Lead ammunition restrictions - government announcement

[Happy stalker]

We all know that we are in a minority and all shooting sports are in a downward spiral some more so than others, I don’t think all the negativity helps us, why not put our energy into enjoying what we have and embrace change nothing stays the same it’s life, of course everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Anyway enjoy whatever ever shooting you do.

 

[Smellydog]

 

[Rewulf]

you know nothing of the negotiations over the last 40 years, you know nothing of the change in policy which forced shooting organisations to accept that lead restrictions were inevitable and you refuse to recognise the necessity for that change.

It seems a little odd that less than 10 years ago, BASC et al, fought tooth and nail against the LAG, citing 'No evidence, no change' and managed to win the argument.
It seems BASC policy changed more than anything, and if it was 'inevitable' back then, why didnt they just surrender, and 'welcome' the lead ban then, rather than doing it now ?

We are in terminal decline in all branches of the sport and lead has nothing to do with it.

Well banning lead certainly isnt going to help is it ?
The biggest factor in shooters giving up is cost, doctors pro forma, insurance, and higher cert fees.
Increased ammunition cost is just another nail in the coffin, maybe several nails.

 

[Ruger#1]

There is no hypocrisy in BASC’s position or the position of its employees. It is perfectly possible to oppose restrictions while accepting that restrictions are inevitable.
Every European shooting organisation had to make the same policy change.

For clarity the post you initially replied to rather than the initial post.

You deliberately miss the point yet again.

The point isn’t whether BASC opposed restrictions but at the same time accepted they were inevitable as you state that is not a point I have ever made.

The point is while BASC’s official policy was to oppose further lead shot restrictions its employee chose to undermine that policy stance by posting ad nauseum information in support of further lead shot restrictions.Perhaps you could explain why you consider that pointing that out and drawing attention to that fact is nonsense.

Despite trotting the above out for the umpteenth time you still fail to see or rather choose not to publicly acknowledge that the point regards hypocrisy hopefully at this umpteenth plus one reading the point is now clear.

I acknowledge your defence of BASC and the employee involved in stating that BASC has always opposed lead shot restrictions while being responsible for a back catalogue of posts which , let’s face it, at times were emotive tripe with the objective of undermining the case for opposing lead shot restrictions .
Isn’t it it time that responsibility and accountability made an appearance and characters like yourself chose not to confuse the issue by attempting to defend the indefensible.
You will note that the employee concerned gathers an enormous amount of criticism of his posts so let’s not pretend that he is the victim of some vigilante troll ,he has chosen to nail his personal colours to the mast regarding the lead shot issue and used his position as a BASC employee as a platform to spread what at times was misinformation.
Criticism has been well deserved and it has come from many quarters.
BASC bashing ,vindictiveness or personal attack is not an accurate assessment of the root of the criticism but a convenient explanation for choosing not to confront the issues raised in disagreement. Those posting in disagreement generally have no problem with accepting contrary opinions but tend to value honesty and straight talking and this has been sadly lacking throughout the lead shot issue.
For example having stated that BASC had conferred with the ammunition manufacturers regarding the imposition of a voluntary ban subsequently a document originating from the cartridge manufacturers signed by three directors was posted stating this had never happened was met with accusations that the document was faked . No evidence however was produced to confirm this and the names of the manufacturers who were consulted by BASC were unable to be supplied.

On a personal note I don’t know what qualifies you to state that I know nothing of the lead shot negotiations over the past forty years as you don’t know me from Adam but seem perfectly comfortable in expressing strong opinions on what I do and don’t know.55 years of shooting , committee membership of my then local wildfowling club where my father was secretary for many years and vice chairman of that club gave me plenty of experience of the move to non lead on the foreshore and the information surrounding the lead up to it , combined with continued membership of various syndicates over forty years and shooting a small number of deer now for approaching 20 years I’m not the newbie shot you’d like to portray me as.
While equally I don’t know who you are I do hoewever give you the respect of not assuming you are an idiot, your personal accusations point to the type of character you are. I feel no need to respond with personal insults.

Regarding your ninth attempt at deflection ,my earlier answer was to advise you to start a new thread and I would consider posting on it. You may have missed that reply as you appear to have a habit of missing the points made in my posts.
As I have now hopefully made my points abundantly clear you should have no problem engaging with them as stated in your last reply post.

 

[jall55]

Have u done much picking up??
Esp now with the clamour for 'high' birds.
Some of the ratios are disgusting, double figures plus




So have u 100% secured the excemptions?
That is set in stone?
If basc can potentially still influence MPs
Do u not think w j and others could as well.
With a liebour government in power, really struggling at polls and shafting farmers/rural areas for fun.
If i was in their shoes id be asking why not just ban the lot?
Hell even their main organiisation has been preaching that. And their 20? yr chairman and life member.
Wots the downside? No votes to be lost, no jobs that concern or matter to them.
I really hope im wrong but i ll be amazed if the exemptions stick when it is made into legislation.

And even if the exemptions do stay u can bet the experiments and studies are already funded and started into toxicity and effects of steel shot, copper bullets ( possibly not as much as they dont like deer either) and single use plastics.
Even the effect of bio wads, as someone else said on here wot are they breaking down too? Are they breaking down to micro plastics? If they are weve got problems as theyre trying to ban restrict them severely at moment.

Trying to appease antis simply doesnae work.
They dont care about anything other than their view/opinion and will use anything they can to make it harder for us to carry on.




To be brutally honest it would benefit uks wildlife far far more than these daft restrictions ever will.






Must admit i really love ur enthusasm and passion u have for game shooting.
I used to be like that but nowadays i really really struggle esp on commercial shoots.
After 40yrs being involved in both FT but mainly diy keepering and a lot off picking up.
Very few shoots really put that much back into the environment, other than supplementry feeding ( and even that many will empty hoppers at start of feb) and cover crops ( but most diy wont be able to afford to put in ).
I think ur shoot is 1 off the rare exceptions putting a massive amount back.
I really take my hat off to u
Even with predator control, i think our wee diy shoot is the only shoot left in whole valley that puts larson traps out. I know big shoots that hardly bother with any fox control until birds are out.
In fact so much so ive stopped going picking up and winding my pack of dogs down a bit.
That transition to steel really finished it for me, wounding rates on that shoot was unacceptable to me

I find shooting released birds very hard to justify now.
The attitude most guns on commercial days show just stinks, and sometimes not a lot better on smaller shoots.

I do debate quite strongly the massive benefits off grouse moor management thou.
Infact i think it was reading a post u wrote a while back that u do have to correct false info on social media
Atleast with that u are forced to manage a natural native habitat and predators so lots more animals benefit.

I think a "shoot" should be managed the same was as even an exemplar grouse moor
I know lots that have put in wild bird plots - dual purpose for game and wild farmland birds - many erect bird boxes and most manage the woods and hedges

 

[jall55]

Have u done much picking up??
Esp now with the clamour for 'high' birds.
Some of the ratios are disgusting, double figures plus




So have u 100% secured the excemptions?
That is set in stone?
If basc can potentially still influence MPs
Do u not think w j and others could as well.
With a liebour government in power, really struggling at polls and shafting farmers/rural areas for fun.
If i was in their shoes id be asking why not just ban the lot?
Hell even their main organiisation has been preaching that. And their 20? yr chairman and life member.
Wots the downside? No votes to be lost, no jobs that concern or matter to them.
I really hope im wrong but i ll be amazed if the exemptions stick when it is made into legislation.

And even if the exemptions do stay u can bet the experiments and studies are already funded and started into toxicity and effects of steel shot, copper bullets ( possibly not as much as they dont like deer either) and single use plastics.
Even the effect of bio wads, as someone else said on here wot are they breaking down too? Are they breaking down to micro plastics? If they are weve got problems as theyre trying to ban restrict them severely at moment.

Trying to appease antis simply doesnae work.
They dont care about anything other than their view/opinion and will use anything they can to make it harder for us to carry on.




To be brutally honest it would benefit uks wildlife far far more than these daft restrictions ever will.






Must admit i really love ur enthusasm and passion u have for game shooting.
I used to be like that but nowadays i really really struggle esp on commercial shoots.
After 40yrs being involved in both FT but mainly diy keepering and a lot off picking up.
Very few shoots really put that much back into the environment, other than supplementry feeding ( and even that many will empty hoppers at start of feb) and cover crops ( but most diy wont be able to afford to put in ).
I think ur shoot is 1 off the rare exceptions putting a massive amount back.
I really take my hat off to u
Even with predator control, i think our wee diy shoot is the only shoot left in whole valley that puts larson traps out. I know big shoots that hardly bother with any fox control until birds are out.
In fact so much so ive stopped going picking up and winding my pack of dogs down a bit.
That transition to steel really finished it for me, wounding rates on that shoot was unacceptable to me

I find shooting released birds very hard to justify now.
The attitude most guns on commercial days show just stinks, and sometimes not a lot better on smaller shoots.

I do debate quite strongly the massive benefits off grouse moor management thou.
Infact i think it was reading a post u wrote a while back that u do have to correct false info on social media
Atleast with that u are forced to manage a natural native habitat and predators so lots more animals benefit.

Done a bit of picking up and beating and been to a shoot or two for sure

 

[jall55]

Rotherham, I get dragged to Rotherham occasionally.

A box! Bloody hell, if I'm going to Doncaster it'll have to be a slab!!
A box, bloody true what they say about Yorkshire men!!!

Get foxed SD ! you seen the price of the stuff hahahahahahah

Drop me a line if you are up and i will even show you how to use it ! hahahah

 

[Rewulf]

Just so we can visualise the decline.
The doctors pro forma certainly had an impact in 2016, covid certainly in 2020, but it will be interesting to see the results in a couple of years time, when the impact of the lead ban are truly felt.
Less people shooting=Less people to protest against further, tighter legislation, not that we (or our shooting orgs) protest much now.

Edit. I dont think the images loaded (I cant see them anyway) heres the link Statistics on firearm and shotgun certificates, England and Wales: April 2023 to March 2024

 

[Apthorpe]

Just so we can visualise the decline.
The doctors pro forma certainly had an impact in 2016, covid certainly in 2020, but it will be interesting to see the results in a couple of years time, when the impact of the lead ban are truly felt.
Less people shooting=Less people to protest against further, tighter legislation, not that we (or our shooting orgs) protest much now.

I agree. Once you've got rid of .410s and 28 bores, as this proposed legislation will effectively do, you'll have lost the traditional entry route into shooting and numbers will go into slow freefall, or perhaps worse be restricted to old farts learning.

 

[HonestJohn]

Maybe because lots of people use 243 for foxes, and therefore nothing going into the food chain

Makes no sense

So what would the additional 2 years do? End result is the same.

There would still be lead contaminated dead foxes in the bushes that raptors will feed on

 

[countrryboy]

I think a "shoot" should be managed the same was as even an exemplar grouse moor
I know lots that have put in wild bird plots - dual purpose for game and wild farmland birds - many erect bird boxes and most manage the woods and hedges

Ur very lucky then.

I cant name a single shoot doing anything like that.
And i know my area very well throu beating, picking up and my day job too.
Very few woods ive not been mooching about in.

Yes some may have cover crops, but often up here their off minimal feed benifit to wild birds.
Vast majority are free range 'chicken ' farms now.

 

[jall55]

Ur very lucky then.

I cant name a single shoot doing anything like that.
And i know my area very well throu beating, picking up and my day job too.
Very few woods ive not been mooching about in.

Yes some may have cover crops, but often up here their off minimal feed benifit to wild birds.
Vast majority are free range 'chicken ' farms now.

Thats very sad mate
Most of our team get as much of a buzz sending each other pics of latest merlin report - or videos of latest fledging of hatchings - or latest raptor zooming about

Yes i am very lucky and i do appreciate it

 

[Dunwaters]

It seems a little odd that less than 10 years ago, BASC et al, fought tooth and nail against the LAG, citing 'No evidence, no change' and managed to win the argument.
It seems BASC policy changed more than anything, and if it was 'inevitable' back then, why didnt they just surrender, and 'welcome' the lead ban then, rather than doing it now ?

Back then we were in the position of being the ones demanding proof of harm, now, courtesy of the WHO, EHCA and REACH, the onus is squarely on us to prove that we’re not causing any.
That change triggered policy changes that made lead restrictions inevitable, we all had to change our stance.

Well banning lead certainly isnt going to help is it ?
The biggest factor in shooters giving up is cost, doctors pro forma, insurance, and higher cert fees.
Increased ammunition cost is just another nail in the coffin, maybe several nails.

I think lead is a by issue, the biggest single reason for shooters dropping out at the moment is age, but you’re right, all the palaver involved in getting a cert and hanging onto it doesn’t help.
Lack of access, the unpopularity of going out “ killing things” and the expense also rule a lot of people out.

 

[Apthorpe]

Back then we were in the position of being the ones demanding proof of harm, now, courtesy of the WHO, EHCA and REACH, the onus is squarely on us to prove that we’re not causing any.
That change triggered policy changes that made lead restrictions inevitable, we all had to change our stance.

I wonder if you're able to explain coherently "that change" which you say the WHO, ECHA, and REACH did between 2016 and Feb 2020. So far as I know, they did not change policy as you claim, but I am uninformed on the detail of their policies. Could you point us to the relevant decisions or policy publications?
If what you say is correct, how do we account for the fact that these restrictions for lead don't include the major uses of lead, and don't include the greater dietary exposures to lead? It simply doesn't hold water.

I think lead is a by issue, the biggest single reason for shooters dropping out at the moment is age, but you’re right, all the palaver involved in getting a cert and hanging onto it doesn’t help.

The problem is not so much shooters dropping out, but the way these restrictions, both in lead, in over-regulation and in unnecessarily stringent licensing red tape, prevent people taking it up.

Lack of access, the unpopularity of going out “ killing things” and

These things are consistent over time.

the expense also rule a lot of people out.

The expense is a complex picture. Ammunition is expensive and accessories, but the guns are available incredibly cheaply.

 

[Dunwaters]

For clarity the post you initially replied to rather than the initial post.

You deliberately miss the point yet again.

The point isn’t whether BASC opposed restrictions but at the same time accepted they were inevitable as you state that is not a point I have ever made.

The point is while BASC’s official policy was to oppose further lead shot restrictions its employee chose to undermine that policy stance by posting ad nauseum information in support of further lead shot restrictions.Perhaps you could explain why you consider that pointing that out and drawing attention to that fact is nonsense.

Officially BASC is against lead restrictions, however, given the inevitability of restrictions post WHO, EHCA and REACH they involved themselves in negotiations to mitigate the impact of the proposed changes.
There is no hypocrisy. Every other organisation did the same.
You should know this.

Despite trotting the above out for the umpteenth time you still fail to see or rather choose not to publicly acknowledge that the point regards hypocrisy hopefully at this umpteenth plus one reading the point is now clear.

What/where exactly is the hypocrisy?

I acknowledge your defence of BASC and the employee involved in stating that BASC has always opposed lead shot restrictions while being responsible for a back catalogue of posts which , let’s face it, at times were emotive tripe with the objective of undermining the case for opposing lead shot restrictions .
Isn’t it it time that responsibility and accountability made an appearance and characters like yourself chose not to confuse the issue by attempting to defend the indefensible.
You will note that the employee concerned gathers an enormous amount of criticism of his posts so let’s not pretend that he is the victim of some vigilante troll ,he has chosen to nail his personal colours to the mast regarding the lead shot issue and used his position as a BASC employee as a platform to spread what at times was misinformation.
Criticism has been well deserved and it has come from many quarters.

There has been a great deal of criticism, in most cases that criticism has been based on disputing established fact and refusing to accept that the fulcrum has pivoted. We no longer get to insist that the other side provide proof of harm. We must now prove that we don’t.

BASC bashing ,vindictiveness or personal attack is not an accurate assessment of the root of the criticism but a convenient explanation for choosing not to confront the issues raised in disagreement. Those posting in disagreement generally have no problem with accepting contrary opinions but tend to value honesty and straight talking and this has been sadly lacking throughout the lead shot issue.
For example having stated that BASC had conferred with the ammunition manufacturers regarding the imposition of a voluntary ban subsequently a document originating from the cartridge manufacturers signed by three directors was posted stating this had never happened was met with accusations that the document was faked . No evidence however was produced to confirm this and the names of the manufacturers who were consulted by BASC were unable to be supplied.

I did read that, it seems odd. I have no idea who was behind it.

On a personal note I don’t know what qualifies you to state that I know nothing of the lead shot negotiations over the past forty years as you don’t know me from Adam but seem perfectly comfortable in expressing strong opinions on what I do and don’t know.55 years of shooting , committee membership of my then local wildfowling club where my father was secretary for many years and vice chairman of that club gave me plenty of experience of the move to non lead on the foreshore and the information surrounding the lead up to it , combined with continued membership of various syndicates over forty years and shooting a small number of deer now for approaching 20 years I’m not the newbie shot you’d like to portray me as.

The reason I accuse you of knowing nothing is because you endlessly repeat the same allegations regardless of how many times you’re told otherwise.
Theres nothing hypocritical going on, your organisations have actually done a pretty good job in blunting some of the proposals.

While equally I don’t know who you are I do hoewever give you the respect of not assuming you are an idiot, your personal accusations point to the type of character you are. I feel no need to respond with personal insults.

Regarding your ninth attempt at deflection ,my earlier answer was to advise you to start a new thread and I would consider posting on it. You may have missed that reply as you appear to have a habit of missing the points made in my posts.
As I have now hopefully made my points abundantly clear you should have no problem engaging with them as stated in your last reply post.

My question stands, now on its 10th repetition.
Where do you see shooting in 5 years?

 

[countrryboy]

Back then we were in the position of being the ones demanding proof of harm, now, courtesy of the WHO, EHCA and REACH, the onus is squarely on us to prove that we’re not causing any.
That change triggered policy changes that made lead restrictions inevitable, we all had to change our stance.

Its like the uk court system going from a general assumption of innocent till proven guility to guilty until proven innocent.

I too would be very interested in the fairly sudden change of idealogies and why it wasnae challenged at the time?

I think lead is a by issue, the biggest single reason for shooters dropping out at the moment is age, but you’re right, all the palaver involved in getting a cert and hanging onto it doesn’t help.
Lack of access, the unpopularity of going out “ killing things” and the expense also rule a lot of people out.

 

[countrryboy]

Thats very sad mate
Most of our team get as much of a buzz sending each other pics of latest merlin report - or videos of latest fledging of hatchings - or latest raptor zooming about

Yes i am very lucky and i do appreciate it

Definatly very lucky.
Most now are solely about the achieving the bag in most cost effective way.
Like most things, chasing money spoils it.

 

[Rewulf]

Back then we were in the position of being the ones demanding proof of harm, now, courtesy of the WHO, EHCA and REACH, the onus is squarely on us to prove that we’re not causing any.
That change triggered policy changes that made lead restrictions inevitable, we all had to change our stance.

There been a few very good answers to this statement, but Ill add one.
Having to 'prove' you dont, and wont cause harm in future, is a fallacy, its like saying you cant have a driving licence unless you can prove youll never cause an accident, or be issued an FAC/SGC unless you can prove you wont shoot a person.

The amount of harm spent lead projectiles has caused is not a measurable thing, its a loose estimate, likely over exaggerated (due to the bodies compiling the data) but is a useful weapon in demonising shooters.
If the WHO, REACH GOVUK ect really wanted us to stop using lead they wouldnt need to ban it, but they have anyway, but you could simply slap a tarrif or tax on lead ammunition of certain types, make it more expensive than steel/copper projectiles, and there would be a natural drift away from it, whilst still giving a choice to those who must/want to use it and pay for it ?
Banning (making illegal to use) a metal in one context, gives power and will to think about the next ban, copper, steel and plastic wads, making the case that we need to 'prove' that they dont cause harm....
In effect they ban private gun ownership, because no one can use the ammunition designed for it, without actually legally banning them.

 

[Ruger#1]

There is no hypocrisy

When a BASC employee states that BASC has always opposed the introduction of further lead restrictions when as an employee of BASC he continually posts information in support of further lead shot restrictions I would say that is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy definition , the practice of feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not.

 

[Ruger#1]

What/where exactly is the hypocrisy?

See above