic waste fairly easily at least for clay shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 Got to agree again. Relatively easy to collect shell cases, but wads are another matter. If we go over to steel, I am yet to be convinced about the fully enclosed wads degrading . Perhaps someone can enlighten me. The view is that birds pick up harmful lead shot by ingesting it. Does the same not apply to steel shot? As steel shot isn't used very much, can any survey be reliable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellside Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 9 minutes ago, Gordon R said: Got to agree again. Relatively easy to collect shell cases, but wads are another matter. If we go over to steel, I am yet to be convinced about the fully enclosed wads degrading . Perhaps someone can enlighten me. The view is that birds pick up harmful lead shot by ingesting it. Does the same not apply to steel shot? As steel shot isn't used very much, can any survey be reliable? I think the key danger of lead shot when ingested as grit - from the papers I have read - is that it has the potential to cause non lethal harm. One example is the limiting of breeding success. It is unlikely that steel will cause similar. The other important consideration is the rapid rusting and degradation of steel shot, i.e it doesn’t hang around for long. Don’t misunderstand my post however. This does not mean that I support any restrictions. Like most I will continue using lead where it is unlikely to be harmful. It’s just worth thinking about if there are grey partridges around, as they seem to be the most vulnerable non-wildfowl species. In real terms, for most other species, habitat quality (or the lack of it) appears to remain the key population determinant. P.S Plastic wads, that’s an entirely different matter. Don’t get me started re plastic litter (?!). I’ve been using fibre for years for everything including clays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 Fellside - thanks for that. Not sure how long steel hangs about for. "Long" might be a year or two. That said, lead hangs around for a whole lot longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 2 hours ago, oowee said: 🤣 and yet you post this :- It's clear that BASC and others are looking at where we are likely to be heading hence all of the discussion. I’ve committed quite a bit of time on posting only to be mucked about by Conor’s reluctance to give a straight answer to any of my questions. His continued focus on the present day “ there is no lead ban “ mantra contradicts your expectation that he is acknowledging a time when a legislative ban will be brought in. I too am fed up with the personal one upmanship that raises its head but if Conor had chosen to engage in debate at least half of it would have been avoided. The ball was in his court but he chose to throw it away. I personally think that BASC is playing both sides they will fight our corner by insisting that a voluntary ban is sufficient and that they are opposed to legislation but then keep their “green” credentials by failing to oppose a legislative ban as after all that is what a voluntary ban seeks to achieve,the cessation of the use of lead shot. If I at some point felt sufficiently frustrated at the deliberate misunderstanding of my questions to say that would be my last post then post again 1 minute later to highlight the stupidity of relying on the continual answer that there is no lead ban it’s a voluntary transition away from lead then that’s my choice and sorry no apology for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 (edited) We are all capable of reading BASC updates and probably all do so. I question the value of a BASC representative’s sole contribution to the forum being the copy and pasting of articles which he then has the nerve to state directly or imply that the forum members have no background knowledge of or are ill informed and that we spend our time misinforming each other or engaging ourselves in conspiracy theories. Ideally Conor should be adding context or interpretation to the information or he is not the asset to understanding the issues that he could be. Some may be happy with the condescension and accusations that Conor has stated throughout this thread aimed at numerous members of the forum but I don’t find it acceptable.Generally I stick to debating the issue especially when others are as sincere in return. Any personal remarks I make are usually initiated and in response to disrespectful remarks aimed at myself or condescension which I think ,rightly or wrongly, is justifiable. Edited April 14 by Konor Addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jall25 Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 1 hour ago, Gordon R said: Got to agree again. Relatively easy to collect shell cases, but wads are another matter. If we go over to steel, I am yet to be convinced about the fully enclosed wads degrading . Perhaps someone can enlighten me. The view is that birds pick up harmful lead shot by ingesting it. Does the same not apply to steel shot? As steel shot isn't used very much, can any survey be reliable? And imagine the animals and birds eating bit of plastic wad - surely frying pan to fire ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old farrier Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 (edited) Well after many questions with no answer I have formed a opinion game birds shot with lead are toxic however venison shot with lead isn’t 🤔 lead shot at game birds damages the flora and fauna but lead shot at clay pigeon doesn’t 🤔 spent shot kills wee baby partridge but only on a game shoot not a clay ground 🤔 game shot with steel will sell better and be worth more than the cost of the cartridge there will be no surplus 🤔 bio wads are good and disappear if you pick them up and put them in a commercial composter🤔 but it’s not important to use them at a clay ground plastic wads that you don’t really need are ok the major organisations want you to use a lead alternative but haven’t thought about what to do with the existing lead cartridges 🤔 the voluntary transition has rendered thousands of guns obsolete and devalued many more 🙄 probably missed a few points here but it’s a start 🙄 Edited April 14 by Old farrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellside Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 4 minutes ago, jall25 said: And imagine the animals and birds eating bit of plastic wad - surely frying pan to fire ? Well……. in the ideal world, which we don’t live in, there would exist an inexpensive type of steel pellet alloyed with another heavier metal….. oh and a fully protecting bio wad. Could someone develop this please? By next Sunday would be fine as I plan to be shooting then. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Best Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 3 minutes ago, Old farrier said: Well after many aquariums with no answer I have formed a opinion game birds shot with lead are toxic however venison shot with lead isn’t 🤔 lead shot at game birds damages the flora and fauna but lead shot at clay pigeon doesn’t 🤔 spent shot kills wee baby partridge but only on a game shoot not a clay ground 🤔 game shot with steel will sell better and be worth more than the cost of the cartridge there will be no surplus 🤔 bio wads are good and disappear if you pick them up and put them in a commercial composter🤔 but it’s not important to use them at a clay ground plastic wads that you don’t really need are ok probably missed a few points here but it’s a start 🙄 That about sums it up! Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konor Posted April 14 Report Share Posted April 14 12 pages , the assistance of a BASC representative and the best brains on the forum and the result is ………..total confusion.😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts