BASC Science Matters - March/April

[Old farrier]

30 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I think it would help us to know what 'survey' you are referencing?  

Also, you asked me for "a scientific paper about the intake of lead by plants from the soil" and I took the time to reply. You might perhaps acknowledge that? 

The survey from 20 years ago my observations and my opinion from the last 50 years 
 

? 
your just doing your job as a paid member of Basc. 
I work the same as you

i acknowledge what I want and ignore the rest 

See how it is to not have posts acknowledged immensely irritating 

I think the phrase is you reap what you sow 

[holloway]

53 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

The survey from 20 years ago my observations and my opinion from the last 50 years 
 

? 
your just doing your job as a paid member of Basc. 
I work the same as you

i acknowledge what I want and ignore the rest 

See how it is to not have posts acknowledged immensely irritating 

I think the phrase is you reap what you sow 

Conor must be on a cracking rate of overtime 😀

[Gordon R]

I thought he appeared on here as an individual, not as an employee of BASC.

[Old farrier]

8 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I thought he appeared on here as an individual, not as an employee of BASC.

Well if that’s the case he should state what camp his foot is in seems all he does is post links to Basc stuff 

[Konor]

17 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

In my experience the evidence can sometimes influence the political decision making but its politics that often determines it. The reason for the wetlands restrictions coming into effect from 1999-2003 across the UK was because the UK signed an international treaty (AEWA). The reason the HSE is proposing further restrictions on lead ammunition is because of Brexit and the need for continued chemicals trade with EU. A lead ammunition ban in the UK was first proposed in a 1983 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report. 

If ,as you say evidence is secondary to politics then BASC et al should be countering the anti lead shot campaign with a political campaign of its own. Agreeing to a voluntary phase out of lead was a huge mistake in a political battle for obvious reasons. It’s as if we had surrendered without a shot fired at a time when there was no scientific data to force that decision. Your own contribution in this political fight was to create images of poor wee partridge chicks dying in lead minefields ,not a very astute move. It lends itself to rhetoric such as “If only one partridge chick can be saved from the lead minefields spread throughout the UK our campaign will have been worthwhile “

In conclusion your arguments, actions and data convince me that your personal commitment and that of BASC to fight further legislation on the use of lead shot is fraudulent and that the latest claim that the use of lead shot inland is linked to “continued chemicals trade with EU” is utter nonsense. 
I imagine that your statement that this is a political fight which will be little influenced  by evidence is correct. I think that political decision has been made and your agenda is to justify that decision regardless of any evidence that discredits the reasoning. Shame on you and your organisation yet again.

It’s looking like your initial decision to not engage but fight your corner with personal slurs and promises of phone calls to allay fears enabled you to avoid scrutiny. Your act of being more informative has backfired as you probably knew it would if you opted to address the issues raised. My original thoughts both on your motives and BASC policy regarding lead shot use remain the same No Science No Change . Not the line you are selling “no science no change unless political policy dictates it should”.

Edited May 9 by Konor

[welsh1]

Time to close this one down.