Rob Sheldon’s e-petition to ban toxic lead ammunition is making progress without much help from WWT and practically none from the RSPB.
It recently passed 12,000 signatures and also received a response from Defra which does not mention that the report of the Lead Ammunition Group, which was submitted in June 2015, still has not been released to the public by Defra, but says that ministers are considering the report.
If Defra does not live up to its promise in Quito to ban lead ammunition then it will be shameful but there are rumours that that is exactly what it is planning to do. It will also be a low point in wildlife NGO weakness. This is an open goal but the NGOs have taken their eye off the ball and forgotten to kick it into the net.
But you can do your bit – please give your support to ensure that shooters need to switch to non-toxic ammunition.
[registration_form]
Just been out watching a massive moon and Jupiter and its planets at 5.50 just as the light started from the east. If Defra was out at that time looking up at the planets they may realise how small we are and how we need to look after our own planet and then ban lead! Oh I forgot, they would not see any thing due to light pollution in our towns and cities!
The EU has decided not to ban it http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?cate=__16216 which is a bad lead.
I see Martin Harper talked about it in his blog 4 days ago. I think they need to shout a bit harder. While the pro lead shot petition has more signatures it is not use relying on “the science” which your recent correspondence from your MP shows is of limited value. What we need is votes. I am sure if they set up some posters and a volunteer with a laptop in the Foyer to Minsmere they could soon up the vote which at 41 against lead is probably less than Minsmere has on its volunteer+employee list.
Mark it did mention the LAG Report but in a very negative way,
“The Lead Ammunition Group reported in the summer of 2015, though by the time it did so five of its ten members had resigned, with four of those subsequently submitting a different set of recommendations.”
Now I may be cynical re the morality of this government (and why not considering the fracking, neonicotinoids and badger double talk) but that word “though”, to me, infers that they are about devalue the conclusions of the report because some who represented the shooting industry, left the Group once they realised that the had lost the argument; that following the science could lead to only one conclusion – Ban Lead.
Also, there is an inference that they will consider the views submitted by 4 of those who left the Group. If so, then what was the point of allowing the Group to continue with their deliberations? Why not just ask for views from all and then ignore those that don’t suit their wishes – as they normally do? Where in the original remit is the allowance for external reports to be considered? Would all members of the current Group have been willing to sit on this committee had they believed that their final report could have been usurped by the views of others not on the committee?
As and when the conclusions of this report are ignored, you have got to wonder what Machiavellian plot took place (and by whom) to reach this sad state of affairs.
My last contemptuous comment is reserved for those who keep ‘banging on’ about ‘compromise’, ‘common ground’, ‘togetherness in conservation’ and then blame ‘radical’ conservationists/birders when it doesn’t happen. Regardless of whether the government ignores this report or not (and I think that they will), this debacle highlights the mind set of the some people in the shooting industry; happy to form partnerships, but only when it suits them.
Brian – thank you for your comment. It looks like that to me too. But we’ll see.
What we haven’t seen is the LAG report itself, nor the ‘other’ report. Why not? Why is Defra hiding it?
See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lead_ammunition_wildlife_and_hum#incoming-771651
It is disappointing that they have failed to provide a timeline despite being asked for a date.
Aren’t they saying it’s not DEFRA’s responsibility to publish it but LAG itself? So why aren’t LAG publishing?
One hopes the rumours mentioned in the Independent article are incorrect but fears that they are almost certainly true. It is all baffling – the Danish experience shows that lead ammunition can be banned without it being a problem for shooters; in this country (legally compliant) shooters already use alternatives to lead when shooting in wetlands and the world has not ended for them. This is a change that the shooting community could make very easily and win some brownie points to take some of the heat off the industry. Instead they have chosen to stick two fingers up at the rest of the world.
Isn’t the Govt. response exactly the same as their response to the “Keep Lead” petition? Just copied standard waffle? Looks as though they will carry on with no action though and keep lead ammunition.