Bioammo composting 2yrs on.

[rbrowning2]

Allient do not make any powder, they buy it in and then package it for resale.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240302-europe-battles-powder-shortage-to-supply-shells-for-ukraine

 

Ricochet page 196, last sentence.

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/lead-in-ammunition/user_uploads/lead-in-ammunition-background-document---draft-sea.pdf

Edited May 16 by rbrowning2

[Old farrier]

On 15/05/2024 at 09:03, Conor O'Gorman said:

So you are 'pretty sure' that livestock will ingest plastic wads and you think that the science on wildfowl ingesting lead shot was in a pen with the floor covered in thousands of lead shot and mixed in with food? 

Well perhaps you should explain the control conditions that were used in the scientific survey to conclude that it was indeed ingested lead that killed the birds that both the wildfowl and partridges 

sorry for late response I’ve been busy 

[Rewulf]

31 minutes ago, rbrowning2 said:

Ricochet page 196, last sentence.

https://consultations.hse.gov.uk/crd-reach/lead-in-ammunition/user_uploads/lead-in-ammunition-background-document---draft-sea.pdf

We seem to have a contradiction.

In general, there is no evidence of increased ricochet risk from shooting in countries where steel shot has been used for many years of an increase in reported accidents or insurance claims.

The Dutch shooting federation highlighted that they had not encountered any accidents related to ricochet of steel shot since the introduction of the general ban on the use of lead at shooting ranges; objects on which steel shot could ricochet have been covered with wood (ECHA, 2022b). Such risk mitigation measures may need to be implemented for existing clay pigeon sites in event of transition to non-lead shot. Similarly, LAG (2015a) stated that precautions need to be taken when firing steel shot at a resilient pattern plate (usually a steel targeting plate to assess the shot pattern alignment) as steel shot will rebound to a greater extent than lead. This needs to be factored into clay shooting health and safety risk assessments.

So when I mentioned 'increased ricochet risk' was I wrong ?

Simple common sense will tell you the answer.

Good link BTW , Ill give that a thorough read through when I get chance 

[Gordon R]

The cited report has a contradictory view, higher up page 196. Why do we accept the Dutch view, as opposed to the Russian view?

[Terry2016]

21 hours ago, Smudger687 said:

For a material to pass EN13432 (iirc) it must break down within 6 weeks of being in an industrial digester, operating at 60 degrees Celsius. These conditions are not found anywhere (or almost anywhere) in the real world, so whenever a manufacturer states that their material passes said regulation it realistically means nothing.

Bioammo's patent literature claims wads and cases made from Polylactic acid (PLA) with an inorganic mineral additive.

We know how PLA degrades - in most environments it doesn't! This is entirely consistent with OP's and others field reports which show that even when buried in the soil for extended periods, the plastic is unchanged. In a marine or foreshore environment, the rate of degradation will be even lower due to the near complete absence of fungi. 

What PLA has been shown to do, however, is break down into microplastics faster than traditional plastics. So ironically these biowads may even end up being more damaging than a normal plaswad. 

To top it off, whenever I and others have requested empirical data from the manufacturers that demonstrates biodegradation under real world conditions, we get ignored. If they had the data, they would give it to us and show it off like eley and gamebore do with their water soluble wads.

Manufacturers have a clear, vested interest in us all believing their biowads are indeed biodegradable. Have you ever stopped to question them, or have you just taken their word for it?

Why would i question them, what is the reason so you can prove they do not break down or so you are confident they will ?  

If you are not happy with bioammo use one of the others and just crack on... 

[Terry2016]

21 hours ago, Konor said:

Conor I am not hiding anywhere I am engaging in a public forum. Again in this thread, as always, you decline to answer any of my questions so I would suggest that you are more guilty of hiding than I am.

As to participating in anything to do with BASC sorry that won't be happening. I have no wish to engage with the organisation which fails to fight my corner and refuses to acknowledge their own incompetence in dealing with the lead fiasco. I have done much to promote shooting at grass roots level I would be of no use however in promoting policies which I believe are to the detriment of shooting. 

As an aside do you even shoot? I have read of one BASC employees Aya yeoman bought in Newton Stewart, and one other ex employee who shot an Aya over and under. I wonder what your own commitment to the shooting sports is. With your affection for steel shot I would guess it's not a British sidelock. 

I would say the handful, as you call anyone disagreeing with your nonsense, is representative of greater numbers than you would have us believe hence your low level of support. 

You have convinced Terry2016 that lead is going apparently but then your position is supposedly the opposition of any further restrictions on lead so even he can't be classed as a supporter of your position. 

I have 2 hp proof steel Shotguns a miroku multichoke mk38 and Beretta Xtrema  and can well afford to use Bismuth. The only real question is whether any evidence actually exists to show that the use of lead shot inland is sufficiently detrimental to wildlife and the environment to justify a lead ban.Conor O'Gorman has been unable to come up with any figures to prove any detriment his main aim is the protection of commercial shooting. Despite his emotional partridge chick pleas he is more concerned with the large bag commercial shoots that see hundreds of thousands of grown up chicks bagged every year. His main reply is personal attack if it wasn't for that he'd have nothing to say. He's not great at justification or arguing his stance, reading through this and other threads will make clear that he expects, no insists, you accept his position with absolutely no evidence to back his claims. 

Conor has not convinced me I have been following the HSE restriction proposals very closely, there is no wriggle room for live quarry shooting with shot.

The only real question is whether any evidence actually exists to show that the use of lead shot inland is sufficiently detrimental to wildlife and the environment to justify a lead ban

The evidence relating to "inland" wildlife and the environment is patchy - however - the GWCT state the below 

Does lead shot have an impact on the wider environment?
Lead is recognised as a highly toxic substance to both humans and wildlife. Because of this, it is near-inevitable that it will have a negative impact where it occurs. 

In addition to wildfowl, other animal groups are affected by lead shot poisoning. Raptors and scavengers can become poisoned when they consume carcasses or live prey that contain lead shot, and lead shot may also present a risk to foraging game birds

So where there could be lacking evidence the perception is that is is a risk. and therefore we should move away from it. 

21 hours ago, Konor said:

So Terry 2016 you don't agree with BASC's proposal to fight any further restrictions on the use of lead shot inland.

Perhaps you could give me the basis for your reasoning and as I'm guessing that will involve figures to indicate the scale of harm inflicted by the use of lead shot inland could you maybe dm Conor the figures as he has been incapable of justifying the complete restriction of the use of lead shot inland for several threads now. 

No figures needed, as above perception and risk equal the need to move away. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

9 hours ago, Konor said:

Acknowledged. 

If all those predicting that" lead shot is going no doubt about it" just stopped doing the antis work for them (unless they can show the scientific basis to substantiate the extent of any environmental damage) then perhaps a proportionate reaction could be worked out that would resolve any real issues of lead shot damage to the environment without sacrificing so much for negligible benefit. My efforts to protect the use of lead shot where negligible damage is probable are not restricted to taking you and your organisation to task for perceived shortcomings. I feel doing so is necessary as left to your own devices I don't think you are as capable in defending shooters rights as you probably believe. Your minefields of lead for example was a spectacular own goal we don't need any more of that if there is to be a political fight against any further lead shot restrictions. I think it's imperative that we learn from past mistakes, talking of which making an issue of posters identities is a non issue and no replacement for confronting the issues raised. 

Thanks. The long identified and more recently widely accepted problem with lead shot is its evidenced impact on birds ingesting it as grit where there are no controls in place to mitigate the risk of birds ingesting that lead shot. This is all detailed in the various HSE reports since 2021 and the various BASC submissions. If we accept there is a problem then we can look to finding solutions. However, many do not accept there is a problem. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

So where there could be lacking evidence the perception is that is is a risk. and therefore we should move away from it. 

Forget evidence - just rely on perception. Very scientific.

[Smudger687]

2 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

Why would i question them, what is the reason so you can prove they do not break down or so you are confident they will ?  

If you are not happy with bioammo use one of the others and just crack on... 

You're Terry Behan aren't you?

[Konor]

5 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

Conor has not convinced me I have been following the HSE restriction proposals very closely, there is no wriggle room for live quarry shooting with shot.

The only real question is whether any evidence actually exists to show that the use of lead shot inland is sufficiently detrimental to wildlife and the environment to justify a lead ban

The evidence relating to "inland" wildlife and the environment is patchy - however - the GWCT state the below 

Does lead shot have an impact on the wider environment?
Lead is recognised as a highly toxic substance to both humans and wildlife. Because of this, it is near-inevitable that it will have a negative impact where it occurs. 

In addition to wildfowl, other animal groups are affected by lead shot poisoning. Raptors and scavengers can become poisoned when they consume carcasses or live prey that contain lead shot, and lead shot may also present a risk to foraging game birds

So where there could be lacking evidence the perception is that is is a risk. and therefore we should move away from it. 

No figures needed, as above perception and risk equal the need to move away. 

Sorry Terry your subjective appraisment of the need to move away from lead shot has left me a little underwhelmed. As I said earlier your attitude plays into the hands of those who would abolish all fieldsports. Your reckless disregard for the need to have a scientific basis for the far reaching consequences a lead shot ban would bring does you no credit. Thankfully BASC have a policy of opposing any further restriction of the use of lead shot. I can only hope that my instinct that you are not in any position to influence that is correct. 

Edit to add 

Terry there's no need to go to the trouble of copying out the information listed in the quote above. There is nothing in the content that justifies any further restriction on the use of lead shot inland. This has been accepted by BASC hence their opposition to any further restrictions on the use of lead shot inland. 

Edited May 16 by Konor

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks. The long identified and more recently widely accepted problem with lead shot is its evidenced impact on birds ingesting it as grit where there are no controls in place to mitigate the risk of birds ingesting that lead shot. This is all detailed in the various HSE reports since 2021 and the various BASC submissions. If we accept there is a problem then we can look to finding solutions. However, many do not accept there is a problem. 

The problem you have is providing the evidence to support your claims that there is a problem. Though why you should be doing that unless your aim is to ensure a legislative lead ban escapes me. 

Consider for a moment the commercial shooting market, out of all the hundreds of thousands of birds shot each year how many of them were actually reared by their natural mother and how many were incubator hatched and brought to the poult stage in game farms. The scenario of thousands of wild reared chicks ingesting lead and dying as a consequence is frankly not plausible. 

A little more honesty with those you claim to represent would not go amiss.

You have stated 

"evidenced impact" 

Evidence please to substantiate or people will probably jump to the conclusion that your concern is partly the protection of commercial shooting by creating the illusion that there is a  market for the excessive amount of birds culled on commercial shoots and that providing that "healthy" food source is the raison d'etre of commercial game shooting with perhaps a secondary concern being maintaining a higher profile for BASC and the benefits that might bring the organisation despite any detriment to the wider shooting public. 

Surely if both you and Terry are in agreement that there is an "evidenced impact" then the obvious place to commence an enforced lead ban would be on the commercial shoots responsible for most of the lead pollution you are concerned about. Perhaps then the impact of halting the use of lead shot over commercial shoot grounds would provide an insight into the extent that lead shot impacts on the environment. 

Of course my understanding is that BASC remains committed to opposing any further lead restrictions so Conor if Terry is a BASC employee or funded by BASC it might be a wise move to have him consider toeing the party line in the interests of consistency, or has that policy changed? 

 

Edited May 16 by Konor
Addition

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 hours ago, Old farrier said:

Well perhaps you should explain the control conditions that were used in the scientific survey to conclude that it was indeed ingested lead that killed the birds that both the wildfowl and partridges 

sorry for late response I’ve been busy 

No need to apologise. If I understood it correctly what you were saying earlier is that you are 'pretty sure' that livestock will ingest plastic wads, but you doubt there is any evidence, however the livestock farmers in your area are cautious about the possibility that it could happen and have asked for them not to be used. I get that - there is a perception of risk.  I am not aware of any reported incidents of livestock eating plastic wads, but that is not to say it doesn't sometimes happen and probably to little ill effect. 

When plastic cartridge cases were being introduced in the 1960s there were experiments on whether livestock would eat them, and if they did, would there be any ill effects. It makes for interesting reading.

 

 

Edited May 17 by Conor O'Gorman

[Konor]

It’s early days yet Conor so I’m assuming you and Terry will respond to my posts a bit later in the day. While you are mulling over your responses could you also consider the following point. From both your own posts and latterly those of Terry2016 you make a strong case for the toxicity of lead shot while ,I’m assuming as you haven’t actually stated it with equal fervour, you also accept that BASC policy is to fight the introduction of any further restrictions on the use of lead shot. If your aim is to convince those that are against the use of lead shot that support for a voluntary lead ban within shooting is so great that there is no need for legislation then wake up. Your strategy is doing the antis work for them and has no chance of succeeding.

If you and BASC are truly against further legislation let’s hear about it loud and clear and stop the broadcasting of your perception that lead shot is so toxic to the extent that it should no longer be used. You have no evidence to support your case ,none , it is all based on perception of a problem that can’t be shown to exist.
 
 I am starting to wonder if BASC policy is being manipulated by a small band of anti shooters helped by gullible fools keen to show their generations woke credentials.

NO SCIENCE NO CHANGE 

that was the response when we could rely on BASC to support grass roots shooters.

 If your perception is that commercial game shooting has a problem with bag disposal and excessive lead contamination on its ground then start a campaign to have lead shot banned on commercial shoots. 
If you insist without any evidence that lead shot inland is such a risk that only complete cessation of its use is the solution then I suggest that you go and work for an antifieldsports organisation more in tune with your perceptions and take those of a like mind with you. 

[Konor]

22 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

No figures needed, as above perception and risk equal the need to move away. 

Should that not be perception of risk. Or are you stating that you would  have policy dictated by perception. As perception is a subjective entity whose perception would dictate policy. Why don't you campaign for a poll to ascertain the perceptions of the shooting community then have that perception dictate policy. Or do you mean that the perception of anti fieldsport enthusiasts should dictate BASC policy.

Is the need to move away synonymous with a need for a legislative ban in the context you have used it? 

Edited May 17 by Konor

[Gordon R]

Konor - I have to agree. When it suits BASC, perception is all that is needed. I think that the public perception of commercial shoots is that thousands of game birds are being raised to be shot. I don't think the public buys into any increased need for healthy game shot with steel rather than lead. 

I think that BASC are trying to move the argument to what type of ammunition is used to kill game birds, whereas the public are more concerned with mass killing.

I have no problem with game shooting - on a small scale or larger. It is part of the countries heritage, a bit like fox hunting. 

[Konor]

6 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - I have to agree. When it suits BASC, perception is all that is needed. I think that the public perception of commercial shoots is that thousands of game birds are being raised to be shot. I don't think the public buys into any increased need for healthy game shot with steel rather than lead. 

I think that BASC are trying to move the argument to what type of ammunition is used to kill game birds, whereas the public are more concerned with mass killing.

I have no problem with game shooting - on a small scale or larger. It is part of the countries heritage, a bit like fox hunting. 

Totally agree. The stance BASC are taking is like a betrayal of the past if that makes sense. Had the expected changes and the mindset driving them occurred around 50 plus years ago what would the shooting scene be like now and would the opportunities that a large proportion of PW members enjoyed been available? 

Where's the drive to defend BASC's policy of no further lead shot restrictions. I see no evidence of it just cringeworthy appeasement to the perception of ill informed people( with no acknowledgement of the need for a scientific basis for change) .people who want the abolishment of the perceived class ridden legal cruelty that they perceive driven game shooting is today, an anachronism well overdue abolishment. We should be wary of perception Terry2016. 

Edited May 17 by Konor

[Rewulf]

34 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Konor - I have to agree. When it suits BASC, perception is all that is needed. I think that the public perception of commercial shoots is that thousands of game birds are being raised to be shot. I don't think the public buys into any increased need for healthy game shot with steel rather than lead. 

I think that BASC are trying to move the argument to what type of ammunition is used to kill game birds, whereas the public are more concerned with mass killing.

I have no problem with game shooting - on a small scale or larger. It is part of the countries heritage, a bit like fox hunting. 

Exactly right, it doesnt make a difference what they are shot with, the public perception is that some people like to go out into the countryside and kill things for fun, its a very difficult thing to defend from the uneducated majority.
When groups like WJ step in and tell them that the birds are being bred by the million to be live feathered targets, that only makes perception worse.

Basc et als strategy, to defend this very lucrative market is to support a phase out of lead shot !
The public dont CARE what they are killed with, the HSE dont care that lead is used either, the HSE and public dont care about a few 1000 lead poisoned birds, its a political scenario, where government seeks to satisfy majority public opinion on 'blood sports'
Look at the fox hunting ban, there were no public safety concerns, it just wasnt popular, so it got banned.

And if you think its bad now , wait till labour get in , they will grab this as a early success story as they rush it through.
How will BASCs lobbying tactics work against anti gun lefties ?
I cant imagine them being impressed with a free day out on the pheasants, and a slap up venison dinner.

[Konor]

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Exactly right, it doesnt make a difference what they are shot with, the public perception is that some people like to go out into the countryside and kill things for fun, its a very difficult thing to defend from the uneducated majority.
When groups like WJ step in and tell them that the birds are being bred by the million to be live feathered targets, that only makes perception worse.

Basc et als strategy, to defend this very lucrative market is to support a phase out of lead shot !
The public dont CARE what they are killed with, the HSE dont care that lead is used either, the HSE and public dont care about a few 1000 lead poisoned birds, its a political scenario, where government seeks to satisfy majority public opinion on 'blood sports'
Look at the fox hunting ban, there were no public safety concerns, it just wasnt popular, so it got banned.

And if you think its bad now , wait till labour get in , they will grab this as a early success story as they rush it through.
How will BASCs lobbying tactics work against anti gun lefties ?
I cant imagine them being impressed with a free day out on the pheasants, and a slap up venison dinner.

Careful Rewulf you are undermining BASC's vision of shootings bright future. Or perhaps BASC's efforts to induce complacency in the shooting community. It's getting harder to differentiate the sides in this argument. Let's all decide to make our voice clear and consistent

No Science No Change,

somtimes the past got it right first time, when facts were perceived to be more important than easily manipulated perception. 

Edited May 17 by Konor

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Konor said:

Careful Rewulf you are undermining BASC's vision of shootings bright future.

BASCs 'bright future' involves shooting being the preserve of only the wealthy, just like the good old days.

The 'commoners' can take the bus, then jump under it.

[Konor]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

BASCs 'bright future' involves shooting being the preserve of only the wealthy, just like the good old days.

The 'commoners' can take the bus, then jump under it.

🤣Well put, I laughed out loud at that 👍

My mother was a country girl brought up between the wars. The family always had a lurcher or whippet when rabbits were rife and family members fished for salmon and sea trout and wildfowled on the Solway. She explained that the pheasants on the estate were bred to be shot for the table and it would be unacceptable to just slaughter them. To a five year old boy the idea of it seemed strange even when immersed in a culture of food from field and stream. I have no problem with accepting driven shooting however given the choice my interests come first and if driven shooting were to bear the brunt of legislative change it would be a compromise I would probably easily accept.

Edited May 17 by Konor

[DUNKS]

On 13/05/2024 at 11:13, udderlyoffroad said:

 

 

Am I missing something here?  It's the wads we're interested in bio degrading. Not the cartridge itself.  What does burying a cartridge prove? 

yep you are.  The splurge said the cases were Bio degradable and I had cases, I did not have wads.

Happy now?

[Gordon R]

Dunks - you are correct.

[udderlyoffroad]

26 minutes ago, DUNKS said:

yep you are.  The splurge said the cases were Bio degradable and I had cases, I did not have wads.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one.

I'm interested, personally, in whether a wad that will contain steel, will bio degrade over x time, in real world conditions.

'Splurge' on the box or not, the case is not the problem and I think it's a waste of time focusing on it.

28 minutes ago, DUNKS said:

Happy now?

In broad sense, yes, I'm a very lucky man.  Wonderful family, nice pack of mutts.  Not many shoot permissions, but enough to keep me busy.  Oh, and I wish I could shift this bluddy virus that has me coughing like someone with a 60tab a day habit.

In the sense of this thread...no.  It has yet again degenerated into a few people attempting to "hold BASC to account" for a poorly communicated decision 4 years ago.  These same people, presumably otherwise quite intelligent, will not engage with the idea of the 'precautionary principle' that UK and EU REACH work to.  Whether or not the science is 'settled' on lead toxicity is unimportant, the move is to legislate it out of existence, as has been done elsewhere in life. 

I'm afraid I  just don't get the cognitive dissonance, and the need for endless discussion on the evidence with BASC on this.  It won't change the past, the future is lead free.  What exactly that looks like, we'll know in September.

To be honest, I think the greatest threat to future of shooting is this lunatic idea that appears to be taking hold amongst some (predominantly) Labour MPs that 'guns shouldn't be kept at home'.

[Smudger687]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

BASCs 'bright future' involves shooting being the preserve of only the wealthy, just like the good old days.

The 'commoners' can take the bus, then jump under it.

Couldn't agree more. 

[Konor]

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

people attempting to "hold BASC to account" for a poorly communicated decision 4 years ago.  These same people, presumably otherwise quite intelligent, will not engage with the idea of the 'precautionary principle' that UK and EU REACH work to.

In fairness the content includes holding BASC to account for their present statements via Conor OGorman and Terry2016 and the acknowledgement that BASC's present policy is to contest any further restrictions on the use of lead shot inland. The precautionary principle that is being worked to is to the detriment of shooters best interests hence with no evidence to show the extent of the highly probable negligible effect of lead shot use inland, in my opinion further restrictions are being justifiably opposed. Your choice to accept those restrictions is entirely up to you but it would be more understandable to me to accept them because they are justifiable than to accept them because you feel they are inevitable. We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

The poorly communicated decision was in reality a failure to consult with their membership on a decision with far reaching consequences. The hope is that this and similar mistakes will be avoided in the future. 

Edited May 17 by Konor