Lead ammunition restrictions - government announcement
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
- Status
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
But there's nothing stopping birds consuming lumps of fragmented lead, surely that was the ethos behind the lead shot over wetlands/wildfowl shooting ban?
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Precisely, otherwise why the ban on lead shot for clay pigeon shooting?
It’s worked to a degree, a few of my shooting friends coming to the end of their shooting hobbies having done a sackful…
Some have just jacked altogether and some let go certain calibres and such
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
You’re having a laugh there ain’t gonna be no buyback!Well good job I’m stocked up. Where’s the buy back
Stevie/P
Well-Known Member
Well good luck on that one if the post office scandal is anything to go by you’ve no chance wrongfully convicted are still waiting on a payout from government.Well good job I’m stocked up. Where’s the buy back
Just weigh um in at the scrap yard Haha
So sadly the legislation in practice will probably rob a segment of the shooting community of a few years involvement in shooting sports.
Had lead shot use been permitted for use for home consumption of game shot and only quarry destined for the market having to be shot using non toxic then the perceived risks would have been greatly minimised without massive disruption to grassroots shooters who shoot for the table and do so to enjoy the outdoors with a purpose.. It’s a pity our main organisations failed to approach the issue from that standpoint.
To state that the initiative will clean up our waterways as DEFRA has done when the health of British waterways is so poor hopefully highlights the inadequate protection given to them to ensure even minimal standards, just 15% of English rivers attain good ecological health.
Let’s face it we are an easy target for a good headline for bureaucrats that drive the system but that are incapable of dealing with the real problems. The apologists that are keen to appease and virtue signal over the lead shot issue fail to see that the issue is driven by a failed bureaucracy and capitalised on by the anti fieldsports lobby. Hopeful the next inevitable attack on fieldsports will be more robustly opposed and BASC et al recognise that appeasement has been a failed policy. Portraying the present situation as a victory as it has given industry a few years to prepare for change is hardly a victory for grassroots shooters whose activities had negligible impact on the environment.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Not true, BASC and all the other shooting organisations in Europe have been fighting this for decades, the battle was lost when the rules were changed requiring us to show that what we were doing was harmless rather than requiring the officials to prove that we were doing harm.
No one has managed to successfully argue or demonstrate that the lead broadcast from cartridges is harmless and has no effect.
I suspect that your “ voluntary transition” was triggered by this reality and the realisation that a ban was coming.
Yet the posts from a BASC representative highlighted earlier in the thread fail to demonstrate any opposition to further lead shot restrictions , on the contrary they stated grounds for justifying further restrictions and a campaign of similar posts flooded forums in an effort to manipulate opinion. A quick Google will confirm this. If BASC were fighting against further lead ammunition restrictions then it was undermined by this activity on forums.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
What are the dates? BASC et all argued against lead restrictions for decades, even when it was obvious that there was a problem with wildfowl they argued, even when they knew as a result of their own investigations and international studies they argued.
They lost the argument with the WHO finding and no one has successfully challenged that finding nor do I expect anyone to challenge it.
Have a go yourself if you feel so inclined, but it looks like the arguments are over, you’re getting lead restrictions starting next year.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
But it is impossible to do, not just for lead.
For almost anything.
Can u prove water is safe?? People have died drinking too much water.
Really will not be long until various anti groups are saying the exact same about copper and steel.
I bet they are already rolling out the studies now.
If that is the new default position u are asked to prove something is safe .
Going to get very expensive and very hard to do.
As has been said both livestock and vegetation can be very succeptable to copper poisoning.
Never mind single use plastics!!
I bet W J et al are already working on their anti plastic wad ( which i 100% agree with) and plastic cartridge case campigns.
How does steel shot fare in cardboard cases?
Will it start to rust?
As soon as basc started this nonesense i said this will be the next line of attack and i bet no one at basc or ammo companies have started thinking about it yet. Never mind thinking about testing and upping production to cope with demand.
As will you and all those shooters who have negligible impact on the environment. I notice you fail to mention the pro lead shot restrictions posts from BASC that I mentioned. Not convenient for your argument or perhaps you are googling to see for yourself the extent of the hypocrisy.
It may not be impossible to prove a negative effect ie the absence of harm but in this case it is impractical. The absence of data quantifying any impact of lead ammunition use indicates little risk especially when compared to the risks linked to smoking and alcohol use. As mentioned earlier oh for an effective organisation that could lobby as effectively for us as happens for the large cigarette companies . Perhaps you could quantify or put into a context the risks associated with the use of lead shoot used in walked up shooting as practiced by many grassroots shooters and whether such risks merit the legislation being introduced.
As to “having a go myself” I would expect those salaried to represent shootings best interests would be better equipped to take on such a task, the absence of any significant compromise or exemptions indicates that trust is probably misplaced.
Last edited:
Stevie/P
Well-Known Member
No you’d be wrong thinking that.
But you’d be right thinking that their government is more sympathetic to its people and their wishes.
RF76
Well-Known Member
1)
Waitrose, the UK's largest game exporter.
(The EU requires all game entering its market to be Non-Toxic harvested).
www.thegrocer.co.uk
(Published in 2019, coincidental).
(With reference to Environmentally sensitive shoots).
2)
3)
www.unep-aewa.org
In 2020. A bit later than some Ban's.
4)
BAE produce 1Million rounds a day. A 15yr contract awarded in 2020. Service and Military granted exemptions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's always about the ££.
Waitrose, the UK's largest game exporter.
(The EU requires all game entering its market to be Non-Toxic harvested).
Waitrose to phase out lead-shot game across its estates
Waitrose claims to be the largest retailer of game in the UK
www.thegrocer.co.uk
(Published in 2019, coincidental).
(With reference to Environmentally sensitive shoots).
2)
- The WHO does not appear to recognise lead from ammunition as a lead source in food and no maximum allowable level of lead in game meat has been set under FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius.
3)
EU Takes Historic Decision to Ban the Use of Lead Shot for Hunting in Wetlands | AEWA
In a historic decision, the use of lead gunshot in wetlands will be banned in all European Union Member States under REACH, the EU’s framework regulation for chemicals. This decision is in response to the provisions of AEWA and marks one of the greatest conservation achievements in the 25-year...
In 2020. A bit later than some Ban's.
4)
BAE produce 1Million rounds a day. A 15yr contract awarded in 2020. Service and Military granted exemptions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's always about the ££.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately that’s what’s required.
Previously we were asking for proof of damage and arguing that every single study demonstrating the negative impacts of lead was flawed or didn’t apply to our particular circumstances.
There are quite a few on the forum still doing this.
However, we are now the ones answering the question and the question is along these lines…
“ Given that lead is a proven heavy metal poison with no safe level of exposure, demonstrate and prove that the several thousand tons of lead that you broadcast into the environment annually as part of a leisure industry has, as you claim, no deleterious impacts?”
Not an easy argument to counter, is it?
- Status
Similar threads
