EU ban on lead ammunition for airguns, shotguns and rifles

[Liveonce]

How would you personally go about implementing and policing a ban?
Theres an excellent chance that you’ll be right, it’s not rocket science and we’re dealing with a section of the population already conditioned to compliance with many many rules and regs.
The EU plan on banning sale, use and possession post transition, you are currently in lock step with them, so likely to implement something similar. How you police it, and the penalties for non compliance, are down to you but there will be both monitoring and consequences.
One of the main reasons for the limited number of exemptions granted has been shooter intransigence, we have fought every single proposal to limit lead use since the 80’s and we continue to do it.
The authorities are well aware of both our resistance to change and the long shelf life of ammunition. They’ll be expecting stockpiling and plan accordingly.
Post ban, I would expect possible home inspections, routine sampling of game offered for sale and ammo inspections when shooters are pulled over at random road checks or following complaints.
You can be absolutely certain that the penalties for non compliance will be swingeing, with fines, loss of certs and confiscation of guns all on the cards.
Depending on your shooting discipline, is the risk worth it?
For most of us, steel shot is perfectly adequate for wildfowling and game shooting, bismuth is pricy but available, non lead full bore rifle ammunition for stalking is already available and in regular use.
Rimfire and air gun ammunition would be a problem, but there are moves to give them a derogation, there are also possible derogations for muzzle loaders.
My bet is that compliance will be close to 100%, that won’t stop random lead cartridges popping up for the next century, or the their use by Klingons for another decade or so, but widespread use of lead will stop.
Most of us don’t need it, the ballistic superiority of lead is undeniable, but the alternatives work well enough for most of us.

I repeat when I have stated I would not comply with any legal lead ban?

As for the checks you suggest, who is going to pay for the lead patrol police?
Then if section 1 ammunition can continue to be sold with packaging information, restricting its use then why cannot lead shot cartridges likewise allowing its use for clay shooting to continue on bona fide clay grounds?

Sad really that shooter are prepared to throw each other under a bus, but not surprising it happened with the pistol ban and semi auto ban.

let’s have a vote on banning commercial game shooting, after all it really is untenable to breed and release millions of non native birds into the environment just for the fun of killing them when simulated game shooting is available using clays.

 

[Dunwaters]

I repeat when I have stated I would not comply with any legal lead ban?

True, you didn’t, but you did seem to imply that there would be no home checks or any other checks for that matter.

As for the checks you suggest, who is going to pay for the lead patrol police?

You will, either directly in increased fees or indirectly as a taxpayer. I would suspect that the need for policing will be of short duration, maybe government will just eat it as a once of, maybe not.

Then if section 1 ammunition can continue to be sold with packaging information, restricting its use then why cannot lead shot cartridges likewise allowing its use for clay shooting to continue on bona fide clay grounds?

No reason at all, and from what I read, there are exemptions proposed to facilitate use of lead on suitable grounds.
There could be an issue if lead “clay” cartridges were routinely turning up where they shouldn’t.

Sad really that shooter are prepared to throw each other under a bus, but not surprising it happened with the pistol ban and semi auto ban.

On the contrary, its our refusal to concede that there are shooting disciplines which could easily go lead free and move the arguments forward which has resulted in the current situation.

let’s have a vote on banning commercial game shooting, after all it really is untenable to breed and release millions of non native birds into the environment just for the fun of killing them when simulated game shooting is available using clays.

Please don’t go there, if you do this the cost of shooting live quarry, any live quarry, will quickly rival the price of gold per ounce of meat harvested. For game shooting it’s not just sufficient for the quarry species to survive, they have to both survive and produce a harvestable surplus every year.
I shoot birds over pointers, we release a couple of hundred birds annually and spend the season chasing them. We release birds because there is virtually zero annual recruitment from wild breeding pheasant and partridge. We do get snipe, woodcock and ducks, none of which can sustain a big increase in shooting pressure.
Without the annual artificial influx of raised birds there would be SFA to shoot over most of the country.
Were that to happen, you’d get your wish, but simulated game shooting would be the only game in town, game shooting itself wouldn’t survive.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

AS I have made unambiguously clear over a protracted period, including above, I don't blame BASC for either process, but for "inexplicably and incorrectly" accepting and even propagating the propaganda of anti-shooting activists. If you'd devoted half the energy to behaving properly over this - challenging erroneous claims, methodologically spurious and biased studies - that you'd devoted to promoting anti-shooting propaganda to your members and making scientifically illiterate claims about alternative ammunition to members of this site, then there is a fair probability that we wouldn't be where we are - which is looking down the barrel of draconian restrictions to the detriment of shooting.

That does not make any sense. BASC has done exactly that in its responses to the HSE during its review of lead ammunition under the post-Brexit UK REACH process. As did other shooting organisations. As a result various initial HSE proposals were amended and dropped, namely the following:

Transition period for restrictions on lead shot extended from three to five years.
No restrictions on lead rifle ammunition for small calibres below .243.
Target shooting with lead rifle ammunition to continue on most ranges.
Airgunning with lead pellets to continue for target shooting and live quarry.

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

Now we await government decisions on the various recommendations in the HSE report and then we can take stock of that.

As regards the EU, the European Chemicals Agency recommendations on lead ammunition were published several years ago, many similar to what the HSE proposed last year. So with that in mind, who in the EU do you blame for 'promoting anti-shooting propaganda to their members and making scientifically illiterate claims about alternative ammunition to members of this site'?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Quite right. The science on lead shot ingestion is that it is extremely toxic to many types of bird but that there is very little evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild outside wetlands. There is a reputable study on partridges ingesting lead shot and being poisoned, I believe, off chalk fields in the South Downs. There is no evidence to support the idea that this occurs in most other habitats. Sources that @Conor O'Gorman stated were more authoritative than him said there was "little evidence". He remains in denial of the science.

In 2020 there was sufficient evidence for birds ingesting lead shot in the wild outside wetlands to underpin the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting in the UK. The evidence continues to grow. You are free to disbelieve the evidence that the GWCT's scientists have reviewed. There are some that disbelieve the evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands. What evidence would you present to them that supports your belief that there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands? Name one scientific paper from research undertaken in the UK whose findings you agree with.

 

[Ruger#1]

On the contrary, its our refusal to concede that there are shooting disciplines which could easily go lead free and move the arguments forward which has resulted in the current situation.

As a major argument in the promotion of a lead free tomorrow is the presence of lead shot in game meat provided for general consumption surely the first concession considered should have been a ban on the use of lead shot when the game shot is intended for the game meat market.
This has also been raised previously on forum and again BASC showed no interest in addressing the issue other than in terms of a complete “voluntary’ ban. There are many ways the issue could have been approached in order to address minimising risk where conceded appropriate and giving leeway for minimal risk shooting with lead to continue. BASC and in particular C O’G chose not to go down that route.
We now consider ourselves open to being labelled criminals and potentially losing our tickets for using lead in circumstances where the scale of detriment has not been quantified and is probably non existent.
As seen on this and other forums the issue has divided the shooting community. It should have united them to perhaps make concessions and go some way to appeasing those that are driving the agenda to ban lead where considered appropriate but without the consequence of having to retire much treasured sporting guns whose continued use would have insignificant impact. What is sadly missing is an intelligent impact assessed response to the issue of lead shot.
What we are getting is a draconian authoritarian approach which reflects an anti shooting agenda rather than a sincere measured solution which addresses the actual impact of lead ammunition use . That some shooters are only too happy to embrace this situation is puzzling.
There seems little prospect of any measurable improvement should such legislation come into effect and the long term consequence is yet further pressure on what will only become more of a minority pastime , easily quantified when the demographics of ticket holders are taken into consideration.

 

[dersbum]

You cannot. There is no supply of leaded petrol anywhere in the world.

Belligerently? Really? Exercising a right which has hitherto been the norm since time immemorial is belligerent?

I think that applies to bulk propellants or explosives, not ammunition. It does not seem to be necessary for people to have an explosives licence to bulk buy cartridges. Lots of syndicates group buy 10,000 at a time.

R 6SR – 105 RON | Anglo American Oil Company

aaoil.co.uk

 

[timbrayford]

How would you personally go about implementing and policing a ban?
Theres an excellent chance that you’ll be right, it’s not rocket science and we’re dealing with a section of the population already conditioned to compliance with many many rules and regs.
The EU plan on banning sale, use and possession post transition, you are currently in lock step with them, so likely to implement something similar. How you police it, and the penalties for non compliance, are down to you but there will be both monitoring and consequences.
One of the main reasons for the limited number of exemptions granted has been shooter intransigence, we have fought every single proposal to limit lead use since the 80’s and we continue to do it.
The authorities are well aware of both our resistance to change and the long shelf life of ammunition. They’ll be expecting stockpiling and plan accordingly.
Post ban, I would expect possible home inspections, routine sampling of game offered for sale and ammo inspections when shooters are pulled over at random road checks or following complaints.
You can be absolutely certain that the penalties for non compliance will be swingeing, with fines, loss of certs and confiscation of guns all on the cards.
Depending on your shooting discipline, is the risk worth it?
For most of us, steel shot is perfectly adequate for wildfowling and game shooting, bismuth is pricy but available, non lead full bore rifle ammunition for stalking is already available and in regular use.
Rimfire and air gun ammunition would be a problem, but there are moves to give them a derogation, there are also possible derogations for muzzle loaders.
My bet is that compliance will be close to 100%, that won’t stop random lead cartridges popping up for the next century, or the their use by Klingons for another decade or so, but widespread use of lead will stop.
Most of us don’t need it, the ballistic superiority of lead is undeniable, but the alternatives work well enough for most of us.

No, there is no merit in steel shot, it only gets a mention solely on cost grounds alone. If we must move on from lead let it be with something ballistically superior driven by the long established fibre wad. The ball is very firmly in the cartridge manufacturers park, let them lead the transition and not the HSE nor a.o. shooting organisation as neither seem to be bothered to look into the issue in depth.

 

[Ruger#1]

The evidence continues to grow. You are free to disbelieve the evidence that the GWCT's scientists have reviewed. There are some that disbelieve the evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands

There is absolutely no quantifiable evidence of any impact of lead shot use inland on any bird population so there has been no growth there.
Your argument that some disbelieve the evidence of birds ingesting lead shot is a red herring. What is in dispute is the impact of lead shot ingestion and you and all the studies you quote are incapable of quantifying that.
Instead of spending more time making a pretty shaky case for further legislation while maintaining BASC is fighting on our behalf to oppose that legislation would it not be more appropriate to be making the case for the voluntary aspect of any future ban as is BASC’s official stance.
If you are not prepared to reflect BASC policy in your posts then you should be making it clear that your posting reflects your personal opinion.
If you are posting while in the paid employment of BASC then surely it is only reasonable that your posts reflect BASC policy .

 

[Ruger#1]

Going round and round in this perpetuated argument is hardly addressing the problems we face. Perhaps more time should be spent addressing the issues and representing shooters rather than finding ways to justify appeasing a small vocal anti shooting minority.

 

[Dunwaters]

No, there is no merit in steel shot, it only gets a mention solely on cost grounds alone. If we must move on from lead let it be with something ballistically superior driven by the long established fibre wad. The ball is very firmly in the cartridge manufacturers park, let them lead the transition and not the HSE nor a.o. shooting organisation as neither seem to be bothered to look into the issue in depth.

The merit in steel shot is that it works, we know this because it has been mandated for wildfowl in both the UK and numerous other countries.
If you want something ballistically superior, use bismuth or Hevi shot.
No argument, lead is superior, but steel is good enough.
The cartridge manufacturers will be reactive rather than pro active, like it or not, the transition will be driven by government decree.

 

[timbrayford]

In 2020 there was sufficient evidence for birds ingesting lead shot in the wild outside wetlands to underpin the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting in the UK. The evidence continues to grow. You are free to disbelieve the evidence that the GWCT's scientists have reviewed. There are some that disbelieve the evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands. What evidence would you present to them that supports your belief that there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands? Name one scientific paper from research undertaken in the UK whose findings you agree with.

With all due respect Conor are you supporting the shooting community or fighting against it? If supporting you may care to rephrase what you have to say, whatever your opinion is?

 

[timbrayford]

The merit in steel shot is that it works, we know this because it has been mandated for wildfowl in both the UK and numerous other countries.
If you want something ballistically superior, use bismuth or Hevi shot.
The cartridge manufacturers will be reactive rather than pro active, like it or not, the transition will be driven by government decree.

We must agree to differ

 

[Dunwaters]

As a major argument in the promotion of a lead free tomorrow is the presence of lead shot in game meat provided for general consumption surely the first concession considered should have been a ban on the use of lead shot when the game shot is intended for the game meat market.

Not true, the main driver is to remove lead shot from places where it is inadvertently consumed by wildlife. Human consumption is very much a secondary issue. You can personally eat as much as you like. What you may not do is continue to broadcast tons of the stuff annually into the environment where it may cause a problem purely because you always have.

This has also been raised previously on forum and again BASC showed no interest in addressing the issue other than in terms of a complete “voluntary’ ban. There are many ways the issue could have been approached in order to address minimising risk where conceded appropriate and giving leeway for minimal risk shooting with lead to continue. BASC and in particular C O’G chose not to go down that route.
We now consider ourselves open to being labelled criminals and potentially losing our tickets for using lead in circumstances where the scale of detriment has not been quantified and is probably non existent.
As seen on this and other forums the issue has divided the shooting community. It should have united them to perhaps make concessions and go some way to appeasing those that are driving the agenda to ban lead where considered appropriate but without the consequence of having to retire much treasured sporting guns whose continued use would have insignificant impact. What is sadly missing is an intelligent impact assessed response to the issue of lead shot.
What we are getting is a draconian authoritarian approach which reflects an anti shooting agenda rather than a sincere measured solution which addresses the actual impact of lead ammunition use . That some shooters are only too happy to embrace this situation is puzzling.
There seems little prospect of any measurable improvement should such legislation come into effect and the long term consequence is yet further pressure on what will only become more of a minority pastime , easily quantified when the demographics of ticket holders are taken into consideration.

I would agree that BASC did a less than wonderful job with their voluntary transition, their refusal to set down milestones and monitor progress is inexcusable, but they weren’t helped when the promised game dealer lead ban failed to materialise.
Lead shot is a problem for wildlife, there are hundreds of studies confirming it, lead ingestion was identified as a factor affecting ducks at population level in the USA, which is what triggered their federal ban.
Our refusal as shooters to accept that their may be a problem is what triggered the draconian authoritarian approach.
We left them with no choice.

 

[Apthorpe]

R 6SR – 105 RON | Anglo American Oil Company

aaoil.co.uk

I stand corrected. I'd read a year or so ago that the last refinery in the world producing the stuff had stopped. I hadn't really considered that someone might still be mixing it specially by the barrel.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

With all due respect Conor are you supporting the shooting community or fighting against it? If supporting you may care to rephrase what you have to say, whatever your opinion is?

Please clarify what you would like me to rephrase. Given your interest in the science, do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

 

[timbrayford]

Conor, whatever your opinion might be, there is no need for the aggression, all that does is keep the antis amused. If you have a different point of view by all means express it but respect the fact others are entitled to their opinion too, no matter how much you disagree with it.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor, whatever your opinion might be, there is no need for the aggression, all that does is keep the antis amused. If you have a different point of view by all means express it but respect the fact others are entitled to their opinion too, no matter how much you disagree with it.

You have lost me there. Given your interest in the science, do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

 

[Apthorpe]

Not true, the main driver is to remove lead shot from places where it is inadvertently consumed by wildlife. Human consumption is very much a secondary issue. You can personally eat as much as you like. What you may not do is continue to broadcast tons of the stuff annually into the environment where it may cause a problem purely because you always have.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, it didn't cause a problem. Then there is no basis for a ban. That is the actuality, so far as science is able to determine reasonably.

I would agree that BASC did a less than wonderful job with their voluntary transition, their refusal to set down milestones and monitor progress is inexcusable, but they weren’t helped when the promised game dealer lead ban failed to materialise.
Lead shot is a problem for wildlife, there are hundreds of studies confirming it,

Tendentious claim in large part.

lead ingestion was identified as a factor affecting ducks at population level in the USA, which is what triggered their federal ban.
Our refusal as shooters to accept that their may be a problem is what triggered the draconian authoritarian approach.
We left them with no choice.

Nonsense. They could quite easily have performed some scientific studies demonstrating population-level harm to UK species outside wetlands, if you premise is correct. No study to date has been able to do any such thing.

 

[timbrayford]

You have lost me there. Given your interest in the science, do you believe there is evidence of birds ingesting lead shot in the wild within wetlands?

I believe that I've rather hit the nail firmly on the head, please carry on Conor, I have long since joined the ranks of disgruntled ex.BASC members and I am personally content to promote the cause of the shooting community as an individual.

 

[Liveonce]

True, you didn’t, but you did seem to imply that there would be no home checks or any other checks for that matter.

You will, either directly in increased fees or indirectly as a taxpayer. I would suspect that the need for policing will be of short duration, maybe government will just eat it as a once of, maybe not.

No reason at all, and from what I read, there are exemptions proposed to facilitate use of lead on suitable grounds.
There could be an issue if lead “clay” cartridges were routinely turning up where they shouldn’t.

On the contrary, its our refusal to concede that there are shooting disciplines which could easily go lead free and move the arguments forward which has resulted in the current situation.

Please don’t go there, if you do this the cost of shooting live quarry, any live quarry, will quickly rival the price of gold per ounce of meat harvested. For game shooting it’s not just sufficient for the quarry species to survive, they have to both survive and produce a harvestable surplus every year.
I shoot birds over pointers, we release a couple of hundred birds annually and spend the season chasing them. We release birds because there is virtually zero annual recruitment from wild breeding pheasant and partridge. We do get snipe, woodcock and ducks, none of which can sustain a big increase in shooting pressure.
Without the annual artificial influx of raised birds there would be SFA to shoot over most of the country.
Were that to happen, you’d get your wish, but simulated game shooting would be the only game in town, game shooting itself wouldn’t survive.

so you are happy for us or who ever to pay to police compliance after a total lead ban, yet this could have been done during the voluntary transition by engaging with game dealers and hence refusing to accept game shot with lead.
Wildfowling clubs generally look to have managed to police it, so why not game dealers?

And so what if game shooting did not survive, it is for a few months of the year and does not keep the industry in business all year round. Turnover keeps businesses in business and the live quarry game shooting is a small part of that turnover for cartridge importers, manufactures, RFDs.

BASC appears to prioritise game shooting above all other shooting, when in reality it’s a minority that participates in it.
They look to have their own agenda otherwise why are the minutes of their meeting regarding lead in confidence?