The GTA could not have excluded the cartridge manufacturers without the agreement, or even the request, of BASC and the others. This was a deliberate strategy by those involved in the plan: it was not an oversight. Someone in those meetings would have asked "so what have [insert cartridge manufacturer] got to say about this?"
Why the GTA may have chosen not to consult or represent its members is pure conjecture ain't it?
Whether they were pressured by the shooting associations as you say, or chose not to consult with their members for some internal GTA political reason, who knows?
The SACS statement holds true....SACS understood the GTA to have been consulted.
The fact is that the GTA knew about the forthcoming joint statement and published their guidance on the same day.
Whether the guidance was a rehash of earlier FAQs or not, they state that they published it on the same day
"in recognition of the shooting organisation's statement".
I can see no conspiracy by the shooting insurers/associations, but then, I am not looking for one.
But it is a small point in the grand scheme of things which is demonstrable amongst the aggrieved rhetoric.
For those emotionally attached to lead ammunition it must be tough. I see nobody responds favourably to those on here who say they have used the alternatives and not had a problem either with shot to kill rate or using it in older guns. Their experience is apparently just ignored. It is only those railing against the situation that are liked and approved, so I guess as Khayyam says the tendency is just to go with ones prejudices and just take on board what we want to believe....
"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint,
and heard great argument,
About it and about,
But evermore came out
by the same door as in I went"
(Probably) a poorly remembered misquote from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam
Alan
.
