BASC update on voluntary transition away from lead shot and and single-use plastics for live quarry

[Weihrauch17]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Shooting estates have been supplying small game to market for around 150 years. It's nothing new. Just because someone else enjoys a different shooting experience to your own does not perhaps give you the moral high ground. Perhaps consider that some people in your local community believe that you are part of the problem going out there shooting birds to eat them when you could have just popped into your local Tesco to feed yourself. 

Old Farrier there is all the proof you need that this whole lead ban BS is entirely about supporting the unpalatable commercial Game Shoots.

[holloway]

14 hours ago, holloway said:

so using 1 1/8 loads as a good average chucking nearly  20 lbs of lead shot over the ground every shoot day .multiply that by days shooting year after year 🤔

So 160 lbs a season if 8 shoots a season ,x 25 years comes to 1280 lbs of toxic lead  shot scattered over the land,(making allowance for my awful maths )  .I would not call this a big shoot by any means but still a staggering amount of pollution by any standards.

Also just to play devils advocate to all of those asking to be shown the proof of harm to wildlife by lead shot ,just do a google search yourself and you will be able to find all of the evidence you need should you choose to put in a little effort .

The Americans were looking for lead  shot replacement as a consequence of toxic  shot restrictions over wetlands in the seventies earliest date i can find is 1966 all instigated by their  research into the poisoning of waterfowl.

[Konor]

The oft stated reliance on the voluntary move away from lead shot despite its minimal impact and the refusal to acknowledge or consider the possibility of treading a middle ground by accepting that the “problem” is best dealt with by restrictions on the greatest polluters is worrying . If it’s all or nothing the greater likelihood is that we will end up with a blanket ban on lead shot use.As BASC et al have already stated that they are aiming for a voluntary rejection of the use of lead shot and every anti shoo5ing academic and organisation is arguing for a total lead ban then blanket ban legislation achieves a happy outcome for both.

BASC et al are then left to blame everyone but themselves for the outcome. If we are to negotiate limitations on any future ban then we’d be well advised to be considering what shape those compromises should take in order to minimise the impact on the majority of more casual shooters that are the grass roots of the shooting community and also to protect our shooting heritage represented by all those who favour using vintage guns and do so in what could be considered a sustainable manner.

Its a worry that it has been considered by those employed to protect our best interests that perhaps RSPB and WWT are only concerned with stopping the poisoning of birds by lead shot. Naive in the extreme and is a refusal to acknowledge both organisations intolerance of sporting shooting it is also a sense of their reluctance to negotiate the best outcome for the majority of shooters from a position of strength.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, holloway said:

So 160 lbs a season if 8 shoots a season ,x 25 years comes to 1280 lbs of toxic lead  shot scattered over the land,(making allowance for my awful maths )  .I would not call this a big shoot by any means but still a staggering amount of pollution by any standards.

Also just to play devils advocate to all of those asking to be shown the proof of harm to wildlife by lead shot ,just do a google search yourself and you will be able to find all of the evidence you need should you choose to put in a little effort .

The Americans were looking for lead  shot replacement as a consequence of toxic  shot restrictions over wetlands in the seventies earliest date i can find is 1966 all instigated by their  research into the poisoning of waterfowl.

Is this staggering amount of lead shot pollution and overwhelming evidence of lead shot poisoning , I assume in inland quarry birds as that is what is being discussed ,reflected in a significant drop in the numbers of quarry birds and has American investigation into lead shot use resulted in the total banning of lead shot for upland hunting ? If the evidence is so overwhelming why has this not occurred ?

I see a great deal of claims regarding the validity of the research proving the toxicity of lead shot and it’s effect on wildlife inland but I’m not seeing the figures that back this up.

Surely this overwhelming evidence that justifies the banning of the use of lead shot over non wetland areas has figures attached that illustrate the extent of the damage and the scale of the problem. Or is the evidence carried out not as conclusive as some would have us believe.

Before we can assess whether a total lead ban is justified surely it is essential that we know the scale of the damage to ascertain whether a total lead ban is appropriate. Figures please from those who are promoting restrictions or voluntary moves away from lead shots and then perhaps we can begin to deal with the problem appropriately rather than argue over the politics of the proposed changes.

In conclusion why are BASC et al not opting to tackle the hot spot areas of greatest lead contamination and assessing the level of improvement in both the environment and chick survival rates that is possible by doing so . That way we can all see the justification in the proposed ban on lead use if it exists and act accordingly.The extent of the loss to our shooting heritage by the inevitable phasing out of the use of our vintage guns is , I believe , disproportionate to the risk to wildlife and the environment resulting from their limited use. Why would our national organisations sit back and allow that loss to happen ?,an explanation for the justification in doing so would be welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20 by Konor

[holloway]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

Is this staggering amount of lead shot pollution and overwhelming evidence of lead shot poisoning reflected in a significant drop in the numbers of quarry birds and has American investigation into lead shot use resulted in the total banning of lead shot for upland hunting ? If the evidence is so overwhelming why has this not occurred ?

I see a great deal of claims regarding the validity of the research proving the toxicity of lead shot and it’s effect on wildlife inland but I’m not seeing the figures that back this up.

Surely this overwhelming evidence that justifies the banning of the use of lead shot over non wetland areas has figures attached that illustrate the extent of the damage and the scale of the problem. Or is the evidence carried out not as conclusive as some would have us believe.

Before we can assess whether a total lead ban is justified surely it is essential that we know the scale of the damage to ascertain whether a total lead ban is appropriate. Figures please from those who are promoting restrictions or voluntary moves away from lead shots and then perhaps we can begin to deal with the problem appropriately rather than argue over the politics of the proposed changes.

Konor in todays world correctly or incorrectly the precautionary principle rules ,as anybody who has had to deal with Natural England shooting consents know .The authorities who ever they happen to be at the time will restrict ban or regulate if you cannot prove that no harm is being done ,this is the way things are being sorted today ,and with the best will in the world scattering what looks to be hundreds of thousands of tons of Lead shot over the countryside is going to be very tricky to say no harm is being done i will go further and say it will be impossible. Authorities do not need any evidence of harm they need evidence of no harm.

With or without Basc this is what is happening in this country they cant stop it ,at least only by using there own evidence based data might they have any chance of doing so ,i have searched the internet for answers and data  myself and am satisfied that there is a problem with lead shot ingestion there has been 50 years worth of worldwide research,  all of your questions have answers that can be found on the internet if you want to you will find them.

What will eventually happen is that with no firm evidence to prove that Lead shot is not harming wildlife etc it will be banned, Basc or yourself  have no say in this without evidence to prove otherwise.

Not saying any of this is right or wrong but it is whats happening .🙁

[Conor O'Gorman]

11 hours ago, Konor said:

I think that the naivety of that assertion very nearly left me speechless.
I’m sure we can agree that politics dictates that you use every opportunity to further your objectives and that achieving your  goals overrides any qualms surrounding the method that achieves that ,to a great extent.

Konor may I ask you to post without resorting to personal comments please. You have repeated the naivety comment later in this thread also. On top of various other personal comments earlier in this thread which prompted me to stop engaging with you. However, if you want the gloves off that is fine with me you will get it back in spades. And where will that leave us? 

[Konor]

19 minutes ago, holloway said:

Konor in todays world correctly or incorrectly the precautionary principle rules ,as anybody who has had to deal with Natural England shooting consents know .The authorities who ever they happen to be at the time will restrict ban or regulate if you cannot prove that no harm is being done ,this is the way things are being sorted today ,and with the best will in the world scattering what looks to be hundreds of thousands of tons of Lead shot over the countryside is going to be very tricky to say no harm is being done i will go further and say it will be impossible. Authorities do not need any evidence of harm they need evidence of no harm.

With or without Basc this is what is happening in this country they cant stop it ,at least only by using there own evidence based data might they have any chance of doing so ,i have searched the internet for answers and data  myself and am satisfied that there is a problem with lead shot ingestion there has been 50 years worth of worldwide research,  all of your questions have answers that can be found on the internet if you want to you will find them.

What will eventually happen is that with no firm evidence to prove that Lead shot is not harming wildlife etc it will be banned, Basc or yourself  have no say in this without evidence to prove otherwise.

Not saying any of this is right or wrong but it is whats happening .🙁

So in the absence of evidence to support the conclusion that lead shot is causing no significant harm to inland bird populations then the logical course of action is to ban its use. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse and there should be concrete evidence to show a significant detrimental affect on game birds or otherwise it plays into the hands of our opponents ,well at least mine ,who wish to see the banning of all live quarry shooting

Your argument doesn’t address the failure of our fieldsports organisations to propose a compromise resolution that would see hotspot areas having the use of lead shot halted and the results of that studied to indicate the scale of any problem.

It looks like both you and BASC et al have thrown in the towel it would be interesting to be shown the compelling figures that have given rise to that sorry state of affairs.

[Konor]

4 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Konor may I ask you to post without resorting to personal comments please. You have repeated the naivety comment later in this thread also. On top of various other personal comments earlier in this thread which prompted me to stop engaging with you. However, if you want the gloves off that is fine with me you will get it back in spades. And where will that leave us? 

I’d quite happily take it back in spades if you were to reply honestly to the points raised starting with the reluctance to push for a halting of lead shot on hotspot areas to assess the impact of doing so and the continual reference to adhering to a policy of a voluntary move away from lead shot use when it is clearly having zero affect.

Should your aim be to increase the level of personal insult as you see it to have the thread locked then do so. It still won’t answer your failure to engage with the genuine concerns raised.

Perhaps you should just put on your big boy pants and instead of threatening a barrage of insults engage with points raised on the forum

[clangerman]

12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

If you wish to continue using lead shot for your live quarry shooting that is your choice. There is no need to make it personal. Thank you.

 

nothing personal about it anyone who can’t prove their case is full of cobblers you can always produce the nonexistent corpses and prove me wrong! 

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 minutes ago, Konor said:

I’d quite happily take it back in spades if you were to reply honestly to the points raised starting with the reluctance to push for a halting of lead shot on hotspot areas to assess the impact of doing so and the continual reference to adhering to a policy of a voluntary move away from lead shot use when it is clearly having zero affect.

Should your aim be to increase the level of personal insult as you see it to have the thread locked then do so. It still won’t answer your failure to engage with the genuine concerns raised.

Perhaps you should just put on your big boy pants and instead of threatening a barrage of insults engage with points raised on the forum

I will happily give you my view on those points. First please assure me that you will refrain from further personal comments about me just because you have a different opinion about something I write. It is not respectful and I presume you are an adult with some life experience under your belt to understand that. I am a named person on a public forum. You are an anonymous person. Also I think your ref to big boy pants is condescending. Were I to make remarks like this about you I think you would be protesting loudly.

4 minutes ago, clangerman said:

nothing personal about it anyone who can’t prove their case is full of cobblers you can always produce the nonexistent corpses and prove me wrong! 

Did you watch the video of the duck and swan suffering lead poisoning in videos above?

[Konor]

10 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Were I to make remarks like this about you I think you would be protesting loudly.

You obviously don’t know me Conor I can assure you that being asked to put on my big boy pants would cause me no stress ,discomfort or cause to protest loudly  I’m sorry if it has triggered that response in yourself I myself have no such fragility.

The inescapable fact is that we have both committed far too much time posting on this thread which could easily have been avoided if you had engaged with the issues raised. That you chose not to and earlier defended not doing so has led us to where we are now. Perhaps you should ponder on that and reevaluate your approach to the issue.

Edited April 20 by Konor
Addition

[Konor]

No science no change , where is the specific scientific facts that have arisen since BASC made the statement that there should be no change resulting in the prohibition of lead without irrefutable evidence to drive that change Is the driver of the change in approach a result of new scientific evidence or is it politically driven. 
I’m always wary of long delays in response, the truth comes thick and fast usually. Concocting a guarded limited response riddled with partial truths to achieve a political goal normally takes a little bit longer

Edited April 20 by Konor
Addition

[Conor O'Gorman]

27 minutes ago, Konor said:

You obviously don’t know me Conor I can assure you that being asked to put on my big boy pants would cause me no stress ,discomfort or cause to protest loudly  I’m sorry if it has triggered that response in yourself I myself have no such fragility.

The inescapable fact is that we have both committed far too much time posting on this thread which could easily have been avoided if you had engaged with the issues raised. That you chose not to and earlier defended not doing so has led us to where we are now. Perhaps you should ponder on that and reevaluate your approach to the issue.

I have asked you to refrain from further personal comments about me just because you have a different opinion about something I write. You have now used the phrases naïve, big boy pants, and lastly fragility. That is demeaning and condescending language.  Can you please be more respectful in your comments towards me? You should not need to resort to ad hominem arguments. 

[holloway]

58 minutes ago, Konor said:

So in the absence of evidence to support the conclusion that lead shot is causing no significant harm to inland bird populations then the logical course of action is to ban its use. Surely that is putting the cart before the horse and there should be concrete evidence to show a significant detrimental affect on game birds or otherwise it plays into the hands of our opponents ,well at least mine ,who wish to see the banning of all live quarry shooting

Your argument doesn’t address the failure of our fieldsports organisations to propose a compromise resolution that would see hotspot areas having the use of lead shot halted and the results of that studied to indicate the scale of any problem.

It looks like both you and BASC et al have thrown in the towel it would be interesting to be shown the compelling figures that have given rise to that sorry state of affairs.

Konor please understand it is not in the hands of Basc or myself and it is not my argument it is just the way these things are looked at in todays world and the way things will eventually pan out ……my view for what its worth in the ideal world would mirror yours almost exactly, to me its a good common sense view which seems reasonable to us .

I haven't thrown the towel in, but i am a realist i use steel or Bismuth for all my shooting from 410 to vintage guns but in my opinion only really possible by home loading and having no involvement with big bag shooting ,its a pain and i would rather buy shop bought cartridges but for me accepting that i cant get the ammunition to use all of my guns would be throwing the towel in.

There is a much bigger picture than Bascs involvement .

[Bigteddy1954]

Hi conor when you started this thread did you not stop to think you would have poked a hornet's nest with a stick .just saying.

[Konor]

2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I have asked you to refrain from further personal comments about me just because you have a different opinion about something I write. You have now used the phrases naïve, big boy pants, and lastly fragility. That is demeaning and condescending language.  Can you please be more respectful in your comments towards me? You should not need to resort to ad hominem arguments. 

As a diversion from actually responding to points raised that is a fairly poor response but that is your choice and reflects more on yourself than the level of criticism that you seem to be suffering from. I have made my points you have failed to respond honestly preferring instead to fabricate the idea that you are being hard done by. The sun is out so I’m heading out to enjoy it as I see little evidence of an honest debate being forthcoming.

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 minutes ago, Konor said:

As a diversion from actually responding to points raised that is a fairly poor response but that is your choice and reflects more on yourself than the level of criticism that you seem to be suffering from. I have made my points you have failed to respond honestly preferring instead to fabricate the idea that you are being hard done by. The sun is out so I’m heading out to enjoy it as I see little evidence of an honest debate being forthcoming.

Please  assure me that you will refrain from further personal comments about me? It's a gentlemanly request and easily done. Ball in your court.

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, holloway said:

Konor please understand it is not in the hands of Basc or myself and it is not my argument it is just the way these things are looked at in todays world and the way things will eventually pan out ……my view for what its worth in the ideal world would mirror yours almost exactly, to me its a good common sense view which seems reasonable to us .

I haven't thrown the towel in, but i am a realist i use steel or Bismuth for all my shooting from 410 to vintage guns but in my opinion only really possible by home loading and having no involvement with big bag shooting ,its a pain and i would rather buy shop bought cartridges but for me accepting that i cant get the ammunition to use all of my guns would be throwing the towel in.

There is a much bigger picture than Bascs involvement .

Holloway I respect your opinion. However as there has been no firm decision on how this issue will play out I think that is only right that I put forward my point of view in the hope that it will encourage a move away from the all or nothing stance prevailing and perhaps encourage a more imaginative approach to the problem. 

[London Best]

YAWN.

[Konor]

7 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Please  assure me that you will refrain from further personal comments about me? It's a gentlemanly request and easily done. Ball in your court.

There is nothing preventing you from commenting on the issues I have raised ,is doing so conditional on my complying with your request ,which incidentally you have been guilty of too but to date I have not commented on, or  are we going to approach this in a more adult fashion

I don’t think agreeing to be censored is a fair exchange for the replies I expect you to post to be honest 

Edited April 20 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

8 minutes ago, Bigteddy1954 said:

Hi conor when you started this thread did you not stop to think you would have poked a hornet's nest with a stick .just saying.

Good morning, this update was shared across social media. There will be further updates to come. I deal with many of the queries that come into BASC on this topic. Vast majority understand it. Some on here don't and that's fair enough. Did you have any feedback on my response to your post yesterday about sick and dead birds?

2 minutes ago, Konor said:

There is nothing preventing you from commenting on the issues I have raised ,is doing so conditional on my complying with your request ,which incidentally you have been guilty of too but to date I have not commented on, or  are we going to approach this in a more adult fashion

I don’t think agreeing to be censored is a fair exchange for the replies I expect you to post to be honest 

Fair enough. Conversation over until you commit to stopping with the disrespectful personal remarks. It really is that simple.

[Konor]

5 minutes ago, London Best said:

YAWN.

Perhaps you consider not worth opposing the proposals to force you to use steel shot through your London Best guns or have pockets sufficiently deep to use bismuth or other prohibitively costly alternatives but I do and I don’t respectively. While your response is welcome in illustrating your commitment to oppose unnecessary change it is unfortunately of little value. 

[Konor]

9 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Fair enough. Conversation over until you commit to stopping with the disrespectful personal remarks. It really is that simple.

And a convenient get out clause for yourself based on the flimsiest of reasons. I expected that your capabilities extended to addressing the points raised , I think your refusal speaks volumes. Fellow shooters take note.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Fair enough. Conversation over until you commit to stopping with the disrespectful personal remarks. It really is that simple.

Connor O'Gorman. Perhaps you could look back through your posts to check how many times you have patronised posters, suggesting that they re-read answers which aren't there. Then you accuse Konor of disrespecting you. It's a bit rich.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Fair enough. Conversation over until you commit to stopping with the disrespectful personal remarks. It really is that simple.

Let's be honest you have no intention of addressing the issue of hotspots or the failure of the voluntary move away from lead shot. You have been wasting both my time and yours. The posts will reflect your shortcoming in engaging with the points I have raised. I have little else to add other than I hope you demonstrate a good bit more resolve when dealing with the best interests of grass roots shooters when facing our opponents. 

I'm out. 

Edited April 20 by Konor