I like the idea but I'm far to old to believe in fairy tales.
Imagine phasing out lead is the start of a joint fieldsports future-proofing strategy...
- Thread starter Pine Marten
- Start date
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
The voice of experience and reality
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Yes, well, it's not the first time I've sailed close to the wind on here or in the real world. I mean, in the end, I'd just like to be able to live my life as I see fit, but that's going to take work, not just online belly-aching. This forum doesn't matter much in the big picture. Our case is all about reality, on the ground.A positive, forward looking post on SD - watch out PM there could be a ban coming your way
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
"I DO believe in fairies. I DO believe in fairies". Every time someone says, "I don't believe in fairies", a fairy dies.
So, second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning! As Captain Kirk said.
I am a fairy my name is Nuff, fairy nuff (fair enough)
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
WTF has anything I wrote got to do with Socialism?
Tend to agree...
...but equally I do see the need to woo a larger chunk of the [voting] public over to our side. BASC et al are failing in spades. In contrast, organisations like WJ and LACs are holding MSM centre stage and being seen as the voice of reason.
We are a minority. Politicians are [mostly] self-serving vote chasers who are happy to burn minority groups on the pyre of their ambition. It is only when we have collectively elevated the merit of hunting in a wider public conciousness that we become less vulnerable to gesture politics and virtue-signalling celebrity antis.
Good post Pine Marten. To the Strengths list I would add “we’ve got plenty of money”
The average anti is not going to be willing to actually cough up any money at all for their cause, whereas we have loads of money (as a community, not me personally) and nobody here in the U.K. has (yet) suggested any good way to use it. Money=Power but we aren’t using it.
I am sure you are familiar with the USA’s Pittman-Robertson act?
For those of you who are unfamiliar, it is basically a tax on guns, ammo, hunting equipment, where the money isn’t swallowed up by the govt, but it is turned over to the State Fish and Wildlife departments to fund habitat acquisition, conservation projects, research etc.
SO, basically, nobody can say “you hunters are all about killing everything” because hunters in the USA can tell them that American hunters/gun users, put between 177,000,000 and 324,000,000 dollars a year into conservation through Pittman Robertson money.
We need to start putting money into conservation, habitat, research and education. We need big and flashy conservation projects to be reliant on our funding so that we can show off what we do.
It’s all very well to talk about the benefits of pest control and habitat management but we don’t have anything official to really show for it. We need BIG projects that cost lots of money, that the public are in favour of.
The average anti is not going to be willing to actually cough up any money at all for their cause, whereas we have loads of money (as a community, not me personally) and nobody here in the U.K. has (yet) suggested any good way to use it. Money=Power but we aren’t using it.
I am sure you are familiar with the USA’s Pittman-Robertson act?
For those of you who are unfamiliar, it is basically a tax on guns, ammo, hunting equipment, where the money isn’t swallowed up by the govt, but it is turned over to the State Fish and Wildlife departments to fund habitat acquisition, conservation projects, research etc.
SO, basically, nobody can say “you hunters are all about killing everything” because hunters in the USA can tell them that American hunters/gun users, put between 177,000,000 and 324,000,000 dollars a year into conservation through Pittman Robertson money.
We need to start putting money into conservation, habitat, research and education. We need big and flashy conservation projects to be reliant on our funding so that we can show off what we do.
It’s all very well to talk about the benefits of pest control and habitat management but we don’t have anything official to really show for it. We need BIG projects that cost lots of money, that the public are in favour of.
Orion
Well-Known Member
But how would it be administered? For a start we’ll need an organisation that would be into Conservation, yet at the same time represent the interests of Shooting. It would have to be nationwide, so British by default, and to keep it all above board probably an Association.
Nope, to be honest I can’t see that working at all.
Cootmeurer
Well-Known Member
Well thought out but I just can’t see it happening. We in the US have far stronger organizations and we still are constantly fighting to retain what we have. Our shooting organizations probably do the best job of showing a unified front. Our hunting groups are still prone to internecine warfare.
I would mention that the US belief is that a lead ban is essentially an attack the. Rey core. The most common gun shot and owned is the 22 rim fire, and at this time there is no alternative to its lead bullet. Therefore, a total lead ban is a ban on the rim fire. The same rim fire that is the starting point of shooting for nearly every beginner. Remove the pipeline of beginners and then sit back and wait for the remaining to age out and die.
I say this as someone quite used to using non-lead for nearly all my shotgunning and as one transitioning to non lead for centerfire rifle.
I would mention that the US belief is that a lead ban is essentially an attack the. Rey core. The most common gun shot and owned is the 22 rim fire, and at this time there is no alternative to its lead bullet. Therefore, a total lead ban is a ban on the rim fire. The same rim fire that is the starting point of shooting for nearly every beginner. Remove the pipeline of beginners and then sit back and wait for the remaining to age out and die.
I say this as someone quite used to using non-lead for nearly all my shotgunning and as one transitioning to non lead for centerfire rifle.
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Pine Marten,
I count myself as one of the extremists you mention in your OP. The uncompromising, zero-tolerance, never-give-an-inch Taliban of the fieldsports world. I am unlikely to change in that regard: I intend to fight these snivelling, urban, quinoa-eating filth until the day I die.
However, I like the optimism in your post. It is modern, grown-up, and - just possibly - in a very pragmatic way, helpful to our cause.
Shooting needs more people like you.
Incidentally, I too believe in fairies. To say otherwise...well...you've already explained the consequences of that...
Kind regards,
Carl
I count myself as one of the extremists you mention in your OP. The uncompromising, zero-tolerance, never-give-an-inch Taliban of the fieldsports world. I am unlikely to change in that regard: I intend to fight these snivelling, urban, quinoa-eating filth until the day I die.
However, I like the optimism in your post. It is modern, grown-up, and - just possibly - in a very pragmatic way, helpful to our cause.
Shooting needs more people like you.
Incidentally, I too believe in fairies. To say otherwise...well...you've already explained the consequences of that...
Kind regards,
Carl
But how would it be administered? For a start we’ll need an organisation that would be into Conservation, yet at the same time represent the interests of Shooting. It would have to be nationwide, so British by default, and to keep it all above board probably an Association.
Nope, to be honest I can’t see that working at all.
I thought we had one BASConservation.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Well, much as this may wind people up, I'm going to email BASC for a start. Since I'm a member, I'm going to engage with them, find out if there are actually Fairies. Suggest there should be. I suggest anyone like minded do the same with any other organisations they're members of and then keep at it. Tell them what the memberships would like them to do!
As for feeding everyone venison and telling them about hunting, I've been doing that for years and will continue.
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
I admire your optimism , please post your reply from basc
So where are we with this thread? As far as I can make out, PM has suggested the shooting world should be self-regulating before politicians, lobbied by ideolologically driven anti-shooting activists and animal rights extremists force regulation or prohibition on us. So far, so eminently sensible.
And the response is, good idea but it'll never happen. Is that about the size of it?
If I've got it right so far, then it's at this point that I'm getting confused. Are we saying it never happen simply because shooting's PR organisations are useless? Or because individual shooters aren't doing enough themselves and/or are failing to show sufficient solidarity?
If it is the latter, then there is another factor we must acknowledge, an elephant in the room if you like: that many of the objections of antis (though pursued for partisan political rather than environmental reasons - the hatred of certain types of people rather than love of the natural world) are justified, many of us quietly share them and we don't know how to respond constructively without aiding the anti-shooting fundamentalists.
We won't find a solution until we decide which of those factors presents the main obstacle to progress - and if it is the last named, the idea that shooters are not collegiate and many share some of the concerns that have been weaponised by antis, then we have to confront the reality that there is no "we".
And if there is no "we" does that mean that ethical and responsible shooters have to take a deep breath, face the prospect of a schism and create one?
And the response is, good idea but it'll never happen. Is that about the size of it?
If I've got it right so far, then it's at this point that I'm getting confused. Are we saying it never happen simply because shooting's PR organisations are useless? Or because individual shooters aren't doing enough themselves and/or are failing to show sufficient solidarity?
If it is the latter, then there is another factor we must acknowledge, an elephant in the room if you like: that many of the objections of antis (though pursued for partisan political rather than environmental reasons - the hatred of certain types of people rather than love of the natural world) are justified, many of us quietly share them and we don't know how to respond constructively without aiding the anti-shooting fundamentalists.
We won't find a solution until we decide which of those factors presents the main obstacle to progress - and if it is the last named, the idea that shooters are not collegiate and many share some of the concerns that have been weaponised by antis, then we have to confront the reality that there is no "we".
And if there is no "we" does that mean that ethical and responsible shooters have to take a deep breath, face the prospect of a schism and create one?
Last edited:
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Must admit PM has a good point here. All the different organisations are pulling and working together and presenting a united front.
And what they are proposing is not law or legally enforceable - it is a voluntary shift towards using non-toxic ammunition and cartridges in the field over the next five years.
The WHO states - Lead Poisoning Prevention Week: ban lead paint
Lead poisoning is entirely preventable. Yet, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that in 2013 lead exposure accounted for 853 000 deaths globally and 16.8 million disability-adjusted life years due to its long-term effects on health.
Effects of lead exposure on health
Lead is a toxic metal. Its widespread use has caused extensive environmental contamination and has harmed human health in many parts of the world. Lead poisoning can lead to developmental, behavioural and neurological disorders, anaemia, tiredness and muscle weakness, as well as kidney and liver damage. Scientific studies demonstrate that there is no safe threshold for lead in the human body; efforts should therefore focus on minimizing exposure as much as possible.
And knowing the above, would you as a buyer for a supermarket risk putting on the shelf a product that has been contaminated with a substance that causes major neurological disorders. I think not.
And what they are proposing is not law or legally enforceable - it is a voluntary shift towards using non-toxic ammunition and cartridges in the field over the next five years.
The WHO states - Lead Poisoning Prevention Week: ban lead paint
Lead poisoning is entirely preventable. Yet, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that in 2013 lead exposure accounted for 853 000 deaths globally and 16.8 million disability-adjusted life years due to its long-term effects on health.
Effects of lead exposure on health
Lead is a toxic metal. Its widespread use has caused extensive environmental contamination and has harmed human health in many parts of the world. Lead poisoning can lead to developmental, behavioural and neurological disorders, anaemia, tiredness and muscle weakness, as well as kidney and liver damage. Scientific studies demonstrate that there is no safe threshold for lead in the human body; efforts should therefore focus on minimizing exposure as much as possible.
And knowing the above, would you as a buyer for a supermarket risk putting on the shelf a product that has been contaminated with a substance that causes major neurological disorders. I think not.
Others have tried and I wish you well but I hope the reply doesnt stifle your enthusiasm, as it has so many others.
Sometimes we have to face the facts that institutions need replacement. I am very much the try and fix it type but for me, these organisations are lost causes
Simply put, why not consult prior to such a seismic shift ? For me the simple answer to this is "because we know best", clearly they do not.
I have posted before about the evidence for lead as a contaminant - many times - hysteria ascends over scientific truth.
Sometimes we have to face the facts that institutions need replacement. I am very much the try and fix it type but for me, these organisations are lost causes
Simply put, why not consult prior to such a seismic shift ? For me the simple answer to this is "because we know best", clearly they do not.
I have posted before about the evidence for lead as a contaminant - many times - hysteria ascends over scientific truth.
Similar threads
