EU proposed lead ban

ugly

LE
Moderator
#1
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.

Barney White-Spunner
Executive Chairman"
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;
"Dear Campaigner

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.

Yours sincerely

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.
 
#2
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.
 
#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?
 
#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?
 
#5
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.
 
K

Kirkz

Guest
#6
Done the linky thing :)
I don't do much shooting these days, but a lot of friends and family do :)
******* EUSSR have to many fingers in to many pies for my liking!
The sooner we get shut of these meddling imbeciles the better :)
 
#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 cnuts 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.
 
#8
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 cnuts 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.
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!
 
K

Kirkz

Guest
#9
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!
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!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#11
a bit like the dutch method of making game bird farming illegal so there is no way youu can shoot.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#12
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.

Barney White-Spunner
Executive Chairman"
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;
"Dear Campaigner

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.

Yours sincerely

Andrew S. Reed

Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels

UK Independence Party UKIP MEPs 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 was wondering why I had not heard anything about this, until I realised that it is a load of bollocks.
Considering that the country in Europe that enjoys enforcing bans on shooting sports, not to mention lead shot for fishing and shooting over wetlands is the UK, I find myself entering yet other fact free discussion about the EU. If retards keep firing off in the wrong direction, prepare to get screwed some more.
Fortunately, the laborious process of EU legislation prevents UK style knee jerk policy, it usually starts with a some sort of consultation based on a study finding. Here we find a vague reference to an ECHA study done in 1998 - 14 years ago.
A search of the ECHA website reveals nothing:
Search - ECHA
The link provided goes to a Dutch website (TNO) and a report in Dutch described thus:
"The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) has asked TNO to execute a study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol and Persistent Organic Pollutants Protocol and an assessment of possible additional measures with their reductions and costs, based on projections of 2000 emission data to the years 2010, 2015 and 2020."
Suffice to say, at this point I am not shitting myself that my guns will be confiscated...
The bollocks continues, on ground familiar to UK shooters, with the next link:
Surprise call for lead shot ban | News and Comment
Here we find that the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust with former RSPB director Mark Avery behind it are asking for a ban, shock horror and surprise.
So before any makes themselves look like a spacktard by contacting their MEP, at least try and get some facts right.*

*N.B. For those in the South East of England who managed to elect 2 Limp Dibs, a Greenie, and an Argentinian reject who lives in Spain to represent them in Europe, crack on anyway....
 
#13
One of the major issues regarding the EU within the UK is that politicians, pressure groups and various green clowns use the EU as the reason (excuse) to ask for and legislate in certain directions.

A case in point is the struggle that one small community in the West of Scotland fighting against SNH to prevent a marine designation. Those politicians in a position to make decisions are quick to inform those who ask, that the issue is what the EU demand and that SNH are only doing what has been legislated for and demanded by the EU. Most folks swallow this. When you actually look at the facts, it turns out that the EU has asked Countries to look for areas that may 'require designation'. They are not demanding anything more.

Until we all punish those MPs that spout this verbage it will continue; after all it is easy to blame someone else for what you know will be unpopular, especially so when they know full well that the majority of the populace will never bother their collective arrses to find out.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#14
I was wondering why I had not heard anything about this, until I realised that it is a load of bollocks.
Considering that the country in Europe that enjoys enforcing bans on shooting sports, not to mention lead shot for fishing and shooting over wetlands is the UK, I find myself entering yet other fact free discussion about the EU. If retards keep firing off in the wrong direction, prepare to get screwed some more.
Fortunately, the laborious process of EU legislation prevents UK style knee jerk policy, it usually starts with a some sort of consultation based on a study finding. Here we find a vague reference to an ECHA study done in 1998 - 14 years ago.
A search of the ECHA website reveals nothing:
Search - ECHA
The link provided goes to a Dutch website (TNO) and a report in Dutch described thus:
"The Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) has asked TNO to execute a study to the effectiveness of the UNECE Heavy Metals Protocol and Persistent Organic Pollutants Protocol and an assessment of possible additional measures with their reductions and costs, based on projections of 2000 emission data to the years 2010, 2015 and 2020."
Suffice to say, at this point I am not shitting myself that my guns will be confiscated...
The bollocks continues, on ground familiar to UK shooters, with the next link:
Surprise call for lead shot ban | News and Comment
Here we find that the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust with former RSPB director Mark Avery behind it are asking for a ban, shock horror and surprise.
So before any makes themselves look like a spacktard by contacting their MEP, at least try and get some facts right.*

*N.B. For those in the South East of England who managed to elect 2 Limp Dibs, a Greenie, and an Argentinian reject who lives in Spain to represent them in Europe, crack on anyway....
I agree Avery is an unadulterated twat but if you believe the CA have this wrong do me and the others a favour and email Barney Spunner and tell him, at the moment this is a rather high on the agenda article within the UK shooting groups and even David Penn has written on it!

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#15
One of the major issues regarding the EU within the UK is that politicians, pressure groups and various green clowns use the EU as the reason (excuse) to ask for and legislate in certain directions.

Until we all punish those MPs that spout this verbage it will continue; after all it is easy to blame someone else for what you know will be unpopular, especially so when they know full well that the majority of the populace will never bother their collective arrses to find out.
Absofuckinglutely!
How 2 vowels can cause a cerebral short circuit in the UK is beyond me. Put any bullshit in a envelope marked "EU" and an unthinking following of idiots just buy it at face value. Meanwhile, the real enemy are laughing their collective cocks off.......
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#16
I agree Avery is an unadulterated twat but if you believe the CA have this wrong do me and the others a favour and email Barney Spunner and tell him, at the moment this is a rather high on the agenda article within the UK shooting groups and even David Penn has written on it!

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk
You posted what appears under initial investigation to be a load of crap, come back with some facts and I will put more time in. I can even raise it with shooting orgs in DE and FR.

In the meantime I reserve the right not to waste any more time on a supposed EU conspiracy based on a former RSPB director, a Dutch housing ministry report I cannot read, and the EU Parliaments court jester Farage......
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#17
You posted what appears under initial investigation to be a load of crap, come back with some facts and I will put more time in. I can even raise it with shooting orgs in DE and FR.

In the meantime I reserve the right not to waste any more time on a supposed EU conspiracy based on a former RSPB director, a Dutch housing ministry report I cannot read, and the EU Parliaments court jester Farage......
I don't usually bother with any BASC campaigns as usually they are designed to generate funds a bit of RSPCA in reverse! This one caught my eye as the CA (not a member I'm NGO by the way) has pulled its socks up under the general but its business as usual so I'm going back to ignoring the contents of my spam folder!

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#18
As an exercise in finding out how much effort the MEPs offices put into their electorate it has been useful, a response the same day (quite detailed too) from UKIP, and finally an acknowledgement of receipt of email from the Greens office. Hmm, who gets my vote at Eu election time or trough changeover day as it is called in my house?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#19
Well the green MEP responded at last, as an exercise in flushing opinions and seeing how little they regard the fact that the science is unproven it was obviously not going to be an eye opener but his arrogance ensures no one in this house hold will waste a vote on him;
"Thank you for your letter to Keith Taylor regarding lead ammunition, which he has asked me to reply to on his behalf.

It is our understanding that the ECHA is currently working on proposals to restrict the use of lead in consumer products, but that lead shot will not be included in this proposal. The process of assessing the possibility of EU wide restrictions on the use of Lead ammunition is only just beginning; and we do not expect any formal proposals for legislation before 2014.

As an initial step in this process, the ECHA is beginning studies on the environmental and socio-economic impacts of introducing restrictions, the Countryside Alliance response you refer to is a part of this ongoing assessment procedure. Following these initial consultations and studies, it will then be decided if a proposal to introduce legislation will be brought forward. So far, an intention to produce a proposal has not yet been submitted.

You mention in your letter that the UK, along with 15 other Member States has already banned the use of lead ammunition in Wetlands. This is in line with commitments made under the AWEA33 (African-Eurasian Waterbird) agreement, to which the European Commission is also a signatory. It is possible that the legislative proposal eventually put forward by the ECHA will only address this issue. In this case, Keith and his Greens/EFA colleagues would be fully in support of the legislation, as it is essential that the EU takes steps to meet its obligations under this international agreement.

Although it is difficult for us to comment on a legislative proposal which is still a long way from being finalised; the Greens/EFA group believe that the potential environmental risk posed by spent lead ammunition is too high to warrant its continued use. As well as the risk of lead poisoning to both birds, and humans, the continued use of lead in ammunition also has significant economic costs. Additionally the impact of the loss of biodiversity and the limitations that lead can place on the population growth of rare birds has a damaging effect on the ecotourism sector.

It is for these reasons that Keith would be in favour of a more general ban on lead in consumer products, including ammunition. Any change in the specification for ammunition however should be phased in to allow time for adaptation of equipment, and for alternative, more environmentally benign materials to be used for ammunition. In this way the impact on the hunting and rifle industry could be softened.

It is also important to remember that lead breaks down very slowly, and so the impacts of the lead which is released into the environment may not be felt for generations. As lead builds up over time, the environmental impact becomes severe - this means that at some point in the future we will have a more serious and deep-rooted problem to deal with.

Despite Keith's general support of a more far reaching ban on the use of lead in ammunition, his final position on any proposed legislation will of course be based on its content. We will also consider the findings of the ongoing consultation procedure when deciding on our group position. For that reason it is not possible to say at this point if we will vote in favour of new legislation.

Thank you, once again for writing to Keith on this issue. For more information on his work as an MEP please visit his website at: Keith Taylor MEP


Kind regards,


Grace Murray

Office of Keith Taylor MEP
Green Party MEP for South East England
The European Parliament
Rue Wiertz
1047 Brussels, Belgium
Brussels Tel: +32 2 284 5153 Fax: +32 2 284 9153
UK Tel: +44 20 7164 2153
Keith Taylor MEP
Twitter: @GreenKeithMEP

If you would like to receive Keith's bimonthly e-newsletter please e-mail keithtaylor@greenmeps.org.uk putting INFO as the subject header "

Utter vegetable!
 
#20
At the risk of sounding a tad selfish, I'm dealing with the problem through investment in a shotshell-loading machine, sacks of spent shells from the local clay ground, and am slowly acquiring and storing enough bags of lead shot to see me out. 9s and 6s and a few of BB for when the zombies come.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top