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

[HunterMoore]

Really? Do you really think that?

From over here it looks like self interest! Misguided at that too!!

My point is there is no foundation of evidence or data that I am aware of that suggests that either they are or are not. And that I believe is really the weakness in the whole lead debate.

However, I have absolutely no reason at all to doubt that council members are genuinely representing what they believe to be members views.

What I don't know is whether the BASC council are well aware of members views but choose to take a different path for our own good ..... and that may well be the issue for BASC I think.

I am not anti BASC at all but would like some acceptance from Conor that there may well be a mismatch between members expectations of the assoc and how the assoc thinks it should act. Effectively do members want an assoc that demonstrably reflects the views of its members or one that looks at the bigger picture and does what it feels is best regardless? If so who is the skilled communicator at BASC that gets that message across??

My guess is that the BASC senior leadership are well protected from criticism (as are staff in key managerial positions) as there are no shareholders or commercial pressures that would have unsuccessful leaders leave their posts. I know how I would like the BASC leadership to be acting at this moment of real concern for shooting sports but they are not. If you cannot prove that you are the voice of shooting by virtue of data and research then just quoting membership numbers is the best you can do.

Maybe when I have some time I will email Conor but I am a slooooow typist and putting in place a comprehensive strategy to truly understand its members and reconnect with them would need many strands of activity. BASC are certainly no lost cause but just because you are busy does not mean activity is targeted and best productive!!

Anyway I am now out with a gun and my dog to enjoy the sunshine .....

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor, the lack of transparency is a major part of the lack of trust that BASC is really supporting it’s membership with regards the scope of any legal ban on lead ammunition. Having spent years ensuring no ban on lead BASC now look to be happy to throw shooting, other than game shooting under a bus and hiding the facts from it’s members.

That's not the case at all. BASC has published its responses to HSE review consultations. And a detailed position on the final HSE recommendations. And I have been interacting on this forum with you and others in the public domain on this topic for 5 years. Can you say any of this about other organisations? No. So perhaps give it a break and await a government response to the HSE recommendations.

 

[Smellydog]

Anyway I am now out with a gun and my dog to enjoy the sunshine .....

Can't fault that.
I've just returned from crow shooting using a muzzleloader and....drum roll please.........lead shot.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Hi Conor

many thanks for your response. I do interact quite often with the BASC regional office but that is through helping out with running DSC level 1's so I know precisely who to contact should I need to. However, from my perspective, I genuinely don't believe that the interaction between grass roots members and decision makers exists in any real sense and perhaps because you have grown up with a system it is hard to contemplate change. Again you really really need to do the member research and ask whether the majority of members think it works ... because unless you do you cannot really begin to convince anyone that it is OK. How do the council members know members views? No doubt council members are well informed and believe that they are accurately representing our views but without research neither they or you can be sure .... after a lifetime in marketing (and sales) if you cannot actually prove data you are really just guessing.

At the end of the day, I can only hope that your communication team challenge themselves and genuinely ask the simple question ... is it working and are we getting the feedback we need to be successful? If the answer is YES then all is well .... if the answer is NO then despite all the methods you quote, how does BASC get the participation they need to prove that you are representing all members ... both the vociferous and the quiet.

I doubt you could say with any confidence that the majority of members approve your stance on lead ... not because they don't approve, but because you have no mechanism for knowing??

Anyway I appreciate your time and sorry to take this thread off track but just wanted to make the point to you whilst I thought of it!!

As an aside I have no idea who the council members are without looking and voting for someone on a strength of a published cv/bio is not really any basis for me picking the right person for the job ... just the man or woman who writes the best bio??

So, thanks again as this forum is significantly better for your input I am sure.

regards

Tony

Thank you Tony, the answer is yes as regard the feedback BASC receives. I am just one person in the Association and my colleagues at all levels are well up to speed on the various members' views on the transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting. I think the best would be to email me a brief overview of your opinions of BASC and/or strategic queries/suggestions at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk and I can share that with colleagues in comms and perhaps arrange a phone call next week with our director of comms?

 

[Tim.243]

That's not the case at all. BASC has published its responses to HSE review consultations. And a detailed position on the final HSE recommendations. And I have been interacting on this forum with you and others in the public domain on this topic for 5 years. Can you say any of this about other organisations? No. So perhaps give it a break and await a government response to the HSE recommendations.

Conor, over time scientist's, people making studies, enquiry boards also get thing's wrong for good or bad.
Jurys have convicted innocent people, people we convinced the world was flat, look at Covid and the post office with the bad decisions taken on behalf of the public.
What if they are wrong? Who says they are Right? Who says we are right?

Once those in charge get their way there will be no going back (ever) just like land for growing houses you don't get any more land back to grow crops it has gone.

Mix all the paint up on the shelf and you will have Grey Paint and that is the way it is heading as people are more fearful for their jobs pensions these days, the minority of these people will affect the majority of us and they have the Grey Paint tin open.

 

[Ruger#1]

And I have been interacting on this forum with you and others in the public domain on this topic for 5 years. Can you say any of this about other organisations? No

In fairness the interaction regarding lead shot use has largely been about justifying lead shot restrictions . By posting numerous links to any source that is either critical of lead shot use or relates to lead shot ingestion much of your posting substantiates the case for further lead shot restrictions and helps legitimise the call for future lead shot restrictions by the anti lead shot lobby. While other organisations have not seen the need to spend what must amount to countless hours on social media defending the voluntary move away from lead shot their lack of presence has not created confusion as to where they stand on further legislation to ban the use of lead shot completely.

 

[Liveonce]

That's not the case at all. BASC has published its responses to HSE review consultations. And a detailed position on the final HSE recommendations. And I have been interacting on this forum with you and others in the public domain on this topic for 5 years. Can you say any of this about other organisations? No. So perhaps give it a break and await a government response to the HSE recommendations.

Just one question then, why are the minutes regarding lead in confidence?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor, over time scientist's, people making studies, enquiry boards also get thing's wrong for good or bad.
Jurys have convicted innocent people, people we convinced the world was flat, look at Covid and the post office with the bad decisions taken on behalf of the public.
What if they are wrong? Who says they are Right? Who says we are right?

Once those in charge get their way there will be no going back (ever) just like land for growing houses you don't get any more land back to grow crops it has gone.

Mix all the paint up on the shelf and you will have Grey Paint and that is the way it is heading as people are more fearful for their jobs pensions these days, the minority of these people will affect the majority of us and they have the Grey Paint tin open.

The GWCT has reviewed all the science. I have shared only a few of the studies in this thread so far for terrestrial birds (grey partridge, pheasant, red-legs, red grouse), there are hundreds of studies across the world. Birds eat lead shot in wetland and terrestrial habitats and suffer lethal and sub-lethal impacts. The evidence continues to grow. I think it's unlikely that all those studies and findings going back 135 years are all wrong, having reviewed many myself and I trust the GWCT scientists on their much more robust assessment, which is summarised here with some sample studies.

Effects of lead on wildlife and wildfowl - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

www.gwct.org.uk

The decision is now with Defra and devolved governments for England, Wales and Scotland as regards the HSE recommendation for a ban on lead shot for live quarry shooting with a 5 year transition. The WWT, RSPB, Wild Justice and others have been lobbying for an 18 months transition and their campaign has resulted in 14,000 emails to Defra secretary of state. The European Commission has recently published draft regulations for ban on lead shot with a 3 year transition for hunting. I don't envisage any organisations here or across Europe arguing against the science as a matter of principle on this - they will likely be arguing for sufficient time for shooters to make the change and time for manufacturers to meet demand for alternatives to lead shot for live quarry shooting.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

B

Just one question then, why are the minutes regarding lead in confidence?

Many items in the published version of the BASC Council minutes are marked confidential. That means they are for Council eyes only. That is a BASC Council decision on a case by case basis. If you wish to challenge that decision for any particular set of minutes as a member of your Association then feel free to email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk and I will action that or use the contact webpage below, for department choose 'BASC Council'.

Contact Us

If you need information that cannot be found in our advice hub, you can get in touch by phone or by filling in an online form.

basc.org.uk

 

[Mike L]

In fairness the interaction regarding lead shot use has largely been about justifying lead shot restrictions . By posting numerous links to any source that is either critical of lead shot use or relates to lead shot ingestion much of your posting substantiates the case for further lead shot restrictions and helps legitimise the call for future lead shot restrictions by the anti lead shot lobby. While other organisations have not seen the need to spend what must amount to countless hours on social media defending the voluntary move away from lead shot their lack of presence has not created confusion as to where they stand on further legislation to ban the use of lead shot completely.

Ah, I get it now……… welcome to the forum Konor.

 

[Ruger#1]

. I think it's unlikely that all those studies and findings going back 135 years are all wrong,

Yet the majority of those studies and findings were available when Liz Truss stated that there was insufficient evidence to merit a lead shot ban and BASC itself was declaring No Science No Change. Something doesn’t add up.

 

[Smellydog]

Yet the majority of those studies and findings were available when Liz Truss stated that there was insufficient evidence to merit a lead shot ban and BASC itself was declaring No Science No Change. Something doesn’t add up.

Have you factored in sucking up? Noses of brown!

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

In fairness the interaction regarding lead shot use has largely been about justifying lead shot restrictions . By posting numerous links to any source that is either critical of lead shot use or relates to lead shot ingestion much of your posting substantiates the case for further lead shot restrictions and helps legitimise the call for future lead shot restrictions by the anti lead shot lobby. While other organisations have not seen the need to spend what must amount to countless hours on social media defending the voluntary move away from lead shot their lack of presence has not created confusion as to where they stand on further legislation to ban the use of lead shot completely.

In my experience, we are mostly grown adults on this forum able to make our own opinions on whatever is posted and if I post some science about lead shot that is my choice and I am bemused that you think it appropriate to try to instruct me on what I can post, not least with less than a month under your belt and 22 comments (mostly on BASC, which is why you joined IMHO after hundreds of comments on PW across everything I posted on there bordering on the obsessive as remarked by others). And if you think a few posts about the science that has existed going back 135 years 'helps legitimise the call for future lead shot restrictions by the anti lead shot lobby' then I would consider that to be at best immature and at worst delusional. Perhaps reflect on that.

If you are interested in what shooting organisations other than BASC are saying feel free to visit the CA, CPSA and NGO websites, for example, for their updates on the HSE final recommendations to the government. A few snippets are. NGO: Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe. CA: The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK. CPSA: 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.

As regards the science you have not responded to my reply on grey partridge science so here it is again.

Grey partridge ingest lead shot. The UK research on this is plain to see on the GWCT website:

POTTS2005 - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Here is what the GWCT says about grey partridge ingesting lead shot on its website:

A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time.

Effects of lead on wildlife and wildfowl - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Here is what the CA said last year:

The plight of the grey partridge, once abundant in our hedgerows, fields and game larders, is increasingly in the limelight, as it should be, and issues like lead shot are ones that are fixable in the short term. Those guns who consider themselves conservationists should not need any other reason than this to make the voluntary transition away from using lead shot.

Surely there is no better reason than giving a boost to grey partridge conservation to make the change to non-lead shot now? If you’re thinking about stocking up on cartridges for next season, spare a thought for the grey partridge and buy steel or bismuth, the power is in your hands.

 

[Ratel]

All this is very well Conor the 4.5 percent and the estimated 1.2 percent. How about certain agricultural chemicals which are sprayed or planted with potato and other crops. Lack of nesting cover and stubbles. What percentage do these remove. Here's my estimated views on other causes, 40-50 percent killed by Sparrowhawk's or buzzards and Kites. Assuming all other legal predators are removed, the old bumbling badger can knock out well over the lead percentage. Grey partridge can never return to the numbers of my youth and will continue to decline as avian and other predators increase in numbers and have pride of place in the law. I don't think I am the only person who thinks this way or knows the truth about their decline and it ain't lead my friend.

 

[Liveonce]

Yet the majority of those studies and findings were available when Liz Truss stated that there was insufficient evidence to merit a lead shot ban and BASC itself was declaring No Science No Change. Something doesn’t add up.

indeed and with the minutes confidential, how it adds up we will as members will never have knowledge about.

Who are they protecting, no reason given as why they are confidential.

In fact very little of any substance in the minutes I looked at, makes you wonder why they bother writing them, if they are not to pass on information for the benefit of all the members.

 

[Ruger#1]

In my experience, we are mostly grown adults on this forum able to make our own opinions on whatever is posted and if I post some science about lead shot that is my choice and I am bemused that you think it appropriate to try to instruct me on what I can post, not least with less than a month under your belt and 22 comments (mostly on BASC, which is why you joined IMHO after hundreds of comments on PW across everything I posted on there bordering on the obsessive as remarked by others). And if you think a few posts about the science that has existed going back 135 years 'helps legitimise the call for future lead shot restrictions by the anti lead shot lobby' then I would consider that to be at best immature and at worst delusional. Perhaps reflect on that.

If you are interested in what shooting organisations other than BASC are saying feel free to visit the CA, CPSA and NGO websites, for example, for their updates on the HSE final recommendations to the government. A few snippets are. NGO: Lead exposure poses serious risks to wildlife, domestic animals, and humans, particularly children. This move supports conservation and aligns with existing efforts across Europe. CA: The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK. CPSA: 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.

As regards the science you have not responded to my reply on grey partridge science so here it is again.

Grey partridge ingest lead shot. The UK research on this is plain to see on the GWCT website:

POTTS2005 - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Here is what the GWCT says about grey partridge ingesting lead shot on its website:

A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of discovered dead birds contained lead shot in their gizzards and estimated that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained ingested lead shot at any one time.

Effects of lead on wildlife and wildfowl - Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust

Here is what the CA said last year:

The plight of the grey partridge, once abundant in our hedgerows, fields and game larders, is increasingly in the limelight, as it should be, and issues like lead shot are ones that are fixable in the short term. Those guns who consider themselves conservationists should not need any other reason than this to make the voluntary transition away from using lead shot.

Surely there is no better reason than giving a boost to grey partridge conservation to make the change to non-lead shot now? If you’re thinking about stocking up on cartridges for next season, spare a thought for the grey partridge and buy steel or bismuth, the power is in your hands.

If the personal remarks and misdirection are removed from your post we are left with little that actually is relevant in response to my last post. Your few posts referencing 135 years of research fails to acknowledge that the conclusions from that same research failed to convince Liz Truss then with DEFRA or BASC itself that there was sufficient evidence to justify any further lead shot legislation. Your own crusade to highlight the danger of lead shot ingestion fails to show any link to population impact and has not restricted itself to published scientific papers but has included anecdotal reference to two prized pintail both poisoned by lead shot attributed to a shot over water at a corvid and numerous references to “ poor wee partridges in lead minefields”
The GWCT study you referred to that cited 4.5 % of discovered dead birds contained lead shot and ESTIMATE that 1.2% of living wild grey partridges contained lead shot at any one time does not in itself demonstrate any level of impact on wild grey partridge populations, nor does it put into perspective any such deaths occurring as a proportion of deaths from other causes.As stated previously lead shot poisoning as a factor in contributing to wild grey population decline is barely mentioned and a quick Google will show that the most commonly cited causes of the decline in wild grey partridge numbers include shooting pressure, pesticides use resulting in insect decline, habitat management,intensified agriculture practices and predation pressure.
If the pressures are so great on the UK’s wild grey partridge population perhaps it would be best to insist that partridge are permanently off the shoot list or would that be counter productive in that it would restrict work being carried out to increase their numbers.
As regards my failure to respond to one of the points you have raised that is unusual for me as I normally do fellow posters the courtesy of replying to any points they raise ,on the other hand you have consistently failed to respond to legitimate questions asked or points I have raised. However that said i would be grateful if we could stick to addressing points raised on the forum rather than the immature bickering and name calling that can occur when posters prefer to concentrate on the messenger rather than the message.

 

[spanj]

The facts speak for themselves, most ducks that go to game dealers are still being shot with lead. Anyone who beats on commercial shoots will know that guns have mixed drives of duck and pheasants. With guns laughing about not using non toxic cartridges. I believe wildfowlers are sticking to the rules but most of their ducks go for themselves. If guns had stuck to the rules we could have at least argued that it would work voluntarily.

“most ducks” unless there is actual evidence of this its not the most helpful of comments really. Mixed drives shouldnt be a thing and this seems the simplest and most effective thing to implement. Again “I believe most wildfowlers …..” is your opinion, no evidence and again unhelpful when we should, no MUST, be united if we are to stave off the onslaught of regulation and legislation

 

[spanj]

I hear what you are saying and for the examples you have given, seatbelts, motorcycle helmets and unleaded petrol public opinion did not change overnight and there were many of the same principled arguments against a change (personal choice, don't believe the evidence) as we have been seeing against the move away from lead shot for live quarry. You are right nobody has died of lead poisoning from eating too much lead shot game but if birds eat lead shot mistaking it as grit or seeds they will suffer lethal and sub-lethal effects that has been well evidenced. So moving away from lead shot for live quarry is about due consideration for animal welfare and conservation and awareness and understanding of this problem has been growing in the shooting community over the last five years.

Sorry Conor, I understand what you are saying but you are asking a lot of the public to accept a welfare argument from a fieldsport. I hear differing opinions on the efficacy of copper and steel and little evidence. In some cases if it aint broke dont fix it comes to mind and I do fear that accepting some of the frankly daft arguments against lead have and will damage our interests.

 

[spanj]

Yet more regurgitated around the merry go round ‘scientific evidence’.

Looks very similar to the following which was out in 2016……..it’s pulling in research as far back from 1959 and to my uneducated mind looks like it’s a review of already published papers from 1979-2016. Of course all peer reviewed publications so it must be true…………

https://brage.inn.no/inn-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2418889/Arnemo.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

If at first you don’t succeed try & try again. Re-jig, re-write & try again. Batter ‘em for long enough & we’ll get there eventually!

‘Bout time some new evidence was bought up as opposed to reciting the out’a’date stuff……….ah hang on we ain’t found no dead stuff & the endangered birds of prey are doing pretty well…………..

My first question when reading research is who, if anybody funded it and if nobody funded it what the researchers own politics, affiliations, motives and preferences may be. Conscious bias is an actual thing……

 

[spanj]

The HSE has finished its review. The decision is now a political one.

As the whole matter always was. I do admire your resilience on this and other forums Conor and will see you for a chat at one of the shows