Issues Surrounding The Shooting Organisations as per various recent discussions

[David63]

Good morning,

I am, of course, aware of the precautionary principal, just because this principal is being used does not by default preclude peer reviewed work being considered. As I say the way the lead issue is being approached in Europe is via the 15 step process referred to above. We are at step 1.

I also reiterate that this scientific process, the power lies not with MeP's but with expert committees made up of scientists from member states and it is against European law for member states to lobby their representatives on a committee.

The MEP's have little or no say on such an issue. They may get a vote at the end of the process on whether or not the Commission, to which the committee reports, has exceeded its competence. We shouldn't rely on that because hazardous chemicals are acknowledged to be within the competence of the Commission.

That’s why the work that FACE and FACE UK has done needed to happen at the early stage, to try and head off the threats to lead shot before we go to stage 2,3,and beyond.

David

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Again, thank you for the contributions - lively is fine, but please all follow the cup-of-tea principle outlined at the start.

I appreciate David of BASC getting involved with the thread and some ( for me at least ) useful perspectives. Not use I agree with all of them - but that's fine - and I will respond in due course.

The Lead Shot issues are interesting - I'll field one query I've had for a while and not thought to resolve - these EU processes referring to lead shot - are they one and the same as the matter pertaining to lead in rifle ammunition? Or is that aspect allied but distinct?

The matter of research is interesting as well. Politically I would propose that it is better for us generally to see legislation guided by 'fact'. Now I appreciate there's a whole world of argument regards Scientific papers, peer review, methodology, sponsored research etc - not looking to divert into that here.

The link in my mind is with the comments I made at the outset about putting forward ideas about legislation on a different and evidence based footing - rather than ongoing tinkering with a system that has some structural flaws. That isnt an overnight process, but a long term aspiration. But along the way we meet issues like lead shot. The reviews and research necessary to ensure balanced decisions need to be ongoing. We cant start them in response to a specific threat.

As I said, it is an arguable matter. However, given the emotive arguments we often face, isn't it a positive to establish a system more reliant upon valid factual evidence?

I'll confess to having a vague 'awareness' - ie I could have made it up! - that BASC and others have funded various research projects? Is this the case? What priority does this get overall and is it something to include as a point in the utopian list I started out with?

 

[flytie]

Again, thank you for the contributions - lively is fine, but please all follow the cup-of-tea principle outlined at the start.

I will have coffee if that's ok? Can't bear tea.

As I said, it is an arguable matter. However, given the emotive arguments we often face, isn't it a positive to establish a system more reliant upon valid factual evidence?

I'll confess to having a vague 'awareness' - ie I could have made it up! - that BASC and others have funded various research projects? Is this the case? What priority does this get overall and is it something to include as a point in the utopian list I started out with?

MO, I can only give you the facts on the original lead shot ban used against the wildfowlers.

I asked for and received from BASC copies of the studies used and two were sponsered by The Nature Conservancy Council and one was produced by DR John Harridine of the BASC, all were in favour of a lead ban.

You can see why wildfowlers were so angry at the time (and some are still) with BASC. In all three studies there was only evidence on one bird on the game list, a mallard duck, being killed by ingested lead shot and at the beginning of the study it was made clear that no distinction was to be made between split shot as used by anglers and that used by shooters. This negated any credibility in the argument against shooting but was ignored.

There was a massive swan kill from ingested lead shot as used by shooters, but this came from the run-off into a loch from a clay shooting ground.

The study done by Palmer & Evans on Lindisfarne; "The Effect Of Lead Shot On An Intertidal Ecosystem" was again sponsered by the NCC, but was ignored and not made public, seemingly because it did not give the results they wanted. On land/foreshore with the longest history of contiuous wildfowling of anywhere in the UK only one teal from the extensive study was found to have relatively high levels of lead in its system. No dead ones were found.

This is what worries me;

http://www.euractiv.com/innovation-enterprise/chief-scientifc-adviser-policy-p-interview-514074

EU science advisor: 'Lots of policies are not based on evidence'

So it seems that the EU parliament is capable of making laws not based on peer reviewed science, according to their cheif scientific advisor.

Simon

 

[David63]

Restrictions on lead shot were as a result of an international conference held in Brussels in 1991 and resulted in the international treaty signed by the UK government in 1995 called the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) which stated that lead should be banned from wetlands by 2000 because a volume of research from all over Europe and beyond revealed that there was a problem with lead poisoning wildfowl. Details on the AEWA web site.

For over 10 years before this BASC had successfully fought against change, but when change was forced upon us the international treaty we achieved a 9 year delay in implementation to try and give the trade an opportunity to develop lead shot alternatives.

We did all we possibly could to ensure the regulations were not introduced until the alternatives were developed. Had the restrictions been implemented any sooner, wildfowling would have been in a dreadful state.

When the draft regulations came out from DEFRA, BASC had some of the enforcement procedures removed which would have given local authorities the right to appoint whoever they wanted to police the regulations –you could imagine reps from ‘conservation’ organisations queuing up to become lead shot enforcement officers couldn’t you?!!

After the regulations came in in England BASC fought and won to have some of the sites where lead shot was restricted taken of the list.

As you can imagine, as this was going on in the 90’s and beyond there were calls from others to bring in a TOTAL lead shot ban, and BASC fought tooth and nail to make sure that did not come to pass, by making sure though effective lobbying that the UK governments would stick to the AEWA agreement and not go beyond it – and we have kept on maintaining that political position ever since.

So as you say Simon some wildfowlers may well be sore about the restrictions, and as a shooter I can fully understand, but if BASC had not delivered what it did, then in all probability there could well have been a total lead shot ban back in the 90’s – with no alternative on sale…

Interestingly, as this was all going on there was in existence, the Lead Shot Legislation Group- made up of representatives from the shooting organisations, and the issues raised and dealt with by BASC were supported by all those present.

Going back to the Commission, yes they have the power to act in what they see as the best interests of human health and safety, and BASC, the CA, the NGO and as far as I know every other shooting organisation that has passed comment on lead agree, that ANY change on lead shot use must be evidence based - ie on robust science based fact.

As you read through the article in your link you will see that the precautionary principle is no longer used in some spheres as robust scientific evidence is developed and that they take a pragmatic view of the use of the precautionary principle.

David

 

[flytie]

Going back to the Commission, yes they have the power to act in what they see as the best interests of human health and safety, and BASC, the CA, the NGO and as far as I know every other shooting organisation that has passed comment on lead agree, that ANY change on lead shot use must be evidence based - ie on robust science based fact.

As you read through the article in your link you will see that the precautionary principle is no longer used in some spheres as robust scientific evidence is developed and that they take a pragmatic view of the use of the precautionary principle.

David

David,

I also note the good Dr's opinion that it would be better if evidence based science was relied upon more fully than it is by the EU. And given Sweden's stated position of " An Intent" I unfortunately and sadly hold out little hope for your best efforts.

I do worry that you hold no cards in this present game, have very little clout no matter what you say. I would have thought that briefing the general membership of your organisation (and general public too) of the true position that Sweden hold on this matter would have been a good idea. And given that position the likely outcome of the proceedings, given that the EU are prone to use the "precautionary principal". Which I had never heard of in any of your briefings in the press, or from any other shooting organisation. It was left for me to be informed by one of the esteemed members of this site on the extraordinary way that the EU use science for their own ends.

But I will admit, I am prone to flights of a "man the barracades" type of mentality and hope that I am wrong and that you are right. But given the past track record of the EU, and you can only judge a horse by form, I hold out little hope.

Simon

 

[David63]

Simon,

I agree with you that given the power of the Commission and the powers of legislation in this contest not being open to lobbying by MeP’s, its going to be a very tough ask indeed.

However, the intent of the FACE report was to try and take lead shot off the menu as it were, at this early stage.

We have briefed the shooting public though press release published in the shooting press, on our web site, and in Shooting & Conservation what the current position is and will update as changes occur, but yes I agree we have not gone into detail about how this will be assessed, because as I say we don’t yet know if we are going to go past the first step.

I appreciate your comments though very much indeed.

David

 

[Moray Outfitting]

We attended the Stalkers evening at Oldmeldrum last evening.

It was interesting that two of the speakers chose as opening & central themes some of the issues we've touched upon here. Obviously this was a Scottish event and both speakers were representative of Scottish organisations - so that context is important. Equally important is that it was a BDS/ SCA event and other than some overlap there were no other formal representatives of other organisations there - so this should not be construed as praise nor criticism in any direction, just a report of part of the topics raised as they relate here.

The caveat must be that I am a legend my own lunch time for 'meeting narcolepsy' - staying focussed and the right side of conscious for more than 90 seconds at a time in any meeting/ presentation is just not me. So entirely possible my version of things said doesn't accord with the recollection of anyone else present!

Richard Cooke of the Lowland Deer Network Scotland dedicated a good portion of his presentation to emphasis that LDNS is primarily concerned with co-ordinating existing effort & representation - not reinvention of the wheel; with particular attention to presenting 'a single, strong voice'. I'm not putting this down with the intention of it being an issue of who such a voice comes from - purely to say we support that principle and believe there are ways to do it better than we currently do.

Nodded off for a bit to find an energetic guy bouncing to the front - Jamie Stewart? I believe of the Scottish Countryside Alliance ( please correct if wrong and apologies - if it helps, Angus Meldrum, late of, great and incredibly charismatic head of Tennent Caledonian Brewers finally found my ability to drift off at the most inappropriate times endearing ). He seems to have literally just taken office - so going to assume this was his first public pronouncement - he talked only for a few minutes, but chose to concentrate of the SNP focus on obtaining powers in respect of Firearms and Mr Kenny McK's much publicised 'horror' at the huge 2.3 average firearm holding amongst Scottish shooters. It was a very brief talk, he's obviously a perceptive gentleman and was talking to a stalking audience. I thought it interesting for him to choose such a focus from the number available to him.

 

[Virbius]

MO,
The gentleman you refer to was indeed Jamie Stewart, newly appointed director of the SCA.
I have to plead guilty to the suggestion of the topic of his brief talk, and chosen to be brief specifically not to detract from the main focus of the evening but to increase awareness of the subject.
Whilst there was excellent representation from the executive of both SCA and BDS, the main topics were chosen to focus on just that - topic, i.e. stalking and the countryside.
Chosing a balanced forum of speakers is not easy, and feedback has been very positive.
Thanks for your observations and comments.
V

 

[Moray Outfitting]

V

No guilt involved! It fitted well and JS seemed happy with the topic.

From a personal perspective it was refreshing as it reassured that the topic is still in 'view'.

Dashing out...


.... I heard that collective sight of relief...

 

[shortshot]

Nodded off for a bit to find an energetic guy bouncing to the front - Jamie Stewart? I believe of the Scottish Countryside Alliance ( please correct if wrong and apologies - if it helps, Angus Meldrum, late of, great and incredibly charismatic head of Tennent Caledonian Brewers finally found my ability to drift off at the most inappropriate times endearing ). He seems to have literally just taken office - so going to assume this was his first public pronouncement - he talked only for a few minutes, but chose to concentrate of the SNP focus on obtaining powers in respect of Firearms and Mr Kenny McK's much publicised 'horror' at the huge 2.3 average firearm holding amongst Scottish shooters. It was a very brief talk, he's obviously a perceptive gentleman and was talking to a stalking audience. I thought it interesting for him to choose such a focus from the number available to him.[/QUOTE]

Psssst.... would that be the same Jamie Stewart who was BASC regional rep. for SW England for past 4/5 years?
Same old faces, one suspects.

 

[David63]

Yes indeed it is, Jamie was in our gamekeeping depatment for a few years before going to the BASC SW office. He's a smashing chap!

David

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Well you could read it as nepotism, small world or potentially good news for cross links and communication between organisations - I'll go with the latter for the time being

He was energetic enough to wake me up!

This is a genuine question and absolutely not looking to stir hornets nest - but have SD members who have membership of the various other organisations asked why there is generally so little representation on here? Widening it a bit - I'm not a particularly active member on any other Forum - are they on any of the others?

I apologise for going on a bit about this element - it isn't with the intention of 'defending' BASC nor casting aspersions in any direction - but something I personally find puzzling. I'll come clean - my suspicion is that SD is still labouring under the reputation of being a bit negative and aggressive at times and aside from discouraging greater active participation from existing members it is turning a lot of people off.

 

[limulus]

If I was representing any of our shooting organisations I would keep well clear of here and any other web forums.
Its too easy for folk to bang their particular drum especially in a negative way. You only have to look at some of the other contentious posts on here to see that.
The BASC choose to come here, and good on them for doing so as the interweb is here now and a good way of keeping in touch with their members, but they do get a bashing from certain quarters.
I have cancelled both my individual and syndicate memberships with BASC based on conversations here but, in hindsight, I was rash to do so and will be renewing next year when the membership to my current organisation runs out.
There are representatives of the BASC that convey their position well and others that need to attend 'how to make friends and influence people 101' in order to better converse with the membership here.
As an overall body to represent all aspects of the shooting community I can't see a viable alternative to the BASC, albeit they have cheaper in sewer ants.

 

[MJ75]

What is a shame is that some genuine questions, queries and feedback posted was seen as 'bashing'. People need to be a little more open minded and understand that others will not always see the world as they do.

I know two outfitters, one in the UK and one in Africa. Both have a hell of a lot of experience and could offer significant input into the discusiions, but both have so far chosen not too due to the kiddies bickering amongst themselves. I know this as both have told me first hand that they're wary of contributing. So it's only logical that there will be many more outfitters of the same opinion.

The question is, should this be dealt with? And if so, how?

 

[Moray Outfitting]

L - many thanks for the comments and I agree overall with what you say.

There may be additional reasons - I dont want to put words in anyone's mouth - hence interest in feedback from the actual organisations.

I can fully understand Admin having a thankless task and ultimately wishing this to be a Forum - ie open discussion - rather than a group hug fest. There are lots of different - and divergent views out there and each is entitled to air those on an open forum. But the negativity at times doesn't just cross the line but can barely look back at it through a spotting scope. Have to say, that it occasionally strikes me that there's a sub story ( Thats SUB not SOB! ) behind some posts. It doesn't serve the Sd membership ( bit big headed of me I realise ), the sport generally nor often the individuals all that well when posts so lapse.

Views put constructively and openly carry more persuasion - for me at least. So many other Forums ( Fora? ) have ended up as soapboxes for a loud few - it actually underlines what a good overall job Admin have done. I still feel there's a lot of alienated members and would-be members - and that's to the detriment of everyone. The only benefit is that some of the posts have gone so OTT that they as much as anything have taken the 'debate' round in a circle.

Agree also that some of the BASC posts could have been much better handled - but all the more credit that the relevant guys are still here and making an effort. Can BASC do better - you betcha ( or at least I hope so ) because ( again personally ) I think we absolutely need a strong representation. Whether thats BASC per se or some form of mutual alliance is a valid question.

BASC is a member organisation - if sufficient members have a real issue, there are mechanisms to petition for change. But lets have that driven by reasoned debate not slanging matches or loudest shouter wins.

I remain convinced that there is actually more that unites 'us' - be it shooters collectively or SD membership or shooting organisation - than divides. I dont believe the differences are so extreme that the debate has to be divisive ( could be wrong ), but until some common resolve can be found we are passing water without due regard to wind force and direction. It never really 'goes quite' - there is always some threat forming. Yet time after time we only even start to pull in roughly one direction too little and too late - fire fighting. Instead of using the quiet times to knock each other's proverbial teeth out, is it so silly to have a look at pulling together and look at what's coming up on the horizon?

 

[craigievarkiller]

L - many thanks for the comments and I agree overall with what you say.

There may be additional reasons - I dont want to put words in anyone's mouth - hence interest in feedback from the actual organisations.

I can fully understand Admin having a thankless task and ultimately wishing this to be a Forum - ie open discussion - rather than a group hug fest. There are lots of different - and divergent views out there and each is entitled to air those on an open forum. But the negativity at times doesn't just cross the line but can barely look back at it through a spotting scope. Have to say, that it occasionally strikes me that there's a sub story ( Thats SUB not SOB! ) behind some posts. It doesn't serve the Sd membership ( bit big headed of me I realise ), the sport generally nor often the individuals all that well when posts so lapse.

Views put constructively and openly carry more persuasion - for me at least. So many other Forums ( Fora? ) have ended up as soapboxes for a loud few - it actually underlines what a good overall job Admin have done. I still feel there's a lot of alienated members and would-be members - and that's to the detriment of everyone. The only benefit is that some of the posts have gone so OTT that they as much as anything have taken the 'debate' round in a circle.

Agree also that some of the BASC posts could have been much better handled - but all the more credit that the relevant guys are still here and making an effort. Can BASC do better - you betcha ( or at least I hope so ) because ( again personally ) I think we absolutely need a strong representation. Whether thats BASC per se or some form of mutual alliance is a valid question.

BASC is a member organisation - if sufficient members have a real issue, there are mechanisms to petition for change. But lets have that driven by reasoned debate not slanging matches or loudest shouter wins.

I remain convinced that there is actually more that unites 'us' - be it shooters collectively or SD membership or shooting organisation - than divides. I dont believe the differences are so extreme that the debate has to be divisive ( could be wrong ), but until some common resolve can be found we are passing water without due regard to wind force and direction. It never really 'goes quite' - there is always some threat forming. Yet time after time we only even start to pull in roughly one direction too little and too late - fire fighting. Instead of using the quiet times to knock each other's proverbial teeth out, is it so silly to have a look at pulling together and look at what's coming up on the horizon?

Well said MO !

Nice rational input .... wish we could have more of that on SD instead of all the negative and generally aggressive postings that we see far too frequently.

ATB

CVK

 

[David63]

Of course BASC can do better – it would be totally wrong for BASC to sit on its laurels, because by doing so we would ‘stand still’ as it were as the shooting world moved on.

The important point is that BASC is a membership organisation, run by members

Ultimately there will be those who do not agree with what the elected BASC Council set as BASC’s policy and objectives. But it will remain part of my role and that of the team around me in the communications department, to try and get the message out about what BASC does and delivers.

We must keep doing our best to improve as the demands and needs of our members and indeed the broader shooting community change.

David

 

[limulus]

If I was representing any of our shooting organisations I would keep well clear of here and any other web forums.
Its too easy for folk to bang their particular drum especially in a negative way. You only have to look at some of the other contentious posts on here to see that.
The BASC choose to come here, and good on them for doing so as the interweb is here now and a good way of keeping in touch with their members, but they do get a bashing from certain quarters.
I have cancelled both my individual and syndicate memberships with BASC based on conversations here but, in hindsight, I was rash to do so and will be renewing next year when the membership to my current organisation runs out.
There are representatives of the BASC that convey their position well and others that need to attend 'how to make friends and influence people 101' in order to better converse with the membership here.
As an overall body to represent all aspects of the shooting community I can't see a viable alternative to the BASC, albeit they have cheaper in sewer ants.

Bloody hell my 2000th post and it wasn't complete bo77ocks!

 

[Moray Outfitting]

David - You spelt ROLE wrong in context. This is just typical of the attitude of.... just kidding

All the organisations have a bit of a balancing act between being a sign post and a weather vane - its hard to envisage any ideal route; just one of best compromise.

L- congratulations on the big 2K!

I was thinking of petitioning Admin to instigate an award system based on word count....

 

[David63]

Changed it - thanks for spotting my error, you should have seen some of my earlier posts on forums before spell check...


David