ShootHub Podcast - lead shot latest with BASC's Terry Behan

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Lead shot is having an impact on birds that eat lead shot as grit. This is evidenced in various research papers. The 2023 HSE background doc contains references to most of the research. Here are some figures as outlined on the GWCT website:

Scientists estimate that millions of birds suffer from sub-lethal effects of lead shot every year throughout Europe³⁴. Research estimates suggest that between 30-60,000²² and 50-100,000¹ birds are likely to perish in the UK each winter as a direct result of lead shot poisoning. Long-term monitoring found that 8.1% of birds found dead between 2000-2010 had died from ingesting lead pellets^12,23. Some animals had ingested hundreds of pellets³⁴.

Records of autopsied birds from 1971-2010 showed that 1 in 4 migratory swans and 1 in 10 wildfowl exhibited lead shot poisoning as the cause of death^12,22. A total of 42% of whooper swans that underwent blood tests in winters between 2010 and 2014 also showed high levels of lead in their blood^12,20.

Scientists estimate that 1.5-3.0% of wildfowl overwintering in the UK each year die of lead shot poisoning¹.

Lead shot poisoning is difficult to quantify primarily due to the likelihood of under-estimation, although some over-estimation is possible. Lead ingestion could be more common than thought because pellets are only present for a short time before they absorb into the body. Lead shot poisoning can also present subtle, sub-lethal effects that are hard to notice⁴³ and result in wildfowl deaths being attributed to other factors¹². Birds may also consume lead pellets from other countries when they travel to and from their overwintering sites²³. However, research has shown that migratory wildfowl have high blood lead levels in mid-late winter when they are most likely to have been in the UK for several weeks. Given that blood lead concentrations tend to reflect exposures within 35–40 days of testing, it is therefore probable that most will have ingested lead shot in the UK¹².

It is important to remember that regardless of the number of wildfowl or other wildlife affected, lead is a harmful toxin that can cause great suffering and death. Any lack of studies providing hard data on lead shot poisoning does not mean that lead is not a serious and noteworthy issue for wildlife²².

 

That you Rewulf the reliance on probable , estimates and difficult to quantify sums up the flimsy nature of this “evidence”and calls into doubt the reliance of classifying it as conclusive . In fact it could be considered insulting to present it as such. Just when I thought we were moving forward I’m forced to admit that my initial conclusion that there is no evidence quantifiable or otherwise and that these changes and proposed changes are politically driven may have been correct from the start.

Bureaucrats require bureaucracy and all the time and money required to produce it its little surprise that there should be such a move to have it increased. Perhaps there should be a move to decrease that bureaucracy where there is no scientific evidence to substantiate it before we are overrun with restrictions that achieve little other than providing a career for those who would seek to overwhelm us with it.

Edited April 25 by Konor
Addition

[Conor O'Gorman]

23 minutes ago, JKD said:

Smoke and mirrors springs to mind. Along those lines, I'm guessing that no-one really knows ? 🤷‍♂️🙃Estimates and guesswork can come up with some wonderful figures 🫣

This comment is not a criticism of you JKD its just that you raise an important point. So the following is a general observation.

I think its a matter of trust. The GWCT scientists have reviewed all the research and they advise to move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting on the basis of the research. Extrapolating from specific research to national figures will always involve estimates and modelling - whatever the topic.

I don't think anybody on here would question the GWCT research and advice on the benefits of predator control.  However, the antis do question that research. The antis also question the estimates on the value of social, environmental and economic value of shooting. Who is right and wrong? Has anyone actually spent the same time as the scientists to weigh it all up or are we just agreeing with research that suits our world view.

I well remember the early days of the wetlands regulations that were brought in because of the research and the UK govt signing the AEWA treaty underpinning that research. Wildfowlers were up in arms blaming BASC and that the research was an anti conspiracy. 20 years later nearly all agree that there is evidence supporting the ban - yet few read the research then, and few now. What changed? People got used to changing ammunition I guess. That was the nub of the issue. Attack the research - look for an enemy - rather than trusting in and embracing the need to change.

And here we are again. Further changes in ammunition needed because of the research.  But let's blame BASC and blame the research that nobody has studied apart from the qualified scientists.

I would recommend anyone reading this to watch the film 'Don't Look Up', its very satirical and funny, and watch out for the lyrics of a song in the film 'Look up, what he's really trying to say. Is get your head out of your ***. Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists'. 

[JKD]

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

This comment is not a criticism of you JKD its just that you raise an important point. So the following is a general observation.

I think its a matter of trust. The GWCT scientists have reviewed all the research and they advise to move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting on the basis of the research. Extrapolating from specific research to national figures will always involve estimates and modelling - whatever the topic.

I don't think anybody on here would question the GWCT research and advice on the benefits of predator control.  However, the antis do question that research. The antis also question the estimates on the value of social, environmental and economic value of shooting. Who is right and wrong? Has anyone actually spent the same time as the scientists to weigh it all up or are we just agreeing with research that suits our world view.

I well remember the early days of the wetlands regulations that were brought in because of the research and the UK govt signing the AEWA treaty underpinning that research. Wildfowlers were up in arms blaming BASC and that the research was an anti conspiracy. 20 years later nearly all agree that there is evidence supporting the ban - yet few read the research then, and few now. What changed? People got used to changing ammunition I guess. That was the nub of the issue. Attack the research - look for an enemy - rather than trusting in and embracing the need to change.

And here we are again. Further changes in ammunition needed because of the research.  But let's blame BASC and blame the research that nobody has studied apart from the qualified scientists.

I would recommend anyone reading this to watch the film 'Don't Look Up', its very satirical and funny, and watch out for the lyrics of a song in the film 'Look up, what he's really trying to say. Is get your head out of your ***. Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists'. 

Thanks for the lengthy reply Conor, much appreciated.

I honestly think that a specific figure is what is needed for shooters and antis alike, but that can never be achieved, obviously. So us shooters err on the low estimates and the others err towards the higher estimates,,,, hence confusion and arguments. Like you say, it's about trust in the research 😏

I personally don't have a gripe with anyone, least of all any shooting orgs, as things change through time with most things,,,, especially contaminants. This time it's lead shot [inland]. The confusion starts when there's no 'black and white' instantly obvious solution. Plus, so many Q's !!! 🙂

I hope that makes sense ?

[Rewulf]

18 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I don't think anybody on here would question the GWCT research and advice on the benefits of predator control.  However, the antis do question that research.

No 'they' dont.
No one doubts there are predators. They need controlling.
The streets are full of them 
 

19 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

The antis also question the estimates on the value of social, environmental and economic value of shooting.

Thats because they dont shoot !
Ask a general member of the public whether shooting live quarry is OK , most will tell you its cruel, the reserve of toffs in tweed, they dont understand its accessibility.
I spend a lot of time getting ordinary folk into shooting sports, the usual exclamation is that they didnt realise how cheap it was.
Thats why anything that makes shooting more expensive is a bad thing, the pool of people who can afford it grows smaller.

19 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

or are we just agreeing with research that suits our world view.

Yes you are.

Or more accurately, what research benefits your own interests ?

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Wildfowlers were up in arms blaming BASC and that the research was an anti conspiracy. 20 years later nearly all agree that there is evidence supporting the ban - yet few read the research then, and few now. What changed? People got used to changing ammunition I guess.

They HADto change ammunition, or they would be breaking the law.
Did they accept it as necessary? No, many still moan about it to this day.
At least no fowl die of ingesting lead shot lately do they ? 

21 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

And here we are again. Further changes in ammunition needed because of the research. 

Oh, I thought it was voluntary ?

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 minutes ago, JKD said:

Thanks for the lengthy reply Conor, much appreciated.

I honestly think that a specific figure is what is needed for shooters and antis alike, but that can never be achieved, obviously. So us shooters err on the low estimates and the others err towards the higher estimates,,,, hence confusion and arguments. Like you say, it's about trust in the research 😏

I personally don't have a gripe with anyone, least of all any shooting orgs, as things change through time with most things,,,, especially contaminants. This time it's lead shot [inland]. The confusion starts when there's no 'black and white' instantly obvious solution. Plus, so many Q's !!! 🙂

I hope that makes sense ?

Yep. The comms is challenging on the whole thing especially with HSE proposals in the mix. Cathartic as some of this seems now, I think the next generation of shooters will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. That's not to lessen the concerns of today but is based on the Danish experience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675819/

 

[Weihrauch17]

20 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Yep. The comms is challenging on the whole thing especially with HSE proposals in the mix. Cathartic as some of this seems now, I think the next generation of shooters will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about. That's not to lessen the concerns of today but is based on the Danish experience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6675819/

 

There won't be a next generation of shooters.

[jall25]

12 hours ago, Weihrauch17 said:

There won't be a next generation of shooters.

I hope there will and thats up to us ALL to ensure there is by taking some of these under our wings 

Im a bit more optimistic as i see lots of young ones coming through - and indeed their parents coming late to shooting 

[clangerman]

how can you expect a next generation when we have basc on here screaming toxic toxic to the public every day you reap what you sow! 

[Konor]

16 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think its a matter of trust. The GWCT scientists have reviewed all the research and they advise to move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting on the basis of the research. Extrapolating from specific research to national figures will always involve estimates and modelling - whatever the topic.

 

16 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

would recommend anyone reading this to watch the film 'Don't Look Up', its very satirical and funny, and watch out for the lyrics of a song in the film 'Look up, what he's really trying to say. Is get your head out of your ***. Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists'. 

Those estimates and modelling however should be seen in context/ proportion and not used to justify the tabloid statements that you have been responsible for to make a point. “Minefields of lead for those poor wee partridges to eat then die” if memory serves me . Comments like that are not justifiable from the scientific data you had available and play into the hands of those intent on the destruction of fieldsports. As a result they threaten the future of fieldsports for the next generation.

I don’t share your optimism regarding the altruism of scientists or that they are free from bias. Placing your faith in the belief that scientific research is beyond questioning as it searches for the “truth” is a bit too trusting. It can be just as prone to manipulation and political pressure in order to support an agenda. I think the average scientist would concede that is true.

The nature of the path that fieldsports take is governed by politics ,making the wrong political decision can have far reaching consequences. It’s imperative that BASC et al make their decisions based on scientific fact and not be open to accusations of political expediency.

No Science No Change ,BASC got it right the first time the only thing that has changed is the politics surrounding the woke green activist culture and the availability of the monster that social media has become and of course the willingness of our organisations to represent the views of their members and not to dictate policy. The last point may explain the fall in grace of our shooting organisations in the eyes of the average fieldsports enthusiast. 
It may all be explained away by claims of not appreciating the bigger picture but that is asking that you place your trust in organisations that unfailingly are open to bias and continual political pressure whereas the average fieldsports enthusiast’s only concern is the protection of his sport.

Readers of this thread and others will be aware of the continual attempted portrayal of any opposition to policy as a small number of unrepresentative troublemakers , belligerent BASC bashers  and trolls rather than honest fieldsports enthusiasts holding BASC et al to account for their questionable decisions, their independence allows them a clearer perspective and the ability to express that unhindered. Be wary who you place your trust in and have confidence in your own judgement rather than over rely on others doing your thinking for you.

Edited April 26 by Konor

[Penelope]

2 hours ago, Konor said:

 

Those estimates and modelling however should be seen in context/ proportion and not used to justify the tabloid statements that you have been responsible for to make a point. “Minefields of lead for those poor wee partridges to eat then die” if memory serves me . Comments like that are not justifiable from the scientific data you had available and play into the hands of those intent on the destruction of fieldsports. As a result they threaten the future of fieldsports for the next generation.

I don’t share your optimism regarding the altruism of scientists or that they are free from bias. Placing your faith in the belief that scientific research is beyond questioning as it searches for the “truth” is a bit too trusting. It can be just as prone to manipulation and political pressure in order to support an agenda. I think the average scientist would concede that is true.

The nature of the path that fieldsports take is governed by politics ,making the wrong political decision can have far reaching consequences. It’s imperative that BASC et al make their decisions based on scientific fact and not be open to accusations of political expediency.

No Science No Change ,BASC got it right the first time the only thing that has changed is the politics surrounding the woke green activist culture and the availability of the monster that social media has become and of course the willingness of our organisations to represent the views of their members and not to dictate policy. The last point may explain the fall in grace of our shooting organisations in the eyes of the average fieldsports enthusiast. 
It may all be explained away by claims of not appreciating the bigger picture but that is asking that you place your trust in organisations that unfailingly are open to bias and continual political pressure whereas the average fieldsports enthusiast’s only concern is the protection of his sport.

Readers of this thread and others will be aware of the continual attempted portrayal of any opposition to policy as a small number of unrepresentative troublemakers , belligerent BASC bashers  and trolls rather than honest fieldsports enthusiasts holding BASC et al to account for their questionable decisions, their independence allows them a clearer perspective and the ability to express that unhindered. Be wary who you place your trust in and have confidence in your own judgement rather than over rely on others doing your thinking for you.

Bravo, Sir!

[PeterHenry]

4 hours ago, clangerman said:

how can you expect a next generation when we have basc on here screaming toxic toxic to the public every day you reap what you sow! 

I expect it because I see it regularly - at diffrent shoots, and with friends and family.

Shooting still continues in other countries that have banned lead shot you know.

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

Shooting still continues in other countries that have banned lead shot you know.

It does, but it caused many to give up shooting altogether, or change the way they shoot.
Heres a couple of perspectives.
https://www.scribehound.com/cartridges/s/non-toxic-shotgun-cartridges/living-with-steel-in-denmark

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/how-have-other-countries-coped-with-the-lead-shot-ban-111374/

Its interesting to note that, once a  lead ban for game shooting comes in , there invariably follows a ban on ALL lead shot (and often bullets) for target disciplines also.

You may think this is inevitable, but the evidence for the bans (wild bird poisoning) can be controversial , and even 30 years on in Denmark , birds are allegedly still being poisoned by lead shot ?

Ban the ammunition for starters, if that doesnt work, ban the gun...
'Tighten a dogs chain a link at a time, will it notice when it eventually cant move ?'

[udderlyoffroad]

45 minutes ago, PeterHenry said:

I expect it because I see it regularly - at diffrent shoots, and with friends and family.

It's weird isn't it, there's a vocal minority on here screaming about how BASC have screwed us all and there's no future for shooting,  are seemingly lacking completely in self-awareness.  Invariably, these people do nothing for the future of shooting.  Or when pressed, they witter on about what they did in the run up to the pistol ban*, a whole quarter of a century ago.  What have you done *this* decade?  <crickets>.

BASC's voluntary transition announcement was nearly 5 years ago.  Whilst I agree it was, to put it politely, poorly communicated, it really is high time people moved on.   But no, according to some on here, BASC should prostrate themselves declaring they were absolutely wrong, should've listened to the wise owls at the self-elected PW-council, and whilst they are at it, change the name back to WAGBI and send all of its members a proper tie.

It really will get us nowhere.

And if anyone is still labouring under the delusion that BASC's voluntary transition somehow begat the HSE's proposed ban**,  I've got news for you:  The HSE neither noticed nor cared.  They are operating on the precautionary principle and would rather be in lock-step with, or go even further than, EU REACH if at all possible.  The machinations of shooting organisations are a gross irrelevance to them.

Righto, I'm off to go put the tools in my truck for a work party tomorrow at our DIY syndicate.  Assuming their parents turn up, there'll be a couple of teenagers there, putting a shift in. 

*Funnily enough these same people apparently didn't learn the biggest lesson from the pistol ban, viz.  United we stand, divided we fall.

**Or worse,  conflate the two, whether deliberately or because they are a bit dim

[Bigteddy1954]

Hi lets have a vote between all pigeon watch members yes or a no against transition away from lead .i will start with against .ty 

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

It's weird isn't it, there's a vocal minority on here screaming about how BASC have screwed us all and there's no future for shooting,  are seemingly lacking completely in self-awareness.

Its not a vocal minority, BASC just want you to believe that, I would contest that the large majority of shooters would just like to carry on using the ammunition they choose to.
Have BASC screwed us over ? No, but the simple fact they didnt consult at least their own membership first before announcing the transition, should tell you all you need to know about what the results of any vote WOULD have been.
 

9 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Or when pressed, they witter on about what they did in the run up to the pistol ban*

That simply isnt true is it ?
Maybe one person mentioned it , but the context is completely different.

 

10 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

And if anyone is still labouring under the delusion that BASC's voluntary transition somehow begat the HSE's proposed ban**,  I've got news for you:  The HSE neither noticed nor cared.  They are operating on the precautionary principle and would rather be in lock-step with, or go even further than, EU REACH if at all possible.  The machinations of shooting organisations are a gross irrelevance to them.

Well BASC would tell you different , they regularly release a can of whoop *** on government bodies , FORCING them into U turns and such.
At least thats what they tell you.

That aside , if government doesnt pay any attention to shooting orgs, then what was the point of the voluntary transition anyway, if it was always going to be forced on us legally.
Ive asked Conor many times if they knew it was coming , he always said BASC had no idea ?

14 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

*Funnily enough these same people apparently didn't learn the biggest lesson from the pistol ban, viz.  United we stand, divided we fall.

**Or worse,  conflate the two, whether deliberately or because they are a bit dim

Do you seriously believe ANY united front would have stopped the pistol ban ?
The weight of public opinion after Dunblane was solidly behind it, but this time , banning lead shot for (for starters) is different , the public have little to no knowledge of it , and couldnt care less either way.

Telling the non shooting average consumer that lead shot meat is going to kill them, isnt going to make them eat more is it ?
Telling them it WASNT shot with lead is just going to raise an eyebrow and ask , 'What was it shot with then ?'
 

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, PeterHenry said:

I expect it because I see it regularly - at diffrent shoots, and with friends and family.

Shooting still continues in other countries that have banned lead shot you know.

while I would like to disbelieve gov figures we grow less in number by the year my shotgun and those of more than one friend gathering dust say on this occasion they are true hardly rosy grounds for a next generation 

[Conor O'Gorman]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

It's weird isn't it, there's a vocal minority on here screaming about how BASC have screwed us all and there's no future for shooting,  are seemingly lacking completely in self-awareness.  Invariably, these people do nothing for the future of shooting.  Or when pressed, they witter on about what they did in the run up to the pistol ban*, a whole quarter of a century ago.  What have you done *this* decade?  <crickets>.

BASC's voluntary transition announcement was nearly 5 years ago.  Whilst I agree it was, to put it politely, poorly communicated, it really is high time people moved on.   But no, according to some on here, BASC should prostrate themselves declaring they were absolutely wrong, should've listened to the wise owls at the self-elected PW-council, and whilst they are at it, change the name back to WAGBI and send all of its members a proper tie.

It really will get us nowhere.

And if anyone is still labouring under the delusion that BASC's voluntary transition somehow begat the HSE's proposed ban**,  I've got news for you:  The HSE neither noticed nor cared.  They are operating on the precautionary principle and would rather be in lock-step with, or go even further than, EU REACH if at all possible.  The machinations of shooting organisations are a gross irrelevance to them.

Righto, I'm off to go put the tools in my truck for a work party tomorrow at our DIY syndicate.  Assuming their parents turn up, there'll be a couple of teenagers there, putting a shift in. 

*Funnily enough these same people apparently didn't learn the biggest lesson from the pistol ban, viz.  United we stand, divided we fall.

**Or worse,  conflate the two, whether deliberately or because they are a bit dim

Good luck tommorow on the work party. None of the handful posting about the end of shooting and conspiracies on lead are posting and helping out in the PCC elections thread. As ever it was.

Perhaps what we need to do is make lead shot sexy. Why don't we measure the blood levels of a female shooter, and assuming a normal reading, declare on that 'scientific fact' that "lead makes you beautiful and HEALTHY" as our key argument. And if people challenge us for being wrong, that's ok, that's the beauty of argument. Because as demonstrated on PW if you argue well enough you are never wrong. For the 'handful' reading this - this is my poor attempt at humour - for context please watch the film "Thank you for smoking".

Edited April 26 by Conor O'Gorman

[Konor]

34 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

It's weird isn't it, there's a vocal minority on here screaming about how BASC have screwed us all and there's no future for shooting,  are seemingly lacking completely in self-awareness.  Invariably, these people do nothing for the future of shooting.

There’s an even smaller minority to the one you suggest ( and incidentally there is little opposition to the points made on this and other threads to back up your minority assertion)who make sweeping generalisations with no evidence to back them up. How do you know how much effort and work people that have expressed their opinion on this thread contribute to the future of our sport perhaps some of them do a significant amount more than yourself.

 

57 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The HSE neither noticed nor cared.

Any data to back that assertion or just a baseless assumption to strengthen your case

 

39 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

BASC's voluntary transition announcement was nearly 5 years ago.  Whilst I agree it was, to put it politely, poorly communicated, it really is high time people moved on.

It was a decision made that should have involved prior consultation with its membership. “People” are moving on. They are facing the present likelihood of total lead ban and on the basis of there being no scientific evidence to support such a ban are voicing an opinion against it.

 

45 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

change the name back to WAGBI and send all of its members a proper tie.

Not a point I can remember raising ,in your opinion is that a widely held view by all those who are in disagreement with the way BASC is handling the lead shot issue and it’s toxicity stance while opting to insist that a voluntary move away from lead is sustainable. I’m alright for ties I’d prefer a more realistic approach on lead shot use though rather than see a blanket ban.
 

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Funnily enough these same people apparently didn't learn the biggest lesson from the pistol ban, viz.  United we stand, divided we fall.

 

Is that the basis for your insistence that we follow BASC et al’s lead on this issue. Despite our misgivings ? That we should sheepishly follow in the interests of a united front that we don’t support ? Sorry but I wont be going down that road.
I think you’ll find that by far the majority of those you are criticising are not saying there’s no future for shooting they are saying that shooting is yet again facing further restrictions and there has been no scientific data to justify those restrictions. As a consequence they are choosing to disagree with an emotive laden case put forward by BASC that the toxicity of lead shot in an inland environment is so great that it’s use should be halted all while having no evidence that that is occurring. That is a big difference from your black and white over generalised interpretation.

Your disagreement seems to lie to a great extent on the older generation’s views on the thread and I wonder if that is the root of your problem.

[udderlyoffroad]

35 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

No, but the simple fact they didnt consult at least their own membership first before announcing the transition, should tell you all you need to know about what the results of any vote WOULD have been.

We'll never know of course, as we are not told What-ifs. You think that it would've been a thumping victory for for pro-lead. However, I reckon the response from the loudest voices on here would've been a shrug of the shoulders before the fact (convinced of victory), and much screeching afterwards, a la Brexit.

 

38 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That aside , if government doesnt pay any attention to shooting orgs, then what was the point of the voluntary transition anyway, if it was always going to be forced on us legally.

You mean apart from to be ready for it?

I'm sorry, but I just don't agree the org's voluntary transition begat the HSE's proposal, if anything it was the other way round.  Just look at all the other things banned on the precautionary principle within the last 30yrs, and wait for the coming tsunami on PFAS.  'HSE to ban non-stick frying pans' may well be a headline we read soon.

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Do you seriously believe ANY united front would have stopped the pistol ban ?

Eh?  How is that relevant?  The lesson is we barely got our message out because of all the "I'm alright Jack"-ism and "not our sort" from certain members of the community.  Whether that would've made a difference does not obviate the fact that internal bickering gets us nowhere and people should move on, and stand united.

43 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That simply isnt true is it ?
Maybe one person mentioned it , but the context is completely different.

Oh come on Rewulf, from our previous correspondence, I know that you are the  honourable exception.  But there's hardly a rush of posts on here telling me I'm wrong, that they've taken kids shooting, written to their MPs, grilled their PCC candidates etc.  Or at least not within the past decade.

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

Why don't we measure the blood levels of a female shooter, and assuming a normal reading, declare on that 'scientific fact' that "lead makes you beautiful and HEALTHY"

So you are saying that only female shooters with high blood levels can be beautiful and healthy, thats very sexist, AND youre assuming their gender , which is transphobic/genderphobic (new word I invented) 
Ill have you know that I eat a hearty breakfast of lead shot meat EVERY morning, and Im beautiful and healthy, and very very clever.
This is my attempt at humour BTW.

 

[Konor]

15 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

None of the handful posting about the end of shooting and conspiracies on lead are posting and helping out in the PCC elections thread. As ever it was.

That handful are representative of a far greater number of PW members as witnessed by the lack of support you gather and quite frankly the quality of posts that do so. Sweeping generalisations as witnessed in udderlyoffroad’s post interlock perfectly with selective answering of questions. Of course the PCC elections is a major issue it’s politics and politics is considered by yourself to be your strong point. Well we all have strong views on politics and politicians and I’m sure an Irishman will appreciate that more than most.

24 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

Perhaps what we need to do is make lead shot sexy. Why don't we measure the blood levels of a female shooter, and assuming a normal reading, declare on that 'scientific fact' that "lead makes you beautiful and HEALTHY" as our key argument. And if people challenge us for being wrong, that's ok, that's the beauty of argument. Because as demonstrated on PW if you argue well enough you are never wrong. For the 'handful' reading this - this is my poor attempt at humour - for context please watch the film "Thank you for smoking".

Whatever 

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

We'll never know of course, as we are not told What-ifs.

Were not told anything, until theyve decided its going to happen ?
At least the HSE put out a couple of consultations first, then it will be voted on through parliament.

BASC calls itself a democratic organisation, when was the last time it put a vote on direction to its members about anything ?

6 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You think that it would've been a thumping victory for for pro-lead.

Absolutely.

 

6 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

You mean apart from to be ready for it?

Ready for the ban they tell us they didnt see coming ?
They tell us (now) that its voluntary, use lead , or not, until you cant, its a conflicting message.
I would much rather the orgs said, 'Look , leads going to get banned in the next 5 years, we know this from our contacts in HMG , so people, get yourselves into non toxic sooner rather than later, its up to you'

Rather than 'BASC is opposed to any further restrictions on lead ammo'

11 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Eh?  How is that relevant? 

You mentioned it !
Like I said , anyone who fought the pistol ban would have been labelled with the same sort of mindset of the perpetrator of Dunblane, so 'Im alright Jack' doesnt really come into it.

 

13 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Oh come on Rewulf, from our previous correspondence, I know that you are the  honourable exception.  But there's hardly a rush of posts on here telling me I'm wrong, that they've taken kids shooting, written to their MPs, grilled their PCC candidates etc.  Or at least not within the past decade.

The only reason I mentioned what I do , was in response to some vitriolic comments about me being anti shooting, otherwise I wouldnt have mentioned it.
Im sure there are plenty of others who just quietly do their thing without needing any recognition for it.

[Conor O'Gorman]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So you are saying that only female shooters with high blood levels can be beautiful and healthy, thats very sexist, AND youre assuming their gender , which is transphobic/genderphobic (new word I invented) 
Ill have you know that I eat a hearty breakfast of lead shot meat EVERY morning, and Im beautiful and healthy, and very very clever.
This is my attempt at humour BTW.

 

I would recommend Leadax flakes for brekkie. Much more sustainable.

[Konor]

15 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Oh come on Rewulf, from our previous correspondence, I know that you are the  honourable exception.  But there's hardly a rush of posts on here telling me I'm wrong, that they've taken kids shooting, written to their MPs, grilled their PCC candidates etc.  Or at least not within the past decade.

Is it seriously your belief that unless people spend time writing on the forum about what they do in their free time to support shooting then it is not happening. There’s a generation that are not obsessed with discussing their lives with strangers on forums and they are usually to busy doing stuff rather than trying to create an online persona

[Rewulf]

Just now, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

I would recommend Leadax flakes for brekkie. Much more sustainable.

With a body like mine , MEAT is the only option