Youtube viewing figures – explain this?

On the left is my youtube channel Country Sports TV on the right my web site Ian Summerell Gunmaker on

lets look at two of the videos on my youtube channel and web site the numbers do not match up. “The Black Power shooting stand at Barbury Shooting school”, I have only 152 views on the Youtube channel and 344 hits on my web site.

The other video “WWT call for lead shot ban” has 24 views on youtube yet my web site number is 333.

Can anyone explain when you are using the youtube embeddable player code the view from the web site do not show on youtube video?

Country Sport TV youtube channel                         My web site with youtube embeddable player code

Youtube videoMy web site videos


Shooting news – Lead balloon By Arnold Chapkis – June 2015

Lead balloon By Arnold Chapkis 3rd June 2015
What took our representatives on the LAG so long to kick this politically malevolent contrivance out of
court? Drowned in an ocean of corrupted science and process, The Lead Ammunition Group is no more.
Sir Barney White Spunner finally burst its Lead balloon. The Group’s biased Chairman caught out by
Freedom of information releases, failed to do the honourable thing and resign. So the majority of his group
resigned for him. Neat.

This is the PDF of the article.


You also have to read this document to understand what we are up against.

AEWA united_kingdom2008_mop4_0 1A

LAG web site GONE!

SOS to all shooters
Save Our lead Shot
Hi all
The Lead Ammunition Group has disappeared, gone, no longer there?
What has happen?
We where waiting for the minutes of the last LAG meeting and the final report to be published on the Web site but it has gone.
The web site was set up by BASC for the LAG committee, the domain name was registered under the Code of Good Shooting Practise Ltd. Which is a BASC company.
I now have to shout “Cover up” what happen to the “openness” of the LAG. the last time the web site was updated was the July 2014. It has never reported the resignations for the group of the CA, GTA, CLA, NGDA and GWCT.
Are we every going to see the final report?
Ian Summerell
Save Our lead Shot campaign
PS: This is the link to the cached page of the LAG. and link to the stalking Forum.
cached page
the stalking directory  

Reply from BASC office today, 26th June 2015

Dear Mr. Summerell,

Questions about the LAG web site should be directed to the LAG.

The registration and management of the site has been transferred to the  LAG.

Shooting under threat, what is going on?

What is going on?

DavidBASC on Pigeon watch, talking about policing the lead ban and who is going to be the policeman. Also talking about bringing in the Scottish lead ban rules into England and not allowed to use lead within 250m of water on game shoots.

BASC web site asking to government to publish the report into Breeding cages, they say the report is now 3 years overdue.

Are BASC really pro-shooting or have I mist something?

Then you have the talk report in the Western Morning News about the big bags and high bird shooting in the west country. Where does BASC stand on that issue?

These comment are what is called opinion forming, be PR spin to produce an outcome, I believe to get the game English shooter to think about not using lead within 250m of water and who is going to be the policeman. No one has said BASC yet.

So I will, do BASC what to be the policeman of shooting?
Are we going to see ever game shoot having a BASC monitor?

So I’m not taken to court over this comment I post the comments from davidbasc on pigeon watch and the BASC statement on breeding cages. Along with link to Western Morning News Article talking about big bags and high birds.

BASC statement on Defra game bird breeding study

Posted on Jun 18, 2015

BASC is calling on the Government to publish a game bird study which concluded in 2012.

Defra commissioned research in 2009 entitled ‘Study to determine whether cage-based breeding can meet the needs of game birds, and if not, to identify best practice’. It was concluded in 2012 but has not been published.

It is time for the Government to publish this study. Three years is a long time for it to be sitting around unpublished.

BASC also reminded its members that they should adhere to the Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared for Sporting Purposes.

Ian Grindy
BASC game and gameshooting committee


panoma1, thank you and I fully understand your point, I just council caution that any suggested change must be thought through carefully.

I accept this is a personal view, but for example on the shoot where I help with the ‘keepering, 7 out of 10 drives have a stream or pond within them, the shoot as a whole is ‘blessed’ with natural wetlands of this type and given the potential for shot to travel 250m or more,its not possible to simply adjust the positioning of the guns to prevent lead falling on to these features…I bet my shoot is not unique…

So my question is, is having the ability to shoot a duck over inland habitats with lead sufficient grounds for potentially restricting the shooting of all other species over a range of habitats that are not necessarily key holding areas for duck / geese inland?

Wymberley – the BASC logo was removed from the LAG site a couple of weeks ago, perhaps the page you originally looked at was the old one that was stored on your machine, but when you refreshed the site it took you to the current page.

I agree that those who oppose shooting will probably try any tactic to attack our sport.

I also agree that we must do all we can to stick to the law, not just in the case of lead but in every walk of life as I am sure the vast majority of us do, and self regulation is the best way to go, and not further legislation

However, its clear that some are still unsure of the legislation, hence the push by the shooting organisations to keep on spreading the word, although this is probably made tougher because we have different rules in different parts of the UK plus of course there are still a large number of active shooters who choose not to belong to any of the organisations

I would council caution though over enforcement, accepting your point that its unlikely government agencies may not actively police this, there is a risk that others will offer to, indeed this was a very real threat when the current legislation first came in when there was an offer on the table from non government body to police the ban! This was successfully fought off by BASC at the time I am pleased to say.
To try and clear the confusion, the wetland areas do not need to be specifically designated, its simply the reference to the Ramsar definition of what is or is not a wetland that is used in the Scottish rules

So as you see, there is still some confusion among even long experienced shooters as to what the law says, hence the need to keep pushing the message

As to which organisations put itself forwards to help police the regs…I give you three guesses…and i will tell you in the morning


Oh you have missed your chance, i was going to send you a bottle of malt for the correct guess! Well the offers closed now, never the less, if we ever meet at a show, i will but you a pint for trying
In fact it could have been just about anyone! The original enforcement procedures proposed by government would have given powers to local authorities to appoint whomever they saw fit to police the regulations. Imagine that!

I found this on the Shooting UK news web site, whom would have thought that the BASC would side with the LACS?

BASC urges Labour MPs to ban raised laying cages

• Shooting UK

• January 19, 2010•

Shooting UK news:

As DEFRA analyses the responses to its recent consultation on the use of raised laying cages, BASC has emailed a number of Labour MPs urging them to sign an Early Day Motion (EDM), which calls for an outright ban of the controversial cages.

EDM No. 507 was tabled by the Parliamentary spokesman on angling and shooting, Labour MP Martin Salter, and has now attracted 107 signatories at the time of going to press.

It reads: “This House notes with concern that several large game farms have introduced

battery cage systems for game bird laying stock and the available space in such cages is

so limited the welfare of the birds is seriously compromised and the system does not

conform, whether enriched or not, to the five freedoms which are the basis of the UK?s

animal welfare law.”

DEFRA’s draft Code of Practice for the Welfare of Game birds Reared for Sporting Purposes, which was published in November 2009, offers the industry three different options for using raised laying cages in the production of game bird eggs in England:

(1) Retaining the status quo.

(2) Requiring all raised units to be enriched and banning barren cages.

(3) Banning cages.

The Game Farmers Association (GFA), the National Gamekeepers Organisation (NGO), the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Country Land & Business Association, the Countryside Alliance and the National Farmers, Union are all calling for Option 2.

Organisations calling for Option 3 include BASC, the RSPCA, Animal Aid and the League Against Cruel Sports.

The NGO’s Lindsay Waddell said they were very concerned about BASC’s lobbying on the issue.

To split the shooting world and give encouragement to the antis as they have done is really unhelpful.

Mr Waddell added: “The NGO supports Option 2 on the basis that it was the recommendation of the government’s advisory body, the Farmed Animal Welfare Council.”

It would be a significant improvement on where we are now, stopping bad practice and barren cages but allowing essential and long-used systems, such as partridge laying boxes, to continue. We cannot see why BASC needs to go beyond this, let alone why they need to endanger the UK shooting industry.

The GFA has said the move risks ending all partridge egg farming in England as well as a significant proportion of pheasant egg production.

A spokesman said: “It could cause meltdown for the game industry and chaos for game shooting. Option 3 would end all partridge egg production in England. We know of no partridge breeding system that does not involve a cage of some sort. Every reared partridge shot in the UK comes from an egg produced in a cage, either here or abroad. Option 3 would also end any use of raised breeding units for pheasants, even those of the largest and best enriched designs, irrespective of their welfare merits.”

BASC, which has previously dismissed EDMs as nothing more than “parliamentary grafitti”, said it is alarmist to suggest the entire game shooting industry could collapse if Option 3 were chosen.

Responding to the industry’s concerns, a spokesman said: “We make no bones about pursuing our aim, which the elected Council and relevant advisory committees of BASC have long considered necessary for the future of game shooting, by all open and democratic means. If we are seeking to influence a Labour government, then of course we will lobby Labour MPs. BASC always takes an all-party approach to political issues and has lobbied on that basis.”

DEFRA plans to issue the finalised Code of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared

for Sporting Purposes in April.



LAG membership – who do they work for?

In the first screen shot we see that see that each member of the LAG is linked to an organisation. John Swift and tagged as being the BASC representative.

This is the letter to John Swift from Defra note they are on the LAG as ‘stakeholders’ for their organisation.

John Swift
Chief Executive
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Marford Mill

Our ref: P0161372

December 2009

From Huw Irranca-Davies Minister for Marine and Natural Environment

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter of 26 November to Hilary Benn, sent on behalf of various stakeholders, about the threat to wild birds from ingesting lead from ammunition.

I recognise that this is a complex issue and note the concerns of the RSPB, the Wildlife and Wetlands Trust and yourselves. I am not aware of any new research that has been conducted that shows that lead ammunition residues or spent lead shot is a real threat to the conservation of wildlife in general in England. However, I realise levels of concern have risen recently among various stakeholders involved with lead from ammunition, and this issue covers a number of fronts. Therefore I have asked Defra officials to look at the possibility of convening a group to look at possible impacts for wildlife of lead from ammunition, the welfare implications of available alternatives and potential effects from contaminated food on human health.

If you, or any of the stakeholders who are party to your letter, would like to be involved in such a group please contact: Ashley Matthews, Room 108, Defra, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol BS1 6EB (

My kind regards


sceen shot lag membership 19 oct 2012

Then by 4 June 2014 John Swift is no long listed as a BASC representative. Why did BASC not put someone on the LAG committee to represent their members?

sceen shot lag membership 5 June 2014

In the BASC briefing to members they state the following:

Why was the Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) formed?

In October 2009 Mark Avery of RSPB and Debbie Pain of WWT wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) expressing concern at the potential impact of lead ammunition on the health of humans and wildlife. They called for a group to be formed to address the evidence and make recommendations. A letter from the shooting organisations to the Secretary of State stated that while any evidence had to be addressed there was no case for sweeping legislative or regulatory change. The Defra Minister for the marine and Natural Environment, Huw Irranca-Davies MP, asked his officials to investigate convening a stakeholder group to look at the issues. In March 2010 Defra invited John Swift, then CEO of BASC, to Chair a group and suggested terms of reference. LAG’s first meeting was in April 2010. The full text of the letters can be read here: from the “background” tab.

It does not say that John Swift as CEO of BASC also wrote to defra on lead ammunition, on behalf of a number of shooting organisations. I believe now that John Swift using his position with BASC lead the shooting organisation into a trap that lead to the LAG being formed with himself and chairman.

Our ref: AH/Corres/JPH091126HB

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP Secretary of State Department of Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House 17
Smith Square

26th November 2009

Dear Secretary of State,

I write on behalf of all the organisations listed at the end of this letter, who have given their support for its content.

The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and RSPB recently made us aware of their writing to you summarising some recent scientific findings regarding the potential risk to human and wildlife health caused by the use of lead ammunition. They recommend that a wider group of interested stakeholders be convened by Government to address this.

The organisations signing this letter are aware of that correspondence. All the evidence bearing on this important matter must be addressed seriously and justifies reasoned attention by all the organisations involved in shooting activities.

We draw your attention, however, to recent research commissioned by our organisations underlining the popularity, diversity, economic and environmental value of shooting sports in the United Kingdom ( The use of appropriate ammunition and compatible sporting firearms is fundamental to that value. The diversity and scale of shooting sports underlines the importance of winning of the hearts and minds of the hundreds of thousands of participants, as well as those whose livelihoods and businesses depend on shooting, for any recommendations that might emerge as necessary for the protection of the environment and human health.

We believe that the WWT and RSPB letter provides a certain perspective. Any working group, however, will have to take an objective risk management approach to the diversity of issues involved. Such an approach will be essential for assessing the evidence robustly, judging the scale of the risks to the environment and human health in proper context, raising awareness and support among different affected groups essential for the delivery of positive outcomes, and resolving issues connected with the development of lead substitutes and the implications of their use in the variety of shooting disciplines.

We recognise that this will not be an easy task. In the meantime we stress that the shooting community does not believe that the case for sweeping legislative or regulatory restrictions on the use of lead ammunition has been made.

It may be helpful to be aware that the organisations signing this letter have already met in August as a Lead in Ammunition Technical Working Group and are meeting again in December. The purposes of this industry group are to ensure that all the different representatives know what is going on, take a clearer view of the key issues and better brief their decision-making bodies.

We believe that this existing industry group provides an appropriate forum for this matter to be addressed. We wish to have a constructive dialogue with your Department and government agencies, especially those with responsibility for environment and health.

Yours sincerely

John Swift
Chief Executive
British Deer Society
Clay Pigeon Shooting Association
Countryside Alliance
Country Land and Business Association
Deer Initiative Ltd
Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
Gun Trade Association
Moorland Association
National Game Dealers Association
National Gamekeepers Organisation

SO the LAG members where on the LAG as stakeholders. John Swift was as the BASC representative But as soon as it was clear the way things where going as soon as John Swift retired they dropped him like a stone. Saying he no longer work for them. BASC then have no representation on the main LAG committee. The voice of shooting has no voice.

BASC statement on Defra game bird breeding study

BASC press release 18 June 2015.

I hope this is not like the Compliance report and LAG process, using the same type of bad co-called scientific process.

I do not trust BASC after seeing how they managed as a sub-contractor to the WWT on the steering group for the compliance report and the way they have conducted themselves with regard to the LAG affair.

The last time BASC tried to manage the breeding cage issue they had to back track, I hope this is not going to happen this time.

If it has been three years and the government has not published to report, the government might be on our side. It could be that they do the same with the LAG report, put it in the filing room with a tag for 2 to 25 years.

When files are died in the civil service they have a box on the front cover, where it is signed off to the file room, files can be kept for 2, 5, 10 or 25 years.  I hope that this report was given a 2 year sign off and it has by now been put in the recycle sack.  I hope that the LAG report get the same treatment.

I use to work in the department of the Environment in Bristol for 6 years, on of my jobs was in the wildlife office file room, I used to have to manage the files, filing the files, finding them when they where recalled and when they came to the end of their time, marked on the box and signed, I use to destroy them, take them apart, paper in recycle sack, plastic in the bin and file cover back to registry.

This allowed me to see a lot of the work done by different organisation with the government including BASC letters to Defra.


BASC statement on Defra game bird breeding study

BASC is calling on the Government to publish a game bird study which concluded in 2012.

Defra commissioned research in 2009 entitled ‘Study to determine whether cage-based breeding can meet the needs of game birds, and if not, to identify best practice’. It was concluded in 2012 but has not been published.

It is time for the Government to publish this study. Three years is a long time for it to be sitting around unpublished.

BASC also reminded its members that they should adhere to the Codes of Practice for the Welfare of Gamebirds Reared for Sporting Purposes.

Ian Grindy
BASC game and gameshooting committee


Shooting News Nov 2013

I think we as shooters have to think how we are being represented by our organisations, the Shooting News letter high lights to misinformation being peddled by our very own shooting organisations. They should be on our side.

I trashed the WWT/BASC Compliance report in 2010 please see lead shot-gate part 1 and 2.

Have the shooting organisation been lead down the wrong path? If so by who?

The WWT or RSPB or by one of our own?

Please read the PDF file below this is the sort of fight talk we need to see from our shooting organisations. The only one that has stood up to be counted is Sir Barney White-Spunner of the CA. please see CA repress release “”CA “working tirelessly” on the lead shot issue”” on this blog.

This Shooting News was originally sent out (widely) in beginning of November 2013

Smear campaign (3)

CA “working tirelessly” on the lead shot issue


CA “working tirelessly” on the lead shot issue

The future of lead ammunition is one of the biggest issues to face shooting in the past few decades, but one which can easily pass you by if the detail of scientific research and Westminster and EU political process turn you off. The Countryside Alliance is involved in the debate at every level and is working tirelessly on behalf of our members to make sure that the whole shooting community get their say on the use of lead ammunition and those that would like to see it banned cannot rely on false statements and scare stories.

The Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) has now been considering evidence for over five years and concerns have been growing about the process for some time. Correspondence published on the Defra website as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request has brought those concerns to a head and seems to confirm that the process has completely broken down. LAG was set up with representatives of a range of interest groups to consider the issues and to produce a report on risk and mitigation as a group, but the published correspondence suggests the Chairman is now working towards his own conclusions regardless of the views of many group members. This is far too important an issue to be decided on the basis of a contentious report and there is no doubt that any report containing the conclusion that lead based ammunition should be phased out would be exactly that, as Defra itself suggests in the FoI correspondence. The case for a complete ban is further weakened by recent developments on the continent where the Norwegian parliament has voted to overturn a ban on lead ammunition outside wetlands and the EU has halted moves to restrict all lead products.

The relevant science being considered by LAG has all been published on its website and having discussed this with experts we are clear that it does not meet the standard required to justify further restrictions on lead shot, let alone a complete ban. However those who have been campaigning for a ban on lead shot, and leaked Wildlife and Wetland Trust documents have revealed exactly how extensive that campaign is, were set on their conclusions before LAG was even formed as, it now seems, was its Chairman. Our Executive Chairman, Barney White-Spunner, sits on LAG as the representative of the shooting community. LAG’s considerations are confidential, but you can be certain that he, and I am sure others, will demand proper scientific justification for any conclusions LAG comes to.

CA repress release.