Lead restriction proposals - public consultation

I can't believe the lack of posts on this thread , @Conor O'Gorman has asked for opinions . I guess we'll reap what we sow .
As a community we need to be a little more proactive , may I suggest making our feelings known by emailing or MPs .
 
I can't believe the lack of posts on this thread , @Conor O'Gorman has asked for opinions . I guess we'll reap what we sow .
As a community we need to be a little more proactive , may I suggest making our feelings known by emailing or MPs .
In fairness the feedback so far here and directly to me has been useful and it's the case generally I find that less than 1% of the readers will take the time to respond which is just the way it is - and that makes the feedback from those that do take the time all the more useful. It will certainly be interesting to see how many responses went into last year's call for evidence and how many go into the next stage of the process in April.
 
Lead ban lawyers argues that lead ammunition are a major source for lead in predatory birds • The Norwegian Veterinarian Institute examined 268 predatory birds for signs of lead isotopes from ammunition. • Oue • We found that only 2-3%, in total six eagles might have traces of lead from ammunition in the liver. • There was compared only two isotopes of lead in the survey. • A fact that could mean that even the small number of eagles with lead isotopes who could match ammunition could have got this from other sources. • The survey clearly shows that lead ammunition are not a major source of lead in predatory birds.

This is a summary slide from the presentation given to the MP's of Norway when they decided to reverse the lead ban.
This is the whole summary presentation https://www.leadinammunition.com/wp-content/uploads/5a-Larsen.pdf which I posted previously.

It states that their 'support' organisations folded in the face of reports and proposals from the veterinary sector in Norway exactly the same as over here. I accept many do not want to read this but it does show that determined science - based opposition can have an effect in providing the 'truth' in the face of biased and determined anti - shooting so-called professionals.

Here in the UK we have NO capable institutions to both gather/commission the data necessary and represent this data in or to MP's - Make your own judgements but read the slides first - there are some translational spelling mistakes but the result - the repeal of the lead ban stays.

BASC is complicit in accepting a lead ban - remember how it was done ?
 
Kes/Triton

In 2014, Norway reintroduced lead shot for live quarry hunting outside wetlands after a lengthy campaign by the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers. Their argument at the time described the lack of risk, away from wetlands, associated with the predominantly low-density type of shooting that takes place in Norway. I understand that restrictions on the use of lead shot in wetlands and on shooting ranges continue.

In 2016, the UK government rejected proposals for a lead ban, after a lengthy campaign by BASC and other shooting organisations, with the Secretary of State stating that the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing government policy.

There is not a lead ban in the UK, there are restrictions on the use of lead shot for wildfowl/wetlands (which differ in extent in E,W,S,NI) and conflating what happened in Norway with what did not happen in the UK is not constructive, much less when followed up by (yet another) incoherent, illogical and ill-founded attack on BASC.

I'll limit my involvement in this topic to relative assessment of lead as a toxin - here is a short assessment from the US, which, as you know has been lead-free as far as shooting is concerned for some time.


So why is lead in any projectile such a problem ? It isnt shooting is the problem for very many in the anti - movement.

Your feedback is welcome and thought provoking, but perhaps rather than attacking BASC with defamatory unfounded claims you could show some maturity and integrity and keep to your word?
 
Kes/Triton

In 2014, Norway reintroduced lead shot for live quarry hunting outside wetlands after a lengthy campaign by the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers. Their argument at the time described the lack of risk, away from wetlands, associated with the predominantly low-density type of shooting that takes place in Norway. I understand that restrictions on the use of lead shot in wetlands and on shooting ranges continue.

In 2016, the UK government rejected proposals for a lead ban, after a lengthy campaign by BASC and other shooting organisations, with the Secretary of State stating that the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing government policy.

There is not a lead ban in the UK, there are restrictions on the use of lead shot for wildfowl/wetlands (which differ in extent in E,W,S,NI) and conflating what happened in Norway with what did not happen in the UK is not constructive, much less when followed up by (yet another) incoherent, illogical and ill-founded attack on BASC.



Your feedback is welcome and thought provoking, but perhaps rather than attacking BASC with defamatory unfounded claims you could show some maturity and integrity and keep to your word?
Well aren't we the sanctimonious type - if what I have posted offends, then perhaps it is correct. I am not the type to stay quiet whilst an agenda is thrust down shootings throats. What BASC says , history should tell us is not the whole truth or even very much of it.
 
I accidentally watched an article on You Tube, all about the person who actually came up with the idea of putting lead in petrol to stop the knocking effect in the engine, and the damage this had both on the environment and to the health of people, it is fact based and very interesting to watch, and is probably one of the reasons why their is a lobby against lead, if you have time to watch the link is below, I am sure will give you a better understanding of the problems with lead, and why their seems to be groups calling for lead to be banned in all it's forms.
 
I accidentally watched an article on You Tube, all about the person who actually came up with the idea of putting lead in petrol to stop the knocking effect in the engine, and the damage this had both on the environment and to the health of people, it is fact based and very interesting to watch, and is probably one of the reasons why their is a lobby against lead, if you have time to watch the link is below, I am sure will give you a better understanding of the problems with lead, and why their seems to be groups calling for lead to be banned in all it's forms.

Thanks Fadcode. A very interesting overview and all those personal stories. It all seems so obvious and logical when laid out like that - and it took a lot of research and time to raise awareness, acceptance, and instigate change.

The same was the case when the Game Conservancy first started looking into the impact of herbicides and insecticides on grey partridge breeding success. There was a lot of resistance to even the idea of looking into that at the time.

And with the evidenced impacts of lead ammunition, it's the same process of behavioural and cultural change in the face of the evidence which is laid out here:

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans


As an aside, recent research on the impact of recycling of lead acid batteries on children is here:

 
Well aren't we the sanctimonious type - if what I have posted offends, then perhaps it is correct. I am not the type to stay quiet whilst an agenda is thrust down shootings throats. What BASC says , history should tell us is not the whole truth or even very much of it.
Maybe its just me, but your ref to 'agenda' is a rather broad sweeping statement that I don't think makes any sense? Perhaps you could explain more about what you think the 'agenda' is and back up your assertion with some evidence about what 'agenda' is being 'thrust down shootings throats' and whom by?

As for BASC, it has been a leading organisation in pushing back against premature and ill conceived restrictions for almost 40 years. There is no lead ban.

As stated above, but clearly it needs repeating, in 2016, the UK government rejected proposals for a lead ban, after a lengthy campaign by BASC and other shooting organisations, with the Secretary of State stating that the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing government policy.

The UK REACH process should consider risks in the context of England, Wales and Scotland only because our shooting activities and the habitats they take place in are quite different to those found across most of mainland Europe.

Whatever the specific detail is for the evidence and restriction proposals further restrictions on lead ammunition must not result in a reduction in people participating in shooting due to a lack of ammunition for their guns and shooting disciplines.

Working closely with other organisations BASC will ensure that the needs of both live quarry and target shooting interests are considered and we must oppose one-size fits all restrictions.

BASC will review the evidence and restriction proposals published this coming week and I will post an update on SD and I hope that SD members will get involved in this very important consultation for a sustainable future for our shooting and generations to come.
 
Maybe its just me, but your ref to 'agenda' is a rather broad sweeping statement that I don't think makes any sense? Perhaps you could explain more about what you think the 'agenda' is and back up your assertion with some evidence about what 'agenda' is being 'thrust down shootings throats' and whom by?
Maybe youve havent bothered to read the threads about your 'voluntary phase out of lead for live quarry' ?
The thoughts on what the agenda is , have been varied, so Conor, why dont you tell US what the agenda is ?
As for BASC, it has been a leading organisation in pushing back against premature and ill conceived restrictions for almost 40 years.
It was, until something happened at BASC , then they did some kind of about face , strangely , just after the government dismissed LAGs concerns.
What happened to change your minds Conor ?
There is no lead ban.
Not yet , but youre actively proposing it , why ?
As stated above, but clearly it needs repeating, in 2016, the UK government rejected proposals for a lead ban, after a lengthy campaign by BASC and other shooting organisations, with the Secretary of State stating that the findings of the Lead Ammunition Group did not show that the impacts of lead ammunition were significant enough to justify changing government policy.
As above , what changed BASCs attitude , in the face of government support, and all those years of campaigning to keep lead ?
Whatever the specific detail is for the evidence and restriction proposals further restrictions on lead ammunition must not result in a reduction in people participating in shooting due to a lack of ammunition for their guns and shooting disciplines.
You surely dont believe thats possible, you think everyones going to just 'transition' over to non lead shot, and no ones going to just give up ?

Working closely with other organisations BASC will ensure that the needs of both live quarry and target shooting interests are considered and we must oppose one-size fits all restrictions.
Err hang on, I didnt think there was any suggestions about a lead restriction on target shooting ?
Have we let something slip there ?
BASC will review the evidence and restriction proposals published this coming week and I will post an update on SD and I hope that SD members will get involved in this very important consultation for a sustainable future for our shooting and generations to come.
What on earth is the point of entering any consultation, or give any opinions ?
You wont listen , and you certainly didnt ask anyone prior to deciding on your 'voluntary' phase out lead ban.
Its embarrassing that you could even think that asking now, when the deal has already been done, is somehow the right thing to do ?
Im speechless at the arrogance.
 
I raised an issue on the 28b which I think is an important caliber to keep alive along with a .410 it got a lot of younger people into shooting. It’s seemingly counterintuitive to me that when we need more young people and women in the game we would move away from small cals.

I love my little 28b and so does my missus she couldn’t reasonable be expected to learn on my 12b due to her diminutive stature. Be a great shame if these became obsolete. What plans are their for small bores?

As for rifles well moving them to non lead is utter pish
 
If in all honesty the banning of lead in the world of “ shooting” in the uk was going to make a significant change to the environment in this country, and there was irrefutable proof this was the case and benefit us all fine by me
 
  • Like
Reactions: kes
Maybe youve havent bothered to read the threads about your 'voluntary phase out of lead for live quarry' ?
The thoughts on what the agenda is , have been varied, so Conor, why dont you tell US what the agenda is ?

It was, until something happened at BASC , then they did some kind of about face , strangely , just after the government dismissed LAGs concerns.
What happened to change your minds Conor ?

Not yet , but youre actively proposing it , why ?

As above , what changed BASCs attitude , in the face of government support, and all those years of campaigning to keep lead ?

You surely dont believe thats possible, you think everyones going to just 'transition' over to non lead shot, and no ones going to just give up ?


Err hang on, I didnt think there was any suggestions about a lead restriction on target shooting ?
Have we let something slip there ?

What on earth is the point of entering any consultation, or give any opinions ?
You wont listen , and you certainly didnt ask anyone prior to deciding on your 'voluntary' phase out lead ban.
Its embarrassing that you could even think that asking now, when the deal has already been done, is somehow the right thing to do ?
Im speechless at the arrogance.
To be hoped basc members are happy with decisions made for them by their leadership
 
What on earth is the point of entering any consultation, or give any opinions ?
You wont listen , and you certainly didnt ask anyone prior to deciding on your 'voluntary' phase out lead ban.
Its embarrassing that you could even think that asking now, when the deal has already been done, is somehow the right thing to do ?
Im speechless at the arrogance.

sadly have to agree, like to think I did quite a comprehensive response to the HO consultation regarding the statutory guide to firearms licensing, did it make any difference, nope, they have an agenda, they just go through the consultation process to appear to listen, tick in box, we consulted.
 
Surely in the first instance before basc sanctioned a voluntary phase out leads ban, all its members should have been given the chance to vote, following their intutition followed by consultations including whatever science was available as is (hopefully) the case now.
All shooters including non basc members now fully aware of situation via media and other organisations and memberships.
For me it’s what is proposed and why regarding the possible ban, but also how basc have gone about it without consultation of the people that pay them money to be their voice.
Anyways whatever the outcome we will have to comply and hopefully for the greater good of us all, in the long term.
 
Surely in the first instance before basc sanctioned a voluntary phase out leads ban, all its members should have been given the chance to vote, following their intutition followed by consultations including whatever science was available as is (hopefully) the case now.
All shooters including non basc members now fully aware of situation via media and other organisations and memberships.
For me it’s what is proposed and why regarding the possible ban, but also how basc have gone about it without consultation of the people that pay them money to be their voice.
Anyways whatever the outcome we will have to comply and hopefully for the greater good of us all, in the long term.
BASC also had an agenda, if they had consulted their members they knew the result would have been no voluntary ban, they did not even consult the cartridge manufactures or their trade members so no way were they going to consult joe blogs members.

Friday 6th March 2020

Screenshot-2020-02-28-at-15.31.08.png


Following our statement of the 28th February (below), we confirm that Lyalvale Express stands firm on all points.

Lyalvale Express were made aware to the announcement in the form of a single email over the weekend from the GTA. This is notconsultation, with the statement already written and signed.

We have had No conversation with BASC or any of the other 8 organisations over the voluntary phasing out of lead shot and plastic wads. Any claim of this is simply untrue.

Lyalvale Express for over 30 years have been manufacturing shotgun cartridges, the expertise and experience in manufacturing the finest cartridges has provided us with a wealth of knowledge and expertise. We would have been pleased to have had opportunity to give help on the issue if we had been consulted.

We continue the task of improvement and development of alternative products benefiting the industry, sport and shooters alike.

We trust that this clarifies any remaining uncertainty regarding Lyalvale Express’s involvement.



Friday 6th March 2020

Statement: Friday 28th February 2020

From: Rodrigo Crespo of Eley Hawk, Paul James of Gamebore, David Bontoft of Hull Cartridge and Roger Hurley of Lyalvale Express
We, the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers, hereby address the announcement made by BASC and other organisations on Monday 24th February, stating their “wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years”.

Firstly, BASC and their fellow organisations had NO consultation with the UK cartridge manufacturers prior to the announcement being made. The UK manufacturers have now discussed the matter collectively. We believe the organisations have looked at a limited amount of products and assumed that these are a viable answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

This is a major concern to us for a number of reasons, reasons we would have explained to the organisations prior to the publication of their announcement, had we been given the opportunity to do so.

Europe is currently experiencing a steel shot shortage. A move from lead to steel shot for the majority of UK’s shotgun ammunition will inevitably put more pressure on the market for raw material. This would create further shortages in the short term and push up the price as the steel shot industry invests to increase capacity.

The examples of overseas markets successfully transitioned to steel shot such as Denmark and the USA water-fowling sector, should not be used as proof of a solution. This is because the steel loads used in these markets in any significant volume are loaded with plastic wads. In addition to this, the US and Danish regulations allow steel cartridges to be loaded to a much higher level of performance than here in the UK, to increase the lethality of the pellet.

Limitations to performance levels of steel ammunition currently allowed in the UK mean that we are already facing tougher challenges when developing an effective steel load compared to those used overseas. Couple this with the move away from plastic wads and we are even further limited on performance. We would like to see an increase in the performance levels allowed before we can begin to develop loads effective enough to produce clean, humane kills in the various types of shooting carried out in the UK.

There are indeed a handful of non-lead ammunition options with biodegradable wads currently on the market however, at this stage it is simply impossible to make these commercially viable. We cannot make a complete switch over to these products within a five year period without substantial investment into the industry. BASC and its fellow organisations do not have an understanding of the manufacturing processes involved and are therefore in no position to determine the length of time required to evolve.

Tungsten and Bismuth materials are very limited in their availability and significantly more costly to produce than steel. This will result in huge increases in costs, based on raw material prices, for smaller gauge shooters who cannot use steel. This may price many shooters out of the sport.
Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate– lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both. At present the only commercially available options are lead shot with fibre wads, steel with plastic wads or unaffordable premium non-lead shot. Shooters and land owners will need to consider these options and then decide which option is preferable going forward.

We must be clear and educate the organisations as to what is realistic and achievable. Although the development of non-lead, non-plastic alternatives are in the early stages of development, it will be considerable time before a full range of options are available to shooters. This process is a long one that will require vast research, development and investment.

Collectively, we do agree that the industry needs to evolve to become more environmentally friendly. We anticipate this happening as larger industries continue to invest in plastic alternatives which will naturally filter down to ours and other smaller industries. These major industries are in a better position to develop the alternatives, the smaller industries such as ours will then follow. It is unrealistic to expect a relatively small industry such as ours to be at the forefront of the development of such materials.

Moving forward we will continue to encourage the use of steel shot where required, but at this early stage we have no alternative option but to support the use of lead with fibre wads as the solution to the issue of plastic pollution. Where non-lead shot is needed, we encourage the shooters to collect their used plastic wads where possible and dispose of them accordingly, as we know many already do so.

Lastly, we are committed to investing into the alternatives. Our collective goal is to develop high performance ammunition for all shotguns and gauges using sustainable materials and therefore secure the future of shooting. We simply ask that the organisations and individual shooters understand that doing this within a five year window without significant support is IMPOSSIBLE.
 
BASC also had an agenda, if they had consulted their members they knew the result would have been no voluntary ban, they did not even consult the cartridge manufactures or their trade members so no way were they going to consult joe blogs members.

Friday 6th March 2020

Screenshot-2020-02-28-at-15.31.08.png


Following our statement of the 28th February (below), we confirm that Lyalvale Express stands firm on all points.

Lyalvale Express were made aware to the announcement in the form of a single email over the weekend from the GTA. This is notconsultation, with the statement already written and signed.

We have had No conversation with BASC or any of the other 8 organisations over the voluntary phasing out of lead shot and plastic wads. Any claim of this is simply untrue.

Lyalvale Express for over 30 years have been manufacturing shotgun cartridges, the expertise and experience in manufacturing the finest cartridges has provided us with a wealth of knowledge and expertise. We would have been pleased to have had opportunity to give help on the issue if we had been consulted.

We continue the task of improvement and development of alternative products benefiting the industry, sport and shooters alike.

We trust that this clarifies any remaining uncertainty regarding Lyalvale Express’s involvement.



Friday 6th March 2020

Statement: Friday 28th February 2020

From: Rodrigo Crespo of Eley Hawk, Paul James of Gamebore, David Bontoft of Hull Cartridge and Roger Hurley of Lyalvale Express
We, the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers, hereby address the announcement made by BASC and other organisations on Monday 24th February, stating their “wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years”.

Firstly, BASC and their fellow organisations had NO consultation with the UK cartridge manufacturers prior to the announcement being made. The UK manufacturers have now discussed the matter collectively. We believe the organisations have looked at a limited amount of products and assumed that these are a viable answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

This is a major concern to us for a number of reasons, reasons we would have explained to the organisations prior to the publication of their announcement, had we been given the opportunity to do so.

Europe is currently experiencing a steel shot shortage. A move from lead to steel shot for the majority of UK’s shotgun ammunition will inevitably put more pressure on the market for raw material. This would create further shortages in the short term and push up the price as the steel shot industry invests to increase capacity.

The examples of overseas markets successfully transitioned to steel shot such as Denmark and the USA water-fowling sector, should not be used as proof of a solution. This is because the steel loads used in these markets in any significant volume are loaded with plastic wads. In addition to this, the US and Danish regulations allow steel cartridges to be loaded to a much higher level of performance than here in the UK, to increase the lethality of the pellet.

Limitations to performance levels of steel ammunition currently allowed in the UK mean that we are already facing tougher challenges when developing an effective steel load compared to those used overseas. Couple this with the move away from plastic wads and we are even further limited on performance. We would like to see an increase in the performance levels allowed before we can begin to develop loads effective enough to produce clean, humane kills in the various types of shooting carried out in the UK.

There are indeed a handful of non-lead ammunition options with biodegradable wads currently on the market however, at this stage it is simply impossible to make these commercially viable. We cannot make a complete switch over to these products within a five year period without substantial investment into the industry. BASC and its fellow organisations do not have an understanding of the manufacturing processes involved and are therefore in no position to determine the length of time required to evolve.

Tungsten and Bismuth materials are very limited in their availability and significantly more costly to produce than steel. This will result in huge increases in costs, based on raw material prices, for smaller gauge shooters who cannot use steel. This may price many shooters out of the sport.
Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate– lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both. At present the only commercially available options are lead shot with fibre wads, steel with plastic wads or unaffordable premium non-lead shot. Shooters and land owners will need to consider these options and then decide which option is preferable going forward.

We must be clear and educate the organisations as to what is realistic and achievable. Although the development of non-lead, non-plastic alternatives are in the early stages of development, it will be considerable time before a full range of options are available to shooters. This process is a long one that will require vast research, development and investment.

Collectively, we do agree that the industry needs to evolve to become more environmentally friendly. We anticipate this happening as larger industries continue to invest in plastic alternatives which will naturally filter down to ours and other smaller industries. These major industries are in a better position to develop the alternatives, the smaller industries such as ours will then follow. It is unrealistic to expect a relatively small industry such as ours to be at the forefront of the development of such materials.

Moving forward we will continue to encourage the use of steel shot where required, but at this early stage we have no alternative option but to support the use of lead with fibre wads as the solution to the issue of plastic pollution. Where non-lead shot is needed, we encourage the shooters to collect their used plastic wads where possible and dispose of them accordingly, as we know many already do so.

Lastly, we are committed to investing into the alternatives. Our collective goal is to develop high performance ammunition for all shotguns and gauges using sustainable materials and therefore secure the future of shooting. We simply ask that the organisations and individual shooters understand that doing this within a five year window without significant support is IMPOSSIBL
Yes i did know, but was trying to be diplomatic as the current basc not my cup of tea.
 
However looking at the positive, the voluntary ban has inspired the new biodegradable wads from various manufactures, however what it has not done is define a standard for such wads so we all know what we are buying.

One manufacture displayed a compostable EN13432 logo that the wad had not been accredit too, they say they have now removed the logo from their packaging. If this had been done with say a food product they would probably have been fined.

We need more transparency, a benchmark or standard that biodegradable wads should have to meet so we know what we are buying, current versions can take from days to a few years to degrade.
 

Attachments

  • F0A32B58-17B6-4517-8C36-428CF21B657E.webp
    F0A32B58-17B6-4517-8C36-428CF21B657E.webp
    74.7 KB · Views: 4
Back
Top