HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
maybe this process should be reconsidered? If n that members are more directly involved with policy decisions
An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
- Status
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Like I've said before, they court with British politics to the point that they have become British politics.
It would appear from the posts on the thread that our BASC representatives are using the forum as a platform to promote/justify their failed voluntary ban and this is in effect providing support for a future legislative ban. As BASC’ official stance is to oppose further legislation is this situation not transparently contradictory.
If BASC is to have the right to call itself the voice of shooting then its policies should reflect shooters opinions . Having major decisions taken on our behalf by a small number of committee members is not acceptable neither is having a BASC representative promoting a distorted picture of the magnitude of the effects of lead shot ingestion on bird mortality with no attempt to put similar effort into defending the right of shooters to use lead shot as they wish ,as per the voluntary aspect of BASC’s policy of a voluntary move away from lead shot.
If BASC is to have the right to call itself the voice of shooting then its policies should reflect shooters opinions . Having major decisions taken on our behalf by a small number of committee members is not acceptable neither is having a BASC representative promoting a distorted picture of the magnitude of the effects of lead shot ingestion on bird mortality with no attempt to put similar effort into defending the right of shooters to use lead shot as they wish ,as per the voluntary aspect of BASC’s policy of a voluntary move away from lead shot.
Indeed it is for a Club committee elected by the Club membership to run and make policy decisions for the membership. However it’s about transparency to the membership so they understand the decisions made on their behalf, so BASC for the benefit of us members, publish the meeting minutes of the meetings that occurred that resulted in the policy decision to implement the voluntary transition to non toxic ammunition.
After all what have you to hide from, if acting for the benefit of the members.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks, its a good question. My reading of the paper is that the 50,000 to 100,000 estimate of wildfowl dying from lead poisoning in the UK every winter is based on the data for lead shot ingestion (eating lead shot) rather than data for embedded lead shot (live birds wounded with lead shot to various levels).
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
As a member you could bring your proposal to an AGM as a resolution. This is detailed in the constitution. The next AGM is 22 May 2025 but you would need to get your proposal in well before then.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
Indeed it is for a Club committee elected by the Club membership to run and make policy decisions for the membership. However it’s about transparency to the membership so they understand the decisions made on their behalf, so BASC for the benefit of us members, publish the meeting minutes of the meetings that occurred that resulted in the policy decision to implement the voluntary transition to non toxic ammunition.
After all what have you to hide from, if acting for the benefit of the members.
Yes you like to copy and paste so why don't you copy and paste the minutes of the meeting where this was discussed and voted on.
After all what have you to hide from, if acting for the benefit of the members.
Yes you like to copy and paste so why don't you copy and paste the minutes of the meeting where this was discussed and voted on.
Last edited:
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The voluntary transition started a year before the government tasked the HSE with a review of lead ammunition under the post-Brexit regulations for chemicals. The initial HSE proposals were a copy and paste from the European Chemical Agency proposals. The final HSE recommendations are different to what is being proposed in the EU I would imagine this is all being weighed up by Defra currently.
When the voluntary transition was announced, the 'why now' was explained as "Recent technological developments have made non-lead shot more effective, more widely available and more affordable. Equally, biodegradable wads are now a possibility. These advances are continuing apace and it is now time for the wider live quarry shooting community to join the wildfowlers, who have used non-lead alternatives successfully for the last 20 years. In addition, there are over-burdening legislative changes coming down the line as a result of work being undertaken by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Despite Brexit, we are expecting that these regulations will be implemented in the UK either due to a requirement to sell lead-free game into Europe, or by UK legislation.". The 'why is lead shot a problem' was explained as "Concerns around the use of lead shot limit the current market for game products, and retailers are increasingly asking for game that has been shot with non-lead alternatives. Additionally, lead has been progressively removed from other substances, such as petrol and paint. There is growing concern about the damage lead shot causes to wildlife away from wetlands. The fact that non-lead alternatives of suitable quality are increasingly available means that we should transition towards them."
More information here: Moving away from lead
During the HSE review of lead ammunition the HSE considered the merits of the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting and in its final opinion published in December 2024, in a chapter on 'alternatives to a restriction' stated "A voluntary move away from lead to non-lead alternative shot would eliminate future risks to the environment and to human health via the consumption of game meat contaminated with lead ammunition. However, this will only be effective if all organisations and individuals engaged in the activity sign up to the voluntary measures and are committed to a change of behaviour. Also, the current voluntary measure is only applicable to the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting and does not extend to the use of lead shot for target shooting or to bullets and airgun ammunition. In addition, individuals that are not members of clubs or organised groups would not necessarily be covered by this voluntary agreement. As such, further voluntary measures might be needed for this approach to achieve significant effectiveness."
However, having weighed everything up the HSE did not agree with our assertion that further regulations were not needed for lead shot because a voluntary transition was in place and the HSE recommended a restriction on the sale and use of lead shotgun ammunition, with a transition timeline of five years, with a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting, subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use.
More information here: Statement on HSE proposals to restrict use of lead ammunition in Great Britain – HSE Media Centre
During the HSE review the HSE initially recommended a timeline of three years. Extensive lobbying from BASC extended this deadline to five years. It was clear there was a determination to impose a ban on lead for shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting. By proposing a voluntary transition and self-regulation, we have bought the shooting sector time to get ready. We are now better prepared as a sector for change. It gave us time to inform the shooting community of the changes coming and provide educational sustainable ammunition shooting days to introduce those who shoot to lead-free shotgun cartridges. It gave the ammunition manufacturers time to make significant progress and deliver a range of viable alternatives to lead. Many shoots are now lead-free, and their game is being sold in supermarkets across the UK. The transition period has enabled the shooting community to innovate and adapt. On target shooting, the derogation for athletes means they will still be able to train for competitions and major tournaments and won’t be disadvantaged. There are a range of non-lead clay loads available, and with further progress being made on alternatives to lead ammunition, alongside another five years to continue to develop these alternatives, the clay shooting community will have time to adapt.
More information here: HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC Council minutes are published on the BASC website and policy discussions/decisions are mentioned in these minutes. Have a look at the minutes for 13 February 2020 as regards mentions of 'lead' and 'lead ammunition.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
If you would like BASC to hold a referendum of all members on every policy issue to inform decision making by BASC Council then you are free to bring such a resolution to a BASC AGM as a member of your Association. Indeed you have had 5 years of AGMs to do something since the 2020 voluntary transition was announced but like many others before you on this forum, you seem to prefer the comfort zone of moaning on forums. You could for example discuss putting in a resolution with fellow BASC members liveonce and triggertrix above with similar views.
Hi Conor
I really do respect your tenacity in response to the very real sense of frustration from many members on this site. For your info I have been a BASC member for well over 40 years and generally speaking I am perfectly happy in the work you have done as an association with a couple of exceptions. I would compare the evidence you reproduce here for the move away from lead shot and ammunition as being comparable in a sense to the global warming/net zero etc nonsense that we are all subject to. My belief is that BASC are looking for the evidence to support your stance rather than at the evidence that suggests the contrary.
However, my point of this post is to respectively point out that for an individual member it is all but impossible to really interact with the assoc in any meangiful way ... indeed the route you suggest to attend AGMs etc and promote resolutions or become available to try and be elected to council is quite preposterous ... there are very many extremely articulate members on here who are obviously experienced and capable but BASC desperately need to interact with members more easily and maybe less formally. Frankly moaning to you on here is about the ONLY way there is direct access to BASC in an attempt to pass on views.
My advice, such as it is, would be to accept that perhaps the communication from BASC to members is broken and what worked 50 years ago is clearly not working now and needs to be fixed quickly to restore members confidence. A project team needs to be assembled with a wide range of backgrounds to see how you can find a mechanism to be more nimble and quick on your feet.
As an aside, if you did ask members their views on the removal of lead from shot and bullets then you would be in such a stronger position with all affected parties including government.
Anyway, not moving from BASC any time soon.
Regards
Tony
@Conor O'Gorman
“Recent technological developments have made non-lead shot more effective, more widely available and more affordable”
Very questionable statement, exactly what technology developments ? wildfowlers had been using non-lead shot for a long time before the voluntary transition, are you saying the cartridges they had been using were crap and then suddenly we had a quantum step in technology that changed that? if so what was it?
Then more affordable, that comment should be in the jokes section.
“Equally, biodegradable wads are now a possibility” again they were just starting to be introduced by Eley and Bio Ammo, in very limited quantities and product type.
The above is just an excuse to deliver the real goal;
“The 'why is lead shot a problem' was explained as "Concerns around the use of lead shot limit the current market for game products, and retailers are increasingly asking for game that has been shot with non-lead alternatives”
Without a market for the game products it is far more difficult to justify rearing millions of non-native birds to be flown as targets.
And finally
“a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting, subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use.”
This is just an insult to others who enjoy the sport of clay shooting, on the very limited ground area used by the sport compared to game shooting. Very likely all will be shooting over the same ground as the athletes are, then how will the next generation of athletes come about if they cannot use lead? As clearly the fact athletes need to continue to use lead shot demonstrates that the non-lead (steel shot) cartridges are not as effective as lead shot.
“Recent technological developments have made non-lead shot more effective, more widely available and more affordable”
Very questionable statement, exactly what technology developments ? wildfowlers had been using non-lead shot for a long time before the voluntary transition, are you saying the cartridges they had been using were crap and then suddenly we had a quantum step in technology that changed that? if so what was it?
Then more affordable, that comment should be in the jokes section.
“Equally, biodegradable wads are now a possibility” again they were just starting to be introduced by Eley and Bio Ammo, in very limited quantities and product type.
The above is just an excuse to deliver the real goal;
“The 'why is lead shot a problem' was explained as "Concerns around the use of lead shot limit the current market for game products, and retailers are increasingly asking for game that has been shot with non-lead alternatives”
Without a market for the game products it is far more difficult to justify rearing millions of non-native birds to be flown as targets.
And finally
“a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting, subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use.”
This is just an insult to others who enjoy the sport of clay shooting, on the very limited ground area used by the sport compared to game shooting. Very likely all will be shooting over the same ground as the athletes are, then how will the next generation of athletes come about if they cannot use lead? As clearly the fact athletes need to continue to use lead shot demonstrates that the non-lead (steel shot) cartridges are not as effective as lead shot.
BASC Council minutes are published on the BASC website and policy discussions/decisions are mentioned in these minutes. Have a look at the minutes for 13 February 2020 as regards mentions of 'lead' and 'lead ammunition.
Not very transparent is it, what value was that link, internally you I guess can see the confidential wording?
Unless i am miss reading the minutes.
Last edited:
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thank you Tony for the considered comments and always good to hear from a longstanding BASC member on the forum, and I appreciate that over a 40-years period there will be differences of opinion on some issues - with circa 150,000 members on myriad topics across many shooting interests it's a broad church of views.
As regards the evidence of lead shot ingestion in birds that I have touched on so far, they are just a few of hundreds of studies on the topic. I would point out that BASC is not looking for evidence to support any stance, it is just myself posting the science, as it is, to inform discussion. The decisions on that science have already been made as regards the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry, also as regards what the HSE has decided, also as regards what's happening in the EU with restriction proposals already working their way through the European Parliament, and also as regards lead shot restrictions already in place for wildfowl and various terrestrial bird species in USA, Canada, Australia etc.
As regards the population modelling research where estimates are involved, were I to post published science on using similar peer reviewed modelling methods for estimates of impact of cats on birds, or sparrowhawks on grey partridge there would be little disagreement I suggest - such is white hat bias.
As regards interacting with BASC, all members have to do is make a call to their regional team or head office with any query or request. There are weekly updates by email every Wednesday to all members and non-member subscribers via 'BASC Live'.
Anyone can subscribe easily at Latest news with just their email address.
There are regular regional emails to members. There is lots of engagement on BASC social media accounts including direct messages that we act on. BASC is constantly running events and attending shows more or less every weekend across the UK for face to face discussions. This weekend we have a stand at the Stalking Show.
Policy queries usually make their way to me. There is also a drop down menu on the website for queries - there is a 'policy and campaigns' option - and those queries come direct to my inbox at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk
Those who are often most vocal moaning, after the fact, on policy issues on forums, tend to disappear when there are calls to action on campaigns, of which there are many. Do a search on "have your say" on this very forum and you will see what I mean. On lead ammunition, there were several calls to action on the HSE consultations on here and many other places, and the result was 2,759 responses to the first consultation and 8,159 responses to the second one, and not all those were from the shooting community!
Indeed it must be a decade or more ago when some rather vocal SD members requested more interaction with BASC on policy issues and I tested a 'have your say' facility with regular opportunities to get involved in latest key issues and guess what....after an initial flush of interest....tumbleweeds.
As regards the formal policy development side of things, BASC Council appoints advisory committees made of members and non-members as selected by the committee chair - some of these are short lived committees, some are much longer lived, for example the Wildfowling Liaison Committee (WLC) which has been running since WAGBI days and as active and influential as ever . As a case in point the WLC members spent many months working with BASC staff to develop BASC’s sustainable shooting code of practice for wildfowl (both on the foreshore and inland) to understand the logic and science behind it, and that was discussed further at the 2025 wildfowling conference.
A welcome return for our wildfowlers
Over 100 delegates from 34 clubs gathered in Sutton Coldfield for BASC’s 2025 Wildfowling Conference—the first since 2017—sharing vital updates on conservation, science, and policy shaping the future of wildfowling.
www.shootinguk.co.uk
In my role dealing with policy and campaigns I am open minded to new ways of engagement on policy issues, so do message me or email me with ideas on that front (and anyone else reading this) and I will certainly give that consideration.
Last edited:
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is BASC's position on the HSE recommendations, clearly laid out, as things stand. Here it is again in full:
HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained
Read our explanation of the HSE's proposals on restrictions for lead ammunition in more detail, plus BASC's position on each.
basc.org.uk
I appreciate you disagree with some of it, and we await what other shooting organisations have to say, and most importantly what the government decision will be arising from those HSE recommendations.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
That is what BASC Council agreed to be published as the minutes of that meeting. If you have a specific request for more information about that meeting feel free to email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk and I will action that.
[
[/QUOTE]
The moaning on forums you refer to I accept is an inconvenience when you are following an agenda driven approach to lead shot use and are having to rely on inconclusive evidence to substantiate your case. Perhaps think of it as honest member feedback. The level of frustration you may feel regarding my failure to table any resolutions at BASC’s AGM can’t be anywhere near the frustration I and I am sure many other members feel when reading your post content which claims to represent our views.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think I stated in my post that I was in favour of holding a referendum on every policy issue but it would have been the right decision to make regarding the voluntary move away from lead shot. Had the majority voted in favour the assosciation would be on stronger ground regarding the voluntary nature of the ban rather than as is the case now having a ban imposed on us with seemingly very little support for a voluntary ban from the membership.
The moaning on forums you refer to I accept is an inconvenience when you are following an agenda driven approach to lead shot use and are having to rely on inconclusive evidence to substantiate your case. Perhaps think of it as honest member feedback. The level of frustration you may feel regarding my failure to table any resolutions at BASC’s AGM can’t be anywhere near the frustration I and I am sure many other members feel when reading your post content which claims to represent our views.
Hi ConorThank you Tony for the considered comments and always good to hear from a longstanding BASC member on the forum, and I appreciate that over a 40-years period there will be differences of opinion on some issues - with circa 150,000 members on myriad topics across many shooting interests it's a broad church of views.
As regards the evidence of lead shot ingestion in birds that I have touched on so far, they are just a few of hundreds of studies on the topic. I would point out that BASC is not looking for evidence to support any stance, it is just myself posting the science, as it is, to inform discussion. The decisions on that science have already been made as regards the voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry, also as regards what the HSE has decided, also as regards what's happening in the EU with restriction proposals already working their way through the European Parliament, and also as regards lead shot restrictions already in place for wildfowl and various terrestrial bird species in USA, Canada, Australia etc.
As regards the population modelling research where estimates are involved, were I to post published science on using similar peer reviewed modelling methods for estimates of impact of cats on birds, or sparrowhawks on grey partridge there would be little disagreement I suggest - such is white hat bias.
As regards interacting with BASC, all members have to do is make a call to their regional team or head office with any query or request. There are weekly updates by email every Wednesday to all members and non-member subscribers via 'BASC Live'.
Anyone can subscribe easily at Latest news with just their email address.
There are regular regional emails to members. There is lots of engagement on BASC social media accounts including direct messages that we act on. BASC is constantly running events and attending shows more or less every weekend across the UK for face to face discussions. This weekend we have a stand at the Stalking Show.
Policy queries usually make their way to me. There is also a drop down menu on the website for queries - there is a 'policy and campaigns' option - and those queries come direct to my inbox at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk
Those who are often most vocal moaning, after the fact, on policy issues on forums, tend to disappear when there are calls to action on campaigns, of which there are many. Do a search on "have your say" on this very forum and you will see what I mean. On lead ammunition, there were several calls to action on the HSE consultations on here and many other places, and the result was 2,759 responses to the first consultation and 8,159 responses to the second one, and not all those were from the shooting community!
Indeed it must be a decade or more ago when some rather vocal SD members requested more interaction with BASC on policy issues and I tested a 'have your say' facility with regular opportunities to get involved in latest key issues and guess what....after an initial flush of interest....tumbleweeds.
As regards the formal policy development side of things, BASC Council appoints advisory committees made of members and non-members as selected by the committee chair - some of these are short lived committees, some are much longer lived, for example the Wildfowling Liaison Committee (WLC) which has been running since WAGBI days and as active and influential as ever . As a case in point the WLC members spent many months working with BASC staff to develop BASC’s sustainable shooting code of practice for wildfowl (both on the foreshore and inland) to understand the logic and science behind it, and that was discussed further at the 2025 wildfowling conference.
A welcome return for our wildfowlers
Over 100 delegates from 34 clubs gathered in Sutton Coldfield for BASC’s 2025 Wildfowling Conference—the first since 2017—sharing vital updates on conservation, science, and policy shaping the future of wildfowling.
In my role dealing with policy and campaigns I am open minded to new ways of engagement on policy issues, so do message me or email me with ideas on that front (and anyone else reading this) and I will certainly give that consideration.
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
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Really? Do you really think that?
From over here it looks like self interest! Misguided at that too!!
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.
So PM me the minutes in full.
- Status
Similar threads
