I am interested to understand why you consider "good reason to believe" (read "hunch") an acceptable basis for tacitly accepting a ban on behalf of a membership and industry who are being misled with bad information and cooked up evidence?
By the way, I do not consider it to be the "only acceptable test". I simply refuse to accept "evidence" based on little more than guess work and gut feelings. I believe that the evidence thus far quoted by the leading organisations detailed is incomplete without it. As far as I can tell, this is a deliberate and dishonest omission, or possibly the act of fools. I believe it is omitted from the schedule of scientifically based evidence sources because the pure science does not support the scientifically illiterate standpoint that is currently passing for "THE TRUTH" that All LEAD IS BAAAD!
If BASC, the GCWT and the CA are in the business of representing myth, emotion and witchcraft as fact, I have been paying subscriptions for the last 30 years in error.
Mea Culpa. I am not repeating that mistake.
Conor, we can do this all week if you like. The point is that neither BASC nor the WWT or GCWT (who, like the HSE, are apparently using the information pushed by WWT as the basis of their positions) have actually conducted a full suite of scientifically rigorous tests to properly confirm that insoluble solid lead shot is, or is not, harmful.
You are -in this scenario- a salesman on behalf of an organisation that has adopted a bent narrative based on group-think, pseudo-science and eco-babble...in my view. It is your job to sell "Black" even when it is plainly "White". Sadly for you on this issue those of us who are capable of independent thought and critical scrutiny, are not buying.
Your goal is to achieve a political end you think will take the heat off your position as a representative body.
When you eventually fail to deflect a ban, as you almost surely will, you will say you did your best but that the end result was "inevitable but ultimately for the general good".
In time BASC, the CA and the GCWT will dress up this incompetence or carefully orchestrated treachery (take your pick) as a victory for common sense and the moral advancement of a modernised industry. See "ESG" section soon to be added to BASC website. Probably.
LIS - just to be clear, allows accurate identification of the source of lead present in a given sample. The reason no-one wants to do this, is because the results clearly illustrate the fact that solid lead from shot is not metabolised by humans, waterfowl or any other species following ingestion. Being found partially ground or as "fines" in the gizzards and digestive tracts of waterfowl is not the same as metabolised lead compound. Where lead is present in levels detrimental to the health of the subject, it is shown that this is (under normal circumstances) from sources of naturally occurring and artificially introduced lead other than solid metallic lead. These sources include -but are not limited to-
dissolved lead compounds commonly and readily available in concentrations well above recommended safe levels in soil, air or water. These can be from mining, lead paint or volatilised compounds such as those from fuel additives. Lead soldiers were not poisonous, but the lead based paint they were covered in, was not good news.
Incidentally, you are talking to someone who had a great uncle that refused to eat anything that had not been shot, caught or hunted. You could politely and fairly describe him as an eccentric. When he died he was subjected to autopsy which revealed a small "sac" in his gut containing a quantity of lead shot. His death certificate was endorsed with the reason for death as "lead poisoning". When asked why this was the case, the family doctor who signed the certificate, stated that it was kinder than any of the many other reasons that might have been given. These included (amongst many other equally likely things) the facts that he was 83 years old, an alcoholic and smoker of epic proportions -and severely overweight. Fudging the facts is nothing new. At least the good Doctor was trying to be kind.
The reason no-one on your side of the argument likes LIS or its resulting evidence, is that it does not fit the narrative BASC and associated mob of virtue-signalling eco-cronies wish to promulgate. "We don't like that evidence, so we will ignore it". How very "Bolshevik show-trial" of your side. Therefore again I say that this is not about what is right or factual, it is purely an agenda adopted for political reasons by badly led organisations that see surrender and capitulation as the preferred option. This is probably their view because it is cheaper and easier than telling the accurate truth and holding the line in the face of strong opposition.
All I can say Conor, is that it is a very good job BASC were not in charge in 1939. Strong opposition is no reason to turn tail. As The Hon. Robert Nesta Marley once sang "the hotter the battle, the sweeter the victory".
I hope the next stage in this discussion is not for you to become exasperated with the nut-job (me) on the Stalking Directory and disappear. You are the representative and apparent defender of your membership and industry's interests. I sincerely hope you will do some research and advocate a change of direction. I suspect that this level of optimism may be misplaced.
Show us what proper defence looks like Conor. Shed some sweat and blood for us on this issue. Surprise us. Why not commission some LIS analyses on behalf of the membership?
If you can produce incontrovertible science based evidence to shoot me down, I will happily concede and publicly apologise for wasting your time and being beastly. I am wrong about many things, many times a day and have no fear of admitting error. I am the only male in a house full of wives and daughters, The dogs are bitches and the chooks are all hens. Trust me, I know when to surrender.
Actually, I exaggerate, the guinea pig is a boy too. We are quite good friends.
I do appreciate you taking the time to answer me Conor. You are the only person in any office who has been brave enough to stand still and argue the toss with me. This is to your considerable credit. Hopefully, also, there are some who are reading this exchange and thinking more deeply about the subject than they might have before.
Keep well.
