HSE publish proposal to ban all lead shot

[Rwhite]

Just enjoy the next 5 years.

For me the issue is not lead/alternative as I accept it was an inevitability. My concern is how fast can the cartridge makers refine and scale production to control prices. As others have said the biggest issue is our sport becoming a minority sport due to affordability.

 

[jasper]

You’re wrong. It’s not ‘simples’ despite you thinking it. The government introduced the compensation for some handgun owners when it passed the 1997 firearms act. It is under no legal obligation to repeat that, or offer compensation to anything else that’s banned.

They may choose to, but there is no legal requirement. If you think there is, provide the link.

It’s frankly naive to think that all (or even most) lead shot is collected and recycled. It’s this insistence that everything is okay and there’s no problems that has helped get us into this position in the first place.

It happened with fishing, and it’s happened in other countries with lead shot. It’s happening here, and not everyone will see it as a conspiracy.

I didn't say it was all collected. I merely stated it could be. On areas related to food production. Because that is what this all about lead in the food chain.
I'd like to see your legal argument for removing my property without paying me. It's called stealing. At no time did I mention compensation. Merely the removal of my property.. if they want my house for a road project they have to buy it .

 

[Ali112]

Just enjoy the next 5 years.

For me the issue is not lead/alternative as I accept it was an inevitability. My concern is how fast can the cartridge makers refine and scale production to control prices. As others have said the biggest issue is our sport becoming a minority sport due to affordability.

 

[PeeJay]

I didn't say it was all collected. I merely stated it could be. On areas related to food production. Because that is what this all about lead in the food chain.
I'd like to see your legal argument for removing my property without paying me. It's called stealing. At no time did I mention compensation. Merely the removal of my property.. if they want my house for a road project they have to buy it .

Yes, they do. However, that is completely different to them banning something and then having to pay compensation to those affected. That’s not correct, it’s simply not true, despite you wanting it to be.

I’m not sure why you’re saying that at no time did you mention compensation…you did. I merely responded to your comment that “And you don't have to compensate all the gun owners like you would if you just banned shooting.” This isn’t about banning shooting, but even if it was, there is no legal requirement to compensate those affected by a ban brought in by the government.

You mention food production, but this isn’t all about food production. There has been a large push against lead shot for decades by the ecological and wildlife groups. Nothing to do with it entering the food chain, and all to do with the potential damage to wildlife.

You didn’t originally say that it ‘could’ be collected in areas of ‘food production’. Your comment suggested that it was collected and sold. That’s incorrect. Most shot is left in the environment, in concentrated amounts, in quantities far exceeding any lead found naturally, and readily accessible to wildlife etc.

Lead shot for fishing was first banned (certain sizes) in the U.K. in 1987, even though many believed (with some evidence) that it was mainly the shot from shotguns that was affecting the wildfowl, particularly mute swans. This ban has been on the cards since then and I’m surprised it’s taken nearly 40 years to happen.

 

[FESkent]

Exactly the attitudes that got us to this.
If you own something and the government takes it off you they have to pay you . Simples. As they had to when handguns were banned..
Lead from clay grounds which falls in specific places is easily cleared with a machine and recycled to provide a tidy sum for said clay ground. The same cannot be said of lead occurring naturally..As has been stated its a stitch up. Shooting ban via the back door. Catch up.

It’s not an attempt to ban shooting by the back door, rather it’s an attempt by shooting organisations, especially one of them to ensure commercial game shooting has a future and for that they need to be certain it has a market and the market is demanding it is lead free. And the only way to be certain is a total ban on all
lead shot as they do not trust guns to use non toxic shot at game if lead shot is still available.

look at it logically they are happy for labelling to go on rifle ammunition, stating not to be used on live quarry but not on cartridge boxes.

Then one shooting organisation is not happy that .243 rifle has been classified as large calibre and hence non toxic bullets only so they are quote,

“We will be funding research and gathering evidence to underpin further lobbying of ministers and officials on this”

but have not stated they are doing likewise for lead shot used by all within the constraints of a small land area ie a clay ground.
Possibly the same ground however that olympic competitors are still going to be allowed to use lead.

Why because the five year voluntary transition away from lead shot for live quarry shooting was a complete failure so their goal is achieved by a total ban on lead shot except to a very few olympic competitors.

And yes I am a member of that organisation, a trade member and wait for them to prove my views wrong.

 

[FESkent]

And now full cost recovery for licence fees

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rural-communities-facing-steep-gun-153012980.html?guccounter=1

 

[perazman]

And now full cost recovery for licence fees

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/rural-communities-facing-steep-gun-153012980.html?guccounter=1

Weirdly this is something that doesn't trouble me so much though I appreciate it will others.

Even at say, £500 per licence, that's £100 a year. Equal to the cost of shooting one 100 reg when you factor in entry/carts/fuel etc. I'm currently forced to pay £170 for the privilege of owning a television! I know which I'd give up first!

If they're claiming full cost recovery then our associations can then pressure forces to provide a far better service than they currently provide.

PM

 

[Yorkshire Clay Shooting]

Weirdly this is something that doesn't trouble me so much though I appreciate it will others.

Even at say, £500 per licence, that's £100 a year. Equal to the cost of shooting one 100 reg when you factor in entry/carts/fuel etc. I'm currently forced to pay £170 for the privilege of owning a television! I know which I'd give up first!

If they're claiming full cost recovery then our associations can then pressure forces to provide a far better service than they currently provide.

PM

My thoughts exactly

 

[Freddypip]

I agree with the above - I have no issue paying the full cost of administrating the licenses. I would not want to pay for a licensing system I do not use so expect to pay in full for one I do. I also agree that if it's fully funding then we can expect it to be done properly & promptly.

On the wider point, I agree with FESkent in that I expect there is quite a lot going on here in terms of what works going forward - both compliance in European and the different interest in the UK and perhaps some personal agendas.

I'm a bit skeptical regarding that any additional statements from CPSA members would have made any difference. If there was 11,000 that's plenty to read and the role of the CPSA is to express the members opinion - we should not have needed to express our individual opinions for the Association's view to have the weight of it's members. The problem with the CPSA is that the government/HSE/whoever will realise it does not have the full respect of it's members.

Having said all the above, this is a done deal. There are too many examples of the central government simply not caring about even a large bulk of the populous so I'll work with it to avoid any sudden pain.

 

[FESkent]

Weirdly this is something that doesn't trouble me so much though I appreciate it will others.

Even at say, £500 per licence, that's £100 a year. Equal to the cost of shooting one 100 reg when you factor in entry/carts/fuel etc. I'm currently forced to pay £170 for the privilege of owning a television! I know which I'd give up first!

If they're claiming full cost recovery then our associations can then pressure forces to provide a far better service than they currently provide.

PM

partly agree as my medical GP report cost more than renewing my licences. However will £400 or £500 turn away prospective new comers to the sport. As add what £100 for GP reports and it starts to look painful.

Plus as often said are we rewarding the inefficient forces.

 

[Jonny English]

This was always on the cards, no amount of responses from shooters or organisations was ever going to change the out come, it was a done deal before it even started. Lead is toxic and shooters banging on about lead water pipes isn't a good enough argument I'm afraid to change the mind of the hse. Best outcome was always going to be to negotiate it on the best terms possible.