Lead Ban Update

[Robbo]

Completed...

[Pippin89]

Done for me and the missus

[flamoudi]

I took the lead 1% w/w meant any bullet with that proportion of lead in it was deemed as a lead bullet? That means jacketed also?

[Christel]

I am confused as to what the government is playing at with the lead ban. Who exactly benefits?

We have to be as green as possible however land is being converted from arable to solar panels / windmills in places that just does not make sense. Ledburn springs to mind. Are we in reality talking about being as green as possible as long as there is money to be made and certain pressure groups get their way?

And yet, the far more tangible harm of disease and overall foulness in dumping untreated excrement into our rivers and coastline goes virtually without address nor punishment.

You couldn't make the current situation up. It is all about virtue signalling and money.

[1066]

If you look at who are the main instigators you will find Prof Rhys Green and Dr Rose Trevelyan have a traffic amount of input into this. AND I know Ryhs Green is also on the judging committee - He's also a big wig of some sort in the RSPB.
https://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/directory/rhys-green
Looks like a certain amount of this "research" was carried out on kitchen tabletops with a pen knife.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56158777

[millemigliadave]

I wonder what the CPSA have to say on this... steel for clays is one thing, but a lot of shoots use land that is also used for grazing. To the best of my knowledge steel shot requires a plastic wad, which even if made from a biodegradable material would likely not degrade quickly enough for livestock to graze where the wads had landed.. I can therefore see permissions being retracted.

[1066]

I feel the associations are not doing nearly enough to fight this. This is a backdoor anti shooting campaign hiding under a "scientific" umbrella. As with almost all research it can be skewed in any direction depending on agenda and paymaster.

Some of the "research", based on a computer model, shows that raptor numbers would be higher if there was no lead shot in the environment - ergo, ban shooting, raptor numbers would increase. On the other hand "research" shows that raptor numbers increase over well managed grouse shooting moorland.

There will be so many unintended consequences of this ill thought out, ideologically driven campaign it will change our sport for ever.

[Mauserbill]

Hello
What sport are you talking about, if this ill thought lunacy go's ahead, our shooting sports are "DEAD"

[Pete]

1066 said: "research shows that raptor numbers increase over well managed grouse shooting moorland"..........
Well, research also shows that the main cause of death in hen harriers aged between 1-2 years is illegal killing.
Tracked hen harriers lived on average 121 days after fledging, and the risk of illegal killing increased on areas managed for grouse shooting.
I'm not exactly sure what the article meant by "illegal killing".......I hope that any killing of raptors is illegal, and that the knuckle-dragging halfwits (and their employers) who do this are caught and prosecuted.

Pete

[Pippin89]

I wonder what the CPSA have to say on this... steel for clays is one thing, but a lot of shoots use land that is also used for grazing. To the best of my knowledge steel shot requires a plastic wad, which even if made from a biodegradable material would likely not degrade quickly enough for livestock to graze where the wads had landed.. I can therefore see permissions being retracted.

No I'm afraid this is incorrect. I have shot a BASC day where they were showcasing different steel shots. One had a wad made of potato starch which dissolved in water in a few hours and was safe to consume. And the cartridge is sealed to stop it prematurely dissolving in the cartridge. Another one used a paper wad, but I wouldn't recommend that one. It was like confetti coming out the end of the gun which was very distracting for a follow up shot.