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

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, London Best said:

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

Ask them , I'm sure they'll tell you 

[Konor]

6 hours ago, Gordon R said:

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

 

6 hours ago, Gordon R said:

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

+1 

The continuing inability to answer direct questions by BASC representative Conor O’Gorman  and the unpleasant patronising manner exhibited in his replies makes this thread hard reading for genuine fieldsportsmen averse to political posturing. Nit picking point scoring is not what I expect from a national organisation’s representative.I would welcome , as I am sure most posters on this forum would, some straight forward answers to straight forward questions in return for the opportunity given to BASC to advertise on this site.
The latest claim that the voluntary transition away from lead shot use over 5 years was not in itself part of a move towards a legislative ban is laughable.
If it was considered feasible that the five year voluntary transition would resolve the issue surrounding the use of lead shot and appease those concerned mainly with bringing about the destruction of field sports then there seems to be little evidence to support that. After 4 years  there has not been any meaningful transition away from the use of lead shot and perhaps we should be addressing minimising the risk rather than eliminating it. To that end restrictions on the use of lead shot in circumstances where it is deemed to be potentially most harmful , as has been done already over wetlands, would seem to be more practical. I would consider that it would be more sensible to restrict the use of lead shot over ground that is heavily shot over and as this ground normally supplies excess game for the market then that would also meet the requirement of lead free game for the table. The small scale rough shooter could continue as before using lead shot with minimal impact on the environment and consuming his lead shot game accepting whatever minimal risk lies in doing so.

If damage to flora, fauna and the environment is the main concern driving this lead shot ban agenda then I think the threat from lead shot ranks fairly low compared to the greater challenges facing the planet. If animal welfare is deemed a beneficiary of the move away from lead shot I think  increased wounding from ballistically inferior ammunition would outweigh any marginal gains from the removal of lead shot from ammunition. The main threat from the use of lead shot over non wetland is that it only seems to exist as part of a political agenda and appeasement is considered to be the solution , political posturing as evidenced on this and other similar threads would seem to reinforce that conclusion.

 

Edited April 10 by Konor
Addition

[stockybasher]

Good post Konor, good to see some logic and common sense relating to the ongoing use of lead.  I think your logic gets full marks !!

[Bigteddy1954]

Hi konor another well thought out statement as always well said as for the other conor he's like a politian never answer's a simple question always quotes the same things repeatedly.

[HantsRob]

21 hours ago, Rewulf said:

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

Indeed, hence my surprise when we massively went a different direction.

[Conor O'Gorman]

At the end of the day the inescapable fact is that the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting was not, and is not, a 'lead ban'. This has been explained dozens of times on this forum and anyone that continues to tout those views in this thread is guilty of deliberately spreading misinformation. 

Also, the HSE review of lead in ammunition began a year after the voluntary transition announcement, not before, and was because of the Brexit deal and nothing to do with the voluntary transition. This has been explained dozens of times on this forum and anyone that continues to tout those views in this thread is also guilty of deliberately spreading misinformation. 

As for the various other even more lurid conspiracy theories - what a ridiculous load of nonsense.

I accept that some posters in this thread seem to read nothing off this forum on policy developments around lead ammunition except each other's misinformed posts, and evidently either do not click on the links I provide to factual updates, or just ignore the factual updates, and also that a certain group think has set in, and that this online cultural environment on this forum dissuades alternative views to be posted for fear of the resulting vitriol.

Thus, I think that all I can do in the face of the deliberate misinformation and unpleasant vitriol and attempts to derail yet another lead ammunition related thread - is to repost the links for the vast majority of objective viewers to research - accepting that there are a tiny minority of people who are very much personally invested in their misinformation campaign on this forum for various reasons only known to themselves.

Links as follows:

The 2020 joint statement on the future of shotgun ammunition for live quarry shooting:

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

The latest BASC update on the voluntary transition (what was in the OP):

https://basc.org.uk/moving-forward-for-the-future-of-shooting/

The latest GWCT update on the voluntary transition

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

 

Edited April 11 by Conor O'Gorman

[Gordon R]

Conor - you accuse members of spreading misinformation, but never clarify any issues. You merely post links and advise members to read them. Having read them many times, I marvel at your ability to claim they explain everything. 

I honestly cannot recall you answering a direct question, but evading umpteen. 

I think you should step back, re-read your less than satisfactory answers and then retire from forums. They are not for you. You have a patronising manner which does BASC no credit.

[Scully]

16 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

At the end of the day the inescapable fact is that the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting was not, and is not, a 'lead ban'. This has been explained dozens of times on this forum and anyone that continues to tout those views in this thread is guilty of deliberately spreading misinformation. 

Also, the HSE review of lead in ammunition began a year after the voluntary transition announcement, not before, and was because of the Brexit deal and nothing to do with the voluntary transition. This has been explained dozens of times on this forum and anyone that continues to tout those views in this thread is also guilty of deliberately spreading misinformation. 

As for the various other even more lurid conspiracy theories - what a ridiculous load of nonsense.

I accept that some posters in this thread seem to read nothing off this forum on policy developments around lead ammunition except each other's misinformed posts, and evidently either do not click on the links I provide to factual updates, or just ignore the factual updates, and also that a certain group think has set in, and that this online cultural environment on this forum dissuades alternative views to be posted for fear of the resulting vitriol.

Thus, I think that all I can do in the face of the deliberate misinformation and unpleasant vitriol and attempts to derail yet another lead ammunition related thread - is to repost the links for the vast majority of objective viewers to research - accepting that there are a tiny minority of people who are very much personally invested in their misinformation campaign on this forum for various reasons only known to themselves.

Links as follows:

The 2020 joint statement on the future of shotgun ammunition for live quarry shooting:

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

The latest BASC update on the voluntary transition (what was in the OP):

https://basc.org.uk/moving-forward-for-the-future-of-shooting/

The latest GWCT update on the voluntary transition

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

 

Can you tell me Conor, what was BASC’s etc ‘voluntary transition’ in response to? 

[Weihrauch17]

36 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

At the end of the day the inescapable fact is that the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting was not, and is not, a 'lead ban'. This has been explained dozens of times on this forum and anyone that continues to tout those views in this thread is guilty of deliberately spreading misinformation. 

Also, the HSE review of lead in ammunition began a year after the voluntary transition announcement, not before, and was because of the Brexit deal and nothing to do with the voluntary transition. This has been explained dozens of times on this forum and anyone that continues to tout those views in this thread is also guilty of deliberately spreading misinformation. 

As for the various other even more lurid conspiracy theories - what a ridiculous load of nonsense.

I accept that some posters in this thread seem to read nothing off this forum on policy developments around lead ammunition except each other's misinformed posts, and evidently either do not click on the links I provide to factual updates, or just ignore the factual updates, and also that a certain group think has set in, and that this online cultural environment on this forum dissuades alternative views to be posted for fear of the resulting vitriol.

Thus, I think that all I can do in the face of the deliberate misinformation and unpleasant vitriol and attempts to derail yet another lead ammunition related thread - is to repost the links for the vast majority of objective viewers to research - accepting that there are a tiny minority of people who are very much personally invested in their misinformation campaign on this forum for various reasons only known to themselves.

Links as follows:

The 2020 joint statement on the future of shotgun ammunition for live quarry shooting:

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

The latest BASC update on the voluntary transition (what was in the OP):

https://basc.org.uk/moving-forward-for-the-future-of-shooting/

The latest GWCT update on the voluntary transition

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

 

I am amazed you have a single member left.  

[Konor]

On 11/04/2024 at 21:42, Conor O'Gorman said:

At the end of the day the inescapable fact is that the voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting was not, and is not, a 'lead ban'

However the end results of abiding by a voluntary transition away from lead shot and a legislative lead ban are exactly the same in that lead shot ceases to be used in both cases .
Are you perhaps therefore stating that BASC will fight to maintain a voluntary transition away from lead thereby allowing shooters to continue using lead should a legislative lead ban be proposed?
Will the fighting fund for example be used to fund opposition to any legislative ban proposed and to permit the continuation of the present voluntary transition away from lead shot ?

You may find comfort in believing that a conspiracy exists to discredit BASC fuelled by members on the forum who are not sufficiently well informed to express an opinion but I think the evidence garnered from posts in multiple lead shot threads disproves this. Rather than there being “ a tiny minority involved in a misinformation campaign “ there is an experienced group of shooters not buying the idea that a blanket lead ban is in the best interests of shooting sports and that if the shooting organisations had the best interests of shooting at heart they would be focused on negotiating minimising the risk of lead in the environment where that risk is greatest/significant rather than seeking to appease those who seek a lead ban in order to weaken shooting sports by conceding that a blanket ban is the only way forward.

Your idea that there is a lack of support on the forum for your views due to a fear of a vitriolic response by this tiny minority you have described seems to be a little conspiracy theory in nature and might alternatively simply be due to a lack of support for your views. From my own experience the pigeon forum members are capable of stating their views quite strongly should they disagree on a subject and I can’t imagine there being much fear on what is largely an anonymous forum.
The most worrying aspect to me of your posts is the fact that you seem unable to grasp the reasoning behind any opposing views expressed and also that you do not engage in any form of acknowledgment of those views which to me reeks of agenda and politics and makes me feel that I am unable to trust “the voice of shooting” to represent my best interests over and above its own.

Edited April 12 by Konor
Addition

[Gordon R]

Konor - excellent post.

[stockybasher]

20 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - excellent post.

👍  👍

[grahamch]

At the end of the day the HSE will impose some sorts of controls on lead shot, like it or not. 

It's high time folk accepted that and adapted their shooting habits and stopped factionalising the shooting community. 

We face far bigger threats if the Starmer **** and his lefty pals get into power 

 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

10 hours ago, Konor said:

Are you perhaps therefore stating that BASC will fight to maintain a voluntary transition away from lead thereby allowing shooters to continue using lead should a legislative lead ban be proposed?
Will the fighting fund for example be used to fund opposition to any legislative ban proposed and to permit the continuation of the present voluntary transition away from lead shot ?

Yes. BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK. Regulations are already in place to mitigate risks to wildfowl from the use of lead shot in wetlands. There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks. 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. Lead in game meat is potentially a risk to human health via secondary exposure and government guidance and market forces are managing risks via best practice. Lead exposure pathways are not conclusive for livestock, soil, soil organisms, plants, and surface waters; and current legal and regulatory frameworks are in place to manage risks. At this point I can't say whether the fighting fund will be required to fund opposition to legislative proposals but proposals that damage shooting will be opposed - as we have seen with BASC campaigns and legal challenges on other issues relating to shooting, some of which has drawn on the fighting fund. Whatever happens ahead on the legislative front I think that BASC will continue to encourage a voluntary move away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting.

[Fellside]

44 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yes. BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK. Regulations are already in place to mitigate risks to wildfowl from the use of lead shot in wetlands. There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks. 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. Lead in game meat is potentially a risk to human health via secondary exposure and government guidance and market forces are managing risks via best practice. Lead exposure pathways are not conclusive for livestock, soil, soil organisms, plants, and surface waters; and current legal and regulatory frameworks are in place to manage risks. At this point I can't say whether the fighting fund will be required to fund opposition to legislative proposals but proposals that damage shooting will be opposed - as we have seen with BASC campaigns and legal challenges on other issues relating to shooting, some of which has drawn on the fighting fund. Whatever happens ahead on the legislative front I think that BASC will continue to encourage a voluntary move away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting.

Hi Conor, 

Thank you for this clarification……and patience throughout a noisy discussion….!

I don’t want to open a whole new can of worms, however the so called evidence for terrestrial impacts of lead shot upon avian and non avian fauna was rather limited the last time I looked (2023) and was produced/influenced by mainly biased anti shooting groups. Has anything changed in this regard?

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yes. BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK.

Yet you fully support a transition away from lead, and have declared lead in all shooting sports 'toxic'
When they do come to ban lead, the the government will say the shooting organisations supported it !

 

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

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

There isnt clear evidence, and the voluntary move from lead is clearly making very little difference, but if you keep saying it , maybe it will come true ?

 

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

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 calibres.

So why did you make your announcement in 2020 without talking to the cartridge manufacturers first ?
Is BASC so powerful that they MUST follow your lead ?
4 years down the line, are any more people using lead free ?

 

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead in game meat is potentially a risk to human health via secondary exposure and government guidance and market forces are managing risks via best practice.

So without clear evidence, we must protect ourselves from this 'poison' weve been eating for years ?

 

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

At this point I can't say whether the fighting fund will be required to fund opposition to legislative proposals but proposals that damage shooting will be opposed - as we have seen with BASC campaigns and legal challenges on other issues relating to shooting, some of which has drawn on the fighting fund.

Oh dear, like what ?

[Gordon R]

Rewulf - I don't know whether he is capable of answering any straight question. Sadly, it reminds me of a child sticking his / her fingers in their ears and humming. The awkward questions might just go away.

Scully's perfectly reasonable question remains ignored, as will yours.

Why?

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Why?

Theyre too difficult to answer without telling the truth.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yes. BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK. Regulations are already in place to mitigate risks to wildfowl from the use of lead shot in wetlands. There is clear evidence that lead shot poses a risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats and a voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting with shotguns is reducing these risks. 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. Lead in game meat is potentially a risk to human health via secondary exposure and government guidance and market forces are managing risks via best practice. Lead exposure pathways are not conclusive for livestock, soil, soil organisms, plants, and surface waters; and current legal and regulatory frameworks are in place to manage risks. At this point I can't say whether the fighting fund will be required to fund opposition to legislative proposals but proposals that damage shooting will be opposed - as we have seen with BASC campaigns and legal challenges on other issues relating to shooting, some of which has drawn on the fighting fund. Whatever happens ahead on the legislative front I think that BASC will continue to encourage a voluntary move away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting.

……and round and round we go. 
Any idea what BASC’s etc, ‘voluntary transition’ was in response to Conor? 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Fellside said:

Hi Conor, 

Thank you for this clarification……and patience throughout a noisy discussion….!

I don’t want to open a whole new can of worms, however the so called evidence for terrestrial impacts of lead shot upon avian and non avian fauna was rather limited the last time I looked (2023) and was produced/influenced by mainly biased anti shooting groups. Has anything changed in this regard?

I don't think there has been any new UK based research published since 2023 looking at lead shot causing poisoning in birds. Recent research in UK has been around population modelling work based on data from previous research measuring impacts.

Research continues worldwide - see search results below for studies published since 2023 for "lead shot" poisoning + birds.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2023&q="lead+shot"+poisoning+birds&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Actually, there was one new study in that search - from Scotland. If you spot others do let me know.

Incidence of lead ingestion in managed goose populations and the efficacy of imposed restrictions on the use of lead shot

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ibi.13210

[Conor O'Gorman]

33 minutes ago, Scully said:

……and round and round we go. 
Any idea what BASC’s etc, ‘voluntary transition’ was in response to Conor? 

The voluntary transition was in response to consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for game meat in the UK and overseas; for the shooting community to maintain its place at the forefront of wildlife conservation and protection, sustainability in our practices being of utmost importance; and in response to significant developments in the quality and availability of non-lead shotgun cartridges, and that plastic cases could be recycled; and in response to the availability of biodegradable shot cups for steel shot, with the necessary ballistics to ensure lethality.

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, Konor said:

However the end results of abiding by a voluntary transition away from lead shot and a legislative lead ban are exactly the same in that lead shot ceases to be used in both cases .
Are you perhaps therefore stating that BASC will fight to maintain a voluntary transition away from lead thereby allowing shooters to continue using lead should a legislative lead ban be proposed?
Will the fighting fund for example be used to fund opposition to any legislative ban proposed and to permit the continuation of the present voluntary transition away from lead shot ?

You may find comfort in believing that a conspiracy exists to discredit BASC fuelled by members on the forum who are not sufficiently well informed to express an opinion but I think the evidence garnered from posts in multiple lead shot threads disproves this. Rather than there being “ a tiny minority involved in a misinformation campaign “ there is an experienced group of shooters not buying the idea that a blanket lead ban is in the best interests of shooting sports and that if the shooting organisations had the best interests of shooting at heart they would be focused on negotiating minimising the risk of lead in the environment where that risk is greatest/significant rather than seeking to appease those who seek a lead ban in order to weaken shooting sports by conceding that a blanket ban is the only way forward.

Your idea that there is a lack of support on the forum for your views idue to a fear of vitriolic response by this tiny minority you have described seems to be a little conspiracy theory in nature and might alternatively simply be due to a lack of support for your views. From my own experience the pigeon forum members are capable of stating their views quite strongly should they disagree on a subject and I can’t imagine there being much fear on what is largely an anonymous forum.
The most worrying aspect to me of your posts is the fact that you seem unable to grasp the reasoning behind any opposing views expressed and also that you do not engage in any form of acknowledgment of those views which to me reeks of agenda and politics and makes me feel that I am unable to trust “the voice of shooting” to represent my best interests over and above its own.

Superb. Bravo, sir.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Actually, there was one new study in that search - from Scotland. If you spot others do let me know.

Incidence of lead ingestion in managed goose populations and the efficacy of imposed restrictions on the use of lead shot

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ibi.13210

Having read that study, what does it actually tell us ?
Many birds having been shot with lead , and an extremely low incidence of 'poisoning' if any actually killed by it , rather than the incidence of them actually being killed by being shot !
If we are trying to protect the birds, why are they being shot ?

The study then adds that numbers of birds are recovering, which is great, but this graph explains why.

[Gordon R]

Quote

The voluntary transition was in response to consideration of wildlife, the environment and to ensure a market for game meat in the UK and overseas; for the shooting community to maintain its place at the forefront of wildlife conservation and protection, sustainability in our practices being of utmost importance; and in response to significant developments in the quality and availability of non-lead shotgun cartridges, and that plastic cases could be recycled; and in response to the availability of biodegradable shot cups for steel shot, with the necessary ballistics to ensure lethality.

That does not answer Scully's question in the slightest. It's laughable. 

The question is asking what prompted this consideration? Is there a link or even many links to the thought process which kicked off the decision to announce a voluntary phasing out of lead? Are there published papers by BASC? If there are can we see them? If there are not, was it just a cosy meeting where some bright spark suggested phasing out lead, without consulting the membership or checking with manufacturers? Are there minuted meetings showing the lead up to this decision or was it made up at the one meeting? 

Transparency !!!!! Do me a favour.