Lead update.

[sauer]

Insurance is on their terms
Know of an instance where member had guns certs revoked and went to BASC who rubbed their hands of it all ...
Member went onto court won their case and got guns and costs..... no thanks to BASC who at time really pushed their insurance etc....they don't tell you they cherry pick their cases.
Multi million pound media centre?..... pace brothers did more for hunting than they did and did it out of a room above a garage
Think you can guess my thoughts on them ( BSC

Paul

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Having reached 25 pages (!) of discussion following the OP - about the recently published HSE report - timely for a recap I think for those reading from the end first:

Why is this happening?

Lead in ammunition, and some hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, were the first areas to be reviewed in 2021 under post-Brexit legislation called UK REACH on the control of hazardous chemicals. These HSE reviews came about following Brexit to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations.

In June 2023 the HSE proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up in England, Wales and Scotland. This was the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. Nothing has happened since.

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

This is a new process in the UK and there have been no legislative changes as yet.

Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the December 2024 HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation (noting the substances in tattoos and permanent make-up were at this stage of review in June 2023 and nothing has happened).

If laws on lead ammunition are proposed this could be the same for England, Wales and Scotland or we could see different laws in different countries - as happened when the lead shot regulations for wildfowl and/or wetlands came into force over 20 years ago. The devolved governments have always had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the HSE review.

The main HSE recommendations are as follows:

Shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting

A restriction on the sale and use has been proposed with a transition timeline of five years. There will be a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting. This will be subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use. That cap is 1.25 million which equates to 0.7 per cent of the cartridges previously used for target shooting with shotguns.

Rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting

A restriction has been recommended on the sale and use of large calibre ammunition with a timeline of three years. Large calibres have been reclassified as .243 (6.17mm) and above. No restrictions have been proposed on small calibres below .243. Ammunition will need labelling for live quarry or target shooting after the transition period.

Rifle ammunition for target shooting

Ranges that cannot ‘de-lead’ have two years to adapt or move across to non-lead alternatives. Most ranges (95%) can comply with these measures and face no restrictions.

Airgun pellets for live quarry and target shooting

No restrictions proposed.

BASC influence during the review

Over the last three years BASC submitted detailed reports to the numerous HSE consultations and we challenged various proposals we believed were unevidenced, disproportionate to the risks, and/or impracticable. The key outcomes were as follows:

• The transition to the restriction on the sale and use of lead shot for shooting live quarry has been extended from three to five years.
• The transition to the restriction proposed on the sale and use of large calibre rifle ammunition has been extended from 18 months to three years.
• No restrictions have been proposed on small calibre rifle ammunition below .243 after concerns raised by BASC on accuracy and availability.
• No restrictions proposed on airgun pellets following BASC technical reports.
• Following BASC submissions, target shooting with lead rifle ammunition can continue on ranges that can de-lead.

What about .243 rifle ammunition?

Whilst it’s positive that the HSE is not recommending restrictions on small calibre rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting BASC does not support the HSE definition of large calibre to include .243 for restriction proposals.

There is sufficient evidence to show stabilisation issues with .243 calibres, supported by a technical report presented by BASC. As a result, potentially 60,000 people who use .243 for deer management will have to re-barrel their rifles (80 grain .243 bullets do not stabilise in predominantly older rifles with a 1 in 12 twist as they need to be 1 in 8).

BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.

We will be funding research and gathering evidence to underpin further lobbying of ministers and officials on this and other issues that arise as this policy issued moves into the political arena.

What happens next?

There are people and organisations lobbying for an immediate ban on all lead ammunition. So, there is much work ahead. What's needed now is unified support for BASC and if you are not yet a member you can join today to support our work on this and other key issues, such as firearms licensing.

Join

As a member of BASC you not only get all the help and support, you are also helping support our continued fight for sustainable shooting.

basc.org.uk

 

[Liveonce]

Alternatives to lead continue to be developed and come onto market worldwide. Federal do a .410 in steel in USA since 2019. Here is a review on pros and cons:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Tested: Federal Upland Steel Loads

Prohibited from using lead shot for upland or small-game hunting? Sacrifice nothing with Federal’s new Upland Steel loads.

www.americanhunter.org

link to the .410, but at $34 or £27 a box of 25 thats £1,080 per 1000 for steel shot in single use plastic wads.

may as well use Bismuth with a fibre wad.

Buy Upland Steel 410 Bore Ammo | 6 Shot, 3/8 oz, 3in / 76mm, 1400 FPS | Federal

Shopping for the Upland Steel, 410 Bore, 6 Shot, 3 in, 3/8 oz, 1400 fps - Learn more about the latest Upland Steel and other hunting or shooting gear at Federal Ammunition.

www.federalpremium.com

 

[Liveonce]

BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.

Why will you not continue to lobby for lead shot for clay shooting?

It’s an insult to allow olympic athletes to continue to use lead shot and not all, on the very small amount of land used for clay shooting and the lead already deposited on the land will not suddenly disappear.

The only logical conclusion for you not to lobby is because BASC want a total ban on lead shot, to ensure it is not used on live quarry.

 

[Cj1990]

BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.

Why will you not continue to lobby for lead shot for clay shooting?

It’s an insult to allow olympic athletes to continue to use lead shot and not all, on the very small amount of land used for clay shooting and the lead already deposited on the land will not suddenly disappear.

The only logical conclusion for you not to lobby is because BASC want a total ban on lead shot, to ensure it is not used on live quarry.

Very good point.

 

[jall55]

No no they didn't because if they had we wouldn't be where we are now. And BASC would have a lot more members.

May i ask if you responded to the consultation yourself

 

[jall55]

I wonder if BASC could "test" the wings submitted for the wing survey for lead deposits

 

[terrier1]

May i ask if you responded to the consultation yourself

YES I did and I have Marched around London three times. But seriously do you honestly think this government is going to take any notice of our shooting organisations.

 

[jall55]

YES I did and I have Marched around London three times. But seriously do you honestly think this government is going to take any notice of our shooting organisations.

I believe in trying - as if you have marched 3 times so do you

I write and invite MPs - councillors etc too

 

[terrier1]

I believe in trying - as if you have marched 3 times so do you

I write and invite MPs - councillors etc too

I was beating on a shoot over the Christmas break with a good few people I know and couldn't believe the conversation a gamekeeper who I have known for over 40 years told me he had joined the Reform party. This gentleman has never been into politics and it shock me so much I had to have a private conversation with his after.
The only way the government is going to listen to anything is when they lose a lot of seats in the local elections.

 

[Nickb]

I was beating on a shoot over the Christmas break with a good few people I know and couldn't believe the conversation a gamekeeper who I have known for over 40 years told me he had joined the Reform party. This gentleman has never been into politics and it shock me so much I had to have a private conversation with his after.
The only way the government is going to listen to anything is when they lose a lot of seats in the local elections.

Everyone I know voted Reform ...it's the only answer.

 

[WW.]

As someone who's not paid much attention to this topic before, I think some questions might be appropriate to challenge the proposed restrictions, certainly for rifles and possibly also for shotguns.

Hopefully those who would propose the bans would agree that the decision must be made on the basis of the available evidence and on logic, with the greatest focus being on the areas which would give the greatest benefit.

What is the purpose- is it to protect people from lead or to protect wildlife from it, both or neither?

1. If it is to protect people, how does prohibiting lead rifle ammunition protect people? Surely tissue which comes in contact with a bullet is discarded. Thus how can there be a risk to the food chain? I'm not familiar with game dealers but presumably something similar happens with pellet damaged meat in game birds so the argument would also apply?
2. If it is to protect wildlife, on the argument that there are lethal and sub-lethal effects on wildlife then can you demonstrate lower populations of wildlife and signs of lead toxicity, on land used for shooting compared to land not managed for shooting? As I understand it, studies tend to repeatedly demonstrate more biodiversity and higher populations of small birds on land managed for shooting - where there will be lots of lead shot lying around) than land not managed for it (yes, predator control complicates this but signs of lead toxicity and poorer wildlife survival should still be expected). As such this seems to undermine the rationale for banning it.
3. Thus, what is the justification for banning lead?
4. Who does the government wish to work for. Do alternatives to lead make shooting accessible to all or make it the preserve of those with the deepest pockets?

Further, if the aim is to protect wildlife, perhaps the government might like to look at banning free roaming cats first. There are 11 million of them in the UK. Let's be generous and assume an impossible 90% are indoor only and a further 90% of the outdoor ones don't hunt. That leaves around 110,000 cats. Let's again underestimate say these only kill one vertebrate a week. That's 5.7 million small birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians a year (not forgetting that many cats also hunt insects). Many of our native bird species have total UK populations of only a few million.

Or for combating other sublethal effects, perhaps the government might like to restrict public and dog access to the countryside, looking at this study and others:

Four-legged friend or foe? Dog walking displaces native birds from natural areas - PMC

Dog walking is among the world's most popular recreational activities, attracting millions of people to natural areas each year with diverse benefits to human and canine health. But conservation managers often ban dog walking from natural areas ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

(note, I'm someone who grew up with dogs and wants one currently, if lifestyle allowed it)

Oh wait, dog and cat owners are too big a voter group to do that to...

Addendum- given red kites do a fair bit of scavenging, this environmental bioaccumulation of lead must really be holding back their population numbers...

 

[enfieldspares]

Alternatives to lead continue to be developed and come onto market worldwide. Federal do a .410 in steel in USA since 2019. Here is a review on pros and cons:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Tested: Federal Upland Steel Loads

Prohibited from using lead shot for upland or small-game hunting? Sacrifice nothing with Federal’s new Upland Steel loads.

www.americanhunter.org

The last choke boring - one barrel from 3/4 to 1/4 that I had done just in November this year cost be £90 and that was actually cheap. And as said for one barrel on a 12 bore. To remove choke on a .410 is more expensive and fewer gunsmiths are equipped to do it. So for someone with an old 12 bore boxlock worth about £100 now if both barrels needed opening out as per the Proof House advice that is a cost of twice the value of the gun. On an old singe barrel .410 that's also twice the the worth of the gun. I do hope, please, that someone has asked for such prices from Marford Mill as I have asked the CPSA to look in to.

 

[Smellydog]

I think you mentioned shooting a woodcock the other day. You might consider that the reason you could harvest that woodcock is because of research by GWCT and voluntary restraint measures encouraged by BASC and other shooting organisations and used to good effect in political lobbying in the face of calls to take woodcock off the quarry list.

A self-regulation success story for the shooting sector

A reversal in the fortunes of the enigmatic woodcock provides evidence that self-regulation in shooting can work, says Dr Cat McNicol.

basc.org.uk

I think you mentioned that you are not a member of any organisation yet you have benefitted from their efforts whilst using this forum to undermine those very organisations. You might reflect on that.

It doesn't change the fact BASC sold all of us down the river over lead and please don't try and silence me as I'm not a member of anything you approve. I'm entitled by the owners of this brilliant forum to express my opinion. I don't need to reflect on anything your organisation has done.
The only ones that can silence me here are the site owners, why don't you have a word with them, see if you get me removed, that is what you would like is it not?

 

[Smellydog]

Why not use bismuth??

Because I don't want to. Lead works fine.

 

[countrryboy]

Alternatives to lead continue to be developed and come onto market worldwide. Federal do a .410 in steel in USA since 2019. Here is a review on pros and cons:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Tested: Federal Upland Steel Loads

Prohibited from using lead shot for upland or small-game hunting? Sacrifice nothing with Federal’s new Upland Steel loads.

www.americanhunter.org

U"d think a genuine forward think organisation would be pushing to develop these long before they offered a voluntry ban snd complete 180 change of poltcy.
From no new science mo change.


1 thing they should be doing althou possibly too late now is setting up dome studies on clay grounds gor birdlife.
Even release some pheasant and partridge and study them to see if they are swallowing shot.
Clay shoots will have a far higher density of leaf shot than ud ever get on even the very largest commercial game shoot.


Also is HSE/Reach going after household lead water supply pipes with such vigor???
And yet many many people will be drinking out of those daily.

Do they have numbers for how many houses still have lead suppky pipes?
Does such data even exist??
I would off thought that is a far more pressing dangerous issue.



I know when i done my last house up, it had a lead supply pipe, about 20m to the water main.
Got it tested to see if any grant funded available, a few months of not turning tap on and it still barely registered much lead in water far far below wot u needed for a grant to replace pipes.

And lets face it with lead shot in game birds u chose to eat it, dont eat it no risk.
The amount of game eaten by uk population it posses absolutely zero risk to 99% of population.
Even keen shooters who eat a lot of game risk in minisule, compared to many things we do everyday in life ( smoking, drinking, vaping, ultra processed foods etc)

 

[countrryboy]

Having reached 25 pages (!) of discussion following the OP - about the recently published HSE report - timely for a recap I think for those reading from the end first:

Why is this happening?

Lead in ammunition, and some hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup, were the first areas to be reviewed in 2021 under post-Brexit legislation called UK REACH on the control of hazardous chemicals. These HSE reviews came about following Brexit to ensure continued trade in chemicals with the EU post-Brexit. Northern Ireland is excluded due to the NI protocol and continues to be subject to EU REACH regulations.

In June 2023 the HSE proposed its recommendation for a restriction on hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up in England, Wales and Scotland. This was the first restriction HSE has proposed since it took on the role of regulatory agency for UK REACH at the start of 2021. Nothing has happened since.

Lead in ammunition was the second substance subject to review and the next one is the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams.

This is a new process in the UK and there have been no legislative changes as yet.

Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the December 2024 HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation (noting the substances in tattoos and permanent make-up were at this stage of review in June 2023 and nothing has happened).

If laws on lead ammunition are proposed this could be the same for England, Wales and Scotland or we could see different laws in different countries - as happened when the lead shot regulations for wildfowl and/or wetlands came into force over 20 years ago. The devolved governments have always had the power to bring in further restrictions (subject to public consultation) regardless of the HSE review.

The main HSE recommendations are as follows:

Shotgun ammunition for live quarry and target shooting

A restriction on the sale and use has been proposed with a transition timeline of five years. There will be a derogation for current and prospective Olympic and Paralympic athletes to continue using lead shot for target shooting. This will be subject to a cap on the number of cartridges they can use. That cap is 1.25 million which equates to 0.7 per cent of the cartridges previously used for target shooting with shotguns.

Rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting

A restriction has been recommended on the sale and use of large calibre ammunition with a timeline of three years. Large calibres have been reclassified as .243 (6.17mm) and above. No restrictions have been proposed on small calibres below .243. Ammunition will need labelling for live quarry or target shooting after the transition period.

Rifle ammunition for target shooting

Ranges that cannot ‘de-lead’ have two years to adapt or move across to non-lead alternatives. Most ranges (95%) can comply with these measures and face no restrictions.

Airgun pellets for live quarry and target shooting

No restrictions proposed.

BASC influence during the review

Over the last three years BASC submitted detailed reports to the numerous HSE consultations and we challenged various proposals we believed were unevidenced, disproportionate to the risks, and/or impracticable. The key outcomes were as follows:

• The transition to the restriction on the sale and use of lead shot for shooting live quarry has been extended from three to five years.
• The transition to the restriction proposed on the sale and use of large calibre rifle ammunition has been extended from 18 months to three years.
• No restrictions have been proposed on small calibre rifle ammunition below .243 after concerns raised by BASC on accuracy and availability.
• No restrictions proposed on airgun pellets following BASC technical reports.
• Following BASC submissions, target shooting with lead rifle ammunition can continue on ranges that can de-lead.

What about .243 rifle ammunition?

Whilst it’s positive that the HSE is not recommending restrictions on small calibre rifle ammunition for live quarry shooting BASC does not support the HSE definition of large calibre to include .243 for restriction proposals.

There is sufficient evidence to show stabilisation issues with .243 calibres, supported by a technical report presented by BASC. As a result, potentially 60,000 people who use .243 for deer management will have to re-barrel their rifles (80 grain .243 bullets do not stabilise in predominantly older rifles with a 1 in 12 twist as they need to be 1 in 8).

BASC lobbied for large calibres to be set at 6.5mm and will continue to do so.

We will be funding research and gathering evidence to underpin further lobbying of ministers and officials on this and other issues that arise as this policy issued moves into the political arena.

What happens next?

There are people and organisations lobbying for an immediate ban on all lead ammunition. So, there is much work ahead. What's needed now is unified support for BASC and if you are not yet a member you can join today to support our work on this and other key issues, such as firearms licensing.

Join

As a member of BASC you not only get all the help and support, you are also helping support our continued fight for sustainable shooting.

basc.org.uk

In practice esp reguarding rifles it is not as bad as it could off been.

BUT do basc truely believe these proposals wont change at the last min?
How often have u seen that in the past?
Esp in scotland some of the legislation that has went throu last min ( mountain hare shooting ban, i think snaring was also added very late in the muirburn bill)
Or legislation that flies in the face of all consultation and expert advice.

U have to ask why was Wwt and rspb spending members money studying lead in game meat??
Only 1 reason to use as a hammer to bash shooting.

Do they care about the massive issues affecting non toxic shot in airguns, rimfires or small calibre cf's?
Of course not, niether do the HSE, its as easy for them just to put a blanket ban on everything.

If u truely believe anyone outside ( or even inside) the shooting community listens to a word basc says never mind takes them seriously, ur living in a bubble.

When the legislation does come in we will get well and truely shafted as per usual.
And basc brought this on and accelerated it.
Steel shot and eco wads are still not where they need to be yet.
Steel can kill well with a good shot and esp if home loaded a bit faster than factory.
But in average or poor shots the wounding rate is far higher, really not good from welfare point of veiw.
1 shoot i pick up for changed a few years ago, a lot harder on the pickers/dogs.

I cant wait till they start on single use plastic cartridge cases.
No doubt basc can organise a volantry ban to start before any replacements have been devolped.
On the brightside, shooting could well be finished by then anyway.
At the speed the thousand cuts are happening, esp in scotland.
Wont last that long, esp grouse shooting almost unviable already with recent bans/legislation changes.

There is no need for any ban.
If anyone is genuinely worried about lead shot finding its way into supermarket sold shot game ( which i totally understand)
Its very easy for game dealers to insist on only buying non toxic shot game, they already do that with venision.
Start actually paying for birds of estates, it would be very easy for shoots to provide all the cartridges for the day, just add it to the price of a bird.
Hell the money game dealers used to pay for game would easily cover it, and they still have a premium product to sell, guarateed lead free.
If ur getting FREE cartridges no one is going to be using their own.
Solves any potentil issues overnight.
Shoots sign a contract with game dealer any lead shoot found in birds either big fines or refusal to take the birds.
Job done, completely solves the problem of lead shot in commercially sold birds ( diy shoots can pkease themselves as eating at there own risk)
And no 1 at mighty basc could come up with that??

 

[enfieldspares]

It’s an insult to allow olympic athletes to continue to use lead shot and not all, on the very small amount of land used for clay shooting and the lead already deposited on the land will not suddenly disappear.

1.25 million cartridges will be allowed to them under the derogation. That's at one ounce per cartridge thirty-four tons. And yet 22 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire shot cartridges for which there are no non-lead alternatives will be banned?

 

[palmer_mike]

1.25 million cartridges will be allowed to them under the derogation. That's at one ounce per cartridge thirty-four tons. And yet 22 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire shot cartridges for which there are no non-lead alternatives will be banned?

Yes, also use of lead bullets in my muzzle loading rifle for hunting (for which it is conditioned) will be banned.

They’re just dealing with the minority sectors of the shooting community as easy targets in the first round.

 

[Apthorpe]

Thanks, yet the fact is that there is no lead ban so I think your criticism is rather unfair.

Unfair with respect to which points? We've gone back and forth on this, and you've not demonstrated that any part of my criticism is at all inaccurate or incorrect. I entirely accept that you may find yourself in an uncomfortable situation trying to argue both sides of the coin at the same time, but there's nothing unfair I have said.
I'll tell you something that is unfair - gaslighting your members. The reasons put forward at the time for this ludicrous transition you initiated were A) to benefit nature - yet there is no proper evidence of it having benefitted nature on shoots where the change has been made, nor was there ever proper evidence if lead shot harming nature, and B) to improve the market for shot game particulaely for export- which is irrelevant to the majority of shooters who eat what they shoot anyway. Further claims made im supportnof the policy were that it would lead to magical improvements in non-lead ammunition - and the laws of physics have not obliged you by changing, that non-lead alternatives would be price competitive and widely available - neither of which are true. I have considerably more justification for feeling disgruntled over this topic than you.

BASC has challenged the HSE since 2021 on its review into the outdoor recreational use of lead ammunition in England, Wales and Scotland.

While campaigning for the end of lead ammunition use at the same time. BASC has also encouraged and aided antis since 2019.

The latest BASC update on that review and next steps is here:

HSE recommendations on lead restriction proposals explained

Read our explanation of the HSE's proposals on restrictions for lead ammunition in more detail, plus BASC's position on each.

basc.org.uk

An interesting update, which entirely omits to mention that BASC agrees that lead ammunition ought to be phased out, despite the absence of proper scientific evidence to underpin such a view. That is the critical error you have made, both in fact and in strategy. The only essential difference between BASC's position and that of people who want lead ammunition banned is that you believe it should be done via a voluntary transition, and antis think that legislation is necessary.
BASC unwisely started a voluntary transition off its own initiative, and it has now almost ended. Lead ammunition still being the large majority of ammunition used for a variety of reasons, notably including the unavailability of sufficient alternatives,
It is now logically impossible for you to effectively counter the argument that legislation is necessary.