Thank you for clarifying this. I followed the links and found myself reading a 16 page BASC pdf entitled "Moving away from lead shot". I was surprised to see that the advice about using steel shot in guns had changed really quite significantly since probably last year. The lack of objectivity in the writing is also a concern because it leads to conclusions which cannot be supported by the available facts or data.
Could you comment? Is there some explanation for this?
E.g the advice you previously published said one should go up two shot sizes e.g. lead 6, steel 4. Now it says one shot size.
It now recommends no more than 21g in pre1954 guns. This equates to 116 pellets of 3 for pheasants, something of a drastic reduction from 250 pellets in current lead load used, even allowing for the "superior patterning" of 1/4 choke steel over 3/4 choke lead.
The half choke recommendation appears to only apply to standard steel loads with pellets over 4mm in the table on page 7 which is perhaps dangerously poorly labelled. Can I really now use size 2 standard steel shot in a fully choked gun without damage?
Etc.
I have previously raised questions about the scientific impossibility of some of the spurious claims made for steel cartridges, questions which have been ignored.
This sort of nonsense is probably the single factor which accounts for what you may view as slow progress in the voluntary transition. You cannot bullsh!t your members and expect widespread enthusiasm.
I am also at a loss to understand how BASC plans to make effective interventions on the HSE proposals for implementation timetables which you claim present serious problems, when you have previously published similar schedules in your 5 year voluntary transition?
In your blog on the BASC website about these proposals, you wrote:
“Over the coming months the UK REACH process will involve scientific scrutiny of the HSE findings and proposals through an independent panel of experts.
BASC has been approved as an accredited stakeholder by HSE and we will have opportunity to observe, engage and challenge the internal scrutiny process.”
Could you explain this, please? Are there two separate processes - one involving an independent panel of experts, and an internal scrutiny process? Or Are you using the two very different phrases to describe the same thing?
Who is on the independent panel of experts? How is their independence and expertise vetted? For example, there is a well known group of people (e.g. Prof. Pain etc.) who purport to be independent experts, but are not independent - most particularly in this case. Has BASC received assurances from the HSE about the impartiality of the process and the panels? Who else has been approved as accredited stakeholders? Is the stakeholder group properly balanced?
Does BASC intend to uphold its longstanding assurances that it will defend to the fullest extent possible the freedom to use lead ammunition for all applications where the shooter feels it is most appropriate? I’m a little confused by BASC saying on the one hand it supports a complete move away from lead in the medium to long term, that it intends to seek derogations from these proposals in limited cases, and that it opposes all new legal restrictions on lead. What is actually going on?
There’s a very strong impression that BASC is complaining about having wet feet now, after having pulled the plug out of the boat.
