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

[Bigteddy1954]

Why don't we go all out on clay grounds and go laser shooting lol.that will solve the searching for and gathering lead shot and plas wads

[enfieldspares]

I only see this. So it could indeed be read that those signing the 24 February 202o letter and issuing at that same time the factsheet below did indeed consider and did not declare unequivocally opposition to some sort of restriction on lead .22 RF ammunition.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/media/1094670/Moving-away-from-lead-shot-QA.PDF

What about ammunition for: rifle target shooting, including with muzzle loading and historic arms, clay shooting and live quarry rifle shooting (including pest control and large game shooting)? Viable alternatives are being researched. Where lead ammunition is used in a contained environment, such as a range, or there is an absence of reasonable alternatives, we feel lead should continue to be used.

Edited April 9 by enfieldspares

[Rewulf]

45 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Conor you have yet to answer the question regarding the measures clay grounds would need to comply with to continue using lead shot.

 

That's a very difficult question , for which there isn't a solution , so Conor isn't going to answer that.

So he's going to use another argument with Scully to evade it.

Rinse and repeat.

[rbrowning2]

9 hours ago, Bigteddy1954 said:

Why don't we go all out on clay grounds and go laser shooting lol.that will solve the searching for and gathering lead shot and plas wads

or go all out and go simulated clay game shooting or laser also then no need to worry about lead shot in game or plas wads.

 

9 hours ago, Rewulf said:

That's a very difficult question , for which there isn't a solution , so Conor isn't going to answer that.

So he's going to use another argument with Scully to evade it.

Rinse and repeat.

However one assumes if such is being suggested someone has thought through the how to and the cost? or is the idea just to keep us happy for now when the reality is a total lead shot ban.

[Scully]

11 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Ok. Let's ask the question again. Do you accept that you got it wrong on the timing of the voluntary transition relative to the HSE review? You have stated that the HSE review was preceded by the voluntary transition. A yes or no answer would be fine.

Notwithstanding the elephant in the room - that you have got it wrong for 4 years on this forum conflating a voluntary transition away from lead shot for a full lead ban, as particularly evidenced by per your bizarre comments on .22lr ammunition. 

I really do think you should take a step back, do some reading, and get the facts right, given the amount of time you commit to comments and assertions on this forum on this topic.  

I get many things wrong Conor, but not deliberately. I have often stated on here ( do a search if in doubt ) that BASC haven’t called for a ban, to those who have accused them of doing so, and that the ‘voluntary transition ‘ was in response to HSE proposals calling for restrictions which amounted to a ban, in line with EU REACH.  I haven’t got things ‘wrong for 4 years’, nor do I deliberately spread misinformation.
The screen shot I posted on here is part of a statement issued online by BASC, and is there for all to see and pops up quite readily as a result from a google search regarding the banning of lead shot in the uk. 
It’s a bit rich to then accuse me of spreading misinformation when that statement is BASC’s, and repeatedly asking me to answer questions when you yourself simply ignore those of others but respond with evasive politico type jargon or just post a link which does the same. 
If the ‘voluntary transition’ fails ( as it clearly appears that after four years it is and will )  what will the response of HSE be? What is likely to happen? 
You repeatedly state that if people choose NOT to comply with the ‘voluntary transition’ then that is their choice, but avoid stating what the likely consequences will be. Why? 
Don't you know? 
I know many folk who do. 
 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

I get many things wrong Conor, but not deliberately. I have often stated on here ( do a search if in doubt ) that BASC haven’t called for a ban, to those who have accused them of doing so, and that the ‘voluntary transition ‘ was in response to HSE proposals calling for restrictions which amounted to a ban, in line with EU REACH.  I haven’t got things ‘wrong for 4 years’, nor do I deliberately spread misinformation.
The screen shot I posted on here is part of a statement issued online by BASC, and is there for all to see and pops up quite readily as a result from a google search regarding the banning of lead shot in the uk. 
It’s a bit rich to then accuse me of spreading misinformation when that statement is BASC’s, and repeatedly asking me to answer questions when you yourself simply ignore those of others but respond with evasive politico type jargon or just post a link which does the same. 
If the ‘voluntary transition’ fails ( as it clearly appears that after four years it is and will )  what will the response of HSE be? What is likely to happen? 
You repeatedly state that if people choose NOT to comply with the ‘voluntary transition’ then that is their choice, but avoid stating what the likely consequences will be. Why? 
Don't you know? 
I know many folk who do. 
 

And yet again you repeat the misinformation.  Let's ask the question yet another time. Do you accept that you got it wrong on the timing of the voluntary transition relative to the HSE review? You have stated that the HSE review was preceded by the voluntary transition. A yes or no answer would be fine.

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

And yet again you repeat the misinformation.  Let's ask the question yet another time. Do you accept that you got it wrong on the timing of the voluntary transition relative to the HSE review? You have stated that the HSE review was preceded by the voluntary transition. A yes or no answer would be fine.

And yet again you choose to ignore and evade any questions I ask ( or from anyone basically ) even when I have stated I have defended BASC’s position to others regarding their response to the HSE proposals in line with EU REACH stated proposals. 
If I’m wrong Conor, then what was BASC’s etc proposal of a ‘voluntary transition’ or voluntary phase out, in response to? A whim? 

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, rbrowning2 said:

However one assumes if such is being suggested someone has thought through the how to and the cost? or is the idea just to keep us happy for now when the reality is a total lead shot ban

Oh it's possible, there are firms that will guarantee a 95 ish % lead removal,  it's been done where someone wants to build on sites that have been used for lead smelting , even shooting , but it won't work on woodland or watercourses , without levelling the lot, and at around 200k an acre, not exactly cost effective for a clay ground, especially when it has to be done on a regular basis.

BASC know this, yet continues to obfuscate that it is 'possible ' so that clay grounds 'can' continue to use lead shot, but they are acutely aware it isn't going to happen in reality. 

It's a smoke and mirrors scenario,  and BASC are the dodgy medium.

[Conor O'Gorman]

26 minutes ago, Scully said:

And yet again you choose to ignore and evade any questions I ask ( or from anyone basically ) even when I have stated I have defended BASC’s position to others regarding their response to the HSE proposals in line with EU REACH stated proposals. 
If I’m wrong Conor, then what was BASC’s etc proposal of a ‘voluntary transition’ or voluntary phase out, in response to? A whim? 

Ok. Let's try this another way shall we to that we can bottom out the misinformation you keep repeating on this forum. Which came first - the voluntary transition or the HSE review? Simple question and there is only one right answer.

[Scully]

17 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Ok. Let's try this another way shall we to that we can bottom out the misinformation you keep repeating on this forum. Which came first - the voluntary transition or the HSE review? Simple question and there is only one right answer.

Ok. Let’s try it another way. What was BASC’s ‘voluntary transition’  from the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting, in response to? You must know Conor; we discussed this during our phone call!
This is fun isn’t it! 🙂

Edited April 10 by Scully

[HantsRob]

23 hours ago, Rewulf said:

No, there has been 4 years of BASC telling us what they want us to do.

Voluntarily

 

 

Ok, open question.

When I started shooting relatively recently compared to others, a plaswad ban was high on the agenda and talks in circles. It's now pretty much gone quiet. Is this to allow a voluntary transition to steel first, then plaswad will hit the radar once a suitable replacement to fibre works, that's affordable?

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

Voluntarily

 

 

Ok, open question.

When I started shooting relatively recently compared to others, a plaswad ban was high on the agenda and talks in circles. It's now pretty much gone quiet. Is this to allow a voluntary transition to steel first, then plaswad will hit the radar once a suitable replacement to fibre works, that's affordable?

First off , you cant use traditional fibre wads with steel shot , it has to be an enclosed cup , so that steel doesnt contact the barrel, the 'norm' (for steel) is a plaswad.
There are products that are coming out using cardboard wads , or biodegradable plaswads, the effective biodegradability and performance , is questionable.

BASC are committed to the removal of traditional plastic wads (non biodegradable) which is commendable, the cost of these alternatives seems excessive at the moment.

If it were my decision, plastic wads would have been first on the agenda, not lead shot, the negative effect to the environment from microplastics, and animals ingesting plaswads is undeniable, the negative effect of birds ingesting lead shot is somewhat hazy, despite claims of 'studies' carried out by (usually) green or anti shooting lobbies.
Another thing I always find 'interesting' especially where the shooting orgs are concerned, is their apparent hand wringing over the trifling number of 'possible' birds harmed by ingestion of lead shot, when they fully support the ingestion of lead shot at high velocity ?

There is a very strong possibility that once the lead ban comes into effect for shot, lead for other firearms use will be the next target, and plastics involved in any shooting along with it.

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Ok. Let’s try it another way. What was BASC’s ‘voluntary transition’  from the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting, in response to? You must know Conor; we discussed this during our phone call!
This is fun isn’t it! 🙂

Here is the Feb 2020 announcement:

https://basc.org.uk/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/

 

[Scully]

34 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Here is the Feb 2020 announcement:

https://basc.org.uk/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/

 

Thank you. I have a list somewhere of the chronology of the steel shot issue as far back as when Shifty Swifty was in charge of the LAG ( 2016?) and writing a blog I think for Mark Avery, and before that, if I can find it. I’ve moved house twice since then, once in an almighty rush! 🙂
I ask again, what was BASC’s etc ‘voluntary transition’ in response to? 

[enfieldspares]

20 minutes ago, Scully said:

I ask again, what was BASC’s etc ‘voluntary transition’ in response to? 

Cynics would say it was because BASC seeking to defend commercial big bag shooting where the birds are little more than feather bearing clay pigeons made a massive investment in the then British Game Alliance.

This BGA being an attempt to defend big bag days on the basis that they were "harvesting" game for the food chain. Which as such as Waitrose decided not to sell game shot with lead caused an problem. Also ditto if exporting to the EU post-Brexit.

If the game couldn't be sold as supermarkets didn't want lead shot birds and the bag was so  excessive that it could never all be given to beaters, pickers-up and guns then what to do? Dump it? That was then the source of lurid pictures of piles of birds being ploughed in to ditches.

So who benefits ("cui bono" as the Romans said) is the answer. Who benefits is the big bag commercial shoots who to deflect criticism that the birds were "harvested" and not just being used as feather bearing clay pigeons led to the BGA an that, the BGA, led to the lead ban proposal.

For nowhere does this benefit the casual pigeon shooter protecting crops nor the small family or syndicate shoot were all the game is distributed between beaters, pickers-up and guns with never any surplus left over. And it certainly doesn't benefit the person shooting squirrels or carrion with lead shot.

Edited April 10 by enfieldspares

[mellors]

24 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Cynics would say it was because BASC seeking to defend commercial big bag shooting where the birds are little more than feather bearing clay pigeons made a massive investment in the then British Game Alliance.

This BGA being an attempt to defend big bag days on the basis that they were "harvesting" game for the food chain. Which as such as Waitrose decided not to sell game shot with lead caused an problem. Also ditto if exporting to the EU post-Brexit.

If the game couldn't be sold as supermarkets didn't want lead shot birds and the bag was so  excessive that it could never all be given to beaters, pickers-up and guns then what to do? Dump it? That was then the source of lurid pictures of piles of birds being ploughed in to ditches.

So who benefits ("cui bono" as the Romans said) is the answer. Who benefits is the big bag commercial shoots who to deflect criticism that the birds were "harvested" and not just being used as feather bearing clay pigeons led to the BGA an that, the BGA, led to the lead ban proposal.

For nowhere does this benefit the casual pigeon shooter protecting crops nor the small family or syndicate shoot were all the game is distributed between beaters, pickers-up and guns with never any surplus left over. And it certainly doesn't benefit the person shooting squirrels or carrion with lead shot.

Well said but I'm pretty sure basc and the rest of them already know what's coming, we certainly do. The point of damage limitation has long past its just a matter of when not how any longer. 

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

Cynics would say it was because BASC seeking to defend commercial big bag shooting where the birds are little more than feather bearing clay pigeons made a massive investment in the then British Game Alliance.

This BGA being an attempt to defend big bag days on the basis that they were "harvesting" game for the food chain. Which as such as Waitrose decided not to sell game shot with lead caused an problem. Also ditto if exporting to the EU post-Brexit.

If the game couldn't be sold as supermarkets didn't want lead shot birds and the bag was so  excessive that it could never all be given to beaters, pickers-up and guns then what to do? Dump it? That was then the source of lurid pictures of piles of birds being ploughed in to ditches.

So who benefits ("cui bono" as the Romans said) is the answer. Who benefits is the big bag commercial shoots who to deflect criticism that the birds were "harvested" and not just being used as feather bearing clay pigeons led to the BGA an that, the BGA, led to the lead ban proposal.

For nowhere does this benefit the casual pigeon shooter protecting crops nor the small family or syndicate shoot were all the game is distributed between beaters, pickers-up and guns with never any surplus left over. And it certainly doesn't benefit the person shooting squirrels or carrion with lead shot.

Excellent post.
'Big bag shoots' or as I refer to them 'high return shoots'  are where the money is, and BASC has vested interests in making sure these shoots continue unhindered, despite any lead ban.
These shoots and game days garner very high fees , the birds are , as you say , feathered clay pigeons , with the general public viewing the sport as cruel.
So how to silence these critics ?
They are 'harvesting' meat of course !

So BASC heavily invest in the BGA , essentially taking it over, and using it as an excuse to continue operations for its high value members, with a proviso that we must all start using lead free shot.
This has a err.. Double barrelled effect, it keeps them legit, and with a 'good reason' and the smaller shooters, clay shooters and pigeon men will dissipate in numbers, making the sport more exclusive to their preferred customer (The ones with lots of money to spend)
The rest of us can be thrown under the bus.

Your own research on this from some years ago is very illuminating.

https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/how-is-the-british-game-alliance-financed.195288/

[Gordon R]

Quote

 

With that in mind the following blog post by GWCT's Mike Swan gives an interesting perspective and insight on the voluntary transition.

https://www.gwct.org.uk/blogs/news/2024/march/phasing-out-lead-where-are-we/

 

I found it interesting insofar as it painted a rather rosy picture. A few grounds were going steel shot only, but no research that I could see on many grounds who ban steel shot. 

I was genuinely disappointed with what seemed like simplistic, patronising propaganda.

I am waiting, as many others will be, to see what BASC's lead recovery from clay grounds proposals / risk measures are.

PS - Conor, I wish you would stop accusing Scully of misinformation. Given your track record of evading questions, it's a bit rich.

[mpmilo]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Excellent post.
'Big bag shoots' or as I refer to them 'high return shoots'  are where the money is, and BASC has vested interests in making sure these shoots continue unhindered, despite any lead ban.
These shoots and game days garner very high fees , the birds are , as you say , feathered clay pigeons , with the general public viewing the sport as cruel.
So how to silence these critics ?
They are 'harvesting' meat of course !

So BASC heavily invest in the BGA , essentially taking it over, and using it as an excuse to continue operations for its high value members, with a proviso that we must all start using lead free shot.
This has a err.. Double barrelled effect, it keeps them legit, and with a 'good reason' and the smaller shooters, clay shooters and pigeon men will dissipate in numbers, making the sport more exclusive to their preferred customer (The ones with lots of money to spend)
The rest of us can be thrown under the bus.

Your own research on this from some years ago is very illuminating.

https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/threads/how-is-the-british-game-alliance-financed.195288/

This ^^^^  is what I and most of the game shooters I know believe. None of whom are currently BASC members but all were before this !!!

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I am waiting, as many others will be, to see what BASC's lead recovery from clay grounds proposals / risk measures are.

A financial impossibility is what they are !
BASC will remain silent on such proposals, as is their form when it comes to difficult questions.

8 minutes ago, mpmilo said:

This ^^^^  is what I and most of the game shooters I know believe. None of whom are currently BASC members but all were before this !!!

Conors response to Scully (a link to a BASC blog page as per usual, rather than just answering the damn question) was to point out the harm to some birds who ingest lead shot, thats why they apparently proposed the 'voluntary' phase out.
In reality BASC is seeking to protect its investments in large (expensive) shoots, using the game meat excuse.

BASC is a business, protecting its future markets and profits, people need to stop believing its about protecting us mere mortals, or our shooting interests.
The  proof of this is quite apparent.

[Smudger687]

1 hour ago, enfieldspares said:

Cynics would say it was because BASC seeking to defend commercial big bag shooting where the birds are little more than feather bearing clay pigeons made a massive investment in the then British Game Alliance.

This BGA being an attempt to defend big bag days on the basis that they were "harvesting" game for the food chain. Which as such as Waitrose decided not to sell game shot with lead caused an problem. Also ditto if exporting to the EU post-Brexit.

If the game couldn't be sold as supermarkets didn't want lead shot birds and the bag was so  excessive that it could never all be given to beaters, pickers-up and guns then what to do? Dump it? That was then the source of lurid pictures of piles of birds being ploughed in to ditches.

So who benefits ("cui bono" as the Romans said) is the answer. Who benefits is the big bag commercial shoots who to deflect criticism that the birds were "harvested" and not just being used as feather bearing clay pigeons led to the BGA an that, the BGA, led to the lead ban proposal.

For nowhere does this benefit the casual pigeon shooter protecting crops nor the small family or syndicate shoot were all the game is distributed between beaters, pickers-up and guns with never any surplus left over. And it certainly doesn't benefit the person shooting squirrels or carrion with lead shot.

Knocked it right the head

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, Scully said:

Thank you. I have a list somewhere of the chronology of the steel shot issue as far back as when Shifty Swifty was in charge of the LAG ( 2016?) and writing a blog I think for Mark Avery, and before that, if I can find it. I’ve moved house twice since then, once in an almighty rush! 🙂
I ask again, what was BASC’s etc ‘voluntary transition’ in response to? 

The reasons are in that statement and have been available to you to read for over 4 years. I realise that you have got the wrong end of the stick for 4 years given that you mistakenly believed that the HSE review preceded the voluntary transition and that you mistakenly believed the voluntary transition was a ban on lead (including .22lr as you have mistakenly asserted) and that you are finding it challenging to admit you got it all wrong.  But that's ok, we all get things wrong at times, and I think you do mean well, and I hope you can find the resolve to take a step back, and rethink and unlearn.

[London Best]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

In reality BASC is seeking to protect its investments in large (expensive) shoots, using the game meat excuse.

 

I would be interested to hear in which large (expensive) shoots BASC has made investments?

[Weihrauch17]

4 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Here is the Feb 2020 announcement:

https://basc.org.uk/a-joint-statement-on-the-future-of-shotgun-ammunition-for-live-quarry-shooting/

 

It might as well have said we are going to shaft you all. 

[Scully]

45 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The reasons are in that statement and have been available to you to read for over 4 years. I realise that you have got the wrong end of the stick for 4 years given that you mistakenly believed that the HSE review preceded the voluntary transition and that you mistakenly believed the voluntary transition was a ban on lead (including .22lr as you have mistakenly asserted) and that you are finding it challenging to admit you got it all wrong.  But that's ok, we all get things wrong at times, and I think you do mean well, and I hope you can find the resolve to take a step back, and rethink and unlearn.

Ok, thanks….I think. However, the question ( along with many others ) still remains unanswered; what was BASC’s etc ‘voluntary transition’ in response to?