Lead ban announcement for live quarry shooting

Clay, Trap, Skeet Shooting Forum

Help Support Clay, Trap, Skeet Shooting Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Anyhow the CPSA's position is that it supports lead shot for clay shooting and has no intention of changing its position so not a problem yet.

For clay shooters that is..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some very interesting reading on this thread.

First of all my cards on the table - I am in inexperienced shot with a shotgun, I do have experience and understanding of government departments and commercial and communication strategy.

Some questions and observations:

Do we really believe that the battleground in defence of shooting (particularly live quarry) will be mainly based on scientific evidence, I'm not saying is shouldn't be btw, but research and history shows us this is not the case.

If we accept the first premise then the strategy for that battlefield must change, and that may include removing parts of the oppositions argument before it is well formed or presented.

The death by 1000 cuts, or the thin end of the wedge argument.  There are 2 forms of defensive strategy; a fixed defence, where resistance to any change is formed, no ground is given and the defender stands and fights on all fronts - this can be successful, but it is an all or nothing strategy and rarely wins the emotion battle.  The second is more complex, adaptable and agile, it looks to give ground in one area to focus strength of defence or attack in another area, this is a risk based approach and also comes with risk.

I don't know what strategy the shooting and game organisations are using and I would not expect them to share it publicly, I also have no idea if it will be ultimately successful or not as legislation is often formed by and through public opinion and not entirely on evidence and therefore is therefore difficult to predict.

As someone who until a year ago was outside of the civilian shooting world, it seemed clear that a lead ban was coming at some point, at least for use outside of a controlled environment where a lead management plan can be implemented.  I have no doubt that there are issues with steel or non toxic alternatives, but I do believe the change was coming and hopefully the voluntary 5 year transition will give us time to understand and adapt to the change in the best way possible.

 
Posted: 28th Feb, 2020



Joint statement by the Directors of the UK's leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers





280220-115647-Gamebore_highres%20(2%20of%20106).jpg



UK GAME CARTRIDGES

Joint statement by the Directors of the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers


Statement: Friday 28th February 2020

From: Rodrigo Crespo of Eley Hawk, Paul James of Gamebore, David Bontoft of Hull Cartridge and Roger Hurley of Lyalvale Express

We, the UK’s leading shotgun cartridge manufacturers, hereby address the announcement made by BASC and other organisations on Monday 24th February, stating their “wish to see an end to both lead and single-use plastics in ammunition used by those taking all live quarry with shotguns within five years”.

Firstly, BASC and their fellow organisations had NO consultation with the UK cartridge manufacturers prior to the announcement being made.

The UK manufacturers have now discussed the matter collectively. We believe the organisations have looked at a limited amount of products and assumed that these are a viable answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is a major concern to us for a number of reasons, reasons we would have explained to the organisations prior to the publication of their announcement, had we been given the opportunity to do so.

Europe is currently experiencing a steel shot shortage. A move from lead to steel shot for the majority of UK’s shotgun ammunition will inevitably put more pressure on the market for raw material. This would create further shortages in the short term and push up the price as the steel shot industry invests to increase capacity.

The examples of overseas markets successfully transitioned to steel shot such as Denmark and the USA water-fowling sector, should not be used as proof of a solution. This is because the steel loads used in these markets in any significant volume are loaded with plastic wads. In addition to this, the US and Danish regulations allow steel cartridges to be loaded to a much higher level of performance than here in the UK, to increase the lethality of the pellet.

Limitations to performance levels of steel ammunition currently allowed in the UK mean that we are already facing tougher challenges when developing an effective steel load compared to those used overseas. Couple this with the move away from plastic wads and we are even further limited on performance. We would like to see an increase in the performance levels allowed before we can begin to develop loads effective enough to produce clean, humane kills in the various types of shooting carried out in the UK.

There are indeed a handful of non-lead ammunition options with biodegradable wads currently on the market however, at this stage it is simply impossible to make these commercially viable. We cannot make a complete switch over to these products within a five year period without substantial investment into the industry. BASC and its fellow organisations do not have an understanding of the manufacturing processes involved and are therefore in no position to determine the length of time required to evolve.

Tungsten and Bismuth materials are very limited in their availability and significantly more costly to produce than steel. This will result in huge increases in costs, based on raw material prices, for smaller gauge shooters who cannot use steel. This may price many shooters out of the sport.

Right now, we need to decide which to eliminate– lead or plastic? We cannot avoid using both. At present the only commercially available options are lead shot with fibre wads, steel with plastic wads or unaffordable premium non-lead shot. Shooters and land owners will need to consider these options and then decide which option is preferable going forward.

We must be clear and educate the organisations as to what is realistic and achievable. Although the development of non-lead, non-plastic alternatives are in the early stages of development, it will be considerable time before a full range of options are available to shooters. This process is a long one that will require vast research, development and investment.

Collectively, we do agree that the industry needs to evolve to become more environmentally friendly. We anticipate this happening as larger industries continue to invest in plastic alternatives which will naturally filter down to ours and other smaller industries. These major industries are in a better position to develop the alternatives, the smaller industries such as ours will then follow. It is unrealistic to expect a relatively small industry such as ours to be at the forefront of the development of such materials.

Moving forward we will continue to encourage the use of steel shot where required, but at this early stage we have no alternative option but to support the use of lead with fibre wads as the solution to the issue of plastic pollution. Where non-lead shot is needed, we encourage the shooters to collect their used plastic wads where possible and dispose of them accordingly, as we know many already do so.

Lastly, we are committed to investing into the alternatives. Our collective goal is to develop high performance ammunition for all shotguns and gauges using sustainable materials and therefore secure the future of shooting. We simply ask that the organisations and individual shooters understand that doing this within a five year window without significant support is IMPOSSIBLE


Published 28th February 2020 



Back to all news





This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more.
Accept and Close



© Gamebore Cartridge Co. Ltd. Great Union Street, Kingston-Upon-Hull, HU9 1AR, England

French Site . Contact . Dealers . Terms . Privacy Policy . I

 
The CIP regulations on standard steel especially in the smaller shot sizes is the biggest hurdle. 

You could develop a fantastic cartridge which could do the job sell it in the USA or Denmark but not in the UK. 

Unless the rest of the CIP countries intend to ban lead  within 5 years or we decided to leave the CIP I’m not too sure there will be a willingness to fund, test and draft new regulations. 

Therefore the cartridge manufacturers hands are tied to some extent. 

 
Some very interesting reading on this thread.

First of all my cards on the table - I am in inexperienced shot with a shotgun, I do have experience and understanding of government departments and commercial and communication strategy.

Some questions and observations:

Do we really believe that the battleground in defence of shooting (particularly live quarry) will be mainly based on scientific evidence, I'm not saying is shouldn't be btw, but research and history shows us this is not the case.

If we accept the first premise then the strategy for that battlefield must change, and that may include removing parts of the oppositions argument before it is well formed or presented.

The death by 1000 cuts, or the thin end of the wedge argument.  There are 2 forms of defensive strategy; a fixed defence, where resistance to any change is formed, no ground is given and the defender stands and fights on all fronts - this can be successful, but it is an all or nothing strategy and rarely wins the emotion battle.  The second is more complex, adaptable and agile, it looks to give ground in one area to focus strength of defence or attack in another area, this is a risk based approach and also comes with risk.

I don't know what strategy the shooting and game organisations are using and I would not expect them to share it publicly, I also have no idea if it will be ultimately successful or not as legislation is often formed by and through public opinion and not entirely on evidence and therefore is therefore difficult to predict.

As someone who until a year ago was outside of the civilian shooting world, it seemed clear that a lead ban was coming at some point, at least for use outside of a controlled environment where a lead management plan can be implemented.  I have no doubt that there are issues with steel or non toxic alternatives, but I do believe the change was coming and hopefully the voluntary 5 year transition will give us time to understand and adapt to the change in the best way possible.
I consider myself to be of above average intelligence but what?.......

 
Seems I've started a heated debate by some of the content in this thread

Looks like BASC & co have not only taken their respective members for granted over this but also the cartridge manufactures in making this bold sweeping statement by not even communicating with them !!     Looking at the joint statement from the manufacturers 

Cart before the horse comes to mind 

 
I consider myself to be of above average intelligence but what?.......
Sorry my social science side coming out and being a little obtuse.

The argument against shooting is an emotional one not rational, humans connect with emotional ideas more readily than rational ones.  While we like to believe that humans make all important decisions rationally, using logic and sound evidence, there is significant research that shows this is not the case (Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman).

I personally don't buy into the 'death by 1000 cuts, or the thin end of the wedge' type argument, if shooting sets up an impasse we will lose, so we should pick our fights to win.  

I believe the shooting organisations need to get on the front foot, develop a sound and effective strategy and push it aggressively.

All of that being said the recent announcement buy the cartridge manufacturers seems to paint a much darker picture :(  I had wrongly assumed there had been some co-operation there given the number of organisations that signed the joint announcement.

 
Pretty interesting video. 

In short they shoot steel shot without a plastic cup through a barrel  

I know it isn’t high volume, but not the outcome is not what I  would have thought. It’s a bit long in tooth in the beginning, but still. And I’m looking forward to today’s video. 



Lars. 

 
Interesting, I much prefer the non scientific approach to testing being of a non scientific nature, ie: a bit thick. No facts and figures, just a couple of decent blokes giving it a go and their opinion of the results.

Now, me being me, I'm more inclined to have a go myself.

I like the way it says don't try this at home, if I did that in my living room, if my Mrs didn't kill me the repair bills to the room would 🤣🤣🤣

 
@Salopian That’s a lot of questions and searching for white papers/links, but yes, I can and I will. Please allow me some time to do this. There is a LOT of evidence, some recent and some going back decades, even centuries.

FYI, I do not consider myself well read, but I work with people who are and they lead their prospective fields in physics and biology (MSc/PhD/Professor and worlds leading universities). It is from them I learn. My own education is an engineering degree that I scraped through in my thirties and a fair amount of blue collar hands on experience before that. I’m able to understand basic concepts but the finer details are beyond my intimate knowledge.
I doubt you will find any real evidence of lead shot causing health problems other than being shot with it. Lead salts are quite obviously harmful but we are not talking about these substances. Lead is not easily converted to these substances either... but scientists will have their day.. how else can they be kept in a job.

Incidents of scientific tripe are legion. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is one that springs to mind... anybody actually hearing anything about that these days? No? Guess why... there are no scientists at the moment blowing the problem out of proportion for they sake of a job. It has not suddenly ceased to exist and a huge explosion of cases linked to the ingestion of  " contaminated meat products" was forecast... what happened to them? Bird flu anybody heard much about that of late? No? Has it suddenly ceased to exist? No just that scientists have moved on from that particular little money earner. Big pharma companies made a killing, when they were really needing the boost in revenue... funny that eh?, selling vaccines to stupid governments on the back of scientific hyperbolic advice... the irony of which was the vaccines would not have been effective against the actual H5N1 strain. That did not stop the British government buying millions of doses costing billions of pounds... none of which was every used! 

I repeat what I have said before the scientific community is a self serving one which has the main aim of instilling fear in a populace who do not fully understand or know the truth, not that the scientists do either, and that statement includes government ministers who are like rabbits caught in the headlights. The internal combustion engine accounts for less than 10% of the global production of so called green house gases and it is imperative that they are banned ... humans and farm animals breathing and sh*tting account for about 75% and yet nothing at all is being do to control the population of both.

Now we have Corona virus to contend with... lock your doors, repel visitors ban travel etc ... more people worldwide have died from common or garden flu since the outbreak of corona virus. I am not suggesting it is not to be taken seriously... but so do things much closer to home.

I have worked in science all my life... scientists? You've got to laugh!

 
I doubt you will find any real evidence of lead shot causing health problems other than being shot with it. Lead salts are quite obviously harmful but we are not talking about these substances. Lead is not easily converted to these substances either... but scientists will have their day.. how else can they be kept in a job.

Incidents of scientific tripe are legion. Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) is one that springs to mind... anybody actually hearing anything about that these days? No? Guess why... there are no scientists at the moment blowing the problem out of proportion for they sake of a job. It has not suddenly ceased to exist and a huge explosion of cases linked to the ingestion of  " contaminated meat products" was forecast... what happened to them? Bird flu anybody heard much about that of late? No? Has it suddenly ceased to exist? No just that scientists have moved on from that particular little money earner. Big pharma companies made a killing, when they were really needing the boost in revenue... funny that eh?, selling vaccines to stupid governments on the back of scientific hyperbolic advice... the irony of which was the vaccines would not have been effective against the actual H5N1 strain. That did not stop the British government buying millions of doses costing billions of pounds... none of which was every used! 

I repeat what I have said before the scientific community is a self serving one which has the main aim of instilling fear in a populace who do not fully understand or know the truth, not that the scientists do either, and that statement includes government ministers who are like rabbits caught in the headlights. The internal combustion engine accounts for less than 10% of the global production of so called green house gases and it is imperative that they are banned ... humans and farm animals breathing and sh*tting account for about 75% and yet nothing at all is being do to control the population of both.

Now we have Corona virus to contend with... lock your doors, repel visitors ban travel etc ... more people worldwide have died from common or garden flu since the outbreak of corona virus. I am not suggesting it is not to be taken seriously... but so do things much closer to home.

I have worked in science all my life... scientists? You've got to laugh!
Pollution wise, and you may want to look this up as I always believe everything I read and am told🤔 There is more pollution caused by one years manufacturing of cement (not concrete) than for every car ever made in the past or in the future. 

Anyone voteing to ban buildings and roads and everything that cementatious products are used in. Maybe its just something we have to live with, or maybe its money talks.

I'd take lead over cement any time.

Maybe I'm just rambling about what a little Mexican fella once told me about cement. 

 
Maybe I'm just rambling about what a little Mexican fella once told me about cement. 
I am not certain of that fact BUT if you stop to consider the amount of fuel alone that is burnt in it production and then transportation it does in fact produce nearly one metric tonne of CO2 for every metric tonne of cement made... a sobering statistic indeed . The way I see it there are no really clean ways of making anything you simply take a different route to the finished product and declare it cleaner... electric cars being a classic example. Electricity is clean... but what about the generation of the electricity, there the picture changes radically! 

 
The European Union  requested for the 3rd time in as many years after been rejected twice for lack of evidence on the dangers of lead ammunition.  they have made false claims twisted the facts  and still couldn't get a bill pushed thru.  This is typical of the corruption of the E.U   they have forced countries to vote twice to ratify treaties  when the outcome didn't go there way.    All shooters need to stand together and fight tooth and nail  for the right to continue using lead shot 

 
The European Union  requested for the 3rd time in as many years after been rejected twice for lack of evidence on the dangers of lead ammunition.  they have made false claims twisted the facts  and still couldn't get a bill pushed thru.  This is typical of the corruption of the E.U   they have forced countries to vote twice to ratify treaties  when the outcome didn't go there way.    All shooters need to stand together and fight tooth and nail  for the right to continue using lead shot 
I don't doubt what you are saying BUT in 11 months time the UK will cease membership of the EU so this seems, to me at least, being driven by the British anit's and for what ever reason accepted by BASC. Lets face it the lead in shooting debate is nothing more than a backdoor way of getting shooting and guns off the agenda and out of the hands of the general public. Are the governments of these countries going to compensate shooters whose guns become obsolete because of the ban on lead cartridges... no chance! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can't possibly be true that lead from shot will not be the death of everyone and its undeniable that steel is the wonder alternative,just ask @lloyd he has a direct line to all the experts and world champoins!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jwpzx9r Of those I’ve spoken to, all, behind closed doors would agree that much in scientific research is propelled by the funding and publishing mill.

Still, selective publishing is as widespread as selective reading and listening. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
@jwpzx9r Of those I’ve spoken to, all, behind closed doors would agree that much in scientific research is propelled by the funding and publishing mill.

Still, selective publishing is as widespread as selective reading and listening. 
Of course there is much work done in the name of progress. Here is a true story. I worked with a research group at The University of Edinburgh, I am not going to mention any names or department. I did work that was funded by the Welcome trust and people earned their living from this funding the project was funded for three years and even then we are talking more than 150K of money funding post docs and post grads. At the end of the funding period none of that research work was written up as a paper. I asked the principle researcher why he had not written it up...  his reply? I only really do things that are of interest to me! I got on great with the guy and he was a really passionate scientist. Of course you did get the exact opposite to this and researchers would submit everything the could including back issues of the Beano in hopes of getting something published . Then you get heralded publications by renowned authors being withdrawn because it was poorly researched and results could not be replicated.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top