An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce

[cjm1066]

Aside from the is lead toxic/harmful debate the pledge by The major shooting organisations have decided to endorse a move away from lead shot has backfired,

The current studies UHI study shows that this pledge was hot air, damaging the credibility of these organisations, just at a time when we are facing a renewed attack on shotgun licensing.

On SD we have had a constructive discussion that can perhaps be called The Shooter's Charter as after all we benefit from targeted laws that reduce gun crime alongside wanting a efficient and painless licensing regime - would the general public understand the pointless bureaucracy in swapping a 6.5 x 55 for a 6.5 Creedmore or changing a Sako to Blaser, they would probably say a gun is a gun (other examples exist, lets not debate them on this thread ).

Why the shooting organisation went down this route is unknown, a failure of leadership as it surprised their members - info on this would be appreciated, while its a bit like shutting the stable door, we can learn from the past.

More significantly who can take this forward, since the 1903 Pistol Act my arithmetic finds 17 more legislative Acts, perhaps if we lobby the shooting organisations they can develop this idea?

 

[Andrewslater]

Clearly the organisations are encouraging and endorsing a transition away from lead shot, but the members are slow to partake. Perhaps using up existing ammunition they already have, or struggling to source alternatives among those that clearly don't want to change.. Events put on by the organisations have been clear that they are encouraging a voluntary transition.

 

[old 30-06]

Shooters giving up lead shot is like the prohibition in America. It is the views of some people in authority imposed against the will of most of us. I think there will be a similar outcome !

 

[Bowland blades]

IMHO our Orgs did not ever really fight the lead ban , they just held it back a while . This allowed us to establish none toxic to develop some more along with the supply . Was that right or wrong ? Not sure tbf !
It would be a PR nightmare and fed the anti if we managed to keep lead as it was . We very likely got the best of it - if we get to keep and use lead in say airguns and 410 , 22 rf

 

[The Singing Stalker]

Politicians are led by the public and sometime no matter the science or anything logical, a few screaming can get the public perception based on emotion. Then the politicians are led into a, we are doing this, you can talk all you like, but it is coming. This is not the fault of the orgs, rather the knee jerk reactions of the politicians. Think motorcycle helmet laws, dangerous dogs act. Rightly or wrongly, they were forced in and you could waste your time fighting or move on to something else.

Now, and this is just my opinion of course, where the orgs Fail, is in not having people who are great orators who can counter the negative antis.
Unfortunately, antis, use emotion, “do you want to die slowly from lead poisoning, or should we ban shooting?. Well most people are going to choose the alternative. I have seen the counter arguments from the org. One of which is tradition. Never mention tradition. Tradition is not a valid argument. You have to counter with a valid science argument, with emotion. The emotion is probably more important.
The problem is, to be an orator, you need a high degree of skill, ( Think of someone like Peter Ustinov who was a delight to listen to) It is a skill, you have to have it, and of course, you need to believe in the cause and be able to put it back to the politician.

Whilst the shooting community has many passionate people, I think we have less people trained in the ways of media, sales and marketing. Those are the skills, (again in my opinion) that would help promote shooting as a positive benefit. I don’t think we market ourselves very well. Letters from certain organisations that say, “we wrote a strong letter”, or, the others who never say anything at all on social media.
I sell venison locally, I promote it as wild meat, with low miles, low carbon footprint, ethically sourced, etc etc. even the vegetarians are, whilst not delighted with what I do, understanding of what I am saying. Of course, these are not the, scream in you face types. But your average, just want to live life and are happy to understand what you do.

Until the orgs get such people, I think we will always struggle, this is not me having a go at the orgs.
But, professional organisations, who employ professional people, (who mentioned the RSPB?) manage to get people to donate houses and land to them when they die and then buy up lots of land and do the well documented “great job” managing the land (cough) and making more money. That is sales and marketing, you do not get that by taking on volunteers. You get that by employing specialists in their field and you have to pay them the going rate for their skill.

The SD is like the chat down the pub, we all have great ideas, arguments, have a beer, then, move on, problem sorted. Few of us, me included, rarely go forth and go back to an organisation and make the changes. Organisations like anything, need a leader, the idea has to be sold to the leader, who then cascades down to the business, org, whatever, the policy.

The SD collective opinion is like herding cats and basically, usually/often breaks down into a slagging match. Hence, why we (the shooting community) tend to fail.

Of course, you might think completely different.

 

[suburban bushwacker]

Do you ever get the feeling we get the representation we deserve?

 

[Bowland blades]

Do you ever get the feeling we get the representation we deserve?

The CA seem to do the most for the least , think of the march , i think i am swapping fed up of the BS and jobs for the boys thing
Did we ever need so many different Orgs ?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

As regards the OP, those seeking a lead ban have been trying for 5 years to make out that the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was/is a failure by buying small game and testing it for lead shot. They are against voluntary measures and want a ban not only on lead shot for live quarry, but for all target shooting, and most other uses of lead ammunition. Those seeking a lead ban were opposed to the HSE review of lead ammunition when it was announced in 2021. They saw that as kicking the can down the road. They wanted an immediate ban on all lead ammunition. Those seeking a lead ban have criticised the HSE recommendations published in December 2024 for a five year transition before restrictions on lead shot took effect. They have been lobbying the Defra minister for a full lead ban within 18 months. Apparently the minister received 14,000 emails demanding a decision by 13 March 2025. No decision has been announced and the antis have gone quiet, for now. Meanwhile in the EU, draft regulations have been tabled to ban many outdoor recreational uses of lead ammunition.

 

[Rewulf]

They are against voluntary measures and want a ban not only on lead shot for live quarry, but for all target shooting, and most other uses of lead ammunition.

Lets metaphorically examine the 'animal' as it were...

Why would these lobbying groups, mostly made up of anti blood sport types, want to ban target shooting ?
If lead is recoverable, or contained, why would it bother them ?
Or do they just not like the idea of private persons owning and using firearms, why should that bother them ?

Its an interesting conundrum when you speak to people who have no experience of guns, that often they will announce 'I dont like guns' due to some inherent fear of them, some can be swayed, often enthusiastically, toward the skills and fun of trying out target shooting, but others are adamant that its just 'wrong' but cant quantify why.
The police/government are going to do nothing to create an interest in shooting, my feeling is it would be a lot less headache for them, if private firearm ownership just 'went away'
The lead ban, increases in cert prices, and any other aspect that makes shooting less accessible, is a 'good thing' for them, I think we need to realise the government is not on our side.
If shooting orgs are waiting to be dealt a good hand by a labour government, then I believe they are going to be very disappointed, and shooters in general, finding their sport more costly, and less accessible, are going to be looking for someone to blame.

I still think BASC and the other orgs made a mistake by the 'voluntary' thing, human nature being the primary obstacle, if someone tells you that you can buy (voluntarily) 2 products that largely do the same job, but one costs more, you tend to go for the cheaper option ?
They would have been far better IMHO of commissioning studies themselves into lead shot effects, than relying on anti shooting sports very biased studies.

 

[cjm1066]

Thanks Conor:

A good response on the background to lead, as for the decision of the shooting organisations perhaps read

Joint statement by the Directors of the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers however this is histroric

As for a shooter charter, BASC's response is awaited.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Lets metaphorically examine the 'animal' as it were...

Why would these lobbying groups, mostly made up of anti blood sport types, want to ban target shooting ?
If lead is recoverable, or contained, why would it bother them ?
Or do they just not like the idea of private persons owning and using firearms, why should that bother them ?

Its an interesting conundrum when you speak to people who have no experience of guns, that often they will announce 'I dont like guns' due to some inherent fear of them, some can be swayed, often enthusiastically, toward the skills and fun of trying out target shooting, but others are adamant that its just 'wrong' but cant quantify why.
The police/government are going to do nothing to create an interest in shooting, my feeling is it would be a lot less headache for them, if private firearm ownership just 'went away'
The lead ban, increases in cert prices, and any other aspect that makes shooting less accessible, is a 'good thing' for them, I think we need to realise the government is not on our side.
If shooting orgs are waiting to be dealt a good hand by a labour government, then I believe they are going to be very disappointed, and shooters in general, finding their sport more costly, and less accessible, are going to be looking for someone to blame.

I still think BASC and the other orgs made a mistake by the 'voluntary' thing, human nature being the primary obstacle, if someone tells you that you can buy (voluntarily) 2 products that largely do the same job, but one costs more, you tend to go for the cheaper option ?
They would have been far better IMHO of commissioning studies themselves into lead shot effects, than relying on anti shooting sports very biased studies.

Those calling for a lead ban since the 1980s and even further back have mostly been organisations and individuals concerned about the impact of lead shot on birds. Those concerns were based on the science which has continued to grow. Over the years they have become increasingly frustrated with the shooting community and organisations by what they perceive as intransigence in the face of the science.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Thanks Conor:

A good response on the background to lead, as for the decision of the shooting organisations perhaps read

Joint statement by the Directors of the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers however this is histroric

As for a shooter charter, BASC's response is awaited.

What shooter charter are you referring to?

 

[Rewulf]

Those calling for a lead ban since the 1980s and even further back have mostly been organisations and individuals concerned about the impact of lead shot on birds. Those concerns were based on the science which has continued to grow.

There are only 2 sets of people in this group.
Those few that oppose lead shot that are pro shooting, and those that oppose lead that are anti shooting, (the vast majority) and the latter wouldnt be bothered if we used sunflower seeds instead of lead, they would still want shooting banned.
The argument for lead ingestion stems directly from an anti blood sport agenda for these people, the same people that would want cows milk banned, and propose a vegan diet to 'save the planet'

Over the years they have become increasingly frustrated with the shooting community and organisations by what they perceive as intransigence in the face of the science.

The science says that some birds die through lead ingestion, yet they arent concerned about the millions of birds that are dispatched via high velocity shot, really ?
How many birds die via spent shot vs killed by gunfire ? Lets not even talk about predation or poisoned with chemicals....
Yet the concern is all about lead shot ingestion, it makes no sense, unless.....
Its not really about lead shot, and more about guns and shooting in general ?

 

[enfieldspares]

Why the shooting organisation went down this route is unknown, a failure of leadership as it surprised their members - info on this would be appreciated, while its a bit like shutting the stable door, we can learn from the past.

They did not ALL of the them. The CPSA didn't.

And I was told by the man who runs that SASC that his organisation, he claimed, was effectively "bounced" into signing the BASC letter of February 2020. Maybe true? Maybe "buyer's regret". But sign it they did the SASC. The CPSA didn't. And they the SAC lost my membership because of it. Hit 'em where it hurts...in the pocket...if you aren't happy. Does more than coming here and expressing disappointment. Hit 'em where it hurts.

Like the scene Cromwell when they sign Charles II's Death Warrant but without Richard Harris? You could paraphrase it almost. In the before context and the after context. BASC is not British shooting sports and British shooting sports are not BASC. The more you listen the words seem more to fit. Then the later "buyer's regret".

From 0:45 onwards:

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

There are only 2 sets of people in this group.
Those few that oppose lead shot that are pro shooting, and those that oppose lead that are anti shooting, (the vast majority) and the latter wouldnt be bothered if we used sunflower seeds instead of lead, they would still want shooting banned.
The argument for lead ingestion stems directly from an anti blood sport agenda for these people, the same people that would want cows milk banned, and propose a vegan diet to 'save the planet'

The science says that some birds die through lead ingestion, yet they arent concerned about the millions of birds that are dispatched via high velocity shot, really ?
How many birds die via spent shot vs killed by gunfire ? Lets not even talk about predation or poisoned with chemicals....
Yet the concern is all about lead shot ingestion, it makes no sense, unless.....
Its not really about lead shot, and more about guns and shooting in general ?

Perhaps you are right, but does that mean you think the wetland restrictions on the use of lead shot were not about lead shot, and more about guns and shooting in general? And what about the Danish hunting organisation and its members that moved away from lead shot - are they antis?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

They did not ALL of the them. The CPSA didn't.

And I was told by the man who runs that SASC that his organisation, he claimed, was effectively "bounced" into signing the BASC letter of February 2020. Maybe true? Maybe "buyer's regret". But sign it they did the SASC. The CPSA didn't. And they the SAC lost my membership because of it. Hit 'em where it hurts...in the pocket...if you aren't happy. Does more than coming here and expressing disappointment. Hit 'em where it hurts.

Like the scene Cromwell when they sign Charles II's Death Warrant but without Richard Harris? You could paraphrase it almost. In the before context and the after context. BASC is not British shooting sports and British shooting sports are not BASC. The more you listen the words seem more to fit. Then the later "buyer's regret".

From 0:45 onwards:

The link to the Field article in the OP actually included a statement from the CPSA in February 2020: “We at the CPSA have been involved in the discussions with the game-shooting organisations and whilst we understand their decision to voluntarily remove lead from their sport, this will have no effect on clay-target shooting.” The CPSA response to the HSE recommendations in December 2024 stated: "In early 2025 we will be setting up a working group of CPSA board members, ground operators & partners from the gun trade, to plan this potential key change for our sport in the coming years."

As a CPSA member have you any updates from the CPSA to share?

 

[Rewulf]

Perhaps you are right, but does that mean you think the wetland restrictions on the use of lead shot were not about lead shot, and more about guns and shooting in general? And what about the Danish hunting organisation and its members that moved away from lead shot - are they antis?

Interestingly enough, the very same orgs that promoted the wetlands lead ban, have since produced surveys that state that very few wildfowlers use non lead ammunition !
They use this data to 'prove' that we are not responsible enough to handle our own voluntary ban, so must be forced.
Maybe when lead is banned across the board, they will probably say we are still using it, or cite some survey that says steel shot is getting stuck in gizzards ?
Does that answer your question ?

I cant speak for Denmark, but if they are anything like the French or Germans, or many other EU countries, they likely say they dont use lead, but do anyway.

 

[cjm1066]

What shooter charter are you referring to?

Actually there is one of BASC's web site, my choice of name was unintentional.

We need a charter to document what we want from licensing.

Everyone I hope wants safety.
Remove silences from regulation
1 for 1 variations simplified
Longer certificate life
Less scrutiny of good reason for calibres For deer stalking the FEO decided in his report - 308 some deer species 7x57 for others, it kept his manager happy.

If we present a suite of measures that will make the system more efficient it will release police time.

The introduction can detail the history of failure of legislation and the Police's,the Keyham coroners report provides a few. Why document it, the media shape public opinion and need a go to scource.

Defending our sport isn't working we need to be proactive.

We know the political trajectory, are we going to be proactive and engage to win, or loose and congratulate ourselves on a good but unsuccessful response?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Rewulf here are the studies:

Compliance research for England (where it has been illegal to shoot ducks with lead shot since 1999)

2008-2010

Non-compliance with the Regulations was high and widespread across English Government Office regions with 70% of ducks (344/492) overall having been shot with lead. Despite the relatively high profile of lead issues and knowledge of the research being in the public domain e.g. via the shooting press, there was no significant difference in level of non-compliance between the two shooting seasons. A significantly higher proportion of Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) had been shot with lead than Wigeon (A. penelope) and Teal (A. crecca) (337/459, (73%) vs 2/20 (10%) and 5/13 (38%), respectively). This could reflect non-compliance mainly in inland game and/or duck shooting activities as coastal wildfowlers are known to supply game outlets only rarely (however the small samples sizes of Wigeon and Teal should be noted). Although not an offence, 73% of game suppliers sold ducks containing lead shot.

Science Search

Science Search is a Defra Service to allow searching of Defra sponsored research.

randd.defra.gov.uk

2021-2022

Of 133 mallards containing recent shot, 92 (69%) had been illegally shot with lead. Analysis of this and five comparable surveys between 2001 and 2019 indicates regional and temporal variation in lead shot presence in England. In the North West and West Midlands, the likelihood of mallards containing lead shot decreased significantly over time, but no other regions showed significant changes. The use of non-lead shot types varied over time, with increases in steel shot use approximately matched by declines in bismuth shot. Mallards likely to be reared were more likely to have been shot with lead (75%) than those likely to be wild (48%). This suggests the use of lead shot is more frequent among driven game shooters than wild duck shooters. In England in 2021/22, most mallards continued to be shot with lead, suggesting that neither legislation nor voluntary approaches have been effective in substantially reducing illegal use of lead shot.

Spatial and temporal variation in the prevalence of illegal lead shot in reared and wild mallards harvested in England

The use of lead shotgun ammunition for shooting wildfowl has been restricted in England since 1999, but surveys finding lead shot in harvested birds s…

www.sciencedirect.com

Compliance research in Denmark (where it has been illegal to use lead shot for hunting and clay target shooting since 1996)

To assess current levels of compliance with Danish regulations, we purchased 730 carcasses of pheasants (Phasianus colchicus) and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and a further 690 mallard gizzards were obtained from > 14 shooting events distributed across > 10 local authority districts throughout East and West Denmark in the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 hunting seasons. All carcasses and gizzards were subject to radiography and those that contained shot were examined, pellets removed by dissection and identified to shot type. In all, 3589 pellets (intact or fragmented) were found in 1420 carcasses/gizzards, of which 799 pellets (some fragmented) were identified. Among the sample of pheasants with embedded shot (N = 447), 1.8% (in 2016) and 2.2% (in 2017) were lead shot. Among 148 mallards in 2017 with embedded shot, 3.1% had lead shot. None of the 2017 mallard gizzards had embedded lead shot. We conclude that Danish pheasant and mallard shooters mostly comply with the lead shot regulations. Steel was the most used non-lead alternative. The majority of ingested shot was non-lead, indicating that lead shot is not generally available to pheasant and mallard and suggesting compliance with regulations in recent years/decades.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48693533

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Actually there is one of BASC's web site, my choice of name was unintentional.

We need a charter to document what we want from licensing.

Everyone I hope wants safety.
Remove silences from regulation
1 for 1 variations simplified
Longer certificate life
Less scrutiny of good reason for calibres For deer stalking the FEO decided in his report - 308 some deer species 7x57 for others, it kept his manager happy.

If we present a suite of measures that will make the system more efficient it will release police time.

The introduction can detail the history of failure of legislation and the Police's,the Keyham coroners report provides a few. Why document it, the media shape public opinion and need a go to scource.

Defending our sport isn't working we need to be proactive.

We know the political trajectory, are we going to be proactive and engage to win, or loose and congratulate ourselves on a good but unsuccessful response?

We have been proactive calling for many of these things and progress has been slow. We won't give up and will keep trying.