In all fairness, @Conor O'Gorman has mentioned on here multiple times that BASC opposes any lead shot restrictions and as has been mentioned its stance is on a voluntary transition as opposed to any legislative restrictions
An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
- Status
They could have asked ALL members to vote then use that as a guide for their stance on it, it is the members who's payment keeps the whole group paid. As a country we are offered to vote in local matters and vote in a government, Leave it to a few people and watch the results, prime example is the mess unfolding from voting in this government there will be no going back in the increcess of what they are costing all of us each day.
All wildfowling clubs vote in committees by the members who in turn pay subs, the members have a say in how things are run, buying land, renting marshes, renting rough shooting these are supported by BASC so there is a system attached to it alongside 150k of members. Ask the members and find out what the
"one voice" said.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
They’re almost all gone from the gun line now anyway, the high bird, heavy load shoots have done for them. So has 50 years of O/U use.
Your classic SBS game gun was perfected to shoot around an ounce of shot at moderate velocity and at distances of around 40 Yds maximum. They’re low stocked, light weight and therefore fairly kicky. They’re not suited to firing high volumes of anything, but especially not heavy loads.
Changing fashions and a demand for one gun which can handle both clays and game is killing demand for specialised game guns.
The value of SBS’s has collapsed due lack of demand, not a proposed lead ban.
Incidentally, provided the gun has 70mm chambers and proof and is not tightly choked, theres absolutely no danger firing steel through it. The real problem with older guns and non lead is that they often have 65 or 60mm chambers and there are severely limited ammunition options available. Even traditional lead loads can be difficult to find, the standard chamber nowadays is 70mm, and has been for over 50 years.
In that vein you could argue, the fact the agm's are held and members vote for the committee that is then done. I wouldn't expect to be contact on every matter constantly, that is why people are elected into a position to run with it. We have seen the responses on consultations which seem woefully low in comparison with what they should be. So if every challenge was put out to vote then I wouldn't hold out much hope on it being responded to it well.
Also the shooting organisations that came together on the voluntary transition away from lead (bssc if i remember correctly) i can only imagine were trying to look out for the shooting community in the growing face of further challenges from outside forces and calls for legislative restrictions on all fronts. As has been said, there is no call for legislative restrictions from any shooting organisation. BASC seem to get the brunt of this as they are the only ones who engage on here and it is tedious trying to sift through the shear volume of nonsensical ramblings that these thread generate
The fact is:
Some scientists (across the world) have stated lead shot has an increased risk to unintended wildlife
Shooting organisations say, if we can let's try and reduce this risk
Some shooters are happy with this, some say they are not, a prime example is that lead is still in some pipes and we end up in the ridiculous debate where it seems because there is another source of this material that is probably in larger volumes, we can just dismiss us as shooting using lead as it's small in the grand scheme of things.
we then have this continued spat of....BASC are forcing us to go lead free, they have said over and over again, and I can't thank @Conor O'Gorman enough for his continued contributions on this forum, that BASC and the other organisations oppose any forced lead free activities by the government.
There a many threads where people say BASC has now power to sway anything, yet it is their fault there is a "lead ban", which there isn't and which doesn't make sense as it can't be had both ways.
That is all I'm saying on this thread
In all fairness ConorO’Gorman has posted innumerable posts stating that my concerns regarding the inadequacy of the scientific data to justify further lead shot restrictions were used an excuse to personally attack him. Furthermore he has stated that any concerns that BASC’s intentions were to discontinue opposition to further lead shot use was scaremongering. From the link posted in his last post on this thread it seems that BASC have dropped their opposition to further lead shot restrictions as there is no mention of opposition in the BASC response in the aforementioned link.
Hopefully there is a simple explanation and BASC intends to oppose further restrictions as you say “ Conor O’Gorman has mentioned on here multiple times that BASC opposes any lead shot restrictions “
I await the reassurance of a statement that will confirm that BASC policy is still to oppose further lead shot restrictions and an explanation as to why this was not mentioned in the latest posted link
Your personal opinion lacks any mention of the concern I have raised regarding the failure of BASC in the latest posted link to express an intention to oppose further lead shot restrictions. Your tabloid like preoccupation with the messenger not the message is pretty poor IMO. Perhaps focus on the implications of the information I have posted rather than a knee jerk reaction to support BASC when it is far from clear what you are choosing to support. Can we now just focus on the issues ?
As they , traditional side by sides ,are almost all gone now as you state then there is even more reason for permitting them to use lead shot as if that is the case the impact of doing so would be negligible. I would respectfully disagree with a couple of your statements. I have recently bought a Webley 702 from a reputable dealer for £750 and an as new Greener Empire for £700 and passed on the opportunity of buying a Webley 701 for less than £800 I’m sure the prices were heavily influenced by the oft stated inevitably of a lead shot ban.
Lightweight side by sides are perfectly suited for the loads they were designed to use and I have no problem with recoil over a relatively fast 100 solo clay shoot and that with short barrelled 12 and 16 bores.The common 8lb weight of English side by sides designed for the old 1 1/2 oz magnum loads are best suited to heavier loads but neither guns were designed for using heavy loads of steel shot being pushed at great speed to compensate for their weight inadequacies ,from the perspective of recoil or the suitability of their internal barrel profile.
I have no problem sourcing 65 or 67 mm cased 12 bore cartridges , the old 2 inch 12 bores are presently in infrequent use as comparatively few were so chambered and as I do not possess one I have no idea of there availability.
65 mm cartridges for the 16 bore are more commonly available than 70mm due to the greater availability of English 16 bore side by sides chambered for the 65mm cartridge so economically it makes more sense to restrict cartridge production runs to 65mm to cover both chamber sizes.
The flood of guns onto the market has caused an inevitable decline in prices simply due to the principles of supply and demand. The cause of that recent flood has coincided with the lead shot ban issue and doesn’t just involve side by sides but over and unders and semi automatics. A quick glance at the sealed bid sales at Holts where after commission guns are literally being given away with commission costs frequently greater than the prices assigned to guns on the later fixed price sales. Prices of trade ins , if trade ins are accepted and frequently aren’t,are in free fall for all guns not hp steel proofed and whether a gun is steel shot proofed is now one of the most frequently asked questions asked of gun dealers in reference to second hand guns for sale.
No ,as already stated I popped over to prepare for my DSC1 that I have sourced from this forum . You seem to have similarities to CO in that you consistently fail to address points made in posts you respond to. Are you possibly relatedSo you didn’t just pop over for a vendetta then?
You may be content to accept every BASC statement in good faith unaware or indifferent to their implications but there is little value in BASC members blind acceptance of policy if that policy proves to be to their detriment and incidentally to the detriment of all shooters who are not members of BASC. Feel free to ignore points made and continue with personal remarks , I’ll be paying little attention until your posts contain some reasoned content worth considering
Neither would I but in the matter concerning proposing a voluntary ban I would expect to be consulted and that consultation would have occurred with the membership to gauge the extent of support for such proposals ,especially when it now appears that the voluntary move away from lead shot is morphing into acceptance of further lead shot legislation which was predicted and denied long ago.
Hopefully statements will clarify the position and the omission of the intention to oppose further lead shot legislation is not a reflection of a change in policy.
I acknowledge that your opinion in the matter is just as valuable as any others. I try to avoid nonsensical ramblings in my own posts as I feel that the issue is too important to be lost in personal tirades or easily discredited views. I think the issue has been unnecessarily complicated by the continual refusal of posters to reply to straightforward questions or points made in the best interests of fair debate. Rather we frequently have personal attacks and deflection in response to honest concerns. Such is the nature of debate where agenda and politics play a significant role ,however until posters choose to address points in their reply posts there is little hope of moving forwards.
Last edited:
The thing is Tom, the people who are voicing their opinion have a lot of years under their belts and gained a lot of experience seeing the early years of shooting, I have 52 years of shooting lead and living in the countryside all my life so speak from watching/shot all types of creachers, honestly never see anything sick only mixi rabbits which I have stopped on the side of the road and despatched them.
We get on ok but your long reply is based on what you read not what you have seen or experienced as your conversations/observations while out with me showing what crops are what or skinning big deer then we are miles apart.
In a nutshell everyone is entitled to an opinion but basing your opinion on what you read is a world apart from what us old lads have done and seen over a lifetime which counts a lot as the people who lack the experience are happy to be shown, as there are not so many of us around, so I am afraid you get all of the experiences' and opinions whether you like reading or it or not. Just shooting deer is only one part of understanding the countryside, walking on concrete is nothing compared to a lifetime in the fields.
Last edited:
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
The thing is, a lot of people with a lot of experience are voicing personal experiences and ignoring the science.
We accept that tobacco products are harmful, despite my aunt who smoked 20 a day from the time she was 14 and started work, she passed away at 83, but we know that tobacco is harmful because of the science.
t
Last edited by a moderator:
63
Well-Known Member
I'll be blunt @Ruger#1 but most of your posts read as 'rambling tirades', and you seem far from shy about making a dig when someone disagrees with you. I appreciate you might think you're having a respectful and mature debate, but that's not how you 'read' at all. @Mike L wasn't wrong - virtually everything you've posted on this forum has been in this thread which does rather suggest you're just here to pick a fight.
As a general question to the floor - is there any competing science that challenges the GWCT position that lead shot poses a risk to wildlife? I understand personal anecdote and repeated observations that 'I've never seen any dead birds', but neither of these are much use in an argument with the HSE and legislators, which is ultimately what would need to be had (and won) to effect any change on this issue. The opening paragraphs of this article in 'The Field' from the opening post suggests the ECHA may have produced something to that effect, but their website isn't working.
Last edited:
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
The flood of guns onto the market is far more influenced by the lack of younger generations taking up the pastime than it is by barrel configuration or lead shot.
Our average age is close to 60, theres almost no recruitment, we’ll pretty much gone in 10 - 15 years.
It’s a pity, I love walked up, dogs and the banter after the outing, but I realised that it’s gone when I saw birds from last week still in the car next Saturday.
No one wants what we shoot, not even us.
The thing also people are voicing their opinion with very little experience (via the net)
Yes let's go with the science
Guess the infected blood people might have a different voice or the
Many women who underwent this procedure have experienced severe complications, including chronic pain, infection, and bowel or bladder perforation, leading to lawsuits and calls for compensation. The scandal has prompted a pause on the use of mesh in the UK and the development of compensation schemes for affected women.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
You, Sir are absolutely on point.
The trenchant lead users never engage with the science, their tactic is always the same.
Pick a flaw in an individual study, never admit that the general thrust of the studies is consistent and then drag utterly irrelevant personal experiences into the argument.
So to all of you that are challenging the transition to to non lead ammo, what scientific evidence do you have to support your arguments?
There are thousands of studies supporting the transition, but not a single one to support the continued use of lead.
Show me the evidence or SDFU..
63
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's not that bleak?
I'm 40. I shot obsessively in my teens and twenties but drifted away from it through my 30's due to the pressures of work, family, and in my case living abroad. I also know many peers whose fathers/families shot, but were themselves only 'occasional' shooters without their own certificates for a long time. Many of my generation have found it hard to build a professional career without spending some time living in London, which also tended to keep us away from shooting.
Lots of these people are now getting back into shooting and applying for certificates as they start to have a bit more time and cash in their 40's, and often have moved back to the towns and villages they were originally from. In my immediate social circle there are 4 people doing this, all for SGC/clays and two of us are stalking. Just today I was talking to a mate who is thinking about applying for his SGC - as he put it 'I need a middle aged man hobby, and golf is s**t'
I have a suspicion that recruitment of 'young' people into shooting will face increasing barriers, but that the average shooter will continue to be somewhere between 40 and 70 with people tending to fall into the sport a bit later in life.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Pardon me for asking, but what defuc are you on about?The thing also people are voicing their opinion with very little experience (via the net)
Yes let's go with the science
Guess the infected blood people might have a different voice or the
Many women who underwent this procedure have experienced severe complications, including chronic pain, infection, and bowel or bladder perforation, leading to lawsuits and calls for compensation. The scandal has prompted a pause on the use of mesh in the UK and the development of compensation schemes for affected women.
We are talking about lead ammunition, your comment makes 0 sense.
- Status
Similar threads
