Do you think it will be a total ban? Or just on wetlands?Apparently just 2 days to go for the DEFRA announcement.
This doesn't concern me, but the decision looks predictable. Watch this space.
Promise to phase out lead from UK game shooting has failed, study finds
Vow in 2020 aimed to keep shot out of human food chain but study finds most game carcasses still contain leadwww.theguardian.com
Lead update.
- Thread starter gixer1
- Start date
They make them up. Sometimes by extrapolating from a small sample, sometimes by extrapolating from other extrapolated estimates. The fact is that not even 1% of that number is detected.
Nickb
Well-Known Member
It's the Guardian ffs ...of course it's bolloxxs
Whitefront
Well-Known Member
And they doing the extrapolating are anti shooting to start with.
"There is as yet little evidence of the impact of lead on other species of wildlife." That is not a sufficient reason to ban lead ammunition. Actually some of the language in that article is factually sloppy, whether deliberately or not. The evidence there is frequently spurious, with methodological faults, unsupportable conclusions and so on. Much of this stuff is no more reliable than the delusional "scientific expertise" which caused such massive damage during covid with defective modelling, spurious calculations and a determined refusal to correlate their findings with reality.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
If the government were to implement the HSE recommendations it would be a near total ban on the use of lead shot across all habitats in England, Wales and Scotland with a five year grace period. More details on each of the recommendations here:
HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained
Read our explanation of the HSE's proposals on restrictions for lead ammunition in more detail, plus BASC's position on each.
basc.org.uk
Hook'N'Bullet
Well-Known Member
I had a thought this morning as I woke up - afaik rimfire and air gun pellets wont be impacted right?
I'm sure these chamberings are shot a lot more frequently than centerfire chamberings, and I'm pretty sure a pellet/.22 RF is a lot easier to swallow as grit than a 100gr to 180gr bullet? Is a bird going to fill a large portion of its gizzard with a single rock or lots of little ones? I'd imagine the latter
I'm sure these chamberings are shot a lot more frequently than centerfire chamberings, and I'm pretty sure a pellet/.22 RF is a lot easier to swallow as grit than a 100gr to 180gr bullet? Is a bird going to fill a large portion of its gizzard with a single rock or lots of little ones? I'd imagine the latter
@Hook'N'Bullet, I don’t believe the grit point has been made as much for bullets, the argument there, so far as wildlife is concerned, is about scavengers eating contaminated carcasses, gralloch etc. In other words, it’s the small fragments and dust, not whole bullets that are said to be the problem.
The grit point has been directed more at shotgun pellets.
I still think this is primarily driven by the sorts of people who loved COVID restrictions and antis, but that appears their logic. So, less of an inconsistency than might first be thought.
In any event, that sort of point is only going to be seen as a reason not to exempt airguns and rim fire, not as a reason not to implement a ban on centrefire. To my mind, any arguments put forward in regards to this by any shooting group or supporter should not be based on saying ‘you’re not targeting that form of shooting, so why this form?’ as that’ll be an invite for equally strict regulation, not equally lenient.
The grit point has been directed more at shotgun pellets.
I still think this is primarily driven by the sorts of people who loved COVID restrictions and antis, but that appears their logic. So, less of an inconsistency than might first be thought.
In any event, that sort of point is only going to be seen as a reason not to exempt airguns and rim fire, not as a reason not to implement a ban on centrefire. To my mind, any arguments put forward in regards to this by any shooting group or supporter should not be based on saying ‘you’re not targeting that form of shooting, so why this form?’ as that’ll be an invite for equally strict regulation, not equally lenient.
There's no scope for mitigating the bad policy which is about to be implemented because our own shooting organisations, (one large one is particularly prominent), acted against and continue to argue against both facts and the interests of shooters.
What can we do when BASC's own representatives argue against both facts and our interests?
On an earlier occasion, BASC's rep here above insisted to me that there was nothing wrong, on a scientific basis, with a paper that contravened absolutely basic principles of science. The paper used a blatantly unrepresentative sample (and there's no argument over that), to make universal claims about the entire population. It is schoolboy level science and statistics that you can't draw valid conclusions about a population from an unrepresentative sample. Yet, here we had a properly-educated rep who must know better effectively insisting that the world was flat.
What can we do when BASC's own representatives argue against both facts and our interests?
On an earlier occasion, BASC's rep here above insisted to me that there was nothing wrong, on a scientific basis, with a paper that contravened absolutely basic principles of science. The paper used a blatantly unrepresentative sample (and there's no argument over that), to make universal claims about the entire population. It is schoolboy level science and statistics that you can't draw valid conclusions about a population from an unrepresentative sample. Yet, here we had a properly-educated rep who must know better effectively insisting that the world was flat.
Right, yet we have a local clay ground with airgun and rimfire range which all shoot over the same area, yet the lead shot must go, despite many years of its use over the ground but not lead pellets or rimfire bullets.
Oh but if an olympic competitor turns up they can use lead shot.
A six year old child could have written a better proposal than the HSE have.
There is certainly something to be said about scavengers/BOP ingesting lead shot from food sources. People with hawks don't want to give them rabbits etc shot by lead. So it can't all be made up
It isn’t all made up. It’s obvious that lead compounds are fatally toxic. The problem is that a small group of people are wildly extrapolating some obvious facts far, far beyond any supportable lengths in order to launch a politically motivated attack on shooting. Worse that a subset of shooters are stupid enough (one way or another) to actively support this.
Nickb
Well-Known Member
and BASCCf. My comment above.
A) There are not millions of head of unsold game in the first place.
B) The fact that people don’t want to buy game has absolutely nothing to do with lead shot.
C) Whether or not you can make a profit on selling what you shoot has absolutely no bearing on whether it is “untenable” to do something with is entirely legitimate.
Need I remind you that the only legal basis on which you are permitted to shoot deer has absolutely nothing to do with its potential as a foodstuff?
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Whilst I agree I will add that i think the root cause of the targeting by anti shooting groups including government and civil servants is the dinosaur that is traditional driven game shooting in the UK.
The capitulation of the so called pro shooting associations and game dealers is a two fold attempt to keep the said traditional limping along a little longer and keep game dealers from having to get a proper job!
I’d agree up to a point. I think the object of their prejudice is the caricature of a late Victorian shooting party, overlaid with a pile of ignorant socialist class warfare nonsense. However, there are other aspects, which include a much wider assault on even poor rural dwellers as class traitors for not being socialists. At it’s heart this is about the removal of liberty and property from individuals, because these clowns are socialists.
….is just sheer bad strategy incompetently carried out.
If the real target was just large driven shoots, then they could easily have stopped that long ago without any of this. The fact is that they want to stop game shooting, stimulate land reform and replace with state or NGO appropriations of land, and end private gun ownership. This is why you also have collections of “useful idiots” seeking to “professionalise” shooting, whether deer culling, pest control or qualifications. There’s no particular reason to presume that their distastes coincide with ours.
Some want lead shot gone for live quarry shooting because it’s a difficult sell if contaminated with lead, so if you cannot get it consumed as a food product how is it ethical to shoot it as nothing more than a flying target to be dumped in a big hole on the ground, you may consider that tenable i am sure WJ and those who follow them would not. Sell can also be export.
So they want lead shot legally banned as the voluntary transition was a big flop and to ensure 100% compliance they want it gone for clay shooting also.
Similar threads
