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

[Ruger#1]

That was comment number 500 in this thread. Who knows we might make it to ten thousand

It wouldn’t surprise me . As per the thread’s title shooters are rightly disappointed by the organisations’ performance regarding the lead shot issue and your attempts at being oblivious to the rightful criticism of your own organisation highlighted in the thread is yet another example of your detachment from accountability.

 

[Mike L]

102

 

[Ruger#1]

I don't think that two smears against Colin Shedden contribute much to an already barren debate

In fairness there is little debate but at least any support for BASC’s acceptance of further lead shot legislation is being challenged and on an open forum a true reflection of views for and against is valuable.

Hopefully BASC members will be polled on the extent of agreement with BASC’s handling of the lead shot issue ,it’s apparent sudden change in policy and the way in which forums were flooded with anti lead shot rhetoric prior to the apparent change in policy to accept further lead shot legislation.. Perhaps then BASC members views will be reflected by their organisation.

 

[Ruger#1]

Play the ball, not the man.

Apparently only when on your side, can’t take it but in fairness can't dish it out either so probably fair enough. Living rent free in your head Mike but could you do me a favour and get out a bit more it’s boring up here

 

[jimmer.13]

In fairness there is little debate but at least any support for BASC’s acceptance of further lead shot legislation is being challenged and on an open forum a true reflection of views for and against is valuable.

Hopefully BASC members will be polled on the extent of agreement with BASC’s handling of the lead shot issue ,it’s apparent sudden change in policy and the way in which forums were flooded with anti lead shot rhetoric prior to the apparent change in policy to accept further lead shot legislation.. Perhaps then BASC members views will be reflected by their organisation.

Or they will vote with their feet.
I know of two, now former members, have cancelled their direct debits after reading this thread.

 

[Ruger#1]

Or they will vote with their feet.
I know of two, now former members, have cancelled their direct debits after reading this thread.

It’s sad but inevitable. Our own club benefited from a Wildlife Habitat Trust Fund loan and we had a great rapport with BASC around 20 to 30 years ago ,recently however the mood isn’t so receptive. I’m not active on the committee now and neither are my relatives but feedback from members is generally negative and more so now after the last year or so of activity favouring the anti lead shot lobby.

 

[Dunwaters]

Said every person that just couldn’t be bothered sticking up for their principles.

I think you are conflating “ principles “ with “ intransigence “.

My “ principles “ dictate that I should continue to shoot despite changes that I may personally find inconvenient.
There is nothing in the change which challenges my “ principles”.
I’ll still shoot because I can do so ethically with the available alternatives. Theres no conflict.

“ Intransigence “ is what you display by refusing to accept evidence from a variety of sources in favour of your own personal beliefs. I have also made several points which you have utterly ignored, preferring to indulge in sneering.

Here are my main points again. Feel free to address them, or not , as you prefer.
(1) The lead restrictions are coming, its taken 4 decades ( at least) of discussion, but the reversal of the onus of proof from the official side to show that we were doing something harmful, onto us to show that we are not, was the clincher.
You have made no attempt to provide a counter argument to this, you just continue to quibble with findings irrelevant to the basic tenet that lead is a toxic heavy metal with no safe level of exposure.

( 2) Lead shot and lead cored centre fire rifle ammunition is harmful to wildlife, and probably not good for us either. This conclusion is based on the results of hundreds of different studies from a number of geographical locations. The results are similar across all locations.

( 3) You are arguing for a continuation of the status quo, despite not being able to produce a scintilla of evidence to support your contention that while each and every study showing that lead is damaging wildlife is flawed, your own personal conviction that it causes insufficient damage to warrant concern is sufficient grounds to reject a transition to something less persistently toxic.

Have a lovely evening.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I make this clear in a very obvious way - if the wetland was open to shooting for many years (in our case in England /Scotland) there will be tonnes of it . If its a fairly newly created then there will be less if its a wetland created after the Ban in the USA obbiously there should be no lead shot !
On UK traditional wildfowling ground ( and puntguning) the tides move the sands . Lead does not go away and the sands move it constantly , whole sunken ships appear and then go away again after a storm or storms.
Places like the Lune in Lancashire had a very active amount of punt gunning , one shot would be more shot than a wildfowler with a 12 bore might fire in a couple of seasons.
I cannot compare any of these places in the usa but i sure know they are nothing like UK wildfowling marshes.

I don't understand, are you saying there is no need for a lead shot ban on the foreshore?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Or they will vote with their feet.
I know of two, now former members, have cancelled their direct debits after reading this thread.

Interesting. What organisation (s) have they joined instead?

 

[Ruger#1]

I think you are conflating “ principles “ with “ intransigence “.

My “ principles “ dictate that I should continue to shoot despite changes that I may personally find inconvenient.
There is nothing in the change which challenges my “ principles”.
I’ll still shoot because I can do so ethically with the available alternatives. Theres no conflict.

“ Intransigence “ is what you display by refusing to accept evidence from a variety of sources in favour of your own personal beliefs. I have also made several points which you have utterly ignored, preferring to indulge in sneering.

Here are my main points again. Feel free to address them, or not , as you prefer.
(1) The lead restrictions are coming, its taken 4 decades ( at least) of discussion, but the reversal of the onus of proof from the official side to show that we were doing something harmful, onto us to show that we are not, was the clincher.
You have made no attempt to provide a counter argument to this, you just continue to quibble with findings irrelevant to the basic tenet that lead is a toxic heavy metal with no safe level of exposure.

( 2) Lead shot and lead cored centre fire rifle ammunition is harmful to wildlife, and probably not good for us either. This conclusion is based on the results of hundreds of different studies from a number of geographical locations. The results are similar across all locations.

( 3) You are arguing for a continuation of the status quo, despite not being able to produce a scintilla of evidence to support your contention that while each and every study showing that lead is damaging wildlife is flawed, your own personal conviction that it causes insufficient damage to warrant concern is sufficient grounds to reject a transition to something less persistently toxic.

Have a lovely evening.

I think you’re confusing principles with self interest
1. The onus is on those seeking change to provide evidence to justify such change.
As DEFRA and BASC declared that there was no evidence to justify any further lead shot legislation in 2016 and there has been no evidence presented since then sufficient to cast any doubt on that decision. I feel that the status quo is justified as I stated earlier.
2. Not according to BASC’s response to HSE where they stated the consumption of large lead shot game carried no risk.
3. See 1.
As you can see the information stated above has already been stated in my previous posts , unlike a few posters I aim to answer any questions directed at me which is not reflected in the claims in your post.
And you too
Edit to add Speaking of failures to reply I’ve yet to hear from Mike L. and 63 who I both asked what scientific evidence they were basing their acceptance of further lead shot legislation for inland quarry shooting.It’s a tricky one no one yet has given a straight answer all generalisations and single figure lead ingestion rates with no accompanying bird population impact figures I await their replies with interest. Are you in or out boys ?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Pleased to hear it ,myself a member for over 40 years and still am. This year I’ll move over to supporter membership of my wildfowling club and by doing so evade BASC membership. I think there will be an exodus of members due to the handling of the lead shot issue , I certainly hope so unfortunately they deserve it. I may return if the views expressed on forums change and/or there is a change away from representatives that are almost Chris Packham in outlook ,although in fairness he at least represents the cause he is fighting for so maybe not such a good comparison.

Threatening to leave BASC will not change the science nor the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting (which is underpinned by that science as outlined by the GWCT) nor what I post about the science and BASC updates on this forum. If your myriad comments on this thread are really about lead ammunition policy (as you keep insisting, whilst continuing to make unprompted personal comments about me) it is interesting that you have recently stated on Pigeonwatch that you have donated money to the CA given that you are fully aware that the CA stated the following in response to the HSE lead ban recommendations: "The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK".

 

[Rewulf]

Here are my main points again. Feel free to address them, or not , as you prefer.
(1) The lead restrictions are coming, its taken 4 decades ( at least) of discussion, but the reversal of the onus of proof from the official side to show that we were doing something harmful, onto us to show that we are not, was the clincher.
You have made no attempt to provide a counter argument to this, you just continue to quibble with findings irrelevant to the basic tenet that lead is a toxic heavy metal with no safe level of exposure.

( 2) Lead shot and lead cored centre fire rifle ammunition is harmful to wildlife, and probably not good for us either. This conclusion is based on the results of hundreds of different studies from a number of geographical locations. The results are similar across all locations.

( 3) You are arguing for a continuation of the status quo, despite not being able to produce a scintilla of evidence to support your contention that while each and every study showing that lead is damaging wildlife is flawed, your own personal conviction that it causes insufficient damage to warrant concern is sufficient grounds to reject a transition to something less persistently toxic.

Ill give you my take on your 3 points too.

1. The lead restrictions ARE coming, but the original point of BASC et al trying to steer us away from lead shot for live quarry, has mission creeped into a looming lead ban for ALL lead shot and lead rifle bullets ,243 and over.
We have merely delayed the total ban on ALL lead projectiles, lead air rifle pellets and .22lr, the entry level for most new shooters, will undoubted be following once the dust has settled.
The issue here is not lead, its about the future of shooting in the UK.

The no 'safe' level of lead exposure for humans from lead shot meat is a very grey area, seeing as not a single person has ever been admitted to hospital or indeed died from eating lead shot meat.

2. Even the most ardent wildlife campaigners can only come up with a vague estimate of 50 to 100,000 birds a year dying from spent lead projectiles.
The same campaigners estimate 50 million birds a year die from domestic cat predation, yet they dont seek the outlawing of cats.
Many times that number are predated on by wild animals, or poisoned by agriculture.
Yet lead is the major issue, really ?

3. The argument isnt really about lead, we could be shooting with other stuff, and they would find an argument for why that isnt safe for birds, or human health.
Its about guns.... They cant ban them outright for private use, yet...
But slowly but surely, they are going to make it so difficult to own and use, that people just give up.

 

[Rewulf]

"The removal of lead from shooting will confirm the status of game shooters and wildlife managers amongst the foremost conservationists in the UK".

Will it really ?
Packham et al wont be happy until shooting of any kind is banned in perpetuity, and we are all vegans.
We will NEVER be conservationists to that element, to think otherwise is delusional.
Meanwhile, our armed forces can continue to use lead with no issue whatsoever ?

whilst continuing to make unprompted personal comments about me

*Groan*
How come you can make all the personal comments you like ?
Is it time for you to try and get the thread shut down ?

 

[sikamalc]

I never knew a conversation on lead could be so toxic!
Its like flogging a dead horse.