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

[rbrowning2]

6 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I agree with you on the same piece of ground used for live quarry and target shooting - there would be little logic in a shoot voluntarily moving away from lead shot for one discipline and not the other on the same piece of ground in the open countryside where risks to birds are unlikely to be controllable - i

Where do we shoot clay pigeons if not in open countryside? 

Think Trafalgar square may cause a few problems, what is your definition of open countryside?

 

[rbrowning2]

3 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Conor, no manufacturer has developed a satisfactory biowad. I have even made you personally aware of this and yet BASC continues to bury its head in the sand. Why is that BASC never listens?

To be clear once more - the "biocompostible" wads used by Hull, B&P, bioammo, lyalvale etc are made of polylactic acid (PLA). PLA does not break down in real world conditions, so they are no different in practice to a plaswad. They are also brittle in cold weather and prone to splitting. 

The water soluble wads will degrade but they foul the bores terribly, significant enough that barrel obstruction becomes a real risk. They are also not amenable to long term storage or available to the homeloader due to their sensitivity to atmospheric moisture. 

The paper cup wads are not strong enough for steel shot. Myself and others have tested these extensively and barrel and choke scoring is commonplace.

The manufactures are using material certified to EN13432 but conveniently don’t tell you that just because the material is certified to EN13432 the product manufactured from it will likely not if too thick like that of a wad.
It is material targeted at the packaging industry like used in plastic bags or food rappers.

We are all in the dark when we buy cartridges with so called biodegradable wads as we know in reality nothing about them as only the paper/card type actually have microorganisms in nature that degrade them being made from cellulose.

Edited April 7 by rbrowning2

[Smudger687]

28 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

The manufactures are using material certified to EN13432 but conveniently don’t tell you that just because the material is certified to EN13432 the product manufactured from it will likely not if too thick like that of a wad.
It is material targeted at the packaging industry like used in plastic bags or food rappers.

We are all in the dark when we buy cartridges with so called biodegradable wads as we know in reality nothing about them as only the paper/card type actually have microorganisms in nature that degrade them being made from cellulose.

Yep. It's a con, and it would fall flat were it not for the likes of BASC propping it up. 

[Scully]

5 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I don't think the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting is a forerunner to a ban on lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting - the shooting organisations do not make the law - but it is about reducing the risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats of those birds picking up lead shot as grit and suffering ill effects from that.  

Consider other voluntary measures - voluntary restraint on the shooting of waterfowl during prolonged periods of severe winter weather, voluntary restraint on shooting woodcock until the migrants arrive, all the voluntary codes of practice and so on. Self-regulation is preferable to one-size fits all changes in law. 

In that context, BASC's argument against the Health and Safety Executive proposals to ban lead shot for live quarry shooting is that the voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting is reducing the risks lead shot pose to birds - and that the shooting sector must be allowed time to develop non-lead shotgun ammunition due to a world shortage of components and the need for manufacturers and assemblers to source new machinery to produce lead shot alternatives and biodegradable wads for all shotgun calibers.

Yes, that's your personal choice, and for the sake of the birds you might consider moving away from lead shot for live quarry shooting.

So you don’t see it as a forerunner to a ban, but in the third paragraph state the HSE’s proposals to ban lead shot for live quarry shooting. Is it me? Am I missing something here? 
So therefore you are suggesting that a voluntary phase out of lead will prevent a ban? Do you expect anyone to believe that? Seriously? 
Earth to Conor! Very very few want to make the transition from lead to non-toxic, voluntary or otherwise! How long have we been banging on about this now Conor? Have you not read the reports on the percentages of lead found in shot game birds following this seasons end? If I recall the percentages are only 1% lower than last year, and are still in the 90% range! That isn’t a reduction of risk Conor, by any stretch of the imagination! 
I repeat, any suggestion that trap loads be exempt from the impending ban makes a complete and utter mockery of the legislation, and exposes it for what it is, especially if live quarry shooters just make the transition from lead game loads to lead trap loads. 🤷‍♂️
Remember, lead is toxic; even the HSE has stated there are no safe levels of exposure apparently, a claim which your organisation has repeated, but phasing out lead shot for live quarry would leave trap shooters to carry on unaffected. 
You think this is acceptable? 
 

Edited April 7 by Scully

[Conor O'Gorman]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

So you don’t see it as a forerunner to a ban, but in the third paragraph state the HSE’s proposals to ban lead shot for live quarry shooting. Is it me? Am I missing something here? 
So therefore you are suggesting that a voluntary phase out of lead will prevent a ban? Do you expect anyone to believe that? Seriously? 
Earth to Conor! Very very few want to make the transition from lead to non-toxic, voluntary or otherwise! How long have we been banging on about this now Conor? Have you not read the reports on the percentages of lead found in shot game birds following this seasons end? If I recall the percentages are only 1% lower than last year, and are still in the 90% range! That isn’t a reduction of risk Conor, by any stretch of the imagination! 
I repeat, any suggestion that trap loads be exempt from the impending ban makes a complete and utter mockery of the legislation, and exposes it for what it is, especially if live quarry shooters just make the transition from lead game loads to lead trap loads. 🤷‍♂️
Remember, lead is toxic; even the HSE has stated there are no safe levels of exposure apparently, a claim which your organisation has repeated, but phasing out lead shot for live quarry would leave trap shooters to carry on unaffected. 
You think this is acceptable? 
 

Perhaps the issue is that you have considered the voluntary transition to be a ban on all lead for 4 years so that it is now difficult to re-address that viewpoint in light of these recent discussions. For example you believed that .22rf lead ammunition was covered by the 'lead ban' when there is no lead ban - there is a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting. It's all voluntary. 

[Old farrier]

10 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Perhaps the issue is that you have considered the voluntary transition to be a ban on all lead for 4 years so that it is now difficult to re-address that viewpoint in light of these recent discussions. For example you believed that .22rf lead ammunition was covered by the 'lead ban' when there is no lead ban - there is a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting. It's all voluntary. 

Has this voluntary transition actually achieved anything so far?

has more game been sold? 
 

all I can see is a very badly thought out policy that has devalued millions of guns made tens of thousands potentially obsolete and costing cartridge manufacturers millions in development costs 

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Perhaps the issue is that you have considered the voluntary transition to be a ban on all lead for 4 years so that it is now difficult to re-address that viewpoint in light of these recent discussions. For example you believed that .22rf lead ammunition was covered by the 'lead ban' when there is no lead ban - there is a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting. It's all voluntary. 

Jesus h! This has to be one of the worst marketing strategies I’ve ever known! We all KNOW why this campaign has been started Conor, but why oh why couldn’t BASC etc be honest with its members? 
Shall we start again? Right. 
1. Has the HSE proposed a lead shot ban for live quarry shooting? 

2. What will happen if BASC’s voluntary  phase out fails, as it inevitably will?
Like we’ve said, we’re over four years into it now and there’s been no significant take up at all. 

If BASC etc had been honest with its members from the start you could have done much to avoid a great deal of criticism and possibly gained a stronger following from day one.
We all know that we ( both as individuals and in general ) should be eating what we shoot for sport, ( not harvesting Conor please…we’re adults, not six year olds ) otherwise the practice is unethical and morally wrong and we have no right doing it. 
In a wealthy western society the trend for being ethical and morally superior ( or woke ) is the latest trend, and in a world where we kill things for sport, which is morally and ethically abhorrent to those of that growing trend, shooting has ( if it wants to survive ) to be sustainable or ‘green’ if you like, as is possible. 
Killing to eat is still on the whole, acceptable, but as we know there is a growing campaign to change that also. We have to fight that each and every way we can; it’s simply a matter of freedom of choice. 
In light of all this, as bunkum as it may be, if game dealers cannot sell to eat what we shoot to the general public then they ( game dealers ) won’t buy it, and therefore we cannot justify shooting them. I know of at least one commercial shooting estate which accepts a pittance from game dealers to buy their birds as pet food. Is this acceptable, ethically or otherwise? Sustainable? That’s for the individual to decide, but at least they’re used. 
Some game shooters apparently believe it is acceptable to dump the bag, as has indeed been shown to be the case on this very forum, but it isn’t, and that way lays just about the quickest way to the demise of driven game shooting and as a consequence all live quarry shooting. We have enough enemies outside without those within. We may scrape by with the justification for driven shooting, but understandably not if we then dump the proceeds. 
Decoying is different in that although we shoot pigeons/corvids for sport we can justify that as pest control, and indeed that’s the only justification for doing so as set down in the GL’s. This however, is also prone to change, and still doesn’t address the fact of a toxic substance being scattered over the landscape, a practice which goes against the reasons for the proposed legislation. 
Knowing all this, will I still volunteer to phase out lead shot for live quarry shooting? Well it certainly makes sense if I want to ensure the future of live quarry shooting ( for now ) but it also makes sense that it will continue anyhow, when lead is eventually banned, as it will be.
Cartridge manufacturers are still developing lead loads for the trend of ‘extreme’ driven bird shooting ( these loads are driven by demand Conor, so your message clearly isn’t getting through to those making the loads nor those shooting them )  but that is simply a matter of tweaking what is currently available, and a far cry from developing entirely new wads, cases, projectiles and in some cases propellants and providing a whole wedge of money to cater to something totally dependant on a ‘voluntary’ basis for uptake! Why would cartridge manufacturers do that when it is blatantly clear the demand isn’t there? The answer is plain for all to see. 
Like I said, we ain’t six. 




 

[Penelope]

On 06/04/2024 at 12:44, Scully said:

Lead is toxic; the entire point of the ban is to prevent it being scattered all over the countryside. 
Unless you’re shooting clays, and then it doesn’t matter apparently. 

Which makes me thinks it has F all to do with lead toxicity.

[Scully]

53 minutes ago, Penelope said:

Which makes me thinks it has F all to do with lead toxicity.

You’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise. 🙂

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

Jesus h! This has to be one of the worst marketing strategies I’ve ever known! We all KNOW why this campaign has been started Conor, but why oh why couldn’t BASC etc be honest with its members? 
Shall we start again? Right. 
1. Has the HSE proposed a lead shot ban for live quarry shooting? 

2. What will happen if BASC’s voluntary  phase out fails, as it inevitably will?
Like we’ve said, we’re over four years into it now and there’s been no significant take up at all. 

If BASC etc had been honest with its members from the start you could have done much to avoid a great deal of criticism and possibly gained a stronger following from day one.
We all know that we ( both as individuals and in general ) should be eating what we shoot for sport, ( not harvesting Conor please…we’re adults, not six year olds ) otherwise the practice is unethical and morally wrong and we have no right doing it. 
In a wealthy western society the trend for being ethical and morally superior ( or woke ) is the latest trend, and in a world where we kill things for sport, which is morally and ethically abhorrent to those of that growing trend, shooting has ( if it wants to survive ) to be sustainable or ‘green’ if you like, as is possible. 
Killing to eat is still on the whole, acceptable, but as we know there is a growing campaign to change that also. We have to fight that each and every way we can; it’s simply a matter of freedom of choice. 
In light of all this, as bunkum as it may be, if game dealers cannot sell to eat what we shoot to the general public then they ( game dealers ) won’t buy it, and therefore we cannot justify shooting them. I know of at least one commercial shooting estate which accepts a pittance from game dealers to buy their birds as pet food. Is this acceptable, ethically or otherwise? Sustainable? That’s for the individual to decide, but at least they’re used. 
Some game shooters apparently believe it is acceptable to dump the bag, as has indeed been shown to be the case on this very forum, but it isn’t, and that way lays just about the quickest way to the demise of driven game shooting and as a consequence all live quarry shooting. We have enough enemies outside without those within. We may scrape by with the justification for driven shooting, but understandably not if we then dump the proceeds. 
Decoying is different in that although we shoot pigeons/corvids for sport we can justify that as pest control, and indeed that’s the only justification for doing so as set down in the GL’s. This however, is also prone to change, and still doesn’t address the fact of a toxic substance being scattered over the landscape, a practice which goes against the reasons for the proposed legislation. 
Knowing all this, will I still volunteer to phase out lead shot for live quarry shooting? Well it certainly makes sense if I want to ensure the future of live quarry shooting ( for now ) but it also makes sense that it will continue anyhow, when lead is eventually banned, as it will be.
Cartridge manufacturers are still developing lead loads for the trend of ‘extreme’ driven bird shooting ( these loads are driven by demand Conor, so your message clearly isn’t getting through to those making the loads nor those shooting them )  but that is simply a matter of tweaking what is currently available, and a far cry from developing entirely new wads, cases, projectiles and in some cases propellants and providing a whole wedge of money to cater to something totally dependant on a ‘voluntary’ basis for uptake! Why would cartridge manufacturers do that when it is blatantly clear the demand isn’t there? The answer is plain for all to see. 
Like I said, we ain’t six. 




 

We seem to be going backwards. Now you are again not only conflating voluntary transition and lead bans but also singling out BASC. At the end of the day its a voluntary transition that you have clearly misunderstood for 4 years as a ban, which is fine, there has been a lot of misinformation. Looking ahead you can choose to move away from lead shot for some of your game shooting or not. You currently don't wish to, that is your choice, and I respect that, and appreciate you sharing your views about it.

[Smudger687]

33 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We seem to be going backwards. Now you are again not only conflating voluntary transition and lead bans but also singling out BASC. At the end of the day its a voluntary transition that you have clearly misunderstood for 4 years as a ban, which is fine, there has been a lot of misinformation. Looking ahead you can choose to move away from lead shot for some of your game shooting or not. You currently don't wish to, that is your choice, and I respect that, and appreciate you sharing your views about it.

Out of interest, what are BASC going to do when, at the end of the 5 year period, the official figures will show the inevitable? By any unbiased measure you would have to judge the whole initiative as being less successful than BASC would have wanted:

1. Uptake of non-tox has been insignificant (on some shoots the new biowad offerings are banned). 

2. Opinions on steel shot have not changed significantly, despite frequent (and often inaccurate) public statements by BASC on steel's lethality. 

3. Biowad performance is still a long way from what we are accustomed to from a standard plaswad, questions remain on the true biodegradeability of some of these offerings, and prices are usually much higher than even the most premium lead loads.

4. Sales of game shot with non-tox by supermarkets and game dealers have been insignificant.

5. BASC, rightly or wrongly, are widely perceived to have completely mishandled the whole affair. 

This is not to be confrontational, but the writing is on the wall and I'd like to know what BASC's future plans are. 

 

Edited April 8 by Smudger687

[jall25]

32 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We seem to be going backwards. Now you are again not only conflating voluntary transition and lead bans but also singling out BASC. At the end of the day its a voluntary transition that you have clearly misunderstood for 4 years as a ban, which is fine, there has been a lot of misinformation. Looking ahead you can choose to move away from lead shot for some of your game shooting or not. You currently don't wish to, that is your choice, and I respect that, and appreciate you sharing your views about it.

 

Conor

Was the membership of BASC asked about the voluntary transition then ?

[Scully]

15 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

We seem to be going backwards. Now you are again not only conflating voluntary transition and lead bans but also singling out BASC. At the end of the day it’s a voluntary transition that you have clearly misunderstood for 4 years as a ban, which is fine, there has been a lot of misinformation. Looking ahead you can choose to move away from lead shot for some of your game shooting or not. You currently don't wish to, that is your choice, and I respect that, and appreciate you sharing your views about it.

No, I’m not conflating anything Conor. ‘BASC etc’ is a term used to indicate BASC and our other shooting organisations involved in the ‘voluntary transition’. What else could it possibly be mistaken for? What did you think it meant? 
There are several organisations involved in the ‘voluntary transition’ but no others have posted on here the decision arrived at by those organisations. If the NGO for example had done so instead of BASC, and I was addressing a spokesperson of that org’ my comments would be addressed ‘NGO etc’. I haven’t singled out BASC at all. 
We appear to be going round in circles rather than backwards. The reason I continue to defend the use of lead shot by myself and to others is because as I’ve stated on here many times, it isn’t banned. I’ve mentioned more than once that Avery, Packham etc shouldn’t be surprised to find lead shot in dead game because it isn’t actually banned, so how you can come to the conclusion I’ve mistaken a ‘voluntary transition’ for a ban is beyond me! Don’t forget, the ‘voluntary transition’ was a decision made by BASC etc without consulting their respective membership; you can hardly be surprised when that membership refuses to abide. 
I get the impression you’re being deliberately evasive and frankly more than a little condescending. 
It hasn’t escaped my attention ( and won’t have others ) that you haven’t answered any of the questions I asked in my last post. 

1 minute ago, Smudger687 said:

Out of interest, what are BASC going to do when, at the end of the 5 year period, the official figures will show the inevitable? By any unbiased measure you would have to judge the whole initiative as being less successful than BASC would have wanted:

1. Uptake of non-tox has been insignificant (on some shoots the new biowad offerings are banned). 

2. Opinions on steel shot have not changed significantly, despite frequent (and often inaccurate) public statements by BASC on steel's lethality. 

3. Biowad performance is still a long way from what we are accustomed to from a standard plaswad, questions remain on the true biodegradeability of some of these offerings, and prices are further still from what most shooters are willing to pay.

4. Sales of game shot with non-tox by supermarkets and game dealers have been insignificant.

5. BASC, rightly or wrongly, are widely perceived to have completely mishandled the whole affair. 

This is not to be confrontational, but the writing is on the wall and I'd like to know what BASC's future plans are. 

 

Excellent post. 

[BobbyH]

So many things have been said, re-said and re-said again.Can we all just agree that Lead shot has not been banned (yet). Simple as that. Continue to buy and shoot lead ammo untill told otherwise?

 

No one knows the future and what HSE will do. BASC do not control the HSE, or control the potential lead ban. 

Edited April 8 by BobbyH

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

Out of interest, what are BASC going to do when, at the end of the 5 year period, the official figures will show the inevitable? By any unbiased measure you would have to judge the whole initiative as being less successful than BASC would have wanted:

1. Uptake of non-tox has been insignificant (on some shoots the new biowad offerings are banned). 

2. Opinions on steel shot have not changed significantly, despite frequent (and often inaccurate) public statements by BASC on steel's lethality. 

3. Biowad performance is still a long way from what we are accustomed to from a standard plaswad, questions remain on the true biodegradeability of some of these offerings, and prices are usually much higher than even the most premium lead loads.

4. Sales of game shot with non-tox by supermarkets and game dealers have been insignificant.

5. BASC, rightly or wrongly, are widely perceived to have completely mishandled the whole affair. 

This is not to be confrontational, but the writing is on the wall and I'd like to know what BASC's future plans are. 

 

Thanks, when BASC's future plans are published I will post an update on those plans.

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, jall25 said:

 

Conor

Was the membership of BASC asked about the voluntary transition then ?

Yes, there has been 4 years of consultation including on this forum. If you mean were BASC members asked in advance of the announcement of February 2020 by nine organisations about that announcement, no they were not asked in advance, because for BASC's part in that, this was a policy decision taken by BASC's Council -  who are made of BASC members elected by the wider BASC membership to make policy decisions for BASC. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

No, I’m not conflating anything Conor. ‘BASC etc’ is a term used to indicate BASC and our other shooting organisations involved in the ‘voluntary transition’. What else could it possibly be mistaken for? What did you think it meant? 
There are several organisations involved in the ‘voluntary transition’ but no others have posted on here the decision arrived at by those organisations. If the NGO for example had done so instead of BASC, and I was addressing a spokesperson of that org’ my comments would be addressed ‘NGO etc’. I haven’t singled out BASC at all. 
We appear to be going round in circles rather than backwards. The reason I continue to defend the use of lead shot by myself and to others is because as I’ve stated on here many times, it isn’t banned. I’ve mentioned more than once that Avery, Packham etc shouldn’t be surprised to find lead shot in dead game because it isn’t actually banned, so how you can come to the conclusion I’ve mistaken a ‘voluntary transition’ for a ban is beyond me! Don’t forget, the ‘voluntary transition’ was a decision made by BASC etc without consulting their respective membership; you can hardly be surprised when that membership refuses to abide. 
I get the impression you’re being deliberately evasive and frankly more than a little condescending. 
It hasn’t escaped my attention ( and won’t have others ) that you haven’t answered any of the questions I asked in my last post. 

Excellent post. 

I value your feedback (I really do) but the tone of your recent comments is rather disappointing, and yes you are targeting BASC with statements such as "What will happen if BASC’s voluntary  phase out fails, as it inevitably will?"

You got it wrong for 4 years on the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting by conflating it with a ban - moreover you saw it as a ban beyond lead shot with your questions about .22lr ammunition. It's ok to get it wrong. There is lots of misinformation on the whole topic.

So I am not sure there really is anything further to discuss - as pointed out by @BobbyH

I get it that you don't support the voluntary transition, and as stated earlier I respect your viewpoint and reasoning, but please take some personal responsibility for your choice on that - especially the fact that you keep stating that lead is toxic so you must therefore realise that the lead shot you continue to use for your game shooting is impacting on various species of birds.
 

[Old farrier]

2 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I value your feedback (I really do) but the tone of your recent comments is rather disappointing, and yes you are targeting BASC with statements such as "What will happen if BASC’s voluntary  phase out fails, as it inevitably will?"

You got it wrong for 4 years on the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting by conflating it with a ban - moreover you saw it as a ban beyond lead shot with your questions about .22lr ammunition. It's ok to get it wrong. There is lots of misinformation on the whole topic.

So I am not sure there really is anything further to discuss - as pointed out by @BobbyH

I get it that you don't support the voluntary transition, and as stated earlier I respect your viewpoint and reasoning, but please take some personal responsibility for your choice on that - especially the fact that you keep stating that lead is toxic so you must therefore realise that the lead shot you continue to use for your game shooting is impacting on various species of birds.
 

The same lead shot used at a clay pigeon shoot will equally impact various species 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Just now, Old farrier said:

The same lead shot used at a clay pigeon shoot will equally impact various species 

 

Yes it will. As awareness and understanding of the risks to birds from lead shot widens perhaps those operating temporary clay pigeon shoots in the open countryside may consider voluntarily moving away from the use of lead shot in those scenarios. 

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I value your feedback (I really do) but the tone of your recent comments is rather disappointing, and yes you are targeting BASC with statements such as "What will happen if BASC’s voluntary  phase out fails, as it inevitably will?"

You got it wrong for 4 years on the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting by conflating it with a ban - moreover you saw it as a ban beyond lead shot with your questions about .22lr ammunition. It's ok to get it wrong. There is lots of misinformation on the whole topic.

So I am not sure there really is anything further to discuss - as pointed out by @BobbyH

I get it that you don't support the voluntary transition, and as stated earlier I respect your viewpoint and reasoning, but please take some personal responsibility for your choice on that - especially the fact that you keep stating that lead is toxic so you must therefore realise that the lead shot you continue to use for your game shooting is impacting on various species of birds.
 

Oh come on Conor, for crying out loud! You’re an adult! You’re using one statement such as that which you’ve quoted to accuse me of blaming BASC alone for the entire ‘voluntary transition’ ( which has obviously turned out to be anything but ) in a clear attempt to avoid answering questions, then ironically accuse me of disappointing comments! 
If the HSE hasn’t proposed a ban on lead shot or indeed lead projectiles if you prefer, then I wonder what our phone conversation was about, or the consultation I completed last year? Can you tell me? I also assume there are no ammunition manufacturers developing non-toxic .22rf Ioads for live quarry shooting? 
I take completely and have never avoided, my responsibility for my choice of shot used during my live quarry shooting, and the impact it has on the various species of birds I shoot, and also on the various species of birds I don’t shoot while shooting clays, because as we all know, lead is toxic. 
It is still noted you have avoided to answer my questions. 

 

[rbrowning2]

24 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yes it will. As awareness and understanding of the risks to birds from lead shot widens perhaps those operating temporary clay pigeon shoots in the open countryside may consider voluntarily moving away from the use of lead shot in those scenarios. 

Conor reading between the lines of what you have written on many forums over the years is that what BASC policy really wants is the simplest way forward which is a total ban on all lead shot. 

Fiddling around trying to appease clay shooters and those with old guns which can only shoot the alternative very expensive non toxic shot is just an inconvenience to the bigger agenda of banning lead shot for live quarry shooting.

Even the biodegradable wad mess is just to make steel shot viable to ensure a cheap cartridge for the majority, after all if you can afford £40, £50 for a game bird what’s £2 for a cartridge in the cost of a day.

Edited April 8 by rbrowning2

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

Oh come on Conor, for crying out loud! You’re an adult! You’re using one statement such as that which you’ve quoted to accuse me of blaming BASC alone for the entire ‘voluntary transition’ ( which has obviously turned out to be anything but ) in a clear attempt to avoid answering questions, then ironically accuse me of disappointing comments! 
If the HSE hasn’t proposed a ban on lead shot or indeed lead projectiles if you prefer, then I wonder what our phone conversation was about, or the consultation I completed last year? Can you tell me? I also assume there are no ammunition manufacturers developing non-toxic .22rf Ioads for live quarry shooting? 
I take completely and have never avoided, my responsibility for my choice of shot used during my live quarry shooting, and the impact it has on the various species of birds I shoot, and also on the various species of birds I don’t shoot while shooting clays, because as we all know, lead is toxic. 
It is still noted you have avoided to answer my questions. 

 

This is tedious and I am drawing a line under it. You have made your choice and it's yours to make.

[rbrowning2]

This is tedious and I am drawing a line under it. You have made your choice and it's yours to make."…………………….. for now.

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Conor reading between the lines of what you have written on many forums over the years is that what BASC policy really wants is the simplest way forward which is a total ban on all lead shot. 

Fiddling around trying to appease clay shooters and those with old guns which can only shoot the alternative very expensive non toxic shot is just an inconvenience to the bigger agenda of banning lead shot for live quarry shooting.

Even the biodegradable what mess is just to make steel shot viable to ensure a cheap cartridge for the majority, after all if you can afford £40, £50 for a game bird what’s £2 for a cartridge in the cost of a day.

Rather than 'reading between the lines' may I recommend that you take the time to read BASC's response to last year's HSE consultation. BASC's policy is clear in that response - opposing further regulations on all forms of lead ammunition for the various reasons outlined in that response. 

 

 

 

[BobbyH]

This is getting a bit much for me if I’m honest, I have bought some standard steel shotgun ammo today, I have guns that can fire steel shot and HP steel shot. For the guns that can’t shoot them, I’ll get them opened up to a minimum of 1/2 choke so I can.
As long as I can still shoot, that’s fine with me. Simple. Im with the CPSA, I’m a full member, and all that Jazz and I haven’t heard a peep off of them about it all. I’ll only take action when they or the HSE tell me to. 
 

I’m not with BASC, so can’t and won’t comment on it.