- 30-06-2012, 14:38 #1
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Gods Waiting room
EU proposed lead ban
I received an email from the CA today regarding the proposals to ban lead shot across europe;
"Lobby your MEP on lead shot
The debate over lead ammunition has been running for many years now. Domestically, those who oppose its use have consistently failed to produce any proven scientific evidence to support a ban. Moreover, faced with such a lack of evidence, opponents continually switch between environmental and health issues in a vain attempt to gain public support.
A further threat comes from the European Union. The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) started to look into the issues of all uses of lead. As part of their research, they instructed a company to collect evidence as to the level of use of lead ammunition around Europe. This was responded to jointly by all the shooting organisations through European umbrella organisation FACE.
The Countryside Alliance believes that these threats to lead are unjustified. As far as the shooting community is concerned, those who want it banned have consistently failed to produce evidence that would support a ban. Granted, if someone finds and proves incontrovertibly that lead causes serious damage to health or wildlife then we are willing to talk. Until that point the status quo must remain.
We further believe this threat from Europe could be greater than the one we face domestically. Shooting throughout the United Kingdom would be disproportionately affected if there were a blanket ban on lead use across Europe. Our shooting is too important to the environment and the rural economy to be decided by Brussels, which is why I am proud to announce our new e-lobby. This will give all UK shooters the ability to lobby their MEPs on the issue of lead when it comes up in the European Parliament. To lobby your MEP, just click here, it will only take a minute, but could secure lead for generations to come.
I clicked the e mail your MP link; Email your support
and an email was sent to most of thhe major parties involved in the Eu in my region.
Within an hour Nigel Farages office had replied;
Thank you for writing to Nigel Farage about an EU-initiative to interfere in the manufacture, composition and use of gun-shot, by imposing legislation, which would make ammunition less effective, more expensive or both and place further stringent restrictions on shooting.
Like most of the EU's "environmental" legislation, this initiative comes from the United Nations Organisation, whose "UN Economic Commission for Europe" issued a Heavy Metals Protocol TNO - Study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Heavy Metals (Phase I) which was eagerly ratified in 1998, by the EU, and in which "shot and ammunition" are specifically mentioned, and the present development is foreseen.
The EU's captive, and heavily subsidised, lobby-groups are already applying pressure in support of banning lead-ammunition:
Surprise call for lead shot ban | News and Comment
UKIP's view is that neither the UN, nor the EU, possesses the democratic legitimacy to impose legislation of any kind, and that any government, which cedes power, to either of these organisations, betrays its electorate and becomes illegitimate also. The British Government will have been in this condition, for forty years, on 1st July 2012.
Naturally, we shall oppose the legislation you mention, when it comes before us, but, since the EU's "parliament" has only rejected four-or-five of the EU-Commission's 10,000-odd,legislative proposals, this century, and since UKIP's delegation - though relatively substantial - can never be more than a tiny minority in a 752-seat EU-assembly, the chances of our defeating it are nugatory.
The only hope of rejecting this measure lies in rejecting the EU, which is indeed UKIP's policy and only UKIP's policy.
Andrew S. Reed
Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels
UK Independence Party www.ukipmeps.org www.express.co.uk"
yes I know its a single issue and also an auto response but what he states agrees with what I have believed all these years, there is no scientific case for a lead shot ban, protecting wildfowl was flawed science which our greenwashers have latched onto despite it being challenged and unproven. I for one will be ensuring my vote goes to UKIP this coming set of elections."I'd rather be a tired old Has been, than a tired old Never Has Been!!"
"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy."
Semper in excremento sum, solum profunditas mutat
According to Ispeakcrabandpongo "Typically Island Ape Brits," That suits me!
- 30-06-2012, 15:03 #2
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
In all the years that I have shot wildfowl I have always had a wee nosey in the gizzards and guts, you get a good indication of previous (before being shot) health. Whilst I can accept that it is theoretically possible for shot to be ground down in the guts/gizzard over time I do not believe the birds live long enough to do so. I have never found shot (other than the ones I put there myself) in any wildfowl and I have shot a few.
I mentioned before that I used to have a scientific paper from Sweden on the stability of lead in the ground once the outside oxidises but I have never found the bloody thing again, I have looked on line with no results but someone may stumble upon it. Basically it states that lead is less detrimental to health/environment than one is led to believe. Ingesting it of course is another matter but once in the ground it becomes less of an issue.
The sooner the EU bankrupts itself the better as far as I am concerned, at least it will not be able to finance stupidity then.
- 30-06-2012, 15:17 #3
About 3 years ago I asked what would happen to the clay range in Brüggen/Javelin Bks when it closes in 2015. Over the years there has been a ton or 4 of lead deposited over the area. Seeing as Herman is shit hot (when it suits him) on environmental matters I thought the range would be a problem. Apparently the Germans (Amt für Immobilienangelegenheiten) is not worried.
Could it be that this is a classic case of solving non existent problems or providing jobs for gash civil servants?
- 30-06-2012, 15:51 #4
Just to balance the thread, why is lead shot so much better than an alernative?
I imagine steel would have less momentum, and therefore be less lethal leading to more 'runners' and would also rag the shit out of choked barrels, but I'm no expert.
Anyone care to shine some light on this?
Last edited by Micawber; 30-06-2012 at 15:54.'Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear'?
- 30-06-2012, 16:23 #5
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Lead is (relatively) cheap, malleable, easy to melt and to form into shot. It has a good density so it retains a bit more energy but being malleable also has the advantage of minimising ricochets compared to some alternatives.
If you look at the price per Kg of the various alternative shot available as compared to lead you will see what I mean. For wildfowling (over deep water of course ) I prefer it and feel it is still superior in the big 10.
- 30-06-2012, 16:32 #6KirkzGuest
Done the linky thing :)
I don't do much shooting these days, but a lot of friends and family do :)
Fucking EUSSR have to many fingers in to many pies for my liking!
The sooner we get shut of these meddling imbeciles the better :)
- 30-06-2012, 16:36 #7
been there done that, faced the lead split shot ban in fishing. They (the greens the knobs and the rest of the fucktards) failed to see that its not the shot thats the problem its the cunts who cut yards and yards of monofilament off because of a tangle and leave it lying around with various lead weights of all sizes still att. My solution to the above is simple I wrap up any line I find and cut it into 2 inch chunks then bung it in the nearest bin (normally my tackle box where it stays for a season) there is an ancillary benefit to this, I'm for ever recovering split shot, ledger weight' floats and all sorts or Carping terminal tackle to add to my collection much of it almost brand new. All because another bunch of fucktards can't be bothered to tidy up their own crap.
- 30-06-2012, 16:42 #8
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- 30-06-2012, 16:50 #9KirkzGuest
[QUOTE=.338lapua_magnum;4487824]Aye, I know what you mean, I have seen more seabirds and wildfowl killed by plastic bags and the plastic that holds beer cans together than anything else. I have also found a lot with polystyrene beads (the stuff used for insulating ) in their gullets over the years. No call for banning plastic anytime soon though![/QUOTE]
Totally agree on that one!
I've seen literally hundreds of creatures killed/hurt by fishing line, plastic bags, plastic can holders, the black plastic from round hay bales etc!
- 30-06-2012, 17:07 #10
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Isn't this just another cnuting move to get our guns off us through other means?Stag On Suckers!