Say good bye to lead shot, HSE report.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Well said Scully.

Edited December 29, 2024 by TIGHTCHOKE
Context.

[Sweet11-87]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

You might want to check your list of banned stuff

lead paint banned to the public- 1992

lead solder for copper water supply banned 1999

lead fuel taken off forecorts-2000

lead water pipe discontinued-1970

lead shot size restrictions for fishing -1987 still under review

what did i miss?

[enfieldspares]

17 minutes ago, Sweet11-87 said:

lead paint banned to the public- 1992

lead solder for copper water supply banned 1999

lead fuel taken off forecorts-2000

lead water pipe discontinued-1970

lead shot size restrictions for fishing -1987 still under review

what did i miss?

I was not aware that the lead in paint was in the form of solid shot nor that in fuel was in the form of lead shot which BTW is still lawfully being sold in the UK.

Nor that most of any at all of the lead piping used for water had been removed and replaced where there was no leakage or damage to those pipes.

Lastly the ban on lead shot for fishing weights specifically exempted sizes under English #8 or of over one ounce as such sizes were not deemed a risk to waterfowl.

[Konor]

It was recently reported that if the replacement of lead piping in the water supply chain continues at its present rate then completion will be expected round about 3036. Quite a contrast to the agenda driven replacement of lead shot.

[Sweet11-87]

My post was in response to me supposedly needing to check my list of supposed toxic substances that have been restricted. A list I originally created to show  that lead has been in the firing line of legislation far outside the scope of shooting for decades and that this isn’t just some anti shooting agenda. Infact what you say about lead water piping strengthens my argument that lead is deemed toxic, has been for years and it constantly being earmarked for laws and reform across the board. even if in most of its form pretty harmless. 

 

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, Sweet11-87 said:

lead paint banned to the public- 1992

lead solder for copper water supply banned 1999

lead fuel taken off forecorts-2000

lead water pipe discontinued-1970

lead shot size restrictions for fishing -1987 still under review

what did i miss?

The bit where they are all BANNED.

Funny how you have changed Lead solder to a specific solder usage.......

Lead solder is readily available.

Lead water pipe, as has been pointed out, is still widely in use. So hardly banned.

Fishing weights, well you've answered that one yourself.

 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Newbie to this

[Poor Shot]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

If BASC had simply said back in the mid 90’s or whenever….’look lads and lasses, lead is going. We dont like it anymore than you, but there’s nothing we can do about’

The message should now be 'look lads and lasses, lead is gone and no amount of retrospective debate is going to bring it back. We don't like it any more than you and there's nothing more we can do about it but we all must look forwards and not backwards'

Like it or not, lead is gone. Conor just works for BASC no amount of forum point scoring or personal insults is going to change that. Previous BASC staff may have done more harm than good but what's done is done. We can only hope that BASC as an organisation can use the lead ban as an example of how not to approach these things going into the next crisis. Let's remember just how good BASC were on the gamebird licensing proposals for Wales back last year and use that as an example of how effective the organisation can be when it matters.

I think fighting a ban of lead shot was a little like trying to stop the sun devouring the earth. It's going to happen eventually no matter what and time and effort would be much better spent on the development of an alternative solution.

Personally I don't have too much of an issue with steel shot and we need use the next five years to tackle some critical issues that we are going to face with the phase out of single use plastics and perhaps aim for a reform of the proofing methods for steel so we can use the more potent steel cartridges used in the US.

The availability and pricing of biodegradable wads is going to be key to ensuring shooting is accessible by all going into the future. I would welcome an update from BASC, CPSA and whoever else on making a move to work alongside cartridge manufacturers to ensure that development of cost effective biodegradable steel shot cartridges is in full swing. Last thing we need is for manufacturers to bury their heads in the sand and hope this all goes away, deffering development of products and supply chains until the last minute or tighten up their product lines to include only the high cost and high margin products leaving the everyday clay target and pigeon shooter out of luck.

(as per Ford motor company who now only produce the high cost high margin products due to the lack of progress on cost effective EV manufacture having done little to no EV development of their traditional product lines Fiesta, Focus etc which have now been discontinued as a result)

[Sweet11-87]

3 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

The bit where they are all BANNED.

Funny how you have changed Lead solder to a specific solder usage.......

Lead solder is readily available.

Lead water pipe, as has been pointed out, is still widely in use. So hardly banned.

Fishing weights, well you've answered that one yourself.

 

Always the same semantics and cherry picking…. If you wana play that game lead shot won’t be banned you just won’t be able to fire it……. Use it to make a diver belt or somthing. 
 

honesty the gist of the point remains exactly the bloody same 

[grahamch]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

The message should now be 'look lads and lasses, lead is gone and no amount of retrospective debate is going to bring it back. We don't like it any more than you and there's nothing more we can do about it but we all must look forwards and not backwards'

Like it or not, lead is gone. Conor just works for BASC no amount of forum point scoring or personal insults is going to change that. Previous BASC staff may have done more harm than good but what's done is done. We can only hope that BASC as an organisation can use the lead ban as an example of how not to approach these things going into the next crisis. Let's remember just how good BASC were on the gamebird licensing proposals for Wales back last year and use that as an example of how effective the organisation can be when it matters.

I think fighting a ban of lead shot was a little like trying to stop the sun devouring the earth. It's going to happen eventually no matter what and time and effort would be much better spent on the development of an alternative solution.

Personally I don't have too much of an issue with steel shot and we need use the next five years to tackle some critical issues that we are going to face with the phase out of single use plastics and perhaps aim for a reform of the proofing methods for steel so we can use the more potent steel cartridges used in the US.

The availability and pricing of biodegradable wads is going to be key to ensuring shooting is accessible by all going into the future. I would welcome an update from BASC, CPSA and whoever else on making a move to work alongside cartridge manufacturers to ensure that development of cost effective biodegradable steel shot cartridges is in full swing. Last thing we need is for manufacturers to bury their heads in the sand and hope this all goes away, deffering development of products and supply chains until the last minute or tighten up their product lines to include only the high cost and high margin products leaving the everyday clay target and pigeon shooter out of luck.

(as per Ford motor company who now only produce the high cost high margin products due to the lack of progress on cost effective EV manufacture having done little to no EV development of their traditional product lines Fiesta, Focus etc which have now been discontinued as a result)

Spot on!!

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Sweet11-87 said:

Always the same semantics and cherry picking…. If you wana play that game lead shot won’t be banned you just won’t be able to fire it……. Use it to make a diver belt or somthing. 
 

honesty the gist of the point remains exactly the bloody same 

Whatever you say, but 100% Lead solder is not banned and can still be purchased.

https://uk.rs-online.com/web/c/?searchTerm=Lead+solder

Because for certain jobs it is the right thing to use. 

And I'm no doctor, but surely inhaling Lead fumes has to be worse that eating contaminated game......

And you are right, Lead shot won't be banned, well at least not for a select special few

Edited December 30, 2024 by Newbie to this

[Sweet11-87]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

The message should now be 'look lads and lasses, lead is gone and no amount of retrospective debate is going to bring it back. We don't like it any more than you and there's nothing more we can do about it but we all must look forwards and not backwards'

Like it or not, lead is gone. Conor just works for BASC no amount of forum point scoring or personal insults is going to change that. Previous BASC staff may have done more harm than good but what's done is done. We can only hope that BASC as an organisation can use the lead ban as an example of how not to approach these things going into the next crisis. Let's remember just how good BASC were on the gamebird licensing proposals for Wales back last year and use that as an example of how effective the organisation can be when it matters.

I think fighting a ban of lead shot was a little like trying to stop the sun devouring the earth. It's going to happen eventually no matter what and time and effort would be much better spent on the development of an alternative solution.

Personally I don't have too much of an issue with steel shot and we need use the next five years to tackle some critical issues that we are going to face with the phase out of single use plastics and perhaps aim for a reform of the proofing methods for steel so we can use the more potent steel cartridges used in the US.

The availability and pricing of biodegradable wads is going to be key to ensuring shooting is accessible by all going into the future. I would welcome an update from BASC, CPSA and whoever else on making a move to work alongside cartridge manufacturers to ensure that development of cost effective biodegradable steel shot cartridges is in full swing. Last thing we need is for manufacturers to bury their heads in the sand and hope this all goes away, deffering development of products and supply chains until the last minute or tighten up their product lines to include only the high cost and high margin products leaving the everyday clay target and pigeon shooter out of luck.

(as per Ford motor company who now only produce the high cost high margin products due to the lack of progress on cost effective EV manufacture having done little to no EV development of their traditional product lines Fiesta, Focus etc which have now been discontinued as a result)

im happy to step away from the debate on that post. spot on

[Konor]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

The message should now be 'look lads and lasses, lead is gone and no amount of retrospective debate is going to bring it back. We don't like it any more than you and there's nothing more we can do about it but we all must look forwards and not backwards'

Like it or not, lead is gone. Conor just works for BASC no amount of forum point scoring or personal insults is going to change that. Previous BASC staff may have done more harm than good but what's done is done. We can only hope that BASC as an organisation can use the lead ban as an example of how not to approach these things going into the next crisis. Let's remember just how good BASC were on the gamebird licensing proposals for Wales back last year and use that as an example of how effective the organisation can be when it matters.

I think fighting a ban of lead shot was a little like trying to stop the sun devouring the earth. It's going to happen eventually no matter what and time and effort would be much better spent on the development of an alternative solution.

Personally I don't have too much of an issue with steel shot and we need use the next five years to tackle some critical issues that we are going to face with the phase out of single use plastics and perhaps aim for a reform of the proofing methods for steel so we can use the more potent steel cartridges used in the US.

The availability and pricing of biodegradable wads is going to be key to ensuring shooting is accessible by all going into the future. I would welcome an update from BASC, CPSA and whoever else on making a move to work alongside cartridge manufacturers to ensure that development of cost effective biodegradable steel shot cartridges is in full swing. Last thing we need is for manufacturers to bury their heads in the sand and hope this all goes away, deffering development of products and supply chains until the last minute or tighten up their product lines to include only the high cost and high margin products leaving the everyday clay target and pigeon shooter out of luck.

(as per Ford motor company who now only produce the high cost high margin products due to the lack of progress on cost effective EV manufacture having done little to no EV development of their traditional product lines Fiesta, Focus etc which have now been discontinued as a result)

And yet the Norwegian government overwhelmingly ,79 to 16, decided to reverse the decision to ban lead ammunition use outwith wetland areas citing that the arguments in the favour of banning were “based on political interests and emotional messages addressed to the public rather than on scientific basis”

Do you have any figures that support your view that lead shot use inland away from waterways has any effect on bird populations ? There is definitely ample evidence of emotional messages spread on similar threads to this to support the acceptance of a ban and to date no data that quantifies the threat to wildlife from inland use of lead shot either on clay shooting grounds or dry land.

The Swedish governments stance is to oppose further bans on lead ammunition and SGA consider that due to the lack of scientific data there is no merit in further restrictions. Meanwhile a question mark hangs over the toxicity of the steel, copper and tungsten replacements.

Perhaps “ look lads and lasses there is no scientific basis for further restrictions on lead shot use inland for game shooting and the disproportionate banning of lead use on the confined areas of clay shooting ground is not acceptable given that there is no data to support any detriment ,we intend to oppose further restrictions until research is presented that quantifies the risk and is sufficient to justify further restrictions “ that would seem to be more in keeping with an organisation that purports to protect shooters best interests.

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 hours ago, Scully said:

See what I mean regarding ‘politico’ type management of debate/ avoiding direct answers? 
I genuinely couldn’t say whether I agree or not Conor; I know lead is toxic, but I honestly can’t state whether the science you refer to was impartial or not. Debbie Paine and the Wetlands Trust on which Swift often based his arguments ( particularly during the LAG period ) definitely wasn’t impartial and the science ( if some of their methods could indeed be regarded as science ) was dubious to say the least. The manner in which Swift conducted himself throughout was regarded as highly suspicious and deceitful. The rot ( for me ) started there. 
The science appears to evolve according to agenda Conor, as much of it does, but while the toxicity of lead hasn’t increased ( it can’t as far as I’m aware as it’s an inanimate substance ) I get the impression that it’s stated risk to human health in particular has increased, in that I’ve read nothing from the FSA repeating its claim that lead shot game eaten as part of a balanced healthy diet is fine to eat, but then we wouldn’t would we, given the over-riding agenda? 
As for the science being correct now, is it any more impartial than it was originally? Who is funding it and which organisations would be damaged by a contrary result? 
There are many things which simply don’t stand up to thorough scrutiny throughout this entire sorry saga, which again arouses mistrust, and politico, policy driven talk does little to alleviate it. 
I don’t mind using steel at all ( I’d much prefer to keep lead ) but this entire debacle reeks of duplicitous double dealing, and while no one can say BASC are to blame for the lead ban ( it’s a ridiculous claim )  I genuinely feel they are to blame for the duplicity, which is a great shame. 

 

You didn't really answer my question about the science around the impact of lead shot ingestion on birds and I don't recognise the account you give of BASC having worked there since 2003, mostly on policy, and here we are 30 years later from the account you give of BASC and there is no lead ban. 

[Konor]

3 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

here we are 30 years later from the account you give of BASC and there is no lead ban. 

Would you say that you have personally contributed to there being no lead ban despite the emotive arguments you have put forward to justify further restrictions ?

[Poor Shot]

43 minutes ago, Konor said:

And yet the Norwegian government overwhelmingly ,79 to 16, decided to reverse the decision to ban lead ammunition use outwith wetland areas citing that the arguments in the favour of banning were “based on political interests and emotional messages addressed to the public rather than on scientific basis”

Do you have any figures that support your view that lead shot use inland away from waterways has any effect on bird populations ? There is definitely ample evidence of emotional messages spread on similar threads to this to support the acceptance of a ban and to date no data that quantifies the threat to wildlife from inland use of lead shot either on clay shooting grounds or dry land.

The Swedish governments stance is to oppose further bans on lead ammunition and SGA consider that due to the lack of scientific data there is no merit in further restrictions. Meanwhile a question mark hangs over the toxicity of the steel, copper and tungsten replacements.

Perhaps “ look lads and lasses there is no scientific basis for further restrictions on lead shot use inland for game shooting and the disproportionate banning of lead use on the confined areas of clay shooting ground is not acceptable given that there is no data to support any detriment ,we intend to oppose further restrictions until research is presented that quantifies the risk and is sufficient to justify further restrictions “ that would seem to be more in keeping with an organisation that purports to protect shooters best interests.

I don't have a view on lead shot and bird populations as I don't know enough about it.

I'm not sure the UK government works anything like the governments in Nordic countries who seem to have a more holistic approach to these things. They aren't even able to roll back on complete disasters like WFA and farmers inheritance tax but instead double down on them like a stubborn child.

I'm of the view of whats done is done (for the time being at least) and we need to focus on what comes next.

We are right to acknowledge the mistakes in the science that led us to where we are today even if that's only so we don't make or allow others to make the same mistakes going forward.

When in a street fight you don't sit on the floor crying foul about having been hit from behind. You get up and do your best to either see off further attacks or get the **** out of there.

[Scully]

48 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

You didn't really answer my question about the science around the impact of lead shot ingestion on birds and I don't recognise the account you give of BASC having worked there since 2003, mostly on policy, and here we are 30 years later from the account you give of BASC and there is no lead ban. 

And round and round we go! I gave you an honest as far as I can not knowing how impartial/independant those conducting the science were. 🤷‍♂️

 

3 hours ago, Poor Shot said:

Much LAG claims were based in tandem with data supplied by the Wetlands Trust, so that part at least was far from impartial. D.Paine may well be a scientist, but impartial? Or  are you suggesting the Wetlands Trust didn’t have an agenda back then and doesn’t now? 
No lead ban? Really? There has been a lead ban in place for the shooting of fowl for quite a few years now, as you well know. That ban was introduced following the ‘science’ compiled regarding the impact of ingested lead shot on fowl, from which impartial or independant source? Certainly not the WWT. 
I have no idea why @Poor Shotis headed in this post, to which I will reply later; am just off out. 
 

Edited December 30, 2024 by Scully
In a rush! 🙂

[Konor]

14 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

I'm of the view of whats done is done (for the time being at least) and we need to focus on what comes next

That’s where we differ then. The proposals are not yet law and a robust defence against any further restrictions is required. The science to back up any further restrictions needs to be clear cut at the moment there is no scientific data to justify any change. No Science No Change used to be BASC’s stance so where’s the science that has them accept the proposed changes ?
 

20 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

When in a street fight you don't sit on the floor crying foul about having been hit from behind. You get up and do your best to either see off further attacks or get the **** out of there.

To use your own analogy I think BASC decided to get the **** out of there while cheering on the other side.

[Conor O'Gorman]

18 minutes ago, Scully said:

And round and round we go! I gave you an honest as far as I can not knowing how impartial/independant those conducting the science were. 🤷‍♂️

Thanks, we are back to the science then.

Looking ahead the outcome of the HSE review is below:

https://press.hse.gov.uk/2024/12/13/statement-on-hse-proposals-to-restrict-use-of-lead-ammunition-in-great-britain/

There is no lead ban, there are recommendations for restrictions and what happens next is unclear as this is a new post-Brexit chemical regulations process as already explained earlier in the thread.  A BASC briefing is here on key aspects:

https://basc.org.uk/hse-recommendations-on-lead-restriction-proposals-explained/

 

[wymberley]

For me there are some very good and also interesting posts on this thread. Occasionally, though, some would be even  better and demand more attention if the reader knew without having to work it out what the writer was saying. As an example of what can often happen on PW, what has the World Federation of Advertisers got to do with non toxic shot (NTS) - if you get my drift?

[Scully]

33 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Thanks, we are back to the science then.

 

Science conducted by who? 

[Conor O'Gorman]

6 minutes ago, Scully said:

Science conducted by who? 

By scientists worldwide, mostly since 1960s.

[JKD]

23 minutes ago, wymberley said:

For me there are some very good and also interesting posts on this thread. Occasionally, though, some would be even  better and demand more attention if the reader knew without having to work it out what the writer was saying. As an example of what can often happen on PW, what has the World Federation of Advertisers got to do with non toxic shot (NTS) - if you get my drift?

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

[Scully]

23 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

By scientists worldwide, mostly since 1960s.

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

[Poor Shot]

1 hour ago, Konor said:

That’s where we differ then. The proposals are not yet law and a robust defence against any further restrictions is required. The science to back up any further restrictions needs to be clear cut at the moment there is no scientific data to justify any change. No Science No Change used to be BASC’s stance so where’s the science that has them accept the proposed changes ?
 

To use your own analogy I think BASC decided to get the **** out of there while cheering on the other side.

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

Like badger baiting, fox hunting and hare coursing, It's gone end of story. We can either put a lot of time and effort into rebutting the latest HSE proposals with data backed science or we can move on and focus on providing a future for shooting that leaves lead ammunition in the past.

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.

I'd lean more to the argument that BASC knew the fight was lost and sided with a work with rather than against approach. It's not incorrect to try and influence a decision rather than fight it completely. It hasn't quite worked out in this instance but I'd say we would be a lot further behind than we are now If BASC immediately put up a wall and resisted all change. That would have almost certainly ended with an immediate lead ban with no transition period.

As a sport we need to ensure that we focus on putting ourselves into a position where the government aren't going to make decisions for us via legislation. This is where BASC was heading with their voluntary transition to non toxic ammunition. I don't believe for a second that BASC sold us down the river with the lead ban but gambled on a voluntary transition that would of made the inevitable ban a lot more workable.

I work a lot with civil servants and IMO its a lot easier to work with them and try and get ahead of them than it is to put a wall and force them to make decisions for themselves. It really is choose your battles wisely with those people.

[Pushandpull]

There are two different conversations going on here really. The impact of ingested lead on wildfowl was first reported at the end of the nineteenth century and has been widely studied. A lot of the early work was way before Debbie Pain or Rhys Green were involved or indeed even borne in some cases. As a result of the U.K. ratifying the AEWA in 1999, we along with most of Europe and many other countries have effectively banned  the use of lead shot for wildfowl/wetland shooting, so   that ship has sailed. The current issue is how best to control/mitigate/choose your own term the effects of more general     use of lead ammunition in a manner which will satisfy the likes of JNCC, and it is not going to be easy. Complaining about  lead on roofs, in plumbing, and other whataboutery is frankly not going to improve our position one iota.