Imagine phasing out lead is the start of a joint fieldsports future-proofing strategy...
- Thread starter Pine Marten
- Start date
Pine Marten, I have just read again your original post which was lucid and optimistic. I only wish I could see a way for any of your ideas to be carried forward, given the positions taken and the values held by our much-vaunted organisations. I always had a measure of contempt for those old folk who would say "Well - it will see me out" but at over seventy and viewing the current cluster****, I am beginning to give up hope.
Girl_with_a_gun
Well-Known Member
Nice one Pine Marten. It's too easy to get dragged into the "drama triangle" with emotion and entrenched personal beliefs meaning no-one on social media is listening to each other as they live and post in social media "silos" (many studies, this being but one Social learning and partisan bias in the interpretation of climate trends). If we're going to achieve change then we need to stop presenting the same arguments in the same way (the definition of insanity being the act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...). What I'm trying to say is that the dinosaur answer won't work. Never has done, never will do. Ranting and raving just reinforces the image of us shooters being evil inconsiderate psychopaths.
On another note, the world's militaries are going lead free. Once the US go that way, we will too and then most ammo manufacturing will be non-lead. This is reality and the real market (not us little people with our pence of buying power). Prices will then come down and R&D will go on making improvements. We can either be Canute or be proactive. The world moves on and we have to find ways of moving with it. Bit like when we went from 4-star to unleaded (for those that are old enough) and now on to electric and hydrogen: sadly the mark 2 jags, porsche 356s and ferrari 250s are going to go the same way as the non-steel proofed shotguns...
On another note, the world's militaries are going lead free. Once the US go that way, we will too and then most ammo manufacturing will be non-lead. This is reality and the real market (not us little people with our pence of buying power). Prices will then come down and R&D will go on making improvements. We can either be Canute or be proactive. The world moves on and we have to find ways of moving with it. Bit like when we went from 4-star to unleaded (for those that are old enough) and now on to electric and hydrogen: sadly the mark 2 jags, porsche 356s and ferrari 250s are going to go the same way as the non-steel proofed shotguns...
weaknesses....the excesses of driven game shooting.
Upland: Raptor persecution is being used to batter us repeatedly, especially with regards to driven grouse. It needs stopping, and you know, if some moors loose their ability to put on big driven days so be it, they are dragging the rest of us down.
Lowland: #1 All edible game should go for human consumption..end of. #2 Joe publics exposure to pheasants is often seeing herds of poults walking down country roads, shoots should seriously think of release pen position in relation to roads / road kill, if it means losing a drive or two then so be it. Too many just release an extra thousand to account for road kill losses. At the very least the staff should pick up road kill daily. It is terrible PR to drive through an estate and see 50+ carcasses embossed into the tarmac. If the like of WJ turned their attention to the legal definition of released game which subsequently leads to shoots/ estates being liable for vehicle damage etc then the whole 'shooting industry' will be in terminal trouble #3 game crop...a great benefit to all wildlife ...unless it is maize which is only good for game birds and vermin. Ideally maize should be phased out and replaced by small seed bearing mixes which should then be kept at least til end of March and not ploughed out on the 2nd February, we need to be seen to be focussed on wildlife witha side benefit of enhancing the ground for game, not the other way around..
Upland: Raptor persecution is being used to batter us repeatedly, especially with regards to driven grouse. It needs stopping, and you know, if some moors loose their ability to put on big driven days so be it, they are dragging the rest of us down.
Lowland: #1 All edible game should go for human consumption..end of. #2 Joe publics exposure to pheasants is often seeing herds of poults walking down country roads, shoots should seriously think of release pen position in relation to roads / road kill, if it means losing a drive or two then so be it. Too many just release an extra thousand to account for road kill losses. At the very least the staff should pick up road kill daily. It is terrible PR to drive through an estate and see 50+ carcasses embossed into the tarmac. If the like of WJ turned their attention to the legal definition of released game which subsequently leads to shoots/ estates being liable for vehicle damage etc then the whole 'shooting industry' will be in terminal trouble #3 game crop...a great benefit to all wildlife ...unless it is maize which is only good for game birds and vermin. Ideally maize should be phased out and replaced by small seed bearing mixes which should then be kept at least til end of March and not ploughed out on the 2nd February, we need to be seen to be focussed on wildlife witha side benefit of enhancing the ground for game, not the other way around..
Bavarianbrit
Well-Known Member
From Wiki :- The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, most often referred to as the Pittman–Robertson Act for its sponsors, Nevada Senator Key Pittman and Virginia Congressman Absalom Willis Robertson, was signed by Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937 and became effective on July 1 of the following year. It has been amended many times with several of the major ones taking place during the 1970s and the most recent taking place in 2000.
Prior to the creation of the Pittman–Robertson Act, many species of wildlife were driven to or near extinction by commercial/market hunting pressure and/or habitat degradation from humans. The Act created an excise tax that provides funds to each state to manage such animals and their habitats. Notable species that have come back from the brink since the implementation of this act include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and wood ducks.
I believe only one larger organisation NRA style with sub interest cores would work better and have more clout but chief officers giving up their fiefdoms would come hard to them.
1% added on top of Vat for shooting related products but all extra raised has to go on conservation and buying land for wildlife refuge projects for geese/ducks like in the USA etc would get us browny or is it brownie points.
Prior to the creation of the Pittman–Robertson Act, many species of wildlife were driven to or near extinction by commercial/market hunting pressure and/or habitat degradation from humans. The Act created an excise tax that provides funds to each state to manage such animals and their habitats. Notable species that have come back from the brink since the implementation of this act include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and wood ducks.
I believe only one larger organisation NRA style with sub interest cores would work better and have more clout but chief officers giving up their fiefdoms would come hard to them.
1% added on top of Vat for shooting related products but all extra raised has to go on conservation and buying land for wildlife refuge projects for geese/ducks like in the USA etc would get us browny or is it brownie points.
You are a girl with a gun so I will be gentlemanly.
If your scenario is correct, why not benefit from consultation and approval ?
Why not have a large conference (publicity benefits) and discuss this fully with every interested party or their reps.
Given the lack of proof of lead's toxicity (Sweden and Norway studies) and no satisfactory evidence for even a phasing out of lead, how can that be justified ?
I'm sorry but the military example of going lead free is bunk - for thousands of years men have tried to kill each other more efficiently in war. All research has been directed at bigger bangs , greater injuries (higher velocity replacing large bullets), so show me where this is lower in priority or overridden by concerns about the "environment".
I find that to be rather "out of character, especially for the American military who justify polluting expenditure daily (planes, warships, Afghanistan etc, etc)but perhaps you have some inside information is artillery and other ordnance affected as well ? This is not a "drama" triangle nor would I insult you by saying tumble driers which set on fire are a drama triangle, simply because with correct maintenance and adherence to manufacturer instruction on cleaning filters would obviate the problem.
There is no evidence lead in shot game has caused a single fatality - show me a study which shows that.
Alcohol is different and how may people have died from the physiological effects of drinking ? Clearly more serious a problem than lead but have we all volunteered, or more correctly has some neurotic agency volunteered us all to give up drinking and smoking voluntarily or do we try education and a measured withdraw dependent upon personal circumstances and without time limit ? Legislation is for where the state needs to intervene on our collective behalf - seat belts for example based on a huge amount of supportive research and even then prior consultation and follow-up is programmed to support the measures which are demonstrably beneficial.
I'm sorry to say I find your comments lacking in depth, consistency, research and to a degree, logic - I wont mention "drama" but you are entitled to your view and, as a girl I will say - I'd rather you were in shooting and giving your opinion than out of it and commenting from the sidelines.
Sorry not impressed by the 'argument.' However, as you should point out - its only my opinion.
If your scenario is correct, why not benefit from consultation and approval ?
Why not have a large conference (publicity benefits) and discuss this fully with every interested party or their reps.
Given the lack of proof of lead's toxicity (Sweden and Norway studies) and no satisfactory evidence for even a phasing out of lead, how can that be justified ?
I'm sorry but the military example of going lead free is bunk - for thousands of years men have tried to kill each other more efficiently in war. All research has been directed at bigger bangs , greater injuries (higher velocity replacing large bullets), so show me where this is lower in priority or overridden by concerns about the "environment".
I find that to be rather "out of character, especially for the American military who justify polluting expenditure daily (planes, warships, Afghanistan etc, etc)but perhaps you have some inside information is artillery and other ordnance affected as well ? This is not a "drama" triangle nor would I insult you by saying tumble driers which set on fire are a drama triangle, simply because with correct maintenance and adherence to manufacturer instruction on cleaning filters would obviate the problem.
There is no evidence lead in shot game has caused a single fatality - show me a study which shows that.
Alcohol is different and how may people have died from the physiological effects of drinking ? Clearly more serious a problem than lead but have we all volunteered, or more correctly has some neurotic agency volunteered us all to give up drinking and smoking voluntarily or do we try education and a measured withdraw dependent upon personal circumstances and without time limit ? Legislation is for where the state needs to intervene on our collective behalf - seat belts for example based on a huge amount of supportive research and even then prior consultation and follow-up is programmed to support the measures which are demonstrably beneficial.
I'm sorry to say I find your comments lacking in depth, consistency, research and to a degree, logic - I wont mention "drama" but you are entitled to your view and, as a girl I will say - I'd rather you were in shooting and giving your opinion than out of it and commenting from the sidelines.
Sorry not impressed by the 'argument.' However, as you should point out - its only my opinion.
CarlW
Well-Known Member
How well does depleted uranium work on deer? Might give it a try.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
You have hit the nail on the head there. As with most people who have been shooting for a very long time. We all started shooting with air rifles so if lead is banned where will the younger generation start.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
If you get one don't hold your breath will you.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
This has all gone a bit echo-chambery, but I will let you know when i get an answer. Had quite a good email from the GWCA including the evidence of their previous member consultation on the issue.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Sorry, forgot the link to the GWCA statement:
merlin
Well-Known Member
.....but have you got a box of "Sussex Sabo" ammunition??
(I haven't by the way!)
Essexsussex
Well-Known Member
My air rifle wouldn’t stabilise them, forever finding them lodged sideways in whatever they were shot at - must have be 1:10 twist
Tony Morgan
Well-Known Member
I see no ships!
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
I've had a response from them. It's a bit vague but they want to follow up with a phone call, so I will as soon as I can find time.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Finally had time to have a good, long call with them. They were very candid, helpful and open, although it does sound like it's possibly not the greatest organisation to work in. Still, that's a different problem. Essentially, the guy agreed with my diagnostics and suggestions. He thinks that for the past decade and a bit, BASC has focused its modest campaign and media resources on defending commercial driven shooting and grouse shooting. This has driven a wedge between BASC (and other orgs) and other conservation bodies, to the extent that where there used to be a lot of joint projects on the ground, there no longer are in England & Wales. This damages a key credential, and makes fieldsports' contribution to genuine conservation and biodiversity invisible and inaudible. Big question: does the membership want BASC to fight losing fights to the bitter end, or to pursue a strategy that inevitably means lots of change, but has the real potential to make fieldsports fit for the future? People are used to change meaning restrictions. Suppose instead it was a shift over time to a more sustainable, lower key, popular (in the sense of non-elitist) form?
It is apparently very hard to engage the membership on a campaign. A recent large scale one (by BASC standards) elicited maybe 200 emails. Actually taking the time to write to the council and other levels of the organisation is actually likely to cut through. Gabbing off on social media isn't. Anyway, I'm going to do what he said and write to the Council. And the magazine. And keep coming back to check that someone is paying attention.
It is apparently very hard to engage the membership on a campaign. A recent large scale one (by BASC standards) elicited maybe 200 emails. Actually taking the time to write to the council and other levels of the organisation is actually likely to cut through. Gabbing off on social media isn't. Anyway, I'm going to do what he said and write to the Council. And the magazine. And keep coming back to check that someone is paying attention.
Similar threads
