BASC funds national police training to combat poaching

Not if you don’t have an airgun!
Where is it cited that the feedback from BASC and its members influenced the HSE on this or are you just taking the credit?
BASC submitted technical reports to HSE in 2022 to evidence its arguments against the HSE's proposed ban on lead airgun pellets; on accuracy and muzzle energy testing of lead-free airgun ammunition in .177 and .22; and on weight retention of lead airgun pellets. This was supported by airgun clubs and members. In 2023, BASC submitted further information in its consultation response that it is opposed to restrictions on the use of lead airgun pellets for live quarry and target shooting because the secondary risks posed by lead airgun pellets are negligible and those risks can be appropriately and proportionately controlled through the application of existing directives, regulations, and best practice guidance. This was all reflected in the HSE assessments and the HSE dropped its proposed ban on lead airgun pellets. This has all been documented in great detail online and on this forum, with various appeals for SD members to get involved - there being 3 opportunities to do so over the last 3 years, and some did get involved - did you?
 
Do you consider the HSE dropping its proposed ban on lead airgun pellets last year a 'big standout win' for airgunners in England, Wales and Scotland?
Given that most airguns in England and Wales are unregistered and quarry shot with them usually isn't going to a game dealer, it would be rather hard to police. I'd say it's not a big standout win but a small consolation prize in the context of an abject failure.

Maybe if you could manage the same for all rifles it might be a win. Shouldn't be too hard to argue, including on safety grounds.
 
BASC submitted technical reports to HSE in 2022 to evidence its arguments against the HSE's proposed ban on lead airgun pellets; on accuracy and muzzle energy testing of lead-free airgun ammunition in .177 and .22; and on weight retention of lead airgun pellets. This was supported by airgun clubs and members. In 2023, BASC submitted further information in its consultation response that it is opposed to restrictions on the use of lead airgun pellets for live quarry and target shooting because the secondary risks posed by lead airgun pellets are negligible and those risks can be appropriately and proportionately controlled through the application of existing directives, regulations, and best practice guidance. This was all reflected in the HSE assessments and the HSE dropped its proposed ban on lead airgun pellets. This has all been documented in great detail online and on this forum, with various appeals for SD members to get involved - there being 3 opportunities to do so over the last 3 years, and some did get involved - did you?

Whether i personally got involved or anyone else for that matter i doubt very much it would effect the outcome on lead airgun ammo due to the complexities in banning it.
As already said its hardly a victory on the scale of things and certainly no comfort to people that have moved from airguns to rifles to shoot live quarry.
.243 is the issue with the biggest cause for concern, but i fear the ship has sailed.
 
After a couple decades think it is time to move on from BASC
NGO where there when i needed a course so think they now are a better choice than BASC
Conor as been so helpful over many years but i now feel time to move on.
 
After a couple decades think it is time to move on from BASC
NGO where there when i needed a course so think they now are a better choice than BASC
Conor as been so helpful over many years but i now feel time to move on.
I made the same move a few years ago, no regrets.
Ken.
 
confirms my personal decision to leave BASC for others after decades . The Police are paid from everyone's Taxes , BASC money should not go the the police , infact the way many legal shooters have been unjustly treated by the police forces . Now we have the huge rise in FAC / SGC its 100% wrong thing at the wrong time to boot
You could say the same thing as the NHS. The NHS is paid from everyone's taxes, so why should people have to raise money for it via charity to supplement its funding, which has become particularly prevalent during and since COVID. It's because we all know government funded bodies / departments etc. have limited public funding and as such they prioritise where that funding is spent. With the Police, many forces have reduced or even withdrawn rural crime resources, so this is just a case of BASC trying to support our needs and get it back on Police radars and part of their day to day policing activities.

Having reported quite a few poaching incidents and found the way the some (non rural crime) beat officers responded meant those caught could not be prosecuted because of incorrect actions, questioning, evidence gathering or just using the incorrect powers at the time, e.g. seizing the tools of the trade, it's great that BASC can fund specific training to aid detection of crime and more successful outcomes. It also goes a long way diplomatically in nurturing relationships between rural organisations and the police.

There are so many fronts to defend and protect our cause, this is certainly not one I have a problem with.
 
You could say the same thing as the NHS. The NHS is paid from everyone's taxes, so why should people have to raise money for it via charity to supplement its funding, which has become particularly prevalent during and since COVID. It's because we all know government funded bodies / departments etc. have limited public funding and as such they prioritise where that funding is spent. With the Police, many forces have reduced or even withdrawn rural crime resources, so this is just a case of BASC trying to support our needs and get it back on Police radars and part of their day to day policing activities.

Having reported quite a few poaching incidents and found the way the some (non rural crime) beat officers responded meant those caught could not be prosecuted because of incorrect actions, questioning, evidence gathering or just using the incorrect powers at the time, e.g. seizing the tools of the trade, it's great that BASC can fund specific training to aid detection of crime and more successful outcomes. It also goes a long way diplomatically in nurturing relationships between rural organisations and the police.

There are so many fronts to defend and protect our cause, this is certainly not one I have a problem with.
Well yes. The government must have dosh for useless railways and to give to other countries.
Fcuk us that hand it over......!
 
You could say the same thing as the NHS. The NHS is paid from everyone's taxes, so why should people have to raise money for it via charity to supplement its funding, which has become particularly prevalent during and since COVID. It's because we all know government funded bodies / departments etc. have limited public funding and as such they prioritise where that funding is spent. With the Police, many forces have reduced or even withdrawn rural crime resources, so this is just a case of BASC trying to support our needs and get it back on Police radars and part of their day to day policing activities.

Having reported quite a few poaching incidents and found the way the some (non rural crime) beat officers responded meant those caught could not be prosecuted because of incorrect actions, questioning, evidence gathering or just using the incorrect powers at the time, e.g. seizing the tools of the trade, it's great that BASC can fund specific training to aid detection of crime and more successful outcomes. It also goes a long way diplomatically in nurturing relationships between rural organisations and the police.

There are so many fronts to defend and protect our cause, this is certainly not one I have a problem with.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I appreciate a few SD members have an issue with the legacy funding but in the interests of perspective just to confirm that I have not seen any negative feedback elsewhere nor had a single email about it.
 
Whether i personally got involved or anyone else for that matter i doubt very much it would effect the outcome on lead airgun ammo due to the complexities in banning it.
As already said its hardly a victory on the scale of things and certainly no comfort to people that have moved from airguns to rifles to shoot live quarry.
.243 is the issue with the biggest cause for concern, but i fear the ship has sailed.
If nobody had submitted responses to the 2022 and 2023 consultations on the HSE proposals they would have been unchanged from the copy and paste version of the EU proposals that they started with.

UK shooters have been much more engaged on the HSE review of lead in ammunition relative to hunters in Republic of Ireland and mainland Europe on the European Chemicals Agency review. That is largely down to BASC members reacting to BASC action alert emails and other communications.

The EU review had 319 responses to their 6-month public consultation on initial proposals and 175 responses for their 2-month consultation on revised proposals. That's from 6+ million hunters. Here in the UK there were 2,759 responses to the 6-month public consultation and 8,159 responses to the 2-month consultation on revised proposals. Would have been nice to have seen closer to 100,000 responses given the proposals impacted over 600,000 certificate holders but the response level was effective enough.

As a result of that engagement (the HSE refers to our feedback and evidence 'dwarfing' the responses to ECHA consultations) the HSE recommendations are less draconian than the ECHA recommendations. So, perhaps a bit unfair to be so mealy mouthed about the outcome especially when it sounds like you did not get involved when the opportunities arose.
 
Given that most airguns in England and Wales are unregistered and quarry shot with them usually isn't going to a game dealer, it would be rather hard to police. I'd say it's not a big standout win but a small consolation prize in the context of an abject failure.

Maybe if you could manage the same for all rifles it might be a win. Shouldn't be too hard to argue, including on safety grounds.
Yes, the HSE discusses enforceability a lot in its recommendations and its a slippery slope. For example, the HSE recommends restrictions on the use and the sale of lead shot for target shooting as a means of enforcing restrictions on the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting - which BASC argued was not appropriate during the review because this was mission creep and outside the scope of the HSE review. But they have gone ahead with that recommendation anyway. That said they did listen to feedback on timelines and extended a transition period away from lead shot from 3 to 5 years.
 
Yes, the HSE discusses enforceability a lot in its recommendations and its a slippery slope. For example, the HSE recommends restrictions on the use and the sale of lead shot for target shooting as a means of enforcing restrictions on the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting - which BASC argued was not appropriate during the review because this was mission creep and outside the scope of the HSE review. But they have gone ahead with that recommendation anyway. That said they did listen to feedback on timelines and extended a transition period away from lead shot from 3 to 5 years.
I think there needs to be some really firm pushback about lead bullets at least. Might BASC be willing to produce a summary document of the main reasons for allowing lead use to continue which we could use as a template for writing to our MPs?

Another thread started on here today links an interesting podcast on the topic.

Also, will the military be allowed to use lead? Significant cost issue to taxpayer if not.
 
I think there needs to be some really firm pushback about lead bullets at least. Might BASC be willing to produce a summary document of the main reasons for allowing lead use to continue which we could use as a template for writing to our MPs?

Another thread started on here today links an interesting podcast on the topic.

Also, will the military be allowed to use lead? Significant cost issue to taxpayer if not.
An overview is here:


I will give the podcast a listen later.

The police and military were excluded from the review as per the EU review it was copy and pasted from - the focus of the HSE review was the outdoor recreational use of lead ammunition in England, Wales and Scotland.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WW.
An overview is here:


I will give the podcast a listen later.

The police and military were excluded from the review as per the EU review it was copy and pasted from - the focus of the HSE review was the outdoor recreational use of lead ammunition in England, Wales and Scotland.
Given police may use some civilian ranges for practice, who bears the cost of clearing up their lead?
 
Given police may use some civilian ranges for practice, who bears the cost of clearing up their lead?
That kind of level of detail has not been outlined by HSE for its recommendations (England, Wales, Scotland) nor the European Chemicals Agency for its EU-wide recommendations (that includes NI due to the post-Brexit NI protocol).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WW.
Back
Top