Lead update.
- Thread starter gixer1
- Start date
I used to be a member of the UKPSA (UK Practical Shooting Association) and visited their website today to advise the death of Andy Cairns. They have a news item about their response to the lead ban proposed. I note the first response point is this. I will be asking CPSA if they are doing similar? Perhaps some could ask BASC?
LET US NOT FORGET THE SUCCESS WILD JUSTICE HAD WITH THE DEFRA GENERAL LICENCE PROPOSALS RE PHEASANTS IN GETTING THAT MODIFIED...
UKPSA:
LET US NOT FORGET THE SUCCESS WILD JUSTICE HAD WITH THE DEFRA GENERAL LICENCE PROPOSALS RE PHEASANTS IN GETTING THAT MODIFIED...
UKPSA:
- Engage Legal Expertise: We are seeking professional legal advice to understand, if it is possible to challenge aspects of the ban that lack clear scientific justification or that disproportionately impact the shooting community.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
That is not true. BASC has been fighting lead ammunition bans since they were first proposed in a 1983 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report.
Why do you keep posting false assertions?
In your previous comment you falsely asserted that BASC initiated the HSE review and you were found out as completely wrong in that.
Which shooting organisation (s) are you a member of?
You don’t need a tight barrel .243, whatever you currently have will be more than adequate.
In a previous post I submitted the results of measuring sone 6mm bullets, several others also measured their ‘deer’ bullets all came to less than 6.17mm.
The recommendation talks about the diameter of a lead bullet not that of any bore how so ever measured.
Taking that very small and statistically insignificant sample anyone shooting .243/6mm can crack on as before.
If, and that’s if, the report’s recommendations are enacted in legislation to successfully prosecute the police/cps would have to prove that the projectile in question, not one any in a magazine, before it impacted with any live quarry was equal to or greater than 6.17mm in diameter, how easy would that be?
In reality it, if it is ever enacted of course, will not effect .243 users.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I agree and understand completely.
I'd guessed the restriction is to rule out any 1/4" calibre's more than condemn 243w.
It was over a year now that I spoke to someone that had heard from an official in Whitehall that 243 and below will be exempt from restrictions.
I've also wondered how the hell this will be policed and no I'm not interested in hoops placed before us but I mean in the field.
All this will end up doing is promote illegal activity regardless of threats!
Simple yes or no answer Conor will BASC be fighting to retain lead shot for use at clay grounds?
If no why not?
I don't think that BASC should in fact be using it resources to that end. That should be for the CPSA to do. But both BASC and CPSA will I hope be doing as the UKPSA are doing and that is seeking opinion of competent specialised counsel to understand, if it is possible to challenge aspects of the ban that lack clear scientific justification or that disproportionately impact the shooting community.
For that is what Wild Justice did and DEFRA had to then re-write AFAIR its proposed licensing scheme for the release of pheasants? The phrase in the Wild Justice win was "no cogent reasons".
I submit that there are "no cogent reasons" why if they propose that an allowance of 1.25 million cartridges be made for "Olympic shots" (that's 34 tons of lead) that there are "no cogent reasons" why .22 Rimfire of 9mm Rimfire shot cartridges should be banned. And that an enquiry of the importers of such rimfire shotgun ammunition should be made in the New Year as to how many are imported and sold in the UK per annum.
I also say that there are "no cogent reasons" why lead slug ammunition for 12 bore shotguns allowed under the defence for farmers and crofters to shoot deer perhaps now only ON ENCLOSED LAND should be prohibited. For the use of such ammunition is in a limited and defined boundary and not over unenclosed land.
Last edited:
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I really fail to understand why with all the money that some organisations have that they seem to spend it on re-employing, often, the same failed lobbyists or counsel that they employed to lose an earlier issue that they chose to contest. It's the same lack of intelligent thought that saw Wayne Rooney employed by Birmingham City after failing at Derby County and at Plymouth Argyll after failing at Birmingham City.
The suggestion I make regarding .22 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire and 12 bore slug for farmers and crofters is that it is "low hanging fruit" and competent counsel should be easily able to challenge that, as given what DEFRA has chosen to allow that there is also "no cogent reason" why these also should not still be permitted.
Indeed a lead 12 bore slug will fragment not at all in the shoulder of a deer. Nor does (regarding Scotland) SSG size shot. So where is the risk if that meat is eaten as the "hole" or "holes" can be clearly seen and cut out and discarded. This I submit would also be the same for the permitted for shot size AAA which also does not fragment or expand and also is under the 6.17mm proposed bullet size ban.
And to even equate to but one ton of lead (of which some slugs or nearly all pellets that hit will likely be recovered from under the hide on the opposite side of the animal) there would need to be using the permitted weight of 12 bore slug well over two thousand deer shot per annum under the farmers and crofters exemption.
So let us hope that this "no cogent reason" argument is deployed and done using competent counsel...not failed folk of previous employment..with regard to the above.
The suggestion I make regarding .22 Rimfire and 9mm Rimfire and 12 bore slug for farmers and crofters is that it is "low hanging fruit" and competent counsel should be easily able to challenge that, as given what DEFRA has chosen to allow that there is also "no cogent reason" why these also should not still be permitted.
Indeed a lead 12 bore slug will fragment not at all in the shoulder of a deer. Nor does (regarding Scotland) SSG size shot. So where is the risk if that meat is eaten as the "hole" or "holes" can be clearly seen and cut out and discarded. This I submit would also be the same for the permitted for shot size AAA which also does not fragment or expand and also is under the 6.17mm proposed bullet size ban.
And to even equate to but one ton of lead (of which some slugs or nearly all pellets that hit will likely be recovered from under the hide on the opposite side of the animal) there would need to be using the permitted weight of 12 bore slug well over two thousand deer shot per annum under the farmers and crofters exemption.
So let us hope that this "no cogent reason" argument is deployed and done using competent counsel...not failed folk of previous employment..with regard to the above.
Last edited:
I falsely said you BASC invliated the HSE lead review ?
No I didn't
I said you conferred / took part or gave evidemce to ...however you want it put ..with said review and without consultation of your members or of any ammo manufacturers or if it was feasible and said WE would move away voluntarily in 5yrs
I ask again what gave you the right ?
You / BASC don't speak for me
I'm a member of the SGA
Anyway ...not the best of ways to end the new year.... ingiess we would not agree and could go on with regards to BASC .... so best of the new year to you personally
But I'm not for BASC I've got plenty experience as to why
Paul
No I didn't
I said you conferred / took part or gave evidemce to ...however you want it put ..with said review and without consultation of your members or of any ammo manufacturers or if it was feasible and said WE would move away voluntarily in 5yrs
I ask again what gave you the right ?
You / BASC don't speak for me
I'm a member of the SGA
Anyway ...not the best of ways to end the new year.... ingiess we would not agree and could go on with regards to BASC .... so best of the new year to you personally
But I'm not for BASC I've got plenty experience as to why
Paul
Last edited:
I will re word it then, As a BASC member I do think they should be using their resources to that end, lots of BASC members shoot Clays who are not members of CPSA or UKPSA and BASC has an affiliation scheme for clay Clubs.
Simple yes or no answer @Conor O'Gorman will BASC either on its own or by working with the CPSA and UKPSA to retain lead shot for use at clay grounds?
If no why not?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks and a Happy New Year to you also.
Most of the shooting organisations and some of their members (and people that are not members of any organisation) submitted responses to the various stages of the HSE review since 2021 - there was a call for evidence, a first consultation and a second consultation. The second consultation ended in December 2023.
There were over 8,000 responses to the final HSE consultation and over 11,000 submissions overall. In December 2024 the HSE published its recommendations.
Defra and the Scottish and Welsh Governments will review the December 2024 HSE report and decide whether to propose legislation.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
All the organisations have been working together through BSSC during the HSE review, including BASC, CPSA and UKPSA. If there are further BASC updates I will share them and I don't wish to be drawn into speculation on positioning before we have even see a response to the HSE recommendations from Defra or the Welsh or Scottish governments.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
If u turn the clock back to the LAG days, was it not true basc declined a seat at the table?
Because john swift was chairman and he would speak up for shooting and basc.
That turned out well for shooters
Or mibbee he was showing bascs true colours!!
Leaving the shooting side of argument 1 voice down
Its a very very good job the CA and Gwct were on the case and had their wits about them.
They have been trying to ban lead for decades and is being driven by politics rather than any real health concerns.
If genuine health concern for the general public was a piority theyd be focusing on the hundreds of thousnds of folk still drinking water throu lead pipes.
If they is a genuine worry for lead shot in sold game ( which i totally understand in modern times) it would be very simple indeed for game dealers to insist game shot with non toxic and commercial shoots provide ur cartridges.
HonestJohn
Well-Known Member
I’m a BASC member because it’s what I’ve always used. Simple as.
I don’t expect them to fight our corner one bit, in my view they sell insurance and I get a ‘free’ magazine now and again.
If I wanted someone to fight our corner for the sport, I’d join some form of group or start a petition/other.
As said above, these companies are a BUSINESS, and they pitch themselves to the consumer in a way so they win a cut from the competitors. Voice of Shooting is just a marketing trick, all companies want a catch line people buy into and associate with.
It’s for US (not as in USA), to drive the changes we want to see.
IMVHO
I don’t expect them to fight our corner one bit, in my view they sell insurance and I get a ‘free’ magazine now and again.
If I wanted someone to fight our corner for the sport, I’d join some form of group or start a petition/other.
As said above, these companies are a BUSINESS, and they pitch themselves to the consumer in a way so they win a cut from the competitors. Voice of Shooting is just a marketing trick, all companies want a catch line people buy into and associate with.
It’s for US (not as in USA), to drive the changes we want to see.
IMVHO
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
I feel the exact oppisate.
But possibly thats why basc membership numbers are so high.
Been a basc member for 30 odd years and when i ran a diy syndicate it was affilated, even cost us guns over it. Who even back then refused to join basc.
Basc have been very poor for years/decades really but have always been paticularly poor over lead shot.
Possibly having john swift at the helm for so long has filtered throu the whole org.
Plenty of decent orgs out there.
SGA in scotland are paticulary good and try very hard.
Unfortunately holyrood ignores most off their advice and good work.
If i was in england i think i would be a member of Ngo or CA ( despite them both signing 'the letter')
But CA in paticular done very well in expising the LAG for the sham it was.
Both cheaper than basc too.
With Swift at the helm, I doubt many people thought that.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
@JTO we are a quarter of the way into the 21st century and referring back to conspiracy theories started by people that did not agree with the wetland restrictions signed up to by the UK government for the AEWA treaty in the last century is getting tiresome. Everyone has moved on. The OP is about the HSE recommendations report published in December and we now await a response from Defra, Welsh and Scottish governments.
It was you who brought up 1983! Swift's involvement in LAG suggests that he never had his, and BASC's, heart, in opposing a lead ban. How long was he at the helm?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
