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

[Dunwaters]

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.

Thats pretty typical, congratulations and welcome back, but you are far from typical in that you have taken shooting up again.
Most people let it go when they move from home, once they go, we lose them.
Have a look at the statistics in the USA, they need new recruits and licence sale's to fund their conservation projects so they keep on top of the statistics.
The average age of an active hunter/shooter is around 55 at the moment, people generally stop active hunting in their early 70’s, thats a big deficit.
I’m glad I’m on the right side of the curve, 70+ and tailing off.

 

[Ruger#1]

0

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.

I agree that the lack of youngsters coming in will contribute to a decrease in demand probably at the lower end of the market but that has been the case for a good few years now and the glut of shotguns on the market has markedly increased in the last couple of years. Who would now choose to invest in an an English boxlock when a lead shot ban is in the offing, those side by sides that are perfect in balance and weight for game shooting are now not considered future proof hence the lack of interest and decline in price. In contrast in America where game shooting is not facing the same anti lead shot legislation prices are still buoyant. Even half decent boxlock non ejectors sell for good money which is hardly the case here.
I wholeheartedly agree with the aging and lack of recruitment aspect of your post and sadly see little happening that might turn that around. Happily all birds on our shoot are taken home but there is a minority of people just not interested either through laziness or disinterest in trying out game meals. I imagine fewer women are interested in dealing with game nowadays than in the past and I’m the only one in our family who deals with the fish ,venison and game so that might contribute to lack of demand.

 

[Dunwaters]

0

I agree that the lack of youngsters coming in will contribute to a decrease in demand probably at the lower end of the market but that has been the case for a good few years now and the glut of shotguns on the market has markedly increased in the last couple of years. Who would now choose to invest in an an English boxlock when a lead shot ban is in the offing, those side by sides that are perfect in balance and weight for game shooting are now not considered future proof hence the lack of interest and decline in price. In contrast in America where game shooting is not facing the same anti lead shot legislation prices are still buoyant. Even half decent boxlock non ejectors sell for good money which is hardly the case here.
I wholeheartedly agree with the aging and lack of recruitment aspect of your post and sadly see little happening that might turn that around. Happily all birds on our shoot are taken home but there is a minority of people just not interested either through laziness or disinterest in trying out game meals. I imagine fewer women are interested in dealing with game nowadays than in the past and I’m the only one in our family who deals with the fish ,venison and game so that might contribute to lack of demand.

 

[Dunwaters]

0

I agree that the lack of youngsters coming in will contribute to a decrease in demand probably at the lower end of the market but that has been the case for a good few years now and the glut of shotguns on the market has markedly increased in the last couple of years. Who would now choose to invest in an an English boxlock when a lead shot ban is in the offing, those side by sides that are perfect in balance and weight for game shooting are now not considered future proof hence the lack of interest and decline in price. In contrast in America where game shooting is not facing the same anti lead shot legislation prices are still buoyant. Even half decent boxlock non ejectors sell for good money which is hardly the case here.

In most of Europe, we have a limit on the number of firearms we can hold, shotguns are firearms and we can’t afford closet queens. We need guns to serve in multiple roles, old SBS’s specifically designed for game shooting are specialist tools and don’t fit the mould anymore. If you doubt that, bring your double trigger, auto safety SBS down to your local clay ground and see how it’s received.
The steel shot proof/ lead proof argument is largely irrelevant. There’s been no issues in any country thats made the transition.
Maybe you’re trying to tell me that UK shooters can’t be trusted to read the information on the box and translate that information to their own personal firearms and their own personal safety?
I doubt that.
SBS’s are not selling because most of the new entrants are used to O/U’s, the non lead argument is largely irrelevant.
JesusHChrist, I’m using an OU myself, SBS is for outings over the dogs and the odd round of clays

I wholeheartedly agree with the aging and lack of recruitment aspect of your post and sadly see little happening that might turn that around. Happily all birds on our shoot are taken home but there is a minority of people just not interested either through laziness or disinterest in trying out game meals. I imagine fewer women are interested in dealing with game nowadays than in the past and I’m the only one in our family who deals with the fish ,venison and game so that might contribute to lack of demand.

I’m a Boomer, I remember the time when I could gift unprepared game and have it enthusiastically received, that time is long gone.
Some of the guys I shoot with nowadays are not allowed to, or just can’t take game in fur and feather home.
Thats not a great harbinger for the future of our sport, and it’s a far bigger threat than what comes out of our barrels.
Lose the foraging argument, and we have nothing left but “ killing for kicks”.

 

[Ruger#1]

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.

I appreciate bluntness 63 it’s a lot more welcome than deflection or selectively ignoring others posters points when replying.
I’ve read over my last few posts prior to your own and don’t see much evidence of rambling tirades , I tend to stick to the point I am making and try to include relevant information that substantiates the views expressed. I do try to answer any points raised in reply posts to my own so there will be a certain amount of “rambling” as I do fellow posters the courtesy of a full reply.

I am concerned about the lack of evidence to justify any future lead shot legislation especially when the message changes over time and appears to be politically motivated rather than evidence based. To date there has been no scientific data that measures any impact on game bird populations( and that is sourced from GWCT )and it is on that basis that I am prone to disagree with those who would accept further lead shot restrictions with no consideration of the wider picture.
Your interpretation of that as being “ just here to pick a fight” is wide of the mark. A more accurate and less dramatic conclusion is that I am representative of those shooters that disagree with a blanket lead shot ban that does not take into account resolving the lead shot issue by minimising the risk of harm by targeting only areas where there is more than minimal impact on flora and fauna.
You are correct that I am far from shy about making a dig but I think you will find I confine it to those who resort to making personal remarks with no attempt to address the points I have made , I’d accept the same in return but I tend to restrict myself to the points being addressed by posters rather than personal abuse.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

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

Thank you, and I think that sums it up well and and even AI has produced some satire, that made me chuckle, on BASC being simultaneously ineffective and a 'tyrannical overlord' based on its analysis of comments on forums including SD. I might post it sometime.

As regards the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry launched by 9 organisations in Feb 2020 there has been 5+ years of consultation on that and this voluntary transition continues and an update provided by BASC here: Five years on: sustaining the transition away from lead

As regards consultation with members prior to BASC positions being agreed by BASC Council or consultation responses being submitted this has been covered many times before and indeed we once had a 'have your say' section on the BASC website around a decade ago following SD members requesting this which I managed. And what happened next? It was nil to negligible engagement. People wanted the consultation option but then did not choose to use it once it was there. I continue to engage on here on policy issues but the relentless trolling and unreasonable expectations by a few is starting to make this untenable moving forwards.

As regards engagement by people that shoot in policy developments on the future of lead ammunition the 2022 HSE lead restriction proposals consultation had 2,667 responses, a consultation that was promoted across the shooting community for the 6 months of its duration, and the final 2023 HSE consultation lead restriction proposal had 8,159 responses.

The HSE recommendations were published in December 2024.

The CA response: "The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK".

The CPSA response: "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".

The NGO response: "Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe.

BASC's detailed response to the HSE 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

The next update BASC publishes on lead ammo will likely be when the government responds to the HSE recommendations (which include a recommended ban on the use of lead shot for live quarry within 5 years). There are also already legislative proposals drafted for the EU (+NI) which include a proposed ban on the use of lead shot for live quarry within 3 years. I will provide an update on that when a response is published by the various hunting associations.

 

[Ruger#1]

In most of Europe, we have a limit on the number of firearms we can hold, shotguns are firearms and we can’t afford closet queens. We need guns to serve in multiple roles, old SBS’s specifically designed for game shooting are specialist tools and don’t fit the mould anymore. If you doubt that, bring your double trigger, auto safety SBS down to your local clay ground and see how it’s received.
The steel shot proof/ lead proof argument is largely irrelevant. There’s been no issues in any country thats made the transition.
Maybe you’re trying to tell me that UK shooters can’t be trusted to read the information on the box and translate that information to their own personal firearms and their own personal safety?
I doubt that.
SBS’s are not selling because most of the new entrants are used to O/U’s, the non lead argument is largely irrelevant.
JesusHChrist, I’m using an OU myself, SBS is for outings over the dogs and the odd round of clays

I’m a Boomer, I remember the time when I could gift unprepared game and have it enthusiastically received, that time is long gone.
Some of the guys I shoot with nowadays are not allowed to, or just can’t take game in fur and feather home.
Thats not a great harbinger for the future of our sport, and it’s a far bigger threat than what comes out of our barrels.
Lose the foraging argument, and we have nothing left but “ killing for kicks”.

I accept that experience will vary and with that the perceptions that that experience gives us all combine to form our opinions.
Personally I do not need any gun to serve multiple rolls though some could. I’ve 3 English side by sides and two modern 3 inch magnum side by sides and an AYA number 1 16 bore I own 5 over and unders four 12s and one 20 and 2 semi autos. Together they cover me for DTL, Sporting, game shooting, rough shooting and wildfowling. I tend not to trade in guns and appreciate their value ,having had to save for them all. I occasionally shoot clays at Cluny and North Ayrshire with my side by side and it’s generally received well. I’ve shot a round of clays 2 singles and a double from each stand and there is not that much gap between the side by side and over under that the increased enjoyment of using the side by side doesn’t compensate for.
In the 1980s and 90s I regularly shot sporting at local shoots with my AYA number 4 and took high gun on one occasion and fourth in a large field so although not the choice for the vast majority a better shot than I could probably still enjoying competing with the average shot even if not putting the leaders in any danger.
I dare say my multichoke Miroku MK38 that’s hp steel shot proofed, my Beretta extrema and my open bored 16 bore would cover me for everything i intend doing in the future but I enjoy the choice and for me the enjoyment is what it’s all about I don’t have a need for a gun as a work tool all are for sport.
Cheap older over and unders and semi automatics are not selling ,it’s not just side by sides, try getting a trade in on them and see for yourself. In conversation with a dealer in central Scotland the trend is newer cheap guns with a guarantee rather than older over and unders simply because people are asking for a steel shot proofed gun, it may not be your experience but it is his. Check out how long guns sit on dealers shelves and gauge demand for yourself or look through the adverts on the forums and see for yourself the lack of interest.
I agree that the market has for some time been stronger for over and unders for years but shorter chambered ie 2 1/2 inch boxlocks with restricted capacity for steel due to their chamber length and restricted ammunition choice are simply not sufficiently future proofed to be a sensible choice for the average shooter even as a second gun. Your best option for a walked up side by side is an AYA number 4 that even in excellent condition can be bought for less than they were being sold for in the 1980s. so even if you were to opt for a side by side the lead shot issue would see you drawn to a more modern Spanish gun rather than a Birmingham boxlock.
This has been a bit of a ramble but from what you’re saying I think we have more opinions in common than differences so quite happy to agree to disagree and not close minded enough to say I’m sure I’m in the right but I’m basing my opinions on my own experience

 

[Ruger#1]

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

The problem is lack of evidence to justify any change not the presence of proof that indicates lead shot is having no impact. to date there has not been one bit of evidence that quantifies any impact on game bird populations from ingesting lead shot. Even the oft quoted GWCT concedes that that is correct. If you can provide that evidence put it up. The evidence is all around you no dead birds lying around due to lead shot ingestion induced death they all miraculously disappear yet I can walk round with a dog after a previous days shoot and find unpicked birds. The onus is on those seeking change to show just cause and to date that hasn’t occurred.

 

[Ruger#1]

Thank you, and I think that sums it up well and and even AI has produced some satire, that made me chuckle, on BASC being simultaneously ineffective and a 'tyrannical overlord' based on its analysis of comments on forums including SD. I might post it sometime.

As regards the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry launched by 9 organisations in Feb 2020 there has been 5+ years of consultation on that and this voluntary transition continues and an update provided by BASC here: Five years on: sustaining the transition away from lead

As regards consultation with members prior to BASC positions being agreed by BASC Council or consultation responses being submitted this has been covered many times before and indeed we once had a 'have your say' section on the BASC website around a decade ago following SD members requesting this which I managed. And what happened next? It was nil to negligible engagement. People wanted the consultation option but then did not choose to use it once it was there. I continue to engage on here on policy issues but the relentless trolling and unreasonable expectations by a few is starting to make this untenable moving forwards.

As regards engagement by people that shoot in policy developments on the future of lead ammunition the 2022 HSE lead restriction proposals consultation had 2,667 responses, a consultation that was promoted across the shooting community for the 6 months of its duration, and the final 2023 HSE consultation lead restriction proposal had 8,159 responses.

The HSE recommendations were published in December 2024.

The CA response: "The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK".

The CPSA response: "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".

The NGO response: "Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe.

BASC's detailed response to the HSE 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

The next update BASC publishes on lead ammo will likely be when the government responds to the HSE recommendations (which include a recommended ban on the use of lead shot for live quarry within 5 years). There are also already legislative proposals drafted for the EU (+NI) which include a proposed ban on the use of lead shot for live quarry within 3 years. I will provide an update on that when a response is published by the various hunting associations.

As addressed in previous posts can you confirm that BASC will continue to oppose further lead shot restrictions as stated earlier this year or has policy moved to accept further legislation on the use of lead shot ?
There is no mention of BASC opposition to further lead shot restrictions in the link supplied.

 

[63]

I appreciate bluntness 63 it’s a lot more welcome than deflection or selectively ignoring others posters points when replying.
I’ve read over my last few posts prior to your own and don’t see much evidence of rambling tirades , I tend to stick to the point I am making and try to include relevant information that substantiates the views expressed. I do try to answer any points raised in reply posts to my own so there will be a certain amount of “rambling” as I do fellow posters the courtesy of a full reply.

I am concerned about the lack of evidence to justify any future lead shot legislation especially when the message changes over time and appears to be politically motivated rather than evidence based. To date there has been no scientific data that measures any impact on game bird populations( and that is sourced from GWCT )and it is on that basis that I am prone to disagree with those who would accept further lead shot restrictions with no consideration of the wider picture.
Your interpretation of that as being “ just here to pick a fight” is wide of the mark. A more accurate and less dramatic conclusion is that I am representative of those shooters that disagree with a blanket lead shot ban that does not take into account resolving the lead shot issue by minimising the risk of harm by targeting only areas where there is more than minimal impact on flora and fauna.
You are correct that I am far from shy about making a dig but I think you will find I confine it to those who resort to making personal remarks with no attempt to address the points I have made , I’d accept the same in return but I tend to restrict myself to the points being addressed by posters rather than personal abuse.

I appreciate the straightforward response. I reread some of your posts...maybe it's just the lack of punctuation and spaces between them, but they have a ranty and breathless quality about them that makes them hard to follow; I stick by my view that they read as 'rambling tirades'. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you are genuinely sat there baffled as to why people think you're being a bit OTT consider the difference in reaction you'd get in the pub if you walked in and said:

"I helped my Uncle, Jack, off his horse."

vs

"I helped my uncle jack off his horse".



Maybe we're reading the latter and you're expecting us to have read the former? (and wondering why we're hiding our horses away from you)

As to the fight picking, a more accurate and less dramatic ( ) reading of what I wrote - "does rather suggest you're just here to pick a fight" I stand by the idea that joining a forum and only really engaging in a single thread, does suggest, imply or lead people to the conclusion that you are looking for a scrap.

Regards the lead ban, of course it's heavily political, and of course it changes over time. That is true for most things in the world. As best I understand it, BASC opposed a ban on lead ammunition, but also supported the voluntary phasing out of lead as a proactive environmental measure by shooters. Now that the ban is almost certainly happening, they seem to be focussing their efforts on securing the carve out for small calibre rifle ammunition, getting several more years to make a transition, and continuing to engage on whether .243 can fall on the 'small calibre' side of the boundary.

Whether you agree or disagree with that, it's not a particularly difficult position to understand, and it is clearly the position in the linked document. I also think it is quite self evidently irrelevant if BASC continue to oppose the ban or not, given the HSE and (it appears) many of the other shooting orgs are in favour.

For what it's worth, if BASC decided to go all in fighting this ban at this point in time;

What do you envisage that would look like in practical terms?

Do you think it would succeed in any way?

and

What do you assess the impact of fighting a lead ban tooth and nail would be on BASC's ability to effectively engage on other contemporary issues, like the potential 'section 1-ing' of shotguns? Or even to try and ensure that a lead ban wasn't total and immediate?

A final thought relating to the science aspects of this - real world policy decisions about things like this are not exclusively based on incontrovertible fact, they're typically based on 'balance of probability'. Do you think, on balance of probability, that use of lead shot is likely or unlikely to pose a risk to human and wildlife health?

 

[63]

Thats pretty typical, congratulations and welcome back, but you are far from typical in that you have taken shooting up again.
Most people let it go when they move from home, once they go, we lose them.
Have a look at the statistics in the USA, they need new recruits and licence sale's to fund their conservation projects so they keep on top of the statistics.
The average age of an active hunter/shooter is around 55 at the moment, people generally stop active hunting in their early 70’s, thats a big deficit.
I’m glad I’m on the right side of the curve, 70+ and tailing off.

I don't completely disagree, but I wonder if there's more to all this.

- People my age or thereabouts started work as a the 2008 crash happened, and as changing working patterns and rising house prices made it harder to stay in the countryside. I couldn't afford to live and work in the area I grew up - the available jobs didn't match house prices. Now I can work fairly remotely at a job that pays a 'London' wage, so I can afford to live rurally again. Lots of people I know are in the same boat, and I am starting to see youngsters coming into the 'remote' workplace without having had to move to a city at all. This might have the effect of 'de-greying' the countryside a bit, which will increase the potential for younger shooters.

- It'd be really interesting to see some stats on 'shooter recruitment' age - when do people start? I'd still contend that it is rarer in my generation for someone to have kept it up through their 20s and 30s, but I don't see it as unusual that I've taken it up again - as I said a fair few in my immediate circle of friends have in some form or another over the last few years, and more are to come. This is also common across hobbies in general, not just shooting.

- I don't know how you'd do it, but I wonder how numbers of 'serious shooters' compare to numbers of 'casual shooters'. Growing up lots of people had a shotgun that rarely saw the light of day, maybe a couple of rounds of clays a year and a rough shoot every once in a while. I wonder if this sort of shooter (and their US equivalent - perhaps the guy who does 4 hours in a tree stand every opening day and shoots 2 deer a decade) is in decline, but serious shooters less so?

If nothing else I'll stick to it because shooting makes me (relatively) young again. If anyone wants to bequeath their permissions I'm right here.

 

[Smellydog]

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?

None, don't need any, don't need or want a narrative either.
No one has been proven to be ill from using lead ammunition and there is freaking birds of all types everywhere.
It's a non issue

 

[Ruger#1]

I appreciate the straightforward response. I reread some of your posts...maybe it's just the lack of punctuation and spaces between them, but they have a ranty and breathless quality about them that makes them hard to follow; I stick by my view that they read as 'rambling tirades'. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you are genuinely sat there baffled as to why people think you're being a bit OTT consider the difference in reaction you'd get in the pub if you walked in and said:

"I helped my Uncle, Jack, off his horse."

vs

"I helped my uncle jack off his horse".



Maybe we're reading the latter and you're expecting us to have read the former? (and wondering why we're hiding our horses away from you)

As to the fight picking, a more accurate and less dramatic ( ) reading of what I wrote - "does rather suggest you're just here to pick a fight" I stand by the idea that joining a forum and only really engaging in a single thread, does suggest, imply or lead people to the conclusion that you are looking for a scrap.

Regards the lead ban, of course it's heavily political, and of course it changes over time. That is true for most things in the world. As best I understand it, BASC opposed a ban on lead ammunition, but also supported the voluntary phasing out of lead as a proactive environmental measure by shooters. Now that the ban is almost certainly happening, they seem to be focussing their efforts on securing the carve out for small calibre rifle ammunition, getting several more years to make a transition, and continuing to engage on whether .243 can fall on the 'small calibre' side of the boundary.

Whether you agree or disagree with that, it's not a particularly difficult position to understand, and it is clearly the position in the linked document. I also think it is quite self evidently irrelevant if BASC continue to oppose the ban or not, given the HSE and (it appears) many of the other shooting orgs are in favour.

For what it's worth, if BASC decided to go all in fighting this ban at this point in time;

What do you envisage that would look like in practical terms?

Do you think it would succeed in any way?

and

What do you assess the impact of fighting a lead ban tooth and nail would be on BASC's ability to effectively engage on other contemporary issues, like the potential 'section 1-ing' of shotguns? Or even to try and ensure that a lead ban wasn't total and immediate?

A final thought relating to the science aspects of this - real world policy decisions about things like this are not exclusively based on incontrovertible fact, they're typically based on 'balance of probability'. Do you think, on balance of probability, that use of lead shot is likely or unlikely to pose a risk to human and wildlife health?

Thanks for the detailed reply most of which I disagree with but I don’t think repitition of the points I have already made in a different way will sway your beliefs . I have limited time to spend on any forum and so prioritise when it comes to which threads I engage in. I’ve a fairly straightforward outlook and expect BASC to represent the best interests of its members and put simply I don’t think they are doing that . The promotion of inconclusive data regarding lead shot ingestion with no quantifiable impact derived from any of the studies carried out indicates not only an acceptance of further lead shot legislation but encourages it despite their oft reported policy of continuing to oppose further lead shot restrictions.
The linked document fails to mention any opposition to further lead shot legislation yet the BASC response to the HSE final consultation stated quite clearly “ BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK” Questioning the contents of the link and the reasons for the absence of any mention of opposing further lead shot restrictions directly with the poster prompts no response.
I don’t think for one second that it is self evidently irrelevant if BASC continues to oppose the ban or not because it is their stated policy to do so and that being the case they are obliged to do so. As there have been no statements notifying a change of policy then that policy should stand.
The rhetoric you use to describe any opposition to further restrictions by BASC ie deciding to go all in fighting , fighting a lead ban tooth and nail hardly reflects the reality of choosing to insist that any change is evidence based and seeks to minimise risk rather than eradicate it ,that would be an actual real world policy decision one based on fact rather than emotional argument and political bias with no scientific basis. You don’t oppose just in cases you know you can win you oppose matters on principle regardless of win or lose , remember once the lead obstacle is gone the next target will appear until quarry shooting is legislated out of existence. How often can you go down the road of appeasement until there’s nothing left to give away ?
On the balance of probability and as despite the best efforts of many anti biased scientific studies resulting in no evidence of lead shot ingestion having any quantifiable impact on game bird populations and because all of the evidence supplied up until 2016 had both DEFRA and BASC agree that there was no evidence to justify further lead shot restrictions and that there has been no post 2016 studies to contradict those findings I can state quite confidently that I believe the use of lead shot has negligible impact on human and wildlife health.
As an aside a greater improvement on the impact of individual wildlife health would be ensured if you and as many others as you could influence were to give up recreational sport shooting if that is what you do, would you be prepared to do that in your quest to improve wildlife health ?

 

[Ruger#1]

appreciate the straightforward response. I reread some of your posts...maybe it's just the lack of punctuation and spaces between them, but they have a ranty and breathless quality about them that makes them hard to follow; I stick by my view that they read as 'rambling tirades'. I'm not trying to be rude, but if you are genuinely sat there baffled as to why people think you're being a bit OTT consider the difference in reaction you'd get in the pub if you walked in and said:

"I helped my Uncle, Jack, off his horse."

vs

"I helped my uncle jack off his horse".

I’ve read over a fair few of my posts. I can’t see much wrong with the punctuation regarding the use of apostrophes. A few of the sentences while grammatically correct are a bit long perhaps so maybe reading slower to allow you to absorb the information might improve things. In the quest for improvement however if you could give me a couple of examples of the worst of the rambling tirades that might give me more of an insight.

 

[Crunchy Peanut Butter]

But as my last word (unless I have another).

looks like I am going to have another:

I am enjoying this thread as it actually seems to be evolving and it is refreshing to see people challenge the now old and tired challenges of "lead not working, too expensive" etc.

The only reason I re-enter this thread is that people have brought up the issue of new shooters joining the sport. I come from a family where no one has shot or taken part in any field sports, as such I am pretty much entirely self taught. When I was in my teens trying to break into the sport I hung off every word of those who claimed to be experienced (I am now firmly of the view that age is not an indicator of experience). In retrospect I was lucky with some of the views which I took to heart and fortunately streetwise enough to question others, although in some cases it took me a while to do this.

A young person (or older person) joining the SD who has little or no experience will likely take much of the negativity about a non toxic future at face value and no doubt it will temper or even extinguish their enthusiasm before their shooting careers have had a chance to take flight. Noting that Non-Toxic is ABSOLUTELY viable as an alternative, it would be great if the naysayers could be reflective enough to separate their own personal gripes from fact, and maybe think of the impact their words could have on a newcomer.

For all those getting into shooting or capable of adapting, get ready for all the stalking and shooting permissions becoming available when half the shooting community apparently down tools because of non toxic. I for one will be at the front of the queue!

 

[308tikka]

Or why in New Zealand lead shot is still very much allowed and permitted for shooting with some defined exceptions?

There are many shoots in the UK who would be lawful of the New Zealand model for lead and non-lead shot were the answer here as they would be more than two hundred metres away from water which...in their rules is which is "taken as any stream, river, lake or tidal area, "more than 3m wide".

I have consistently asked why BASC rejects the New Zealand model as a solution, so I'll ask again...why? I hope that a public answer on this thread can than be made.

For is not the reality the need to sustain big bag commercial shooting and its fiction of it being harvesting game meat for the food chain?

So it is really not at all about not welfare of birds ingesting lead - that's the "smoke and mirrors" to bamboozle the ordinary shooting punter. Because in fact it about lead shot game being unsaleable to the major supermarkets and so the sustaining the myth, the defence, the justification of big bag commercial shooting.

That big bag commercial shooting is misunderstood. That it is in fact just wealthy folk out with their guns and together collectively "harvesting game for the public benefit of the the homemaker of the family of modest income which doesn't shoot but enjoys eating pheasant".

Non-toxic shot regulations

Hunters are required to use non-toxic shot when hunting waterfowl within 200 metres of water. 2021 saw a complete ban on the use of lead shot for all but 410 gauge, and that exemption ended at the end of the 2023 game bird hunting season. This ban will be strictly enforced on public, private...

www.fishandgame.org.nz

Same with commercial sale of carcasses to game dealers. Until of course, events in 2020 meant that went out the window and it was a quick reversion to ‘we will take anything shot with lead’.

There might appear to be a level of support within some orgs for positions which benefit large commercial entities to the detriment of wider membership and to the welfare of animals by promoting a method which is much more likely to injure or kill more slowly than LBA.

One must wonder why such a position is held so enthusiastically. £££££ ?

 

[63]

I have limited time to spend on any forum and so prioritise when it comes to which threads I engage in.

Fair enough, although you've smashed out an average of 5.9 posts a day since you joined the forum, which kind of suggests you've got time on your hands. Ultimately whether you like it or not, joining a forum to pursue a single topic, and to a large extent, a single person (@Conor O'Gorman) is at odds with generally accepted etiquette. It's your right to do so, but it is naive of you to be surprised that some people have had a negative reaction to it.

I appreciate you're probably a bit older than the internet - it's probably the online equivalent of someone who comes to the pub and is a 'bore'; dominating the conversation and only talking about one topic.

I’ve read over a fair few of my posts. I can’t see much wrong with the punctuation regarding the use of apostrophes. A few of the sentences while grammatically correct are a bit long perhaps so maybe reading slower to allow you to absorb the information might improve things. In the quest for improvement however if you could give me a couple of examples of the worst of the rambling tirades that might give me more of an insight.

It is the commas, rather than the apostrophes, that make the difference between helping your uncle dismount and a questionable act.

I dislike a grammar nazi as much as the next man, and I'm a bit embarrassed to find myself in the position of being one, but I am intrigued by the possibility that you are not, in fact, an angry troll and it's just a stylistic thing.

In the interests of objectivity, I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last post:

How good is the written English in this passage?
Thanks for the detailed reply most of which I disagree with but I don’t think repitition of the points I have already made in a different way will sway your beliefs . I have limited time to spend on any forum and so prioritise when it comes to which threads I engage in. I’ve a fairly straightforward outlook and expect BASC to represent the best interests of its members and put simply I don’t think they are doing that . The promotion of inconclusive data regarding lead shot ingestion with no quantifiable impact derived from any of the studies carried out indicates not only an acceptance of further lead shot legislation but encourages it despite their oft reported policy of continuing to oppose further lead shot restrictions. The linked document fails to mention any opposition to further lead shot legislation yet the BASC response to the HSE final consultation stated quite clearly “ BASC is opposed to any further regulation on the use of lead ammunition in the UK” Questioning the contents of the link and the reasons for the absence of any mention of opposing further lead shot restrictions directly with the poster prompts no response. I don’t think for one second that it is self evidently irrelevant if BASC continues to oppose the ban or not because it is their stated policy to do so and that being the case they are obliged to do so. As there have been no statements notifying a change of policy then that policy should stand. The rhetoric you use to describe any opposition to further restrictions by BASC ie deciding to go all in fighting , fighting a lead ban tooth and nail hardly reflects the reality of choosing to insist that any change is evidence based and seeks to minimise risk rather than eradicate it ,that would be an actual real world policy decision one based on fact rather than emotional argument and political bias with no scientific basis. You don’t oppose just in cases you know you can win you oppose matters on principle regardless of win or lose , remember once the lead obstacle is gone the next target will appear until quarry shooting is legislated out of existence. How often can you go down the road of appeasement until there’s nothing left to give away ? On the balance of probability and as despite the best efforts of many anti biased scientific studies resulting in no evidence of lead shot ingestion having any quantifiable impact on game bird populations and because all of the evidence supplied up until 2016 had both DEFRA and BASC agree that there was no evidence to justify further lead shot restrictions and that there has been no post 2016 studies to contradict those findings I can state quite confidently that I believe the use of lead shot has negligible impact on human and wildlife health. As an aside a greater improvement on the impact of individual wildlife health would be ensured if you and as many others as you could influence were to give up recreational sport shooting if that is what you do, would you be prepared to do that in your quest to improve wildlife health ?

ChatGPT said:​

The passage you wrote has good ideas and strong points, but the quality of the English writing itself is quite poor overall, mainly because of the following problems:

---

Key issues:

1. Sentence length and structure:
   Most sentences are extremely long, running on without proper breaks (run-on sentences). This makes it tiring and confusing to read.
2. Punctuation errors:
   There are many missing commas, full stops (periods), and some incorrect use of conjunctions ("and," "but") where new sentences should start.
3. Spelling mistake:
   • "repitition" → should be "repetition."
   • "anti biased" → unclear phrase; possibly you meant "anti-bias" or "biased against"?
4. Clarity and flow:
   Some points are mixed together, making the argument hard to follow. You often switch topics mid-paragraph (e.g., moving from BASC policy to whether someone should stop recreational shooting) without clear transitions.
5. Tone and style:
   It's quite confrontational and informal, which may be appropriate depending on the forum, but it could be more persuasive if the language were more measured and logically organized.

---

Strengths:

• Your vocabulary is good enough to express complex ideas.
• You have a clear passion and commitment to your point of view.
• You reference specific evidence (HSE consultation, DEFRA reports), which adds credibility.

---

Brief example of a cleaner rewrite of the first few lines:

Thank you for your detailed reply. While I disagree with much of it, I don't believe that repeating my points in different words will change your views. I have limited time to engage on forums, so I prioritize where I contribute. My outlook is straightforward: I expect BASC to represent its members' best interests. Put simply, I do not believe they are doing so.

See how shorter, clearer sentences make the meaning easier to grasp?

---

Overall rating: 4/10 for writing quality.
(But 7/10 for strength of argument once cleaned up.)

---

Would you like me to show you a full, properly edited version of your passage? It would really bring out your points more powerfully.

I'm going to leave the topic of language and style now - I've said my piece, to which you've been very reasonable and receptive. That suggests to me that you're probably not being as much of an arse as you at first appeared to be.

I still disagree with you on both lead and BASC though.

 

[Dunwaters]

None, don't need any, don't need or want a narrative either.
No one has been proven to be ill from using lead ammunition and there is freaking birds of all types everywhere.
It's a non issue

You do seem to spend a lot of time and effort denying the “ non issue “.
The lead ban is a fait accompli, only the finer details remain to be worked out.
Its coming.
Soon.

 

[Ruger#1]

Fair enough, although you've smashed out an average of 5.9 posts a day since you joined the forum, which kind of suggests you've got time on your hands. Ultimately whether you like it or not, joining a forum to pursue a single topic, and to a large extent, a single person (@Conor O'Gorman) is at odds with generally accepted etiquette. It's your right to do so, but it is naive of you to be surprised that some people have had a negative reaction to it.

I appreciate you're probably a bit older than the internet - it's probably the online equivalent of someone who comes to the pub and is a 'bore'; dominating the conversation and only talking about one topic.



It is the commas, rather than the apostrophes, that make the difference between helping your uncle dismount and a questionable act.

I dislike a grammar nazi as much as the next man, and I'm a bit embarrassed to find myself in the position of being one, but I am intrigued by the possibility that you are not, in fact, an angry troll and it's just a stylistic thing.

In the interests of objectivity, I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last post:



I'm going to leave the topic of language and style now - I've said my piece, to which you've been very reasonable and receptive. That suggests to me that you're probably not being as much of an arse as you at first appeared to be.

I still disagree with you on both lead and BASC though.

I appreciate the time taken to ChatGPT my post and would say in my defence that the points that I make regarding the drive towards non lead shot take priority over sentence structure and grammar As you say 5.9 posts a day and plenty of other things to do leaves little time for proof reading. I have no opinion on grammar Nazis and quite content to ignore them in the knowledge that their behaviour probably influences very few people.
I notice you’re own confrontational tone and desire to pigeon hole me as an undesirable stereotype. Would you not say that it’s fair that your personal remarks mimic the behaviour you are complaining about ?
The assumptions that you base your personal remarks are incorrect and as I have already stated that twice I assume you add dishonest to the list of my character shortcomings.
What is glaringly obvious is that you prefer to spend most of your own time in response to my posts posting personal remarks and that you have spent little time debating the issues I have raised and have ignored points I have made.
The reason for my posting is to raise awareness of the lack of quality opposition to restrictions on the use of lead shot. In 2016 the decision was made by DEFRA that evidence was insufficient to justify a lead shot ban and BASC agreed that that was the case. No studies since 2016 have been presented to override that conclusion. BASC’s decision therefore to flood forums with information that supports the view that lead shot ingestion inland leads to unsustainable bird losses is a mystery when no such evidence exists. Perhaps you can enlighten me on why you consider that there is justification for further lead shot restrictions without resorting to generalisations.
If the evidenced opinion was strong enough to justify further lead shot restrictions then I would be inundated with references to studies that show a link between the single figure lead shot ingestion rates and a decline in bird populations and to date that hasn’t happened.
If the main concern was the rate at which lead shot was deposited over the countryside then commercial shoots would be in the firing line , that hasn’t happened either.
If BASC intended protecting our sporting heritage then they would have made the case for the use of vintage guns on low impact rough shooting where there is minimal lead shot dispersal.
A blanket ban is the only option under discussion.
We appear to have a new breed of shooters rushing to accept the modern non toxics almost like a need to be fashionable and failing to question whether there is any substance in the arguments put forward for doing so.
If you still fail to disagree with me on BASC and lead can you put forward evidenced opinions to support your views.

 

[Ruger#1]

You do seem to spend a lot of time and effort denying the “ non issue “.
The lead ban is a fait accompli, only the finer details remain to be worked out.
Its coming.
Soon

You seem delighted with the thought. The focus should be on whether such a ban is justified rather than joy at accepting further restrictions. The anti lead shot lobby will morph into the anti plastic wad lobby or other suchlike as they march on to deprive future generations of the sport you have enjoyed over your lifetime. Give yourself a pat on the back for welcoming in the anticipated restrictions ,the millions of released pheasants will thrive in the new lead shot free environment