Sorry but that stuff is meta studies upon meta studies (meaning dredging up of old poor quality data, of little statistical significance, going back to the 1970s, hedged about with ifs and buts, re- analysing it with a barely concealed agenda, and scaremongering that it's getting worse and worse. The merest skimming of such will show that.
TBH, not only is it very poor, but the (little) publicity that they have managed to get, except from the usual suspects, is counter-productive. There is certainly a debate, and a re-positioning, to be made. But this is not the way to do it.
Is this the best that you can do ? Three alternative links to the same BS pseudo-science report ? Not saying that some of what they have divined is not wrong. But neither is necessarily true.
The problem is, that an interested, open minded researcher, wanting to be looking at alternative interpretations of how to manage wildlife, in whatever environment, is automatically going to have a hard time. This is not a good career choice for someone who is not prepared to be , let's say, not be totally morally motivated and firm of their convictions. But if they are in-between, or just self-interested, well that's down to them I suppose. If they, fundamentally, have a problem with sporting, nevermind needed wildlife management, well that I suppose is
I am not just disappointed that you have brought this up. Very poor.
As you well know, we have discussed this, there is an ongoing analysis, and consultation, through ECHA and derogated to more clued up people. Which might put forward a proposal, mid this year, maybe to be finalised next year, then legislated later.
Based on more nuanced studies, far more interesting, which also exist. And are in the mix. I am only one man, but follow some science, and I'm sorry to say that if you,
@Conor O'Gorman can only put up what you have, then you are are misadvised, ill-informed, and if suggesting that you might guide future legislative policy, well, politely, out of your depth. Impolitely, dangerous.
As and when that happens, I would expect the UK to follow. Unless, incredibly, the decision makers decide to take a different view, more appropriate to our individual circumstances.
Maybe
BASC purport to be represented there. I've looked, but can, as yet, find your contribution to that consultation. Perhaps you are putting it through larger European organisations ?
As for UK REACH, well I don't see it as being a priority for them. Much more important REACH stuff, to mainly do with chemicals, and keeping the UK aligned with the EU as to regulations, so they can still go in and out, post Brexit.
Ammunition, and exported game, being a tiny part of this, though our AGHEs and others seem to have got their knickers in a twist about this, egged on or in cahoots with BASC etc. by some retail outlets who have attempted to stir up a "holier than thou" approach to the provision of good wild game at enormous profit margin, whilst simultaneously denigrating anything else. Overall I do not think that they are friends to the business.
Neither, ISTM, has been BASC
ISTR that BASC registered UK REACH as being theirs, but may have mis remembered the details of that.
Got any contact with the real UK REACH people worrying about lead in ammunition ? If there are any. You used to claim to have the inside line, someone very well connected apparently, clubbable, mingled with the decision makers, dont ask, trust us, and we'll take those who are already onside out for grand influencing days at the usual place. To be properly declared of course.
As for most of the big pheasant shooting going on, that I suspect BASC might be the only organisation to unwholeheartedly continue to support. Lets just say, It's not my thing.
It complicated, certainly.
basc.org.uk
basc.org.uk
