Lead ammunition - BASC statement in response to RSPB and WWT open letter

[geoffw]

This is total shite from start to finish.

The bullets I'm using are just as effective on fifth and sixth shots as was the lead I was using before.

Also. There is no reasin why you would be lung shooting above any other shot by fifth or sixth deer any more than you would first or second. You just take the shot presented.

That's a goodly number, as is my 200n 18 month sample base. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.
My experience is that from the first shot they are less effective, being more prone to pencilling through the chest.
This is exacerbated as the cull session goes on as follows... you take the shot presented- in what is generally a diminishing window of time, and lungs are the largest target area.
So yes, you take the shot presented and it's increasingly likely to be the lungs.

 

[StephenToast]

That's a goodly number, as is my 200n 18 month sample base. I guess we'll have to agree to differ.
My experience is that from the first shot they are less effective, being more prone to pencilling through the chest.
This is exacerbated as the cull session goes on as follows... you take the shot presented- in what is generally a diminishing window of time, and lungs are the largest target area.
So yes, you take the shot presented and it's increasingly likely to be the lungs.

What calibre are you shooting?

I'm shooting .30-06.

I was lucky in that I found that the HIT worked for me from the start, I have heard some people say that youmight have to try a few different bullets before you find one you like.

 

[geoffw]

.308
I've a batch of Ed's Peregrine's loaded up to review alongside the new Hornady when they come in.

What calibre are you shooting?

I'm shooting .30-06.

I was lucky in that I found that the HIT worked for me from the start, I have heard some people say that youmight have to try a few different bullets before you find one you like.

 

[enfieldspares]

What "investment"? BASC didn't even set up the BGA - that was the CA etc. It was only later that BASC came on board and provided a loan secured with a legal charge on the assets. How is that an "investment"? You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory to explain why nine very different orgs decided to lead a move away from lead.

What assets has the BGA got? If you look at the accounts there seems to be slim pickings indeed if they fail.

See the entry for 29 October 2021. They had a loan of £250,000 from BASC and it seems, a loan of a "mere" £25,000 from the Countryside Alliance. Which I think rather puts into proportion what I wrote. The "assets" of BGA are now much? Added to which as a limited liability company if it did fold then in law the directors are limited to a personal risk of £1. I stand by what I said.

If anyone here can read an set of accounts perhaps they might confirm what figures enclosed in brackets in a balance sheet on a set of accounts mean?

EAT WILD LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

EAT WILD LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity

find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk

 

[Liveonce]

Certainly not. But why continue to provide our opponents with an open goal in the form of lead? I haven't used lead ammo for several seasons. There is no need to do so. And in the wider context of the total costs of a season's shooting, the price differential of non-lead ammo is marginal. All ammo is is certainly cheaper in real terms than it was in my father's day.

so lead goes and WJ move on to the next issue, then the next until their is no live quarry shooting of any kind.

Your non-toxic ammo may be marginal more expensive now due to the lead ammunition supporting the balance of sales and the bottom line of the businesses involved.
what will happen if the lead ammunition sales die and many leave the sport? After all it is a hobby for the majority and when money gets tight will it be spent of shooting or food, fuel, gas electric a roof over their heads, etc.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

In what way? What's been your experience of culling with leadfree and on how many beasts in the last couple of years?

Have been culling hard with not lead for a gnats cock short of 15 years!

Absolutely nothing wrong with them and for my sins shot 6 lowland reds and none went further than 20 yds from where they were shot.

I wished I bloody hadn’t, five minutes to shoot then 4 bloody hours to sort them out and get him to the dealer

 

[geoffw]

Have been culling hard with not lead for a gnats cock short of 15 years!

Absolutely nothing wrong with them and for my sins shot 6 lowland reds and none went further than 20 yds from where they were shot.

I'm genuinely pleased for you (this is not sarcasm); there are plenty of experienced folks out there on both sides of this fence, I simply speak as I found and my conclusion is that there is scope for improvement in the alternatives (or I have yet to land on the right one).

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

I'm genuinely pleased for you (this is not sarcasm); there are plenty of experienced folks out there on both sides of this fence, I simply speak as I found and my conclusion is that there is scope for improvement in the alternatives (or I have yet to land on the right one).

Having shot 270 for all those years, i am about to start a new adventure with 7x57, i am having custom loading done as i no longer have the time to load myself, again continuing with copper.

It does take time, but i do throughly recommend the fox from Edinbrough rifles, i have been using their 130gn factory offering for the last 2 years with excellent results from reds to cwd.

 

[Dunwaters]

Re-read the post, heym suggested using subsonic .223 which is what I am suggesting you need a heavy .224 bullet because of the additional powder space available,

Aaah, missed that bit, thought it was the rimmie

6 years ago , the very 'voice' of UK shooting did just that, then just like that , they changed their mind....

Its not an aside, its a huge problem, its also manipulation and deception, a shape of things to come.

You can negotiate all you like, but if shooting in general is the real target, then youve just nailed yourself into your own coffin.

Theyve done NOTHING , except propose a ban, that didnt need to be done.
The acceptance of a possible incoming control , by the biggest shooting org, is again , facilitating just that, meek acceptance of whatever they want to do with us.
They have not , as you seem to think 'Done us a favour' They have protected their own interests, and be damned to the ordinary shooters who pay their subs.

You’re re-hashing old arguments and fighting battles that are already lost, leads gone for a lot of uses, the decision is already made, lets salvage what we can and get on with doing what we do best, adapt, undermine, circumvent and bewilder.
Ultimately most of us won’t be overly affected, theres a couple of applications where lead is unarguably the best option, but not as many as all that.
The transition wont stop me hunting, shooting, fishing or stalking, there will be some changes, but I can manage most of them, .22 rim fire is my big issue.
YMMV.

 

[Liveonce]

Aaah, missed that bit, thought it was the rimmie

You’re re-hashing old arguments and fighting battles that are already lost, leads gone for a lot of uses, the decision is already made, lets salvage what we can and get on with doing what we do best, adapt, undermine, circumvent and bewilder.
Ultimately most of us won’t be overly affected, theres a couple of applications where lead is unarguably the best option, but not as many as all that.
The transition wont stop me hunting, shooting, fishing or stalking, there will be some changes, but I can manage most of them, .22 rim fire is my big issue.
YMMV.

with due respect it is that attitude, that has lost us so much over the years, pistols, semi auto rifles (excluding .22 rimfire), the decision is not already made and we should argue sensibly for leads continued use where an effective alternative is not available both in terms of performance and cost. Or where the risk to health or wildlife can be mitigated and managed.

or let’s all take the selfish attitude and I would sooner see game shooting totally banned then lead shot no longer available for clay pigeon shooting.

 

[25 Sharps]

with due respect it is that attitude, that has lost us so much over the years, pistols, semi auto rifles (excluding .22 rimfire), the decision is not already made and we should argue sensibly for leads continued use where an effective alternative is not available both in terms of performance and cost. Or where the risk to health or wildlife can be mitigated and managed.

or let’s all take the selfish attitude and I would sooner see game shooting totally banned then lead shot no longer available for clay pigeon shooting.

Agreed, I’d rather see the back end Of obscene pheasant days that show no respect for the birds tomorrow than lose lead for pigeon and rabbit shooting, but I wouldn’t throw them under the bus as the org’s are happy to do to us to save the obscene driven days….

 

[enfieldspares]

It is clear that this issue in respect of big bag commercial days has arisen because those concerns cannot be bothered to police themselves and insist that as the game shot is being sold that their clients do not use lead shot.

Therefore the simple solution that they have resorted to is to make it impossible for anybody to use lead shot for any game shooting or indeed any other shooting of fur or feather.

And so throw us all under the bus. To save these big bag commercial shoots (with the complicity of their cronies in the BGA and BASC) the effort of actually putting their own house in order.

Effectively as they won't police themselves, these big bag commercial shoots, we can now all go hang together. As I have said and I will say again it is selfish and it is shameful. It shows dismissal and disdain for everybody else.

And each time, all the time, the sensible and workable New Zealand solution is put forward it is rejected by BASC because that template does not fit the business model of the BGA in which BASC has invested £250,000.

Non Toxic Shot Regulations | Fish and Game

In New Zealand it is compulsory to use non-toxic shot when hunting waterfowl with any gun using a 10 or 12 gauge cartridge for all areas,

fishandgame.org.nz

There needs to be from those who still are members of BASC a motion at the AGM demanding why the New Zealand model is not adopted as BASC's position with the threat of it being a matter of "No Confidence" in the BASC Council if it is not

 

[Dunwaters]

with due respect it is that attitude, that has lost us so much over the years, pistols, semi auto rifles (excluding .22 rimfire), the decision is not already made and we should argue sensibly for leads continued use where an effective alternative is not available both in terms of performance and cost. Or where the risk to health or wildlife can be mitigated and managed.

or let’s all take the selfish attitude and I would sooner see game shooting totally banned then lead shot no longer available for clay pigeon shooting.

I’ ll disagree on this one.
What lost us this battle is the incontrovertible fact that lead is toxic, not just to us but to pretty much anything on the planet, especially wildfowl and raptor's.
We’ve argued the point for 30 years and lost, it’s over, salvage what you can absorb the lesson and jog on.
The pistol and semi auto bans were knee jerk political impositions that should never have happened, but they did.
Not the same thing at all, politically popular decisions we couldn’t prevent that did nothing to enhance public safety.
I’m not the greenest person you’ve ever met, but I honestly don’t see what the problem is with the use of viable lead alternatives. We’re being forced to change precisely because we refused to engage with the voluntary option.
I know you don’t agree, fair enough, so what’s your answer to the science and strategy for the future?

 

[Apthorpe]

I think you’ll find that the UK REACH will mirror the EU findings, if they don’t then the divergence in standards will most likely see UK game excluded from the EU market and please don’t tell me that you’ll be able to sell it elsewhere, you can’t.

In reality, nobody really cares if the fraction of game shot in the UK can or can't be sold into the EU. It has virtually no value.
"Figures from the Department for International Trade show that in 2017 game meat exports were worth £7 million. This is compared to a UK domestic market worth approximately £120 million, highlighting that more needs to be done to promote British game meat abroad."
Source: The Countryside Alliance.
It is a fiction that much game is exported to the EU, and as you can see, what is exported is no more than 6% of the market of traded game, excluding the value of game consumed personally and informally to friends and family.
It would surely not be that hard to shift a bit of game to non-EU countries if it were important to do so. It isn't.

I’d suspect that you’ll follow a similar timeline for the same reason.
Reading through Conor’s materiel, theres 2 separate UK initiatives, 3 if you include the EU REACH, all with the aim of banning or curtailing the use of lead projectiles.
We don’t need both, the REACH process will supersede any voluntary arrangements, so drop the voluntary ban, its hopelessly disorganised and the July deadline is unachievable, lets concentrate our time, money and effort mitigating the effects of a legislative ban and agreeing where we actually need to keep lead.
For you guys that think you can dodge the bullet and stockpile lead, maybe think again, the EU plans to ban “ the sale, use and possession “ of lead ammo after the implementation date.
Anyone want to bet that a UK ban wont follow the same route?

Agree with all this, but would add that I can't see how a REACH type process can conclude that lead is too harmful to use for game shooting and somehow is not harmful for target shooting or the various types of gun where good lead alternatives don't exist.

 

[Liveonce]

I’ ll disagree on this one.
What lost us this battle is the incontrovertible fact that lead is toxic, not just to us but to pretty much anything on the planet, especially wildfowl and raptor's.
We’ve argued the point for 30 years and lost, it’s over, salvage what you can absorb the lesson and jog on.
The pistol and semi auto bans were knee jerk political impositions that should never have happened, but they did.
Not the same thing at all, politically popular decisions we couldn’t prevent that did nothing to enhance public safety.
I’m not the greenest person you’ve ever met, but I honestly don’t see what the problem is with the use of viable lead alternatives. We’re being forced to change precisely because we refused to engage with the voluntary option.
I know you don’t agree, fair enough, so what’s your answer to the science and strategy for the future?

I have never disagreed that lead is a poison.

clearly for game shooting to have a future and to be able to sell the game it needs to achieve the transition to non toxic shot, be that by self regulation or a legal ban. Yes it will be painful for .410 and 28gauge and old guns but better than a total ban of lead.

That will remove the risk of raptors eating unpicked or injured game containing lead, significant reducing the risk to raptors and foxes.

Those shooting rabbits, pigeons, grows etc should do all they can to retrieve them, again reducing the risk to raptors and foxes. If the rabbits or pigeons are for human consumption by the rifle shooter then it should be their personal choice, just as it is for those who smoke. If to be sold on for consumption human or animal then a code of practice should be followed that they also use non toxic shot.

As for target ranges and clay grounds the risk to raptors and foxes is virtually zero, in fact the clay ground I shoot at has several raptors flying about.

Then I would suggested all lead shot cartridges to only be available in shot sizes 9 (2mm), 8 (2.2mm).

will never please everybody, however it‘s about managing risk.

edit to add, from human heath perspective lots of food and drink can contains lead, so it’s impossible to reduce lead intake to zero.

 

[25 Sharps]

I’ ll disagree on this one.
What lost us this battle is the incontrovertible fact that lead is toxic, not just to us but to pretty much anything on the planet, especially wildfowl and raptor's.
We’ve argued the point for 30 years and lost, it’s over, salvage what you can absorb the lesson and jog on.
The pistol and semi auto bans were knee jerk political impositions that should never have happened, but they did.
Not the same thing at all, politically popular decisions we couldn’t prevent that did nothing to enhance public safety.
I’m not the greenest person you’ve ever met, but I honestly don’t see what the problem is with the use of viable lead alternatives. We’re being forced to change precisely because we refused to engage with the voluntary option.
I know you don’t agree, fair enough, so what’s your answer to the science and strategy for the future?

Where is the evidence, in the UK, that lead bullets in the environment are consistently killing raptors?

 

[tikkathreebarrels]

Have been culling hard with not lead for a gnats cock short of 15 years!

Absolutely nothing wrong with them and for my sins shot 6 lowland reds and none went further than 20 yds from where they were shot.

I wished I bloody hadn’t, five minutes to shoot then 4 bloody hours to sort them out and get him to the dealer

So that was a "once in 15 years" experience then?

 

[Dunwaters]

Where is the evidence, in the UK, that lead bullets in the environment are consistently killing raptors?

Theres probably not much UK specific data, you ( the UK) didn’t go looking for it, but the American and European data is valid in the UK, and that data is conclusive, lead shrapnel/small shot kills raptors when ingested, which is why your local falconer wont take birds shot with it.
The wildfowl trust did produce some pretty damning results for ducks, geese and lead shot ingestion too.
The effects of lead toxicity doesn’t change from country to country so they aren’t UK specific and even if they were, wildfowl are migratory, so enter the Birds Directive, so you may not poison “ our” birds while they’re in the UK.
Every single country in the EU tried to argue that in their case lead wasn’t an issue, not one of them could show valid evidence to support their case.
I’m not interested in re-hashing old and discredited arguments, lead is toxic, we’re going to lose it.
I just hope for some compromise where viable alternatives don’t exist.
Just to clarify, I’m not a member of or a supporter of BASC, I’m in NARGC and I’ve been following this subject since the mid 70’s, we’ve managed to stall the process towards a ban but we’ve never been able to counter the scientific evidence, that’s why BASC went the voluntary ban road, they’ve no choice..

 

[Dunwaters]

Just a side comment, we have 118 posts on 6 pages of civilised discussion and debate.
Is this a record?
Thanks guys!

 

[Liveonce]

Every single country in the EU tried to argue that in their case lead wasn’t an issue, not one of them could show valid evidence to support their case.

very difficult to prove a negative,

70’s, we’ve managed to stall the process towards a ban but we’ve never been able to counter the scientific evidence, that’s why BASC went the voluntary ban road, they’ve no choice..

possibly because a lot of the so called evidence was subjective, like the number of wildfowl killed by lead shot.