Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: LAG whitewash?

  1. #1

    LAG whitewash?

    With the resignation of the CA chairman from the LAG will the wrong result get steamrollered through?

  2. #2
    Basc have pulled out as well!

  3. #3
    Secundum quid;

    "BASC’s Council has been shocked and angered by the unattributed email released by Defra under Freedom of Information rules, which suggests that the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) could support a ban on lead ammunition.To the best of our knowledge no report has been seen or approved by the Lead Ammunition Group as a whole. We do not believe it is in the gift of any one individual, or group of individuals, to overturn the group’s Terms of Reference which were set out by Government in 2010 and agreed to by a broad range of organisations. It is inconceivable that BASC or other organisations would permit any circumvention of those Terms of Reference." BASC. 10/02/2015
    Scientific bias
    Last December, the president of the Royal Society, Sir Paul Nurse, wrote to The Times, saying: “Scientists have a responsibility to work with and correct those who misuse and misrepresent science to support their particular politics or ideologies. We must remain vigilant to ensure that evidence comes before opinion.”
    We all have opinions and beliefs. Scientists are not immune to being influenced by them, hence the warning from Sir Paul. This problem is known as “white-hat bias” — where a scientist deliberately or unintentionally selects evidence that supports their opinion. Opinion comes first and the evidence is flawed. Regulation must address real problems and not support prejudice and opinion. So what does this mean for the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG)? It was set up in 2010, when politicians invited relevant stakeholders to produce advice on the potential effects of lead ammunition on wildlife and human health.
    The fact that the LAG was even established shows that the evidence for new regulation was not proven. Political theory calls this the “agenda-setting” phase. In the absence of concrete evidence in support of change, stakeholders promote their agendas. It can be the very definition of a grey area. The LAG is reviewing studies and publications and trying to agree what those studies might mean and if definitive advice can be produced.
    I have no doubt that those politicians involved in LAG’s establishment believed it would follow a clearly defined, unbiased process, adhering to government guidelines and principles of modern risk assessment and review. The LAG drew criticism early on. At only its second meeting, it agreed to allow “grey evidence” into the process. If you mix the grey areas of opinion-driven agenda-setting with white-hat bias, we will end up with more than 50 shades of grey.
    Risks must be defined using sound evidence. Thereafter proposals to address those risks must meet the principles of Better Regulation. Governments of all political colours now accept that over-regulation is a bad thing. To that end, processes have been put in place to protect against the overzealous, the holier-than-thou and the demonising.

    Read more at Lead ammunition: wheres the science? - Shooting UK

  4. #4

  5. #5
    So if we haven't got a Labour Government to give 'Lord' Swift of Marford Mill a peerage, for dis-services to the shooting community, he takes it out on the people that paid him for years.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by JTO View Post
    So if we haven't got a Labour Government to give 'Lord' Swift of Marford Mill a peerage, for dis-services to the shooting community, he takes it out on the people that paid him for years.
    It would seem that way, Swift was the reason that I left BASC some years ago due to him praising Alun Michael and his Hunting Act, since his departure however I have rejoined.

    atb Tim

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by timbrayford View Post
    It would seem that way, Swift was the reason that I left BASC some years ago due to him praising Alun Michael and his Hunting Act, since his departure however I have rejoined.

    atb Tim
    When Dr John Harradine got up at a wildfowling conference and said he had shot with steel and lead, and couldn't tell the difference in performance, I lost faith in BASC. Perhaps he missed with everything.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by JTO View Post
    When Dr John Harradine got up at a wildfowling conference and said he had shot with steel and lead, and couldn't tell the difference in performance, I lost faith in BASC. Perhaps he missed with everything.
    Or worse still wounded.

  9. #9
    I will have to jump in on the defence of steel. It is effective and it does the job. But it needs the right gun and the right load. Overall yes lead is better, as if holds more energy and for longer at extended ranges, but by then pattern is generally failing anyway and all the energy in the world ain't going to kill a bird if hit in the wrong place.

  10. #10
    I'm only a token wildfowler but shoot Montrose basin ( local)
    Seen a lot more wounded & die later carcasses , heard others more qualified than me say it too .
    Sitting watching others on mud. Letting loose at stuff in stratosphere make your p1ss boil & happens all the time , right gun right load , but too many twats pulling a trigger when shouldn't

    Paul

Similar Threads

  1. Lag
    By stone in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-04-2013, 17:32

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •