BASC update on voluntary transition away from lead shot and and single-use plastics for live quarry.

[Conor O'Gorman]

As far as I am aware the intention is that where lead can be recovered (e.g. On ranges), lead for target shooting will not be banned, so no issue for air rifles or .22.
For shotguns where there are no sustainable alternatives (yet!), anyone keen to use those calibre could always reload their own cartridges unless the market catches up.
In terms of cost, unfortunately there is a price to preserving public health and saving the planet. Or do we want to leave our grandkids a pile of cash and a polluted planet?
I am definitely not a "tree hugger" but we cannot keep putting cost ahead of progress (otherwise I assume the nay sayers will be riding a horse as the running costs as lower than a car!)

Yes, the evidence is clear that the lead shot we shoot from shotguns into the open countryside (outside shooting ranges where the risks can be controlled) is available to many species of birds to pick up as grit with resulting direct or indirect mortality. There are no issues with airgun pellets or rifle ammunition in this regard, ie birds are not eating airgun pellets or bullets. The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry is a choice for all of us to consider - continue as we are or start to change - are we conservationists or not? The shooting organisations are not calling for any ban, they are encouraging a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting, and progress is being made as outlined in the article.

 

[timbrayford]

Isn't about time that this obsession with steel shot came to an end. As a ballistic alternative to lead it's a very poor substitute and only gets a look in at all because of cost issues.

 

[timbrayford]

Yes, the evidence is clear that the lead shot we shoot from shotguns into the open countryside (outside shooting ranges where the risks can be controlled) is available to many species of birds to pick up as grit with resulting direct or indirect mortality. There are no issues with airgun pellets or rifle ammunition in this regard, ie birds are not eating airgun pellets or bullets. The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry is a choice for all of us to consider - continue as we are or start to change - are we conservationists or not? The shooting organisations are not calling for any ban, they are encouraging a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting, and progress is being made as outlined in the article.

Just out of interest and proportionality what causes most impact to wild bird populations, poisoning from lead shot or predation from protected species?

 

[Mr. Gain]

There have been 4 years of consultation about the voluntary transition and that consultation continues.

Thankyou. As you know, there was no consultation with the membership before the orgs made their joint announcement 5 years ago. Defeat was announced before war was even declared! Consultation since is welcome, but has more than a whiff of closing the stable door after the ship has been let out of the bottle, or whatever metaphors one may choose to mix. Anyway, that evidence? ...preferably something relevant to the UK (no California condors, please! And no imaginary numbers produced by stacking guesses on guesses.)

 

[disco_ike]

Thank you.

I did one of the days a while ago and my Semi Auto cycled and liked the Joker bio ammo I think it was, paper cup with the steel shot in. Was very impressed with it for clays etc, not tried it on game yet though

 

[Morkai]

I did one of the days a while ago and my Semi Auto cycled and liked the Joker bio ammo I think it was, paper cup with the steel shot in. Was very impressed with it for clays etc, not tried it on game yet though

Thanks, Disco.

 

[old 30-06]

The impossibility of the position that B A S C and other organisations initally took has meant that they have had to "water down" their initial announcement. Planning prevents pi** poor performance. They should have consulted first !

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Thankyou. As you know, there was no consultation with the membership before the orgs made their joint announcement 5 years ago. Defeat was announced before war was even declared! Consultation since is welcome, but has more than a whiff of closing the stable door after the ship has been let out of the bottle, or whatever metaphors one may choose to mix. Anyway, that evidence? ...preferably something relevant to the UK (no California condors, please! And no imaginary numbers produced by stacking guesses on guesses.)

There has been 4 years of threads on this very forum about evidence of impacts of lead shot on uk birds. Maybe look a few of.these up or visit GWCT website for an overview.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

The impossibility of the position that B A S C and other organisations initally took has meant that they have had to "water down" their initial announcement. Planning prevents pi** poor performance. They should have consulted first !

What has been watered down from the initial announcement?

 

[jall55]

Maybe BASC could ship a few slabs of these cartridges to its members so we can try them without wasting anymore money.

In Fairness to BASC they do engage with members
We have them come to our shoot and they send representatives when we have clay shoots and we can try the steel - i have no issue how it shoots but worry about other things like ricochets and future issues with it

 

[Stevie/P]

future issues with it

Barrel wear for one is a consideration.

 

[old 30-06]

Connor O'Gorman, the initial announcement some five years ago was that lead shot was to be completely banned within five years. B A S C (and others) snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before any war was declared.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Connor O'Gorman, the initial announcement some five years ago was that lead shot was to be completely banned within five years. B A S C (and others) snatched defeat from the jaws of victory before any war was declared.

I don't recall any such announcement. Can you provide some evidence to back up your claims?

 

[Liveonce]

In terms of cost, unfortunately there is a price to preserving public health and saving the planet. Or do we want to leave our grandkids a pile of cash and a polluted planet?
I am definitely not a "tree hugger" but we cannot keep putting cost ahead of progress (otherwise I assume the nay sayers will be riding a horse as the running costs as lower than a car!)

Indeed but regrettably I fear there are vastly more and very much bigger issues facing our (and us) grandkids then lead in ammunition, try telling ukraine, russia and israel not to use lead in ammunition

 

[Steve Q]

Whilst I wish I could bring about global peace, that is little beyond my capabilities, however on the basis of "from little acorns do mighty oaks grow", if we all do our little bit, then perhaps we can reduce lead contamination. Who knows, maybe when Mr Putin has gone downstairs to meet Lucifer, then perhaps the military of the world will switch to non-toxic also.

 

[Apthorpe]

Yes, the evidence is clear that the lead shot we shoot from shotguns into the open countryside (outside shooting ranges where the risks can be controlled) is available to many species of birds to pick up as grit with resulting direct or indirect mortality.

Is it? I don't believe there is any significant number of studies which has measured lead shot in grit in open countryside outside wetlands. Could you point me towards this "clear" body of evidence?
I've never noticed lead shot in grit on land which has been continuously shot over for well over 80 years.

There are no issues with airgun pellets or rifle ammunition in this regard, ie birds are not eating airgun pellets or bullets.

How does anyone know? There is no proper evidence of birds (outside wetlands) eating pellets either, and certainly not of them eating bullet fragments.

The voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry is a choice for all of us to consider - continue as we are or start to change - are we conservationists or not? The shooting organisations are not calling for any ban, they are encouraging a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics for live quarry shooting, and progress is being made as outlined in the article.

While consciously and deliberately undermining the position of those for whom lead shot is more effective or preferable. You can't defend against a ban on lead ammunition, when you've decided to ditch the correct position, previously held for decades that a ban shouldn't happen without proper scientific evidence, and come out saying that you subscribe to the pseudo-scientific output of a tiny clique of obsessive antis.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Is it? I don't believe there is any significant number of studies which has measured lead shot in grit in open countryside outside wetlands. Could you point me towards this "clear" body of evidence?
I've never noticed lead shot in grit on land which has been continuously shot over for well over 80 years.

How does anyone know? There is no proper evidence of birds (outside wetlands) eating pellets either, and certainly not of them eating bullet fragments.

While consciously and deliberately undermining the position of those for whom lead shot is more effective or preferable. You can't defend against a ban on lead ammunition, when you've decided to ditch the correct position, previously held for decades that a ban shouldn't happen without proper scientific evidence, and come out saying that you subscribe to the pseudo-scientific output of a tiny clique of obsessive antis.

I would point you to the GWCT website in that regard.

 

[jall55]

I would point you to the GWCT website in that regard.

Its so very strange when the agencies quote and advise on science when it suits isnt it though

Did nature Scotland listen ? Or NRW ?
I dont think so

 

[scoby270]

Hi Conor,

I assume the various organisations involved with this so called voluntary transition are only speaking on behalf of there own members and not for others like myself who are not members of any of these organisations. Also will this be reiterated to the powers that be that persons outside of the memberships are free to carry on as they wish and that none of the orgs have any say for us in any way shape or form.

Regards

scoby 270

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Hi Conor,

I assume the various organisations involved with this so called voluntary transition are only speaking on behalf of there own members and not for others like myself who are not members of any of these organisations. Also will this be reiterated to the powers that be that persons outside of the memberships are free to carry on as they wish and that none of the orgs have any say for us in any way shape or form.

Regards

scoby 270

It's a voluntary transition away from lead shot and single use plastics that everyone that shoots can choose to get involved in whether or not they are members of any organisation. For example, BASC sometimes issues a call for voluntary restraint on the shooting of waterfowl during prolonged periods of severe winter weather. You might not be a member of BASC but you might act on it? Woodcock and brown hare also spring to mind. The same for codes of practice.

As regards policy work - BASC's argument against Health and Safety Executive proposals to ban lead shot for live quarry shooting is that the voluntary move away from lead shot for live quarry shooting is reducing the risk to a wide range of bird species in terrestrial habitats. And that the shooting sector must be allowed time to develop non-lead shotgun ammunition due to a world shortage of components and the need for manufacturers and assemblers to source new machinery to produce lead shot alternatives and biodegradable wads for all shotgun calibers.

Hope that helps provide some wider context - but bottom line is that its your choice whether to move away from using lead shot for live quarry shooting for the sake of the birds picking up the lead shot and suffering ill effects from that.