Lead ammunition restrictions - government announcement

[Ruger#1]

problem birds such as corvids and pigeons as they are damaging crops...and in that case its about reduction not "showing restraint".

Not entirely sure "clubbing an animal to death" should be used in sensible conversation ...but at 36 pages I think that boat has sailed

Entirely agree in the context of crop protection and similar that constraint is not an option.

The clubbing an animal to death was reference to a bold hunters statement from an earlier post regarding the extent of his commitment to hunting/killing animals and that it extended to clubbing them with a stick should there be no other option and I agree not a wise statement from the original poster when the gist of the thread is the extent of harm to fauna and flora.

 

[Heym SR20]

Do you fail to see the hypocrisy of that statement in light of the fact that your choice of hobby’s aim is to “ruin another organism life”
Perhaps if shooters opted to shoot half as much or showed restraint and shot half the usual bag number that would have a far greater impact on the environment than further lead shot legislation.
Unless of course you are one of those hunters who as earlier stated they would continue hunting even if it meant clubbing the animal to death considering smaller bags and fewer outings would be a positive move forward and would halve the amount of plastic pollution you would be responsible for.

No I don’t find it hypocritical at all. As a hunter I am first and foremost a lover of wildlife and wild places. I will only ever shoot if there is a surplus of animals or birds and that in the greater scheme the shooting benefits the land. I certainly do not want to harm other animals, birds or wider environment by polluting things unnecessarily.

Yes i used to use lead. That was before I understood quite how damaging lead actually is to the environment. I have mostly stalked or wildfowled, and in the later have been using non toxic shot for years without any issues. In the early days of steel shot, you did have to ensure the birds were close, then I got a gun that really fits, and with modern steel cartridge vast majority of ducks and geese I shoot are dead in the air.

I have shot commercial driven pheasant as a guest. I don’t I think I will do so again. However as they say in Africa - if it pays it stays. And most of the woodland in many parts of the UK is only still there thanks to hunting and shooting.

 

[enfieldspares]

It seems your major concern is that we should not hold BASC to account for continually stressing its opposition to further restrictions on lead shot yet failing abysmally to achieve any results on that front.
It appears that they were incapable of even ensuring the continuation of lead shot in clay pigeon shooting on established shooting grounds despite it being carried out on comparatively small areas of ground mostly devoid of wildlife.

I may indeed be one of the SD "BASC bashers" but I do not at all hold BASC responsible for restrictions on lead shot being imposed on clay pigeon shooters. The fault there lies with those who for the last two plus decades conducted themselves in flagrant disregard for the England and Wales wildfowl lead ban.

The individuals and those syndicates where before a duck drive the shoot captain would announce "non lead only gentlemen....UNLESS YOU ARE TAKING HOME WHAT YOU'VE SHOT".

Because their conduct provokes the reaction from government that they'll just buy fibre wad clay cartridges and carry on. I shoot clays maybe at least twice a month, usually fifty birds, and, yes, English #7 or for some English #6 1/2 is used by some better shots than I for longer rage edge on battue or for longer range clay rabbits.

BASC's task was, IMHO,
1) to at least consider proposing the New Zealand Fish & Game rules...it didn't.
2) to seek exemption for such as .222 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire. It didn't and I've posted the reply I had on that matter her.
3) to seek exemption for muzzleloading shotgun live game shooters. It didn't.
4) to seek exemption (even if with an age restriction) for the .410".

On all the above it has failed. But I won't lay blame for the infliction of non-lead on clay shooters. That's down to the CPSA. Not BASC as it's not their remit,

 

[Liveonce]

Ask if they are made in Spain ?

Funnily enough i had a few issues with a box or two - or more really with misfires
Contacting them they said the batch i had was an old batch - i had bought second hand - that had been made in Spain - manufacturing has moved from there but not sure on just the wads

as i understand it the wads are still made in spain, but when eley was part of the spanish maxam group Rio which was also part of that group loaded the cartridges for eley in spain, this was advantageous as the humidity level in spain is a lot less than U.K. When Maxam sold all their cartridge manufactures, Nobel Sport ended up with Eley so the cartridges are now made in the U.K.
The 4G code on the outer box slab of 250 normally helps identify where they are made, but not always 100% reliable.

Armusa were the first EU cartridge company to use the wads

 

[Basil H]

When the lead ban for wildfowl came in there were many conversations like those going on now. There were also calls for derogation for big bores, small bores. and muzzle loaders. Didn't happen and to be honest (even as a sometime 8-bore and puntgun user) I can see why not.

 

[Ruger#1]

No I don’t find it hypocritical at all. As a hunter I am first and foremost a lover of wildlife and wild places. I will only ever shoot if there is a surplus of animals or birds and that in the greater scheme the shooting benefits the land. I certainly do not want to harm other animals, birds or wider environment by polluting things unnecessarily.

Yes i used to use lead. That was before I understood quite how damaging lead actually is to the environment. I have mostly stalked or wildfowled, and in the later have been using non toxic shot for years without any issues. In the early days of steel shot, you did have to ensure the birds were close, then I got a gun that really fits, and with modern steel cartridge vast majority of ducks and geese I shoot are dead in the air.

I have shot commercial driven pheasant as a guest. I don’t I think I will do so again. However as they say in Africa - if it pays it stays. And most of the woodland in many parts of the UK is only still there thanks to hunting and shooting.

Despite our polar opposite opinions regarding lead shot use we do share a common perspective on shooting sports.
However I feel if legislation was inevitable then restrictions should have been focused where lead shot distribution was excessive and impact on the environment was most likely. Regarding taking deer if the shoulder/shoulders were discarded in the majority of cases lead presence in venison would have been decreased to negligible levels.
I am geared up for change but the point is that where change brings negligible benefits to the environment at the expense of the opportunity for others to experience the sporting life that so many of our generation have profited from then I cannot find it in myself to support the argument that these changes are a step in the right direction.
That BASC has and continues to let us down and seems to lack any motivation to get off the back foot and rally opposition to the lack of exemptions or concessions in the present proposals goes beyond disappointment. The fact that C O’G focuses on justifying such restrictions rather than indicating any desire to seek exemptions for clay shooting, historical firearms or short chambered small bores begs the question what value has he as a representative of shooting sports if he fails to advocate on our behalf.

 

[Dunwaters]

So no reply to the issues I raised on the grounds of no time but time aplenty for irrelevant replies.
I’ve not been guilty of posting history lessons , all my posts refer to the recent lead shot restrictions fiasco that was BASC’s effort to oppose further lead shot restrictions.
I note that your own belief in how we should proceed is to ignore recent past mistakes , not learn from experience and willingly accept further restrictions even though driven by a political agenda and capitalised on by the anti fieldsports movement.
Read through #695 do you think BASC can deliver on any of those possibilities, I notice that rather than focusing on lessening the impact of further restrictions and seeking exemptions they are preoccupying themselves with posting the details of future legislation for your acceptance.
When following a political agenda all issues are black and white mirrored in both your own and the BASC’s response to the proposed further legislation.
As stated earlier by C O’G / BASC outside the bubble ,as they put it ,the opinions of the general population,media and uk government seem to take precedence over the people they claim to be the voice of.
Enough said ,time for a move to an organisation that doesn’t just claim to be the voice of shooters but at least puts their concerns above the ill informed general population and media and the political interests of the uk government.

So no answers from you, just the same old circuit of tired arguments carefully selected to avoid the point.
I’ll repeat the question,
what would you do now?
and I’ll leave it right here where you can find it.

 

[Ruger#1]

But I won't lay blame for the infliction of non-lead on clay shooters. That's down to the CPSA. Not BASC as it's not their remit,

As the oft acclaimed voice of shooting I expect the organisation to live up to that claim and on behalf of all those live quarry shooters who possess and use short chambered 20 and 28 bores and all those with .410s fight on their behalf for the opportunity to put those guns to some use.
A compromise position was to argue for their continued use with lead at clay shooting grounds. The idea doesnt seem to have entered their head. What use is a representative organisation if it doesn’t represent the best interests of all its members for all their sporting activities. BASC after all includes clay shooting amongst its many courses and many game shooters have a vested interest in safeguarding clay shooting grounds to enable sufficient practice to maintain a certain standard of proficiency.
They may not be responsible for the infliction of non lead shot on clay shooters but they have done and continue to do precious little to prevent it.

 

[Nickb]

I wonder if we all will when trail hunting is next in line ?

No mate , glad to see it go to be honest , means more foxes to shoot

 

[Ruger#1]

So no answers from you, just the same old circuit of tired arguments carefully selected to avoid the point.
I’ll repeat the question,
what would you do now?
and I’ll leave it right here where you can find it.

If you read my latest posts and many others over the years you’ll see that I rarely if ever fail to address any points responding to my posts.
Exactly what am I avoiding ? A list of goals all of which BASC has failed to achieve ?
The point that you are wilfully ignoring is the pitiful level of opposition BASC was able to put up in response to further lead shot restrictions and the undermining of their policy to oppose further lead shot restrictions by their own employees both of which you refuse to comment on.
Hopefully you can gather up the courage to comment on those two points. While you are pondering on your response consider commenting on the lack of initiative taken by BASC to seek exemptions or concessions to protect the best interests of those they profess to represent and why they choose instead to focus on laying out the future legislative changes without indicating a will to challenge them.

 

[Ruger#1]

So no answers from you, just the same old circuit of tired arguments carefully selected to avoid the point.

While not a fair assessment of my posts ,which will be clear to anyone reading them , your post does indicate a preference for personalising the debate rather than countering with a well thought out reply.
As you are the one avoiding replying to the points I have raised in an effort to whitewash the issue as old news not worthy of comment or “ the same old circuit of tired arguments carefully selected to avoid the point” as you put it I think you are beginning to portray yourself in a poor light.

 

[hendrix's rifle]

I hesitate to answer this because it seems so emotive to so man people. But I've been using mainly non-lead cartridges (steel and bismuth) since I started wildfowling in 2007, and the shoot syndicate I'm now in transitioned to exclusively non-lead four years ago. I haven't used lead for years now, and the same goes for my stalking rifles. In practical terms, it makes not one jot of difference to lethality.

I wasnt going to bite but sod it, why not.

Lead free, in practical terms, does make a huge difference to lethality. If you're shooting deer at 100 yards then most bullets are going to work except for the stupidly hard lead free. The problem starts when you start pushing those ranges further out, certainly with slower cartridges. The large majority of lead free requireme circs 2200fps to expand reliably. That could be as little as 250 yards with some of the current offerings...

Thats one hell of a difference to 'lethality', especially to those folk who only shoot deer within a couple hundred and have their mpbr/1 inch high zero. That would still be within their shooting range but potentially way out of their killing range.

Then moves on to those that aren't restricted by the 100 yards broadside only group, those who are shooting deer at distances further than 300. That run of the mill lead free bullet with the BC of a brick? Yeh its now no more than a paper weight.

And therein lies the problem, its ok for you who might shoot deer to 200 yards. It is NOT ok for everyone who shoots animals further out. It certainly won't expand on that 250 yard fox and next thing you know, you've got an extremely mobile animal darting for cover and vanishing in to thin air.

Before we start 'well you shouldn't be shooting anything that far' you have to realise that modern cartridges, rifles and ammunition/bullets allow shooters to do exactly that. They're effective to well over 800 (not that im condoning that but to each their own) and with training and practice, it isn't difficult to call wind correctly and use science + math for the rest.

 

[jall55]

There will be tons of wounded birds in a days shoot with steel shite in the uk .We cant even buy fast goose steel cartridges in this country same as they use in the usa market due to stupid eu rules on speed ,no Hogdons powder etc either

Their really isnt - and tbh who the hell carries on shooting at birds if all they are doing is wounding them ? Maybe i live in a bubble but if i saw "tons' of wounded birds i would stop after the first "ton"

We used steel last year and its fine - honestly

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

When the lead ban for wildfowl came in there were many conversations like those going on now. There were also calls for derogation for big bores, small bores. and muzzle loaders. Didn't happen and to be honest (even as a sometime 8-bore and puntgun user) I can see why not.

That's a timely reminder, I started working for BASC in 2003 helping wildfowling clubs with leases and consents, a few years after the first of the lead shot regs were implemented in England, then Wales, and the discussions were still raw, and there were regs to come for Scotland and lastly NI. Misinformation rife. Blaming BASC for the UK government signing up to an international treaty for waterbirds conservation that many other governments were signing up to. Denying the science. And so on.

Attitudes towards the science then and now are interesting in this context. Very few actually read the science then or now on lead shot ingestion by birds - but when people back then found workable alternatives to lead shot views softened and the science was accepted - yet few ever read the science then or now. That said, some entrenched views remain from that era and they sometimes pop up on here and other forums.

 

[Chris Richardson]

That's a timely reminder, I started working for BASC in 2003 helping wildfowling clubs with leases and consents, a few years after the first of the lead shot regs were implemented in England, then Wales, and the discussions were still raw, and there were regs to come for Scotland and lastly NI. Misinformation rife. Blaming BASC for the UK government signing up to an international treaty for waterbirds conservation that many other governments were signing up to. Denying the science. And so on.

Attitudes towards the science then and now are interesting in this context. Very few actually read the science then or now on lead shot ingestion by birds - but when people back then found workable alternatives to lead shot views softened and the science was accepted - yet few ever read the science then or now. That said, some entrenched views remain from that era and they sometimes pop up on here and other forums.

And yet one of your biggest supporters on here and who preaches science to us constantly can’t find me a single study that gives evidence of lead shot game causing ill health in humans how odd

 

[Dunwaters]

While not a fair assessment of my posts ,which will be clear to anyone reading them , your post does indicate a preference for personalising the debate rather than countering with a well thought out reply.

I asked you a straightforward question, you’re dancing a fandango to avoid answering (again).

As you are the one avoiding replying to the points I have raised in an effort to whitewash the issue as old news not worthy of comment or “ the same old circuit of tired arguments carefully selected to avoid the point” as you put it I think you are beginning to portray yourself in a poor light.

I avoided your points because they are utterly irrelevant to the current situation or its resolution. I have explained previously how we ( both you and the EU ) ended up facing a ban and how it hasn’t been possible to successfully challenge the official position, you don’t appear to have read it.
You continue to ask outdated and irrelevant questions, you continue to ask the same people the same thing and you continually reject their response. This post illustrates the point perfectly, you were asked a question, you haven’t even acknowledged it, despite responding to me 3 times since I posted it.

For the fourth time, how would you deal with the current situation regarding the proposed lead restrictions going forward?

 

[Hambone]

I asked you a straightforward question, you’re dancing a fandango to avoid answering (again).

I avoided your points because they are utterly irrelevant to the current situation or its resolution. I have explained previously how we ( both you and the EU ) ended up facing a ban and how it hasn’t been possible to successfully challenge the official position, you don’t appear to have read it.
You continue to ask outdated and irrelevant questions, you continue to ask the same people the same thing and you continually reject their response. This post illustrates the point perfectly, you were asked a question, you haven’t even acknowledged it, despite responding to me 3 times since I posted it.

For the fourth time, how would you deal with the current situation regarding the proposed lead restrictions going forward?

Not aimed at me I know but I would have liked our shooting organisations to have opposed the most ridiculous points of the proposed regulations and saved and defended what it could! These proposals were coming in like it or not so digging the heels in might not have made any difference to the outcome but it would have at least given the feeling that our representatives have not rolled over to get they're bellies tickled.

 

[Ruger#1]

I asked you a straightforward question, you’re dancing a fandango to avoid answering (again).

I avoided your points because they are utterly irrelevant to the current situation or its resolution. I have explained previously how we ( both you and the EU ) ended up facing a ban and how it hasn’t been possible to successfully challenge the official position, you don’t appear to have read it.
You continue to ask outdated and irrelevant questions, you continue to ask the same people the same thing and you continually reject their response. This post illustrates the point perfectly, you were asked a question, you haven’t even acknowledged it, despite responding to me 3 times since I posted it.

For the fourth time, how would you deal with the current situation regarding the proposed lead restrictions going forward?

How about first you respond to the points I made regarding the present inadequately defence of shooting by BASC and the preposterous situation that had them opposing further legislation while their representative spent most of his time posting in support of further lead restrictions . Does confronting that make you feel uncomfortable. It seems you have problems facing up to the reality that BASC has let you down and continues to let you down.
Your request for me to explain what I would do to deal with the current legislation is a simple deflection from focusing on the inadequacies of BASC’s campaign to oppose further lead shot restrictions.
You will already have read my posts regarding concessions and exemptions for Damascus barrelled guns short chambered small bores and .410s on clay grounds and the exclusion of clay shooting from lead shot restrictions but you continue badgering me for what is in reality irrelevant information. I am not able to dictate the terms of future legislation.
What would you do other than roll over and accept every limitation without a peep and wholeheartedly support an organisation which you are incapable of noticing has let us all down ?

 

[Smellydog]

But it may well have ruined some

Speculation and define ruin please? How do you actually know what has happened on said ground and by how much?

I assure you my friend life is fine on the place in question. If any harm is being done it will be the slurry and agri chemicals.
There is zero evidence though.

Now stay calm please. I've ordered some 308" 140 GN Hornady mono flex tip bullets for my 3030.
I've come to the conclusion my muzzleloaders maybe scrap and the world is suddenly fine again with single use plastic.

 

[Terry2016]

Terry do you work for BASC?

Tim - you know i do ? I've not seen you for a while? hope you and the shoot are going well .