NEWS: No progress on lead ammunition after one year – who’d have guessed?

A year ago the shooting organisations ‘took responsibility’ for phasing out lead ammunition with a fanfare;

At the time I wrote:

This statement from a bunch of land owning, land managing and shooting organisations is to be welcomed but not praised. After years of hindering progress these ultra-conservative bodies have bowed to the inevitable and said they want (not that they will ensure) an end to lead ammunition use on live quarry within five years.

It’s not too little, but it is very late. And we know that these organisations don’t have much power over the actions of their members.

They were dinosaurs on this subject all along and the stuff about new technology is just an excuse.

Government has been pitifully slow in doing anything about this subject and now they can hide behind this announcement, which may not be delivered on the ground (most other promises haven’t been) for several more years.

Were my words the product of jaded cynicism that never sees the good in those paragons in the shooting industry or were they perhaps amazingly prescient sharp analysis of industry trends? Neither, they were just based on long experience of the shooting industry promising that they love birds of prey and if they ever did kill birds of prey they have cleaned up their act now, and that they care deeply about climate change and will stop burning blanket bogs to blazes. This is an industry that has a long record of saying one thing and doing another, and they can only get away with it, in England, because they are supported by a government that behaves in a very similar way – promising long and delivering short.

Today, one year after that announcement, a paper is published (open access, Conservation Evidence) which assesses the ammunition with which Pheasants on sale in Britain from the 2020/21 shooting were shot;

In the most recent shooting season, the first of the five that will allegedly see the total disappearance of lead ammunition through voluntary restraint, 99% of 180 shot Pheasants had been shot with lead. The authors of the paper state, with admirable restraint, or with dry wit;

We conclude that the shooting and rural organisations’ joint statement, and their subsequent promotional actions, have not yet had a detectable effect on the ammunition types used by shooters supplying pheasants to the British game market.


So that’s 20% of the time gone and 1% of the job done. Hmmm. Could do better.

In a blog last week I derided this phrase used in an ‘independent’ report on red tape and regulation’;

Rules and regulations should be a last resort, not the first tool out of the box. There are many effective, lighter-touch alternatives including self-regulation, codes of conduct, behavioural nudges, and earned recognition which should be considered first.

Page 22, /attachment_data/file/961665/penrose-report-final.pdf

Well, maybe, sometimes, but with lead ammunition we have seen no progress from recreational shooters for decades. Even compliance with the law, on using non-toxic ammunition when shooting waterfowl, is low. We need a ban on th use of lead ammunition because we can’t trust shooters to do it themselves – even when their representative organisations say they will.

Lead is a poison, the science is clear, this is an issue that has been dragging on for decades, government hasn’t acted on the recommendations of the Lead Ammunition Group’s report from 2015, recreational shooters haven’t changed their ways and the shooting industry’s representative organisations can’t be trusted.

What will BASC and others say? Will DEFRA and Natural England praise the industry for their good start to phasing out lead ammunition in their first year of taking responsibility? Let’s see.


55 Replies to “NEWS: No progress on lead ammunition after one year – who’d have guessed?”

  1. Yet another utter disgrace from Defra/Natural England and the shooters of our wildlife for fun. Of course we need to regard Defra /NE and the shooters as one organisation. They are so allied together as to make no difference. One cannot believe anything that they say.
    With any decent Government any and all shoots would be licensed and if found to committing any of the abuses that they currently inflict on our wildlife including using lead ammunition their license would be removed immediately.
    However of course this is not a decent Government and therefore one cannot believe anything they and their allies, especially their closely allied shooters, say.

  2. Surprised, hardly, disappointed yes although it is within the expected parameters of these shooting organisations activities. No change and when you saw the vitriol on social media from those who shoot when the voluntary phasing out of lead was announced, it is as I say disappointing but no surprise. The shooting organisations have acted with dinosaur slowness simply because the vast majority of members are the dinosaurs they cater for and without firm government intervention this phasing out of toxic lead will be at best a damp squib. The chances of course of Blonde Oaf and the Incompetents (didn’t they appal once on the Glasto stage?) doing anything are at best near zero. Another thing the Tories should be hammered for!

  3. Why ban the use of lead? It’s a known poison. Let’s just ban the manufacture and import instead.
    And just one more reason to be thankful this blog has existed!

  4. In other words they continue to be a bunch of liars.

    I doubt even `1% of the job has been done in 20% of the time, as 1% of the shot pheasants would have been w/o lead in them 2yrs ago and 3 yrs ago. So exactly zero progress in fact.

  5. A genuine question.

    What effort have the shooting organisations put into changing the hearts, minds, and practices of their members and the wider shooting community?

    If there have been articles, social media, posters in gun shops, etc – a concerted communications campaign to further the message about ending the use of lead ammunition – and it has had no impact then you can’t accuse them of bad faith. Just of impotence.

    If the acknowledged representatives of the industry/sport cannot meaningfully influence their member’s behaviour, despite their best efforts, then the shooting organisations themselves have demonstrated that the voluntary approach won’t work.

    On the other hand if “taking responsibility” just meant putting out a single headline then that would be truly damning in itself. It would be unequivocal evidence of bad faith that even supportive politicians would find hard to deny.

    I don’t subscribe to The Field etc and I’m not a BASC member. But is there anyone out there who can tell us what the shooting organisations have and have not done to “encourage their members to move away from lead”? I’d really like to know.

    1. Well I still use my air rifle very occasionally and I’m working my way through a tin of pellets that I’ve had for a very long time. I just had a look to see what guidance would be given when I buy a new tin and found no mention of a move away from lead. If it wasn’t for this blog I would just buy the same again and wouldn’t give a second thought to what the pellets were made of. The pellets I use are commended for low rates of lead fouling luckily and a new ‘green’ lead-free version is available. I should say that I don’t eat what I shoot and most of the pellets I use for targets are recovered and recycled.

  6. jbc – it appears there has been a considerable and sincere effort by shooting organisations – and, as you say, it seems to have had little influence.

    There could hardly be a sharper test of ‘voluntary vs regulation’ – this is surely conservative heartland in every sense of the word, and it is reasonable to assume that anyone sincerely believing in voluntary action would be only too pleased to comply.

    The same group would no doubt wish to portray themselves as model citizens – hence the abuse and threats coming out of the shooting community looks somewhat out of place, especially as many must hold shotgun licenses, the possesion of which requires a high standard of probity – not the sort of thing one associates with online abuse, let alone pinning dead animals to peoples gates.

  7. 5,000 – 6,000 tonnes of lead shot used per year – that almost 1 BILLION pieces of lead spread across the countryside… a high toxic heavy metal that kills over 100,000 waterfowl by poisoning (other than those shot of course) – so much for their commitment to conservation and the environment. If Denmark can do it why can’t we?

      1. John – well, we could ban them too if you like. Shooting wildlife for fun is highly polluting you are suggesting. thanks for the help. My point is, recreational shooting isn’t essential – it’s just a hobby. If it’s your hobby, make it sustainable please.

        1. Well mark, that is exactly the challenge the U.K. shooting organised have set to also ban non biodegradable plastic wads.
          Technically very challenging, but progress has been made.
          No recreational shooting is not necessary however it supports lots of jobs and brings lots of money in to the U.K. economy.
          He’ll just ban everything that is not essential and won’t life be fun, ban all sports and recreational activities for a start as they are all non essential I mean what the point of golf, football, rugby, snooker, bird watching and the list goes on and on.

          1. John – indeed they are all non-essential. But you may want to ban them although I don’t. I want to end the pollution of food and the environment through the unnecessary use of a poisonous metal. And that’s hat shooting organisations say they want to do – it’s just that they have shown themselves to be utterly useless at making any progress. And you act like you think it doesn’t metter so i can see why, even if the shoting organisations were trying very hard, they might not get very far.

  8. A good question I think, JBC. GWCT has a ‘position statement’ on its website which consists of the joint announcement by GWCT, BASC et al regarding the voluntary phase out. There is a link from this to a ‘your questions answered’ page which gives – I think – reasonably honest answers to questions about the harm done to birds through lead shot in the environment (this includes the acknowledgement that 70% of wildfowl obtained from game dealers contained lead shot and a further acknowledgement that no-one has been prosecuted for non compliance with the existing ban – which to my mind is strong evidence that a full ban across all habitats is the only workable solution). On the other hand they also have another position statement on compliance with the law on lead shot which does not mention the voluntary phase out (though it does encourage the use of non lead shot when shooting non aquatic game in locations where shot could fall on water), so mixed messages at best.

    BASC on its website has the joint statement and also some guidance for people switching from to steel (e.g. how to tell if your gun barrel is proofed for use with steel). It also has prominent statements regarding its opposition to the EU ban so – again – mixed messages.

    Moorland Association has signed the joint statement on a voluntary phase out but doesn’t seem to have much information in support of this on its web-site. They also claim to have zero tolerance for raptor persecution so…

    All of the major shooting organisations have put their name to the ‘Code of Good Shooting Practice’ which includes the statements that “Guns must ensure they know and recognise the intended quarry species and comply with relevant lead shot regulations” and “Guns should avoid depositing lead shot in wetlands important to feeding waterfowl” and, in the section on legislation, includes the current law on use of lead shot. It does not include anything about a voluntary phase out or why ‘guns’ should consider switching to non lead ammunition now or in five years time. It seems to me that if you think lead shot is harmful to the environment and are in favour of voluntarily stopping its use then it would be common sense to include mention of that in your guide to good practice (which presumably is intended to go beyond mere legal compliance?).

    It certainly seems on this basis that they have been sitting on their hands since making their announcement.

  9. I remember being a public enemy in the 80s because I was a fisherman using lead shot. There was a ban and I was glad to be able to switch to a safer alternative.
    Then I went for a canoe trip on a river I fished. There was a clay pigeon shoot on an adjacent hill and lead shot fell on me and into the river like rain. My small contribution to improving the environment was demonstrably meaningless. It’s sad that over 30 years later double standards not only persist but are flourishing under another tory government.

  10. I saw a segment on a news programme today about some academics carrying out an analysis of retail game for lead. Most samples proved lead in the game making it to the food chain. Its on the BBC website.
    I also have been getting facbook clickbait ads from BASC asking me to take part in a poll on support for a lead shot ban.

  11. Which organisation has oversight of this – Defra or Natural England?

    I can never quite fathom out their respective responsibilities. Do they sometimes swap them?

    1. James – there is no shame on being confused – we all are at times. The answer is largely DEFRA in England but NE, EA, Forestry England and the Food Standards Agency all have roles too.

  12. How representative was the sample of birds shot in the UK in 2020/21? Presumably they sampled from shops around the country, but how many game dealers and how many actual shoots did that represent? And more importantly probably, what proportion of the pellets exiting shotguns in the UK currently end up in the pheasants in the shops? Too small a proportion to be representative I would have thought. The real situation could be somewhat better than this evidence suggests – somewhat.

          1. After a quick scan, that seems like a very thorough careful piece of scientific investigation. And the results are very clear: 99% of a representative sample of pheasants sold for human consumption in the UK was shot with Lead. Which is appalling. All Lead shot should have been phased out many years ago. Well done to the authors.
            What the paper doesn’t demonstrate is that 99% of the
            pellets exiting shotguns in an attempt to shoot pheasants in the UK are Lead. Mighty suggestive, but not demonstrating that, as that’s not what the study was designed to do.
            If we are to have integrity, unlike so many lobbying on this topic, then we have to avoid over-interpreting our evidence – the point I was making originally.

    1. What is the problem with all you dislikers? I am as keen to see the back of Lead ammunition as anyone, but I’m arguing for truth not propaganda. If you just want to have distorted results which support your point of view you will end up as bad as the worst part of the shooting lobby.
      All I can persuade the CE website to show me is the summary, so a bit hard to assess their claims.

      1. Your comment comes across as sealioning, a common bad faith tactic, that is probably why. Unintentional, I’m sure, on your part, but it is exactly the sort of just-questioning tactic which is so often used to reset any debate that inspires eyerolling and exasperated sighs among long term campaigners on any subject.

  13. Thanks Mark. That’s helpful

    I wonder how much they share data, co-operate etc. Or are they encouraged to act independently of one another – ie in silos?

    Disappointing that the boards of these organisations seem reluctant to debate these issues openly – with public and press in attendance.

    I’ve been trying to attend a Natural England board meeting as an observer for the last three years, but so far have been allowed access to one item on a single agenda.

    NE professes a commitment to openness and transparency in its approach to governance, but principles county for nothing until they are put to the test.

    In my view, it is important to see how decisions are reached and how board members, especially those with large landholdings, are seeking to shape strategy.

    When Tony Juniper took over as chair, I thought things might improve but in fact the situation has worsened.

  14. There is an accurate and remarkably sympathetic post on the Daily Telegraph website – to their credit, not the place you’d expect it and hopefully man indication of a real change of heart in the attitude towards lead. One amazing fact I hadn’t seen before is that they said that an estimated 10,000 children eat enough game for the lead to potentially impair their mental capacity.

    1. All the more reason for government to get off their superannuated arses or the gravy train and actually legislate against the use of all lead ammunition as it is already clear to all that voluntary regulation as usual is a total fail.

      1. And why they are at address the other Heath issues in society like a total ban on smoking, alcohol and fast foods ban the lot.
        As clearly consumers cannot be trusted to make their own life choice decisions.

        1. John – making life choice decisions partly depends on being gicven the information on which to make those decisions. But lead elevels are set for beef, pork etc – funnily enough not for game meat which has vastly higher levels. funny that isn’t it? Obviously we should scrap speedlimits too and let people do what they want because their actions don’t affect anyone else – oh hang on! Maybe they do///

          1. Then your argument is with the food agency for not setting a lead level in game meat, not the people harvesting the food. Do you blame the farmer if you don’t agree with the level set for beef?
            The smoking kills label as been on cigarette packets for many years but clearly people choose to continue to smoke by choice, a freedom we all enjoy.

          2. John – I have lots of arguments over lead use. The FSA could do more about lead in food (so could DEFRA – FSA is a DEFRA body). NE and EA could do more about environmental pollution (and so could DEFRA, both are dEFRA bodies). But the subject of this blog was the fact that a year ago the shooting organisations said that they were going to fix it, and this paper shows that after the first 12 months they hyave achieved zilch – so I do have a gripe with them (particularly as they are regular overpromisers and underachievers).

            In most things, the idea of low-hanging fruit means that the first steps are pretty productive and getting the last bits done is quite difficult – in this case nothing has been achieved in the first 20% of the time. Doesn’t look spectacularly on the road to success does it? Does it?

        2. A bird of prey scavenging a shot carcass does not have any choice over whether or not it ingests lead along with the flesh. A duck ingesting grit doesn’t have any choice over whether or not some of that ‘grit’ might actually be lead shot. It is not simply a matter of customer choice is it?

          And as far as human health is concerned, of course people can choose whether or not they drink or smoke but they do so with clear information available to them about the risk to their health. Buy a bottle of wine and the label will tell you how many units of alcohol it contains and what the recommended consumption limits are. People buying game are not provided with the same level of information.

  15. Somewhat better?? The FACT is that the shooting industry deposits thousands of tons of lead into the environment every year and has been doing so for a very considerable time. Lead is a poison which doesn’t go away. Ingested through eating shot animals or gradually being dissolved and entering water courses it is insidiously dangerous and yet shooters blithely continue to blast away with it in the full knowledge there is an alternative. It strikes me this shows a complete lack of public responsibility and anyone caught using lead shot should be heavily fined and have their weapons confiscated.

      1. And I guess you do too John which is why you make such asinine comments! Grow up man! How can shooting justify emptying thousands of tons of lead into the environment when alternative non-toxic materials will do the same job? You cite the removal of lead from the River Severn so why did the authorities bother to go the distance if it wasn’t so important?? Shooting is causing pollution with lead (and plastic), swamping the countryside with non-native species, murdering raptors and other predators, burning moorland and those involved seem to think they don’t have any moral responsibility to clean up their act!

  16. I’m not sure that the shooting fraternity aren’t missing a trick here .
    If instead of lead they used steel . then instead of a poison they’re adding the health giving mineral, iron and fighting anaemia, Almost a health food.!
    What’s the matter with their PR people?.

  17. So we are one year into a five year transition period and game was still shoot with lead shot, no shit Sherlock what a surprise!
    I guess when they announce a five year transition away from petrol/diesel cars to electric you will also expect 100% compliance in the first year.

    1. John – ‘they’ haven’t though have ‘they’? It’s a much longer peiod and it will be enforced by law. Good example probably.

      1. But it will be a transition period of several years and nobody will expect total compliance at the end of year one, enforceable by law or not.
        Moan as much as like at the end of the five years, but after one very difficult year in the middle of a pandemic, with cartridge component and cartridge manufactures shut down and retail shops shut down and guns using what they had in stock for the few occasions shooting game was not also shut down, you want 100% compliance, dream on.

        1. John – I’d expect the most success at the beginning actually. I dind’t sday I wanted 100% comppliance after one yueaqr – you’ve made that up – but I’d expect a tad more than 0% progress after 20% of the time.

          You don’t work for DEFRA do you? they always promise things a long way away and then fail to set about even trying to deliver them saying ‘Ah but we aren’t at the end of the period yet’.

          1. Mark after listen to the bbc radio 4 pod cast I sent this email to one of the participants, perhaps it will help you also understand why in your view virtually 0% progress has been made in 20% of the time.


            I listen with interest the pod cast regarding the voluntary ban of lead shot and the lead found in recently shot pheasants.

            One point that always gets a mentioned in such debates is Denmark success in banning lead shot but what never gets mentioned or conveniently ignored is that in doing so they now have a significant non biodegradable plastic wad pollution problem on their foreshores.

            This the U.K. shooting organisations recognised as an environmental problem and when they announcement a voluntary ban of lead shot for live quarry shooting they also set the industry the significant challenge of doing so with biodegradable wads.

            It is made out that the changing to non toxic shot and biodegradable wads is totally within the U.K’s ability to do so and we are choosing not to do so.

            When in fact nothing is further from the truth, the U.K. cartridge manufactures make *no components required for non toxic cartridges but rather import all from within the EU or in some cases China for steel shot.

            The initiative for a biodegradable plastic wads and a complete non toxic cartridge are both from Spain and both at conception were funded with large EU grants.

            The U.K. cartridge manufactures do not have the financial resources for such research and development require or the component manufacturing capabilities.
            So far even in the EU only the one relatively small Spanish company manufactures biodegradable plastic wads the large EU manufactures of plastic wads have yet to do so.

            We the U.K. rely totally on the EU component manufactures to support us in this journey and unsurprisingly they are not that committed to engage in the process.
            The recent ban on lead shot over wetlands in the EU may facilitate faster progress in this matter, but manufacturing supply capacity remains a risk until the large wad manufacture engage in producing biodegradable plastic wads.

            Their is also a worldwide shortage of steel shot already without the increased demand that will be required to meet the transition away from lead shot within the EU and U.K.
            It takes about two hours to make a tonne of lead shot but nearly a week to make a tonne of steel shot.

            Virtually all of the steel shot biodegradable wad cartridges that now exist in the U.K. did not do so before the shooting organisations announced the voluntary ban, an achievement that never gets any credit and done during a global pandemic.

            Hopefully you will reflect on this in future debates and acknowledge the success to date but the challenges we in the U.K. face regarding being reliant on others to achieve the goal of all live quarry shot with non toxic shot and biodegradable wads.

            Yours sincerely

            * with the exception of one manufacture who makes a very expensive card wad for 10ga and 12ga however in low volumes.

          2. John – the shooting/landowning organisations said they were taking repsonsibility – after one year, they have achieved bnothing. I’m sure they’ll take responsibility for that. As I said before, if you are typical of the people they need to influence it is easy to see why they haven’t got very far. But then again, I don’t think they have tried very hard.

  18. It’s simple really. Lead is a poison and anyone that agrees with throwing thousands of tons of poison around the countryside has probably digested plenty already. Surely nobody agrees with deliberately poisoning the countryside

    1. So john, where do you draw the line, we know you deliberately poising the environment when using a vehicle with an internal combustion engine, so will you stop using transport that does and expect all who do to do likewise?
      Then every time you buy an item packaged in non recyclable plastic you are poising the environment via the industrial process that made it and final landfill, will you stop doing that also. The list is endless for human activity that is deliberately poising the environment, human health and the planet as a whole.
      New non toxic cartridges meeting the criteria set by the U.K. shooting organisations are available now, that did not exist a year back.
      Criteria that means unlike Denmark we do not have to pollute the countryside and foreshore with non biodegradable plastic.
      So yes progress has been made. However getting them to the end user has been very slow during a global pandemic given they are made outside the U.K. when manufacturing, distribution and retail has been shut down around the world.
      They also cost significant more to use, however I am sure we all agree that is a price worth paying to end this issue and live happily ever after knowing shooting is sustainable and their will be no need for Mark or anybody else to go on about it ever again.

      1. Perhaps John you can confirm that all shooters now use non-toxic shot. They certainly don’t on this estate because I’m forever picking up empty cartridge cases which contained standard lead loads.

        1. Bill, we both they do not, because even if every shooter decided today was the day to use non toxic cartridges with biodegradable wads the demand would be far, far greater than the capacity to manufacture them at this point in time.
          Component manufacturing capacity that is outside the U.K. and the U.K. shooting industry does not own and has no control over. Which is why it is a five year journey.
          Non toxic cartridges with biodegradable wads that are now starting to be used, did not exist a year ago, the industry has responded in a significant way, but it takes time and investment to ramp up manufacturing capacity of new products and all during a global pandemic.

          Exactly the same if all in the U.K. who own cars decided tomorrow to all go out and buy an electric car, their would not be enough to go round.

      2. There are several issues here. It is clearly desirable that we endeavour to reduce the impact of human activities across the board and we are doing so with varying rates of progress. In relation to transport there is still a long way to go but we have made progress. Lead was removed from petrol years ago. Vehicle engines for both petrol and diesel have to meet tougher emissions standards than they did years ago and are fitted with catalytic converters and particulate traps. Fiscal measures are being used to reduce the number of diesel vehicles on the road and we are starting to move towards electric vehicles with increasing numbers seen on the roads. Likewise with food packaging moves have been and are being made to reduce the amount of packaging and to ensure that more of it gets recycled. In both cases there is still a long way to go but the problems are acknowledged and various measures – including legislation – are in place to ensure we progress further. Your implication that we are happy to disregard pollution from transport and from food packaging whilst expecting shooting to clean up its act does not hold water.

        Then there is the question of need. We have to eat and whilst we can debate the amount and type of packaging required there is clearly a need for some kind of packaging to enable the food to be delivered from its point of production to the consumers kitchen. With regard to travel we do it for a variety of reasons including for fun but much of it is essentially impossible for most people to avoid as they go about their daily business getting to work doing their shopping etc. Shooting is not necessary it is a pastime that people such as yourself do for fun. Whilst we need to see progress on all fronts it seems to be reasonable to accept a degree of pollution from essential activities more readily than we would from something that is done purely for amusement – wouldn’t you agree?

        Finally you make the point that the new more environmentally friendly cartridges are more expensive but so what? You say it will be a price worth paying because it will shut up the likes of Mark but actually it is just a case of you bearing the expense of your fun rather than the environment having to bear it.

  19. Let’s face it, the shooting “industry” isn’t exactly renowned for taking swift, decisive action about anything other than bellyaching to the media when the slightest whiff of criticism comes it’s way.
    After all, it’s been obliged by law, for 67 years, to stop killing raptors, so why should we expect it to do what’s right, of its own volition, within five?

  20. Mark your statement below is just not true.
    We now have non toxic cartridges with biodegradable wads which did not exist a year ago that are a direct consequence of the U.K. shooting organisations five year transition away from lead for live quarry shooting. Only you fail to comprehend that as an achievement.

    Why don’t you pop over the channel go into a component manufacturing firm and tell a company you don’t own that they must make this widget for you, they need to invest lots of euros of their money to make the widget as you will not fund it with your money.
    Potentially they will sell none for a long time in their own country but the pot of gold for them lies across the channel in a country that is no longer part of the EU and the total market capacity is tiny by comparison to the companies current market.
    And currently the company is running at full capacity making other stuff that is selling to a vast customer base and making the company rich. But you want your widget next week.
    Shut the door on your way out.

    And yes I am using non toxic shoot and biodegradable wads for the live quarry shooting I do, when I can get them.

    John – the shooting/landowning organisations said they were taking repsonsibility – after one year, they have achieved bnothing. I’m sure they’ll take responsibility for that. As I said before, if you are typical of the people they need to influence it is easy to see why they haven’t got very far. But then again, I don’t think they have tried very hard.

    John – the shooting/landowning organisations said they were taking repsonsibility – after one year, they have achieved bnothing. I’m sure they’ll take responsibility for that. As I said before, if you are typical of the people they need to influence it is easy to see why they haven’t got very far. But then again, I don’t think they have tried very hard.

    1. John – what i said below was and is true.

      By the way, a year ago I made a promise to end world poverty, ensure peace between all nations and reduce Co2 levels in the atmosphere in five years – one year on and I think I’m doing better than the shooting organisations.

      1. Really mark, good for you and what have you spent a not insignificant amount of money on creating in bulk for many to use that did not exist a year ago? That has resulted in you doing better to end world poverty, ensure peace between all nations and reduce Co2 in the atmosphere?
        May be you do not want to acknowledge that progress has been made in the shooting industry because you actually want it to fail to meet its five year transition as that suits your agenda.
        What is they say oh, you are well balanced man with a chip on both shoulders.

        1. John – the science shows that there has been no progress in the last 12 months. Whatever you sday, you can’t get away from the facts, however much you try.

Comments are closed.