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

[Terry2016]

further info if needed 

 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

3 hours ago, scolopax said:

Obsessed. 
 

maybe try going out shooting or fishing?  They are both typical occupiers of time for males with obsessive tendencies. You may even find them enjoyable. 

[Konor]

22 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

And you would have that hunting replaced with the grandes battues that are commercial shooting today and have grass roots hunting restricted with no statistical evidence to support doing so. You seem to specialise in irony Conor. 

Edited April 28 by Konor

[clangerman]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks, so what you appear to be saying is that it must be my fault for posting updates on policy issues I think would be of interest to PW members and out of interest for their feedback, something I have done for over a decade. Perhaps it's the recent trolling accounts such as yours and a handful of others, with no substance to add, hijacking threads and stifling reasoned exchanges between reasonable well intentioned PW members, that are the issue.

try one of your so called straight answers because claims of policy up dates for starting lead threads non stop won’t last two secs on closer examination and you know it! 

[8 shot]

18 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

further info if needed 

 

 

That is exactly the sort of information "Terry The Optimist" should be giving not the misinformation the BASC are giving I've spoken the Teague and they recommend matching cartridge to chamber length a year or so ago, and if my memory serves me well JC salesman did the same on my last cartridge purchase. The other point that really rattled my cage was he suggested that you get more pellets in Steel cartridges than lead...... NOT true when you go up two shot size as suggested, i've have sat and counted them. And why would you pay Warter Priory prices to shoot a lowland bird just so the Game Dealer can fill there boots, if they'll even take them at all when shot with your 32", 3" chambered High Bird gun using 34g 4s. I'm looking forward to Gamefair this year it's five minutes drive from me ....See what the BASC have to say in person

[Old farrier]

50 minutes ago, Terry2016 said:

Get your bore measured, that will calculate how many thou is needed to be relived to ensure the restriction of your choice, that however does not provide you with an optimum pattern you will still need to patter your gun to se how well the type of cartridge performs.

And how many thou is it for steel iv got the information for the relieving of choke restriction for lead can’t find anything accurate for steel or bismuth 

thanks for the input 😊👍

[Terry2016]

That depends on your gun, and shot combination, as  say get your bores measured tell them what loads you plan to use, they will agree the thou required . then pattern your gun .... 

 

[holloway]

39 minutes ago, 8 shot said:

That is exactly the sort of information "Terry The Optimist" should be giving not the misinformation the BASC are giving I've spoken the Teague and they recommend matching cartridge to chamber length a year or so ago, and if my memory serves me well JC salesman did the same on my last cartridge purchase. The other point that really rattled my cage was he suggested that you get more pellets in Steel cartridges than lead...... NOT true when you go up two shot size as suggested, i've have sat and counted them. And why would you pay Warter Priory prices to shoot a lowland bird just so the Game Dealer can fill there boots, if they'll even take them at all when shot with your 32", 3" chambered High Bird gun using 34g 4s. I'm looking forward to Gamefair this year it's five minutes drive from me ....See what the BASC have to say in person

out of interest are you a Basc member ?

 

[8 shot]

Have to be for a syndicate, though we/they are looking for alternatives or allow for individuals to prove Public liability to X amount, just a bit tricky if you invite a guest.

[holloway]

8 hours ago, 8 shot said:

Have to be for a syndicate, though we/they are looking for alternatives or allow for individuals to prove Public liability to X amount, just a bit tricky if you invite a guest.

same as myself ,but this is an area were Basc has been very helpful in assisting clubs with there shooting consents on sssi land also grants for land purchase and conservation projects .

 

[Old farrier]

14 hours ago, scolopax said:

Obsessed. 
 

maybe try going out shooting or fishing?  They are both typical occupiers of time for males with obsessive tendencies. You may even find them enjoyable. 

I shoot a lot more than most and spend plenty of time fishing if the shore and out in the boat however at this point I feel I should take the time out to challenge the badly thought out policy of Basc 

the impact of the voluntary transition away from lead on the grassroots shooters not to mention the gun-shops cartridge manufacturers proof houses and rfd’s small shoots and more importantly the entry level shooters is far reaching 

In my opinion the initial idea is fairly good however the science is bad and the way it was put forward was atrocious 

this is why I’m spending time away from my passion and taking the time to do what I can to get a sensible solution to the issue and to total mess that’s been created 

this voluntary transition has cost cartridge manufacturers millions devalued tens of thousands of guns removed most entry level guns from the market made small bores( 4.10 ) as good as obsolete 

for what? 
so warter priory and a few other big shoots (business) can sell the by product of the big volume experience that they sell 

obsessed No 

passionate about shooting and country sports yes 

[Konor]

1 hour ago, holloway said:

same as myself ,but this is an area were Basc has been very helpful in assisting clubs with there shooting consents on sssi land also grants for land purchase and conservation projects .

 

I agree wholeheartedly and it both enables clubs to generate an income from grazing lets and to have a greater voice in the management of coastal habitat. Without BASC some areas of foreshore would have been completely bought over by the RSPB.

It’s just frustrating that that level of commitment is not mirrored in the defence of the use of lead shot inland ,or at least in explaining the reason for their insistence that lead is so toxic that it is having a significant impact on the environment when they have no figures to measure that impact. Surely over the last 4 years some effort should have been made to quantify the effect of lead shot inland before guesstimating that it’s effect was so great that only complete cessation of its use was acceptable.The protection of the game meat sales market and large commercial shoots seems to be their main concern. The failure to establish a position to be able to negotiate a measured legislative ban and in doing so see limited use of lead shot continue where it’s impact is minimal or possibly non existent is a casualty of their prioritising. 
The content of the first paragraph doesn’t justify the content of the second.BASC has dropped the ball on this and the detrimental consequences to shooting are going to be far reaching. Should any small shoots stop then the conservation work carried out on those shoots that is in the best interests of game but also benefits all bird life will cease. I would think that the impact of that happening would far outweigh the as yet unquantifiable effect of lead shot use on wildlife and the environment on the average shoot. I’m far from convinced that BASC are working in our best interests or the interests of the countryside regarding lead shot use and as has been witnessed on this thread and others there has been no argument put forward to justify the route BASC are taking.

Edited April 29 by Konor

[Conor O'Gorman]

11 hours ago, 8 shot said:

 I'm looking forward to Gamefair this year it's five minutes drive from me ....See what the BASC have to say in person

Good stuff - I think Terry will be there and there will no doubt be further developments on lead and non-lead shot by then - always good to discuss these things on the phone and face to face. Forums like this can help with comms but can only go so far in terms of debate. Feel free to contact me if you wish to arrange to discuss with Terry on the phone ahead of the Game Fair.

[Konor]

25 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Forums like this can help with comms but can only go so far in terms of debate

Especially when debate is restricted by the failure to address points made ,then one  can simply leave the room and evade engaging ,not so easy face to face. The downside of course is the non transparency and lack of record in phone calls or conversation that is the strength of forum debate, the record that is held and its ability to be referred back to.

Edited April 29 by Konor

[holloway]

2 hours ago, Konor said:

I agree wholeheartedly and it both enables clubs to generate an income from grazing lets and to have a greater voice in the management of coastal habitat. Without BASC some areas of foreshore would have been completely bought over by the RSPB.

It’s just frustrating that that level of commitment is not mirrored in the defence of the use of lead shot inland ,or at least in explaining the reason for their insistence that lead is so toxic that it is having a significant impact on the environment when they have no figures to measure that impact. Surely over the last 4 years some effort should have been made to quantify the effect of lead shot inland before guesstimating that it’s effect was so great that only complete cessation of its use was acceptable.The protection of the game meat sales market and large commercial shoots seems to be their main concern. The failure to establish a position to be able to negotiate a measured legislative ban and in doing so see limited use of lead shot continue where it’s impact is minimal or possibly non existent is a casualty of their prioritising. 
The content of the first paragraph doesn’t justify the content of the second.BASC has dropped the ball on this and the detrimental consequences to shooting are going to be far reaching. Should any small shoots stop then the conservation work carried out on those shoots that is in the best interests of game but also benefits all bird life will cease. I would think that the impact of that happening would far outweigh the as yet unquantifiable effect of lead shot use on wildlife and the environment on the average shoot. I’m far from convinced that BASC are working in our best interests or the interests of the countryside regarding lead shot use and as has been witnessed on this thread and others there has been no argument put forward to justify the route BASC are taking.

I think that probably Basc have taken the decision on the well known fact  that lead is toxic ? and it will be banned sooner or later by the government of the day ,is it not similar to taking it out of fuel ? 
 I think that Basc might lose credibility if they fight to keep using toxic shot just because we always have ,we used to hang wall paper with Arsenic glue but we are better educated now .  

I have always questioned the sale of game meat as justification for shooting heaps of  Game i think it might have been Scully (apologise if i'm wrong) who said we shouldn't need to justify our sport we do it because we enjoy it .

But i think that Basc does push this point a little too much ,most participate in driven shooting big or small because they enjoy the day and killing is a part of it i shoot wildfowl and enjoy the whole thing but at the end of the day killing has to take place ,i haven't got a problem with it but decided long ago that for me the justification was eating everything i shot ,so no big days for me .

This i can justify to all but non meat eaters ,i am not sure that today you can justify shooting big pheasant days for fun or just the challenge of  killing high birds for fun .And i think defending  this sort of shoot might be Bascs biggest challenge .Please dont  give me a hard time over this as it is my own view and i haven't an issue with others doing it.

 

[8 shot]

My real annoyance with the BASC and some other Organisations and certain individuals, is this constant search for this “Perfect World” which doesn’t and never will exist. In my humble opinion, and just taking the Grey Partridge as an example, predation is the biggest factor in increasing the number of them not banning lead shot, it would apply to most bird species particularly song birds

[Konor]

1 hour ago, holloway said:

I think that probably Basc have taken the decision on the well known fact  that lead is toxic ? and it will be banned sooner or later by the government of the day ,is it not similar to taking it out of fuel ? 
 I think that Basc might lose credibility if they fight to keep using toxic shot just because we always have ,we used to hang wall paper with Arsenic glue but we are better educated now .  

I have always questioned the sale of game meat as justification for shooting heaps of  Game i think it might have been Scully (apologise if i'm wrong) who said we shouldn't need to justify our sport we do it because we enjoy it .

But i think that Basc does push this point a little too much ,most participate in driven shooting big or small because they enjoy the day and killing is a part of it i shoot wildfowl and enjoy the whole thing but at the end of the day killing has to take place ,i haven't got a problem with it but decided long ago that for me the justification was eating everything i shot ,so no big days for me .

This i can justify to all but non meat eaters ,i am not sure that today you can justify shooting big pheasant days for fun or just the challenge of  killing high birds for fun .And i think defending  this sort of shoot might be Bascs biggest challenge .Please dont  give me a hard time over this as it is my own view and i haven't an issue with others doing it.

 

👍As you say it has been acknowledged that lead is toxic. I am questioning the extent the toxicity of lead shot impacts on the environment and does that justify a complete ban on the use of lead shot. Without data to show the extent of its effect is the overall impact sufficient to warrant the consequences of a total ban. BASC has caved in to political pressure and failed to represent a significant amount of their members and non members by not maintaining the ability to negotiate the conditions of a ban. By advertising its toxicity inland with no figures to substantiate their claims they are arguably guilty of deception. 

Remember their stance is a voluntary move away from lead that they seen sure will continue. Ibelieve that not only will it not continue but that they have thrown away the chance to negotiate a limited use of lead shot where the impact is not measurable/likely does not exist. 

I also only shoot for the table and with the exception of occasional vermin if I don't intend eating it I'm not shooting it. The same as fishing, for the table. What others do is up to them but I speak for myself and my interests first as a priority. As has been shown you can't rely on others to do it for you. Shooting may be the new golf to some but not me. 

[holloway]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

👍As you say it has been acknowledged that lead is toxic. I am questioning the extent the toxicity of lead shot impacts on the environment and does that justify a complete ban on the use of lead shot. Without data to show the extent of its effect is the overall impact sufficient to warrant the consequences of a total ban. BASC has caved in to political pressure and failed to represent a significant amount of their members and non members by not maintaining the ability to negotiate the conditions of a ban. By advertising its toxicity inland with no figures to substantiate their claims they are arguably guilty of deception. 

Remember their stance is a voluntary move away from lead that they seen sure will continue. Ibelieve that not only will it not continue but that they have thrown away the chance to negotiate a limited use of lead shot where the impact is not measurable/likely does not exist. 

I also only shoot for the table and with the exception of occasional vermin if I don't intend eating it I'm not shooting it. The same as fishing, for the table. What others do is up to them but I speak for myself and my interests first as a priority. As has been shown you can't rely on others to do it for you. Shooting may be the new golf to some but not me. 

I don't disagree  with anything that you say but in todays world especially the Uk proof of harm is irrelevant it is down to us to prove that no harm is done, the precautionary principle ,that is how all of these environmental decisions are made if Basc or you or me had that proof it could be used to fight a lead ban .

Sadly i don't believe such documented evidence exists for anyone to use .

[Rewulf]

29 minutes ago, holloway said:

I don't disagree  with anything that you say but in todays world especially the Uk proof of harm is irrelevant it is down to us to prove that no harm is done, the precautionary principle ,that is how all of these environmental decisions are made if Basc or you or me had that proof it could be used to fight a lead ban .

Sadly i don't believe such documented evidence exists for anyone to use .

BASC managed to find it nearly 10 years ago when they successfully fought off the LAG and their turncoat ex CEO.
Things seem to have changed lately, now they cant or wont use the same evidence, support that lead needs to go, and wont use the original ruling as a precedent, oh and honour the turncoat into the bargain.
What happened to 'No evidence , no change' ?

What happened to the voice of shooting ?
Now its the voice of healthy game meat , and the voice of the wee chicks in the lead minefields.

[Konor]

18 minutes ago, holloway said:

Sadly i don't believe such documented evidence exists for anyone to use .

Correct , and perhaps if the intention was to fight a lead shot ban ,(and BASC’s stated intention is to fight any further legislative restrictions on the use of lead shot) then they should have considered parallel studies to determine whether the absence of the use of lead shot had any measurable beneficial effect on the environment. They have had 4 years to do that.

I’m aware of the precautionary principle but if instead of making emotive statements regarding the toxic effect of lead shot inland ,minefields of lead for those poor wee partridges etc, BASC et al had cast doubt on the probable danger of lead shot being used inland ,perhaps  under certain circumstances ,then we might be in a stronger position to limit the impact of a ban.

 I think the consequences of a total ban on lead shot use are going to be far reaching and its impact magnified by the decline in those giving up the sport. I think the shooting landscape will alter dramatically with fewer people choosing to become involved more casually as is presently the case in rural areas. I can see commercial shooting becoming more the norm. The problem then becomes the attack on commercial shoots an easy target in my opinion and the antis will now be able to focus on that encouraged by what they will see as the victory over lead shot use and helped by the decline in grass roots shooting.I already know of farms now being left largely undisturbed from shooting due to the negative effect surrounding the proposed switch to non toxic shot. Any legislative ban will see a further decline in  new blood coming into shooting and as older guns choose to give up a bit earlier rather than tackle the changes required there will probably be an increase in smaller syndicates folding and the consequent loss of knowledge that contributes to the conservation work that shooting is responsible for.

All doom and gloom ?  Maybe not ,but there will be an unnecessary decline and shooting can ill afford that. It’s anyone’s guess how hard that decline will be as the shooting generation ages and shooters fall in numbers.

[Konor]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

BASC managed to find it nearly 10 years ago when they successfully fought off the LAG and their turncoat ex CEO.
Things seem to have changed lately, now they cant or wont use the same evidence, support that lead needs to go, and wont use the original ruling as a precedent, oh and honour the turncoat into the bargain.
What happened to 'No evidence , no change' ?

What happened to the voice of shooting ?
Now its the voice of healthy game meat , and the voice of the wee chicks in the lead minefields.

No Science No Change 

Where is the new science that has brought about the change in perspective. All I’m hearing is the new precautionary principle and an apparent admission that no data exists to prove inland lead toxicity one way or another. 
Those wishing to see a decline in shooting brought about by any lead ban are all for it .They don’t care about any supporting science they’re just pleased that the shooting industry will be weakened and a lead ban will bring that about. It’s only a question of how weakening any ban will be, but it will be a big step forward for all those against shooting sports. If anyone thinks we will somehow gain any credit from abiding by a voluntary lead ban in the eyes of those who would see quarry shooting abolished and even the storage of any firearms at home being prevented then they are seriously misguided. Choose a side and consider concluding that appeasement is not the way forward for us , not if we want shooting sports to thrive as they should.

[holloway]

4 hours ago, Konor said:

No Science No Change 

Where is the new science that has brought about the change in perspective. All I’m hearing is the new precautionary principle and an apparent admission that no data exists to prove inland lead toxicity one way or another. 
Those wishing to see a decline in shooting brought about by any lead ban are all for it .They don’t care about any supporting science they’re just pleased that the shooting industry will be weakened and a lead ban will bring that about. It’s only a question of how weakening any ban will be, but it will be a big step forward for all those against shooting sports. If anyone thinks we will somehow gain any credit from abiding by a voluntary lead ban in the eyes of those who would see quarry shooting abolished and even the storage of any firearms at home being prevented then they are seriously misguided. Choose a side and consider concluding that appeasement is not the way forward for us , not if we want shooting sports to thrive as they should.

I don't think your getting it Konor there doesn't have to be any new science that has changed perspective. If you cant prove its non harming it will be gone given time ,its reality nothing to do with common sense or Basc it is the bar that has been set, you say you keep hearing the phrase but you don't seem to be understanding it ,you are right when you say it will cause a decline in shooting numbers but not if we learn to adapt ,maybe that is more the reason Basc are steering us towards compliance maybe they need a pat on the back (tongue in cheek remark )   .

[Konor]

1 hour ago, holloway said:

I don't think your getting it Konor there doesn't have to be any new science that has changed perspective. If you cant prove its non harming it will be gone given time ,its reality nothing to do with common sense or Basc it is the bar that has been set, you say you keep hearing the phrase but you don't seem to be understanding it ,you are right when you say it will cause a decline in shooting numbers but not if we learn to adapt ,maybe that is more the reason Basc are steering us towards compliance maybe they need a pat on the back (tongue in cheek remark )   .

A kick up the **** would be more appropriate. And yes I do get it Holloway , we’re expected to play by new rules ,the new woke politics to our detriment. If we have to prove that everything is non harming or it’s banned then there’s a long list of studying to be done and a few things we will be having to learn to adapt without if the science can’t prove it’s non harming. Maybe you’re not getting it Holloway perhaps if there’s no statistics to prove harm there is no harm. But in the meantime let’s just accept the considerable consequences, just in case ,which includes the own goal of allowing our opponents to move on to their next objective.That may be acceptable to you but definitely not me. BASC may be steering us but do you seriously think it’s in our best interests or our opponents ?Do you think cessation of lead shot use will see the hedgerows full of wild game ,especially after the expected decline in shooters and the accompanying decrease in the associated conservation work.  Perhaps BASC has been talked into non opposition and have no intention of fighting a lead shot ban ,as incidentally they say they will, because the rhetoric seems to support that view.Do you believe that there will be a total lead ban despite BASC stating that they will fight further restrictions because you are talking about adapting before a ban is introduced and thanking BASC for steering you down that road. You may be perfectly happy to retire your vintage gun and accept the well documented first hand experiences of increased wounding  I’d prefer a bit of evidence to justify it ,that’s where we differ greatly. The bar has been set and you have given up, I get it.

Edited April 29 by Konor

[holloway]

55 minutes ago, Konor said:

A kick up the **** would be more appropriate. And yes I do get it Holloway , we’re expected to play by new rules ,the new woke politics to our detriment. If we have to prove that everything is non harming or it’s banned then there’s a long list of studying to be done and a few things we will be having to learn to adapt without if the science can’t prove it’s non harming. Maybe you’re not getting it Holloway perhaps if there’s no statistics to prove harm there is no harm. But in the meantime let’s just accept the considerable consequences, just in case ,which includes the own goal of allowing our opponents to move on to their next objective.That may be acceptable to you but definitely not me. BASC may be steering us but do you seriously think it’s in our best interests or our opponents ?Do you think cessation of lead shot use will see the hedgerows full of wild game ,especially after the expected decline in shooters and the accompanying decrease in the associated conservation work.  Perhaps BASC has been talked into non opposition and have no intention of fighting a lead shot ban as incidentally they say they will because the rhetoric seems to support that view.Do you believe that there will be a total lead ban despite BASC stating that they will fight further restrictions because you are talking about adapting before a ban is introduced and thanking BASC for steering you down that road. You may be perfectly happy to retire your vintage gun and accept the well documented first hand experiences of increased wounding  I’d prefer a bit of evidence to justify it ,that’s where we differ greatly. The bar has been set and you have given up, I get it.

You appear to have taken offence to my post it was not intended i am sorry ,i see it differently to you ,yes to some degree i have accepted it ,i do believe that spraying the countryside with lead is wrong ,thats my view and no i haven't given up i have adapted and will continue to use my old guns especially my hammer gun using steel which i have complete faith in .

My first hand experience of Steel over the last 10 + years makes me care not a jot if they ban lead ,i can now get fibre wad cups to reload steel for the hammergun ,i will load Bismuth for the 410 i dont use it much so the cost can be justified .

what i think on your other questions is largely irrelevant ,but declining shooter numbers if it happens well so be it yes i can accept that ,hedgerows full of wild game ? no why should they be .and accepting a ban before there is one well yes and no i just see it as progress you see it as a step backwards thats not a problem to me.My conclusions on lead shot have not been steered by Basc ,perhaps cultivated by being forced by law to use non toxic shot when wildfowling then using that experience to follow my own judgement.

I think i am right in saying that we both enjoy the same types of shooting but tackle the challenges differently , there is nothin wrong with agreeing to disagree i genuinely wish you luck with your chosen methods of coping with future challenges. 

[Konor]

7 hours ago, holloway said:

You appear to have taken offence to my post it was not intended i am sorry ,i see it differently to you ,yes to some degree i have accepted it ,i do believe that spraying the countryside with lead is wrong ,thats my view and no i haven't given up i have adapted and will continue to use my old guns especially my hammer gun using steel which i have complete faith in .

My first hand experience of Steel over the last 10 + years makes me care not a jot if they ban lead ,i can now get fibre wad cups to reload steel for the hammergun ,i will load Bismuth for the 410 i dont use it much so the cost can be justified .

what i think on your other questions is largely irrelevant ,but declining shooter numbers if it happens well so be it yes i can accept that ,hedgerows full of wild game ? no why should they be .and accepting a ban before there is one well yes and no i just see it as progress you see it as a step backwards thats not a problem to me.My conclusions on lead shot have not been steered by Basc ,perhaps cultivated by being forced by law to use non toxic shot when wildfowling then using that experience to follow my own judgement.

I think i am right in saying that we both enjoy the same types of shooting but tackle the challenges differently , there is nothin wrong with agreeing to disagree i genuinely wish you luck with your chosen methods of coping with future challenges. 

Your honesty in reply is refreshing Holloway and appreciated 👍The only offence I have taken is when I am accused of not getting it and the reasoning behind my disagreement is simply a lack of understanding rather than a disagreement with policy. “Once you understand you will agree with us too.”I find it a bit Orwellian in nature. I do get it I just don’t agree with it simply because if there has been no change in the evidence to support a ban then any such ban proposed now ,I think is probably politically driven . Where people once thought there was no justification now there is ,but the science hasn’t changed just the perspective and I feel that perspective has been manipulated. Why ? Because of the bureaucracy obsessed western world that we now inhabit. Where once there were industries and factories now we have bureaucrats and an endless stream of people employed to oversee that bureaucracy. I own a newly steel proofed Teague choked Miroku, a Beretta xtrema,a 10 bore , AYA number 3 magnum and a Winchester Parker 3 inch magnum and with the level of shooting I do with my Damascus barrelled gun I could easily feed it bismuth to continue using it so I am prepared for any change. But not all people on a limited income are or will have guns passed down to them that are suitable for steel so there will be a culling of lower working class people into shooting and shooting will become a sport pushed more towards the middle classes ,numbers are lost and we become more susceptible to those who would have our sport curtailed even more. The bottom line is that with any further legislation there is a likelihood that people like me who took up the sport accompanying their father as a youngster will be less likely to have that opportunity and I don’t believe that is fair when limited evidence exists to support the ban that would cause it.
 

Edited April 30 by Konor