Say good bye to lead shot, HSE report.

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, JKD said:

Sorry,,,, what is it you are trying to say ? That the Walking Football Association has nothing to do with this topic ? Oh dear 🤦‍♂️

On this occasion your effort was not one of the posts referred to and reflects a NFA.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

Do you honestly believe that, regardless of how the next few months go, we'll still be using lead in 10 years time?

If there is no evidence to support the contention that the use of lead shot has any detrimental effect on bird populations outwith wetland areas then there is no reason to have the use of lead ammunition curtailed by further restrictions. Therefore ,to answer your question, I see no reason why lead shot should not be in use in 10 years time.

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

BASC and others could put up the fight of their lives and completely empty the war chest but ultimately the proposals to ban what is a toxic substance being spread about the countryside (despite the naunces) will come again and again. Its better to cut off the rotting limb than try to survive with it.

Can you explain why  BASC taking a stance of resisting further restrictions until proof to justify such restrictions is forthcoming should have any additional financial implications ? If we cave in as easily to further anti field sports pressure then there will be no future for fieldsports in this country and the appeasement that you are so much in favour of will bring that about. Lead shot restrictions over wetlands had a scientific basis for acceptance and wildfowlers were able to continue their sport with the help of heavy steel loads in semi auto 12 and 10 bores. Further lead shot restrictions inland have no scientific basis and the ammunition proposed to replace lead in the average game gun is considered by many inadequate to prevent increased suffering to quarry species. What seems appropriate for infrequent use on the foreshore will not be as suited for general use inland.

[Conor O'Gorman]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Ok. Got a link to all the various agencies, organisations and groups/individuals which contributed to the science? 
 

No, but if you read a few recent papers on any given topic you can work back from the references as far back and further than the 1960s. 

[Rewulf]

35 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

No, but if you read a few recent papers on any given topic you can work back from the references as far back and further than the 1960s. 

Thats an interesting comment Conor, considering that BASCs stance on lead shot was completely different 10 years ago.
Tell me, did BASC just ignore all this research from the 60s when it suited them ?
Ill take it that your personal stance has always been anti lead ?

Heres a little snapshot 

 

https://www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/agreed-findings-on-lead-ammunition

[Poor Shot]

2 hours ago, Konor said:

Can you explain why  BASC taking a stance of resisting further restrictions until proof to justify such restrictions is forthcoming should have any additional financial implications ?

BASC can take any stance they want, they are just a shooting organisation. BASC has no more actual power to stop the government doing what it wants than you or me.

To nullify any restrictions then we are going to have to provide evidence to disprove the main arguments against the use of lead ammunition. This would involve commissioning entities to carry out the required research, publish papers etc. That is eye-wateringly expensive and takes months if not years. Anecdotal evidence or whataboutery isn't going to cut it at this stage.

2 hours ago, Konor said:

If we cave in as easily to further anti field sports pressure then there will be no future for fieldsports in this country and the appeasement that you are so much in favour of will bring that about.

Not necessarily. The lead shot ban has been been coming for a long time. Some fights cannot be won and the lead ammunition ban is one of them. As far as the government is concerned we may as well be spreading handfuls of asbestos about the place as they have deemed lead as having no safe exposure levels.

2 hours ago, Konor said:

 Lead shot restrictions over wetlands had a scientific basis for acceptance and wildfowlers were able to continue their sport with the help of heavy steel loads in semi auto 12 and 10 bores. Further lead shot restrictions inland have no scientific basis and the ammunition proposed to replace lead in the average game gun is considered by many inadequate to prevent increased suffering to quarry species. What seems appropriate for infrequent use on the foreshore will not be as suited for general use inland.

What evidence do you have to prove that the use of standard steel shot within the reccomendation of the manufacturer is any more inhumane than the lead shot alternative?

It's anecdotal but I've used exclusively steel this season on a driven pheasant and duck syndicate shoot. I can't say I've noticed that using a 2 3/4" steel shot No 4 cartridge has been any less effective than a 32g 6 or 5 lead shot cartridge would have been. I'm not shooting anything outside of 45 yards same as I wouldn't have with a lead cartridge.

Standard steel has limitations which are well known. People are going to have either manage their expectations accordingly or change their guns for a modern equivalent if the shooting they do requires the use of a 3" HP steel cartridge. Much in the same way that those with BP proofed guns had to make changes when nitro proofing became a thing.

[Konor]

You seemed to be concerned about the financial implications of BASC emptying its war chest hence my first comment in your reply.

Surely if more restrictions are deemed necessary it should be the responsibility of those wishing to bring about those changes to supply evidence to support that change if no evidence exists then as per BASC No Science No change.

what exactly are your qualifications that enables you to state that the lead ammunition ban is a fight that cannot be won ? 
Can you cite a case where the “no safe exposure level of lead “ammunition has caused an impact on game or bird species on dry land in the UK ?

It’s anecdotal but there are many instances where steel has been found to be lacking in stopping ability and was part of the reason Norwegian Hunting assosciations used to overturn their lead ban laws. 
I agree people are going to have to manage their expectations should steel become the norm and that will become ever more likely when sportsman like yourself cave in without a fight when faced with restrictions which are based on sentiments which have no scientific merit.

Have you patterned your  2 3/4 steel 4s at 45 yard range if so what was the 30 inch circle count and what ft/lb were they carrying at that range ?

[Rewulf]

26 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

BASC can take any stance they want, they are just a shooting organisation.

Read that back to yourself !
Do we pay them to take any stance THEY want ?
I would have little to say if they put a vote to their membership on what direction to take on lead, but no, they did what THEY wanted, and never bothered to ask.

 

29 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

To nullify any restrictions then we are going to have to provide evidence to disprove the main arguments against the use of lead ammunition. This would involve commissioning entities to carry out the required research, publish papers etc.

They already did , 10 + years ago, and WON.
Then within 5 years, completely changed their mind and decried lead ammo as toxic, agreeing with every single anti shooting body out there.
What happened ?

[Konor]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

They already did , 10 + years ago, and WON.
Then within 5 years, completely changed their mind and decried lead ammo as toxic, agreeing with every single anti shooting body out there.
What happened ?

Thanks Rewulf 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Having reached 10 pages (!) of discussion following the OP - about the recently published HSE report - timely for a recap I think for those reading from the end first:

Why is this happening?

Lead in ammunition, and some hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, were the first areas to be reviewed in 2021 under post-Brexit legislation called UK REACH on the control of hazardous chemicals. These HSE reviews came about following Brexit to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations.

In June 2023 the HSE proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up in England, Wales and Scotland. This was the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. Nothing has happened since.

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

This is a new process in the UK and there have been no legislative changes as yet.

Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the December 2024 HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation (noting the substances in tattoos and permanent make-up were at this stage of review in June 2023 and nothing has happened).

If laws on lead ammunition are proposed this could be the same for England, Wales and Scotland or we could see different laws in different countries - as happened when the lead shot regulations for wildfowl and/or wetlands came into force over 20 years ago. The devolved governments have always had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the HSE review.

The main HSE recommendations are as follows:

Shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting

A restriction on the sale and use has been proposed with a transition timeline of five years. There will be a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting. This will be subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use. That cap is 1.25 million which equates to 0.7 per cent of the cartridges previously used for target shooting with shotguns.

Rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting

A restriction has been recommended on the sale and use of large calibre ammunition with a timeline of three years. Large calibres have been reclassified as .243 (6.17mm) and above. No restrictions have been proposed on small calibres below .243. Ammunition will need labelling for live quarry or target shooting after the transition period.

Rifle ammunition for target shooting

Ranges that cannot ‘de-lead’ have two years to adapt or move across to non-lead alternatives. Most ranges (95%) can comply with these measures and face no restrictions.

Airgun pellets for live quarry and target shooting

No restrictions proposed. 

BASC influence during the review

Over the last three years BASC submitted detailed reports to the numerous HSE consultations and we challenged various proposals we believed were unevidenced, disproportionate to the risks, and/or impracticable. The key outcomes were as follows:

• The transition to the restriction on the sale and use of lead shot for shooting live quarry has been extended from three to five years.
• The transition to the restriction proposed on the sale and use of large calibre rifle ammunition has been extended from 18 months to three years.
• No restrictions have been proposed on small calibre rifle ammunition below .243 after concerns raised by BASC on accuracy and availability.
• No restrictions proposed on airgun pellets following BASC technical reports.
• Following BASC submissions, target shooting with lead rifle ammunition can continue on ranges that can de-lead.

What about .243 rifle ammunition?

Whilst it’s positive that the HSE is not recommending restrictions on small calibre rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting BASC does not support the HSE definition of large calibre to include .243 for restriction proposals.

There is sufficient evidence to show stabilisation issues with .243 calibres, supported by a technical report presented by BASC. As a result, potentially 60,000 people who use .243 for deer management will have to re-barrel their rifles (80 grain .243 bullets do not stabilise in predominantly older rifles with a 1 in 12 twist as they need to be 1 in 8).

BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.

We will be funding research and gathering evidence to underpin further lobbying of ministers and officials on this and other issues that arise as this policy issued moves into the political arena. 

What happens next?

There are people and organisations lobbying for an immediate ban on all lead ammunition. So, there is much work ahead. What's needed now is unified support for BASC and if you are not yet a member you can join today to support our work on this and other key issues, such as firearms licensing.

https://basc.org.uk/join/

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Thats an interesting comment Conor, considering that BASCs stance on lead shot was completely different 10 years ago.
 

Heres a little snapshot 

 

https://www.countryside-alliance.org/resources/news/agreed-findings-on-lead-ammunition

Thanks @Rewulf Despite some claiming they don’t recognise the account I’ve posted, it actually precedes your link. 🙂

To be perfectly honest I’m losing the will with this topic and simply don’t have the energy or inclination to trawl back through Swiftys time as BASC CEO or whatever he was when all this kicked off prior to the lead ban for fowl, merely to refute claims of those who won’t admit they got it wrong, so am very grateful for your timely intervention with the link above. Cheers. 

[Poor Shot]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

You seemed to be concerned about the financial implications of BASC emptying its war chest hence my first comment in your reply.

Your original response made no sense and did not match what I had written.

Why would it cost BASC to have a stance? I have a stance on the amount of genders that exist (just two BTW) and thats costs me exactly £0.00.

My response regarding the financial side of things are based on incurred costs in fighting the government in a legal battle. Just getting the relevant people in the same room can easily go over £100k.

1 hour ago, Konor said:

Surely if more restrictions are deemed necessary it should be the responsibility of those wishing to bring about those changes to supply evidence to support that change if no evidence exists then as per BASC No Science No change.

You fail to realise that this isn't a fair fight. The government (or HSE) hold all of the cards and we hold none. To put it simply the government are going to do what they like and it's up to us to prove why they should reconsider.

1 hour ago, Konor said:

what exactly are your qualifications that enables you to state that the lead ammunition ban is a fight that cannot be won ? 
Can you cite a case where the “no safe exposure level of lead “ammunition has caused an impact on game or bird species on dry land in the UK ?

I have none but what I am able to do is read the room and deem that lead has been demonised entirely. Lead based petrol, paint, solder and more have all been under the spotlight and have failed to make it through. It was only a matter of time once the government had its sights set on lead shot.

I stated earlier in the thread that I'm not able to offer an opinion on the impact of lead shot on bird species and again you are adding to my statements with your questions. I didn't state that lead having no safe exposure level would have an effect on inland based game birds.

1 hour ago, Konor said:

Have you patterned your  2 3/4 steel 4s at 45 yard range if so what was the 30 inch circle count and what ft/lb were they carrying at that range ?

Yes I did pattern a range of steel shot cartridges back in the summer before I chose one to use this season.

I can't recall the exact pellet counts but all steel shot tested were better than or equal to the lead 6 shot equivalent based on the percentage of total shot contained in the cartridge that landed in the 30" circle. All tested through a 1/4 choke which I use in both barrels of my 525 game gun.

I don't have the equipment to measure energy retained at distance. I can only use a comparison based on the penetration of the back board I had the target paper set on.

29g 5 steel didn't make the cut based on poor penetration of the wooden back board at 40 yards compared to the lead 6's.

The 32g 4's were both tighter patterning and just as effective at penetrating the wooden backboard as the lead 6's.

What I did do tonight (apart from chat to strangers on the Internet about steel shot) is breast out a brace of ducks and a pheasant that I shot on Saturday using the above 32g 4 steel cartridges.

All three birds had at least two or more pellet impacts to each breast and more to the remainder of the body indicating a suitable pattern at the range the birds were shot, all three between 30-40 yards. All shot to the breast had penetrated through the breast and into the inner cavity of the birds. There was much internal bleeding and all three birds were dead or mortally wounded on impact with no runners. They were retrieved by my own dog and kept in my game bag.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Read that back to yourself !
Do we pay them to take any stance THEY want ?
I would have little to say if they put a vote to their membership on what direction to take on lead, but no, they did what THEY wanted, and never bothered to ask.

Frankly, that's irrelevant based on my comment. Like Konor, you have added your own twist to my comment to better support your own argument.

What we pay BASC to do is to do the hard yards and put people in front of government to do the talking. That's something that I don't have the contacts, skills or ability to do. I can pay a membership though.

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

What happened ?

Not being present at the time I can only assume that BASC, as an association voted internally (which their constitution likely allows them to do for the perceived benefit of the membership) to change their approach on lead ammunition to one which they foresaw to have a more positive overall impact for shooting.

It could have been foreseen that time was up on lead ammunition and continuing to try and convince those who couldn't give a toss for the nuances that flinging a toxic substance around the countryside was acceptable.

By taking this approach of working with rather than against, it became many times easier to negotiate the minor details (air rifle ammunition, rounds smaller than 6.5mm etc). Taking the Scargill approach would have resulted in a likely total and instant ban on lead ammunition leaving us in a much worse position.

I'm sorry people on the thread are having trouble accepting change but what's done is done and what's in motion is very unlikely change course much at this stage. We all need to work together to help mould the final result and stop the crying over spilt milk.

[Konor]

8 hours ago, Poor Shot said:

BASC and others could put up the fight of their lives and completely empty the war chest

Why should taking a contrary stance  “empty the war chest”

Edited December 30, 2024 by Konor
Deletion of cost

[Konor]

Opposing further restrictions needn’t involve a legal battle after further legislation has been passed ,it merely needs a commitment to oppose further restrictions without the scientific evidence that proves the extent of harm caused by lead deposition.

[Konor]

23 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

You fail to realise that this isn't a fair fight.

You’ve given up the fight so for you there’s no fight fair or otherwise. But if there has to be change then that change should be brought about by strong scientific evidence to show its necessity.

[Konor]

29 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

Yes I did pattern a range of steel shot cartridges back in the summer before I chose one to use this season.

I can't recall the exact pellet counts but all steel shot tested were better than or equal to the lead 6 shot equivalent based on the percentage of total shot contained in the cartridge that landed in the 30" circle. All tested through a 1/4 choke which I use in both barrels of my 525 game gun.

I don't have the equipment to measure energy retained at distance. I can only use a comparison based on the penetration of the back board I had the target paper set on.

29g 5 steel didn't make the cut based on poor penetration of the wooden back board at 40 yards compared to the lead 6's.

The 32g 4's were both tighter patterning and just as effective at penetrating the wooden backboard as the lead 6's.

What I did do tonight (apart from chat to strangers on the Internet about steel shot) is breast out a brace of ducks and a pheasant that I shot on Saturday using the above 32g 4 steel cartridges.

All three birds had at least two or more pellet impacts to each breast and more to the remainder of the body indicating a suitable pattern at the range the birds were shot, all three between 30-40 yards. All shot to the breast had penetrated through the breast and into the inner cavity of the birds. There was much internal bleeding and all three birds were dead or mortally wounded on impact with no runners. They were retrieved by my own dog and kept in my game bag.

It’s good to know that there are steel loads that will bring birds to bag at the ranges that most game is shot over to be fit for the pot should we have to go down that road however the presence of those steel loads is no good reason to support a ban on the use of lead shot inland if there is no scientific evidence to show that lead shot is measurably detrimental.

[Poor Shot]

33 minutes ago, Konor said:

Why should taking a contrary stance cost “empty the war chest”

How did you get that from the statement you have quoted? You've added 2+2 and got fish. My original response didn't conflate the two either.

27 minutes ago, Konor said:

Opposing further restrictions needn’t involve a legal battle after further legislation has been passed ,it merely needs a commitment to oppose further restrictions without the scientific evidence that proves the extent of harm caused by lead deposition.

You've moved the conversation on here. What's the point of opposing a lead ban when lead has already been banned? Once done there will be no further banning of lead.

BASC can commit to opposing alteration of existing legislation to ensure that any agreements aren't then overturned but a commitment to oppose a legislation means nothing without action. It's the action that costs money and not the change of stance or commitment to opposition.

19 minutes ago, Konor said:

You’ve given up the fight so for you there’s no fight fair or otherwise. But if there has to be change then that change should be brought about by strong scientific evidence to show its necessity.

I haven't given up the fight so much as accepted the inevitable outcome. Some battles are worth fighting, some aren't worth fighting.

We have to accept that we cannot stand behind polluting the countryside with what is perceived to be a toxic substance if an alternative exists and is sufficient to replace lead ammunition. We can do this where a suitable alternative does not exist as is the case with small calibre, rimfire and airgun ammunition or where risks can be sufficiently mitigated as per ranges where lead recovery is possible.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Poor Shot

[Poor Shot]

7 minutes ago, Konor said:

It’s good to know that there are steel loads that will bring birds to bag at the ranges that most game is shot over to be fit for the pot should we have to go down that road however the presence of those steel loads is no good reason to support a ban on the use of lead shot inland if there is no scientific evidence to show that lead shot is measurably detrimental.

Those who propose the ban don't share that argument sadly. As said, they hold the cards and they have all the power.

We can't rely just on there being no evidence. We would need to prove that it has no impact whatsoever and then spoon feed it to them. I'm not quite sure that we can do that.

Edited December 30, 2024 by Poor Shot

[Konor]

8 hours ago, Poor Shot said:

BASC and others could put up the fight of their lives and completely empty the war chest but ultimately the proposals to ban what is a toxic substance being spread about the countryside

Direct quote above ,my response why should taking a stance opposing further lead restrictions cost any more money. Does that clarify ?

i think that you are forgetting that BASC has already stated that it is against any further restrictions on lead shot inland . Meanwhile Conor has in the past gone to great lengths to highlight the perceived threat to grey partridges wading through “ minefields of lead” and you are happy to give up using lead shot despite there being no scientific data to show any detrimental effect. This conclusion was reached years ago after the Lead ammunition Group report and both BASC and the government found no case had been made for further restrictions. Fast forward to now and despite there being no new evidence we are being asked to accept that there is a cast iron case for not only banning lead shot for inland sport shooting but also clay pigeon shooting and .243 and above deer stalking. You seem more than happy to accept this ,I am not.

As an aside if I may say it is yourself that is out of alignment with BASC stance, as far as I am aware they still oppose further restrictions on lead shot use but how that ties in with BASC’s representatives views is a mystery. Will you therefore be supporting BASC in that opposition ?

29 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

You've moved the conversation on here. What's the point of opposing a lead ban when lead has already been banned? Once done there will be no further banning of lead.

As yet there is no proposed legislation so prior to any legislation being passed there is ample opportunity to highlight the lack of substance in the calls for a ban which has no scientific basis.

[Konor]

28 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

We can't rely just on there being no evidence

That reply makes no sense at all ,so you would accept any legislative change despite there being no actual evidence to support that change. 

[Konor]

32 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

We would need to prove that it has no impact whatsoever and then spoon feed it to them

The absence of any measurable detriment proves that there is no impact ie as I have stated ad nauseum there is no scientific evidence that quantifies the negative effect of lead shot inland on bird species. Don’t you think if there was any proven quantifiable detrimental effect the argument would hinge around the extent of that detriment and whether it justified a ban ?

[Poor Shot]

14 minutes ago, Konor said:

Direct quote above ,my response why should taking a stance opposing further lead restrictions cost any more money. Does that clarify ?

i think that you are forgetting that BASC has already stated that it is against any further restrictions on lead shot inland . Meanwhile Conor has in the past gone to great lengths to highlight the perceived threat to grey partridges wading through “ minefields of lead” and you are happy to give up using lead shot despite there being no scientific data to show any detrimental effect. This conclusion was reached years ago after the Lead ammunition Group report and both BASC and the government found no case had been made for further restrictions. Fast forward to now and despite there being no new evidence we are being asked to accept that there is a cast iron case for not only banning lead shot for inland sport shooting but also clay pigeon shooting and .243 and above deer stalking. You seem more than happy to accept this ,I am not.

As an aside if I may say it is yourself that is out of alignment with BASC stance, as far as I am aware they still oppose further restrictions on lead shot use but how that ties in with BASC’s representatives views is a mystery. Will you therefore be supporting BASC in that opposition ?

As yet there is no proposed legislation so prior to any legislation being passed there is ample opportunity to highlight the lack of substance in the calls for a ban which has no scientific basis.

I'm not 100% up to speed with the ins and outs of where BASC sits and has sat with this historically.

I oppose a lead ban. I like lead based ammunition, it's an almost ideal material for the purpose and after 100's of years of development it's pretty much at the peak of its development.

I use plenty of lead ammunition. I attended a clay shoot this weekend in which I used 130 28 gram cartridges equalling over 3.5kg of lead.

Though it's hard to justify it's continued use I will continue to use it until such a time that an equivalent 28g biodegradable wad, cost effective clay target cartridge becomes available.

What I'm trying to convey in my responses to this thread isnt that I am anti-lead but that the lead ban is happening. There is no going back and there is very little any individual or organisation can now do to stop it.

I can see which way the direction travel is heading and I am taking steps to prepare for a non toxic future. Trialling the use of a steel shot alternative for this years game season is just a part of that. I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend this isn't happening. 5 years is not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things and we would do well to at least start to come to terms with where it's heading. Even if your are correct in saying the ban was not based on credible evidence.

I'm happy that yourself and others have an opposing point of view. It keeps the world interesting.

10 minutes ago, Konor said:

The absence of any measurable detriment proves that there is no impact ie as I have stated ad nauseum there is no scientific evidence that quantifies the negative effect of lead shot inland on bird species. Don’t you think if there was any proven quantifiable detrimental effect the argument would hinge around the extent of that detriment and whether it justified a ban ?

How do birds of prey get on with the consumption of lead shot? It's not impossible to envisage a scenario in which a scavenging BOP has picked up a pricked game bird or any other bird which has mistaken a piece of lead shot for grit and then succumbed to lead poisoning as a result. I'm not saying it's impossible and is likely rare given the plague numbers of buzzards and red kites we have here and the lack of dead BOPs lying around but it can still happen and thats all the evidence those who propose the ban need.

[Poor Shot]

30 minutes ago, Konor said:

That reply makes no sense at all ,so you would accept any legislative change despite there being no actual evidence to support that change. 

For a long time governments have done whatever they like regardless of the evidence in front of them. As someone who lives under the practical dictatorship of Welsh Labour I know this more than most.

What my response details is that we can't just sit here and rely on there being no evidence to support the ban. We would need to find evidence to the contrary and shove it down their throats for them to even take notice. Even then they may well commission their own studies and use only the evidence that suits their argument to support their proposals whilst ignoring everything else.

I would not accept a legislative change based on no evidence but as an individual there is very little I can do to stop it from happening other than casting my vote every couple of years.

[Konor]

19 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

Though it's hard to justify its continued use I will continue to use it until such a time that an equivalent 28g biodegradable wad, cost effective clay target cartridge becomes available.

I don’t personally find it hard to justify the use of lead shot as you say it’s probably near the peak of its development and as such gives a wide range of options for effective use in a variety of situations with a variety of guns.Until evidence is forthcoming on any detrimental effect of using it I will continue with a clear conscience. I think it’s important not to signal acceptance of legislation that you consider unjustified in case it is used as an argument that portrays that even shooters agree that there should be a lead ban ,even they think its use is unjustifiable. Own goals like that only embolden our opponents and do little to contribute to the defence of our sport. As has probably been stated already appeasement won’t decrease the threat to our sport those against shooting just move on to the next attack.

 

[Vince Green]

On 14/12/2024 at 17:42, ditchman said:

will our forces be forced to use none-lead ammo ..on the battlefield...so it will be eco friendly killing...

That's already happened apparently