panoma1 Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I respectfully think that your appreciation of what happened surrounding the gamekeepers departure from BASC is flawed. It was much more to do with a clash of personalities and the massive ego`s (No disrespect intended) of some of the gamekeeping committee members of that time than of any dissatisfaction. BASC still has an active and much respected gamekeepers section whilst BASC membership continues to grow. If you`re referring to the General Licence issue, you`ve misunderstood what happened there as well. The lead shot laws are a matter for government who simply ignored BASC`s, and everybody else`s, input into that debate. You`re also missing the point that the wildfowling community massively failed to engage with the democratic process. The notion that this politically disengaged majority will somehow be galvanised into individual action. to joining in, to taking an active part in the same way that fowlers did with the WAGBI of the 1950`s is mistaken in the extreme. That apart, everything else you`ve said, I agree with. Typical response you always get from BASC and its apologists, denial with no information and no explanation! BASC council do what they want in secret bound by the Chatham house rule, make decisions with no publicity or explanation, and are undemocratic because they are not answerable to their membership because they tell the membership nowt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morningflight Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 When I was Chairman of our Club I fought many times when members wanted to pull out of BASC and take out subscriptions with other affiliations as I always thought BASC was the body for us. Not sure I would fight it now, in fact I would consider voting for it. (I retired down from the Committee 3 seasons ago) Eddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWAG Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 BASC council do what they want in secret bound by the Chatham house rule,"Not for a long time now as council been operating under the Chatham house rules please read the minutes on the BASC website. Isn't it time that Wildfowlers split from BASC.Let us say there is 8000 wildfowlers out of those probably about 1000 radical in their views regarding how Basc should operate. To have effective representation at a multinational level across the four countries and in Europe and as well as at a local level costs money. Best case scenario 4000 wildfowlers with the subscription of hundred pound each gives you £400k this will at best give you three or four permanent staff to represent wildfowling. This wouldn't cover any of the bolt ons firearms research strategic planning political lobbying etc. In reality you would be lucky to get 2000 members what are you going to do with this? You would need a subscription of about £250 each to be anywhere near effective. TWAG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 BASC council do what they want in secret bound by the Chatham house rule,"Not for a long time now as council been operating under the Chatham house rules please read the minutes on the BASC website. Isn't it time that Wildfowlers split from BASC.Let us say there is 8000 wildfowlers out of those probably about 1000 radical in their views regarding how Basc should operate. To have effective representation at a multinational level across the four countries and in Europe and as well as at a local level costs money. Best case scenario 4000 wildfowlers with the subscription of hundred pound each gives you £400k this will at best give you three or four permanent staff to represent wildfowling. This wouldn't cover any of the bolt ons firearms research strategic planning political lobbying etc. In reality you would be lucky to get 2000 members what are you going to do with this? You would need a subscription of about £250 each to be anywhere near effective. TWAG Makes sense. There is but one flaw, though and the word is; Effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted June 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Morningflight, How do I estimate how many wildfowlers voted? Simple arithmetic. BASC affiliated wildfowling club members number some 8,000. In round figures, some 3,000 members voted in the election. Some 5,000 fowlers appear not to have voted otherwise the number of members who voted would have been much higher irrespective of whom they voted for. Edited June 19, 2015 by mudpatten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morningflight Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) If they did vote whose to say they would have voted for a representative that had Wildfowling in there best interest ? Possibly 3000 Wildfowlers voted but chose not to vote for the fowling candidates. Anyway its over now lets see what happens as we cannot change it. Eddie Edited June 19, 2015 by Morningflight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) BASC council do what they want in secret bound by the Chatham house rule,"Not for a long time now as council been operating under the Chatham house rules please read the minutes on the BASC website. Selective answer! You seem to be "in the know" so can you confirm the Chatham House Rule was the way BASC council operated......and explain why and for what purpose this was implemented in the first place? even now as far as I'm aware, nothing that is said and no votes in council are recorded as attributable to an individual council member, nor does this information appear in the subsequent minutes of the meetings, so how do ordinary members know what individual council members (whom they elected) position is? or the reason they take a particular position? or which way they vote on any issue?...........this being the case, how do ordinary members evaluate their elected BASC councillors performance? and without this information hold them to account when re-election time comes around?......the answer is they can't!.............No wonder the turnout to vote at the recent BASC council elections was so poor! Whilst electing council members by ballot and at the same time keeping the membership in the dark and hiding behind secrecy and anonymity is comfortable, it merely gives the impression of democracy...........it's also a dangerous game and an abdication of responsibility which can easily lead to infiltration and takeover by outsiders with a different agenda.................let's hope this is not the case? Edited June 19, 2015 by panoma1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TWAG Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 You seem to be "in the know" all I know is they do not use the Chatham house rules any more as for the rest of your question I cannot help you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Thanks anyway TWAG, the questions were semi rhetorical anyway, hoping BASC would take the criticism on board!........It may go some way to avoiding a repeat of the pathetic turn out to vote in the Next BASC council elections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hares Ear Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I respectfully think that your appreciation of what happened surrounding the gamekeepers departure from BASC is flawed. It was much more to do with a clash of personalities and the massive ego`s (No disrespect intended) of some of the gamekeeping committee members of that time than of any dissatisfaction. BASC still has an active and much respected gamekeepers section whilst BASC membership continues to grow. If you`re referring to the General Licence issue, you`ve misunderstood what happened there as well. The lead shot laws are a matter for government who simply ignored BASC`s, and everybody else`s, input into that debate. You`re also missing the point that the wildfowling community massively failed to engage with the democratic process. The notion that this politically disengaged majority will somehow be galvanised into individual action. to joining in, to taking an active part in the same way that fowlers did with the WAGBI of the 1950`s is mistaken in the extreme. That apart, everything else you`ve said, I agree with. I must offer my apologies. I must be mistaken. Your history lesson is indeed enlightening. In the world that I and many others live in. Other than getting Woodcock and Snipe removed from the specific species list, BASC did little to fight the restrictions on lead shot in England. It was Natural England that proposed placing Mallard and Greylag on the general licence. BASC Council supported the proposal wholeheartedly. If you remember, that's why individual Wildfowlers had to make their own representations to Natural England to oppose their proposal. It would have been nice if our shooting organisation had done it for us. If BASC had been more supportive of it's 'Keeper members, there would have been no clash of personalities or massive ego's. BASC has indeed got a respected Gamekeeping section. But the NGO is a respected organisation in itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenshank1 Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I read through the new councillors and was impressed so many were young , new to shooting and female with professional occupations. This is surely new fresh ideas coming into shooting and are possibly future fowlers ? Since being elected how many wildfowling clubs have invited them out this coming season to get them into wildfowling or at least give them them the opportunity to learn about fowling and how best they can support it There is no point moaning they are not from a wildfowling background and then not welcoming them into wildfowling. BASC need membership numbers to fight for all shooting . The general public haven't a clue about pigeon shooting , pheasant shooting or wildfowling we are all just shooters , so how would breaking away from Basc with a huge voice to influence politicians and the public and trying to restart WAGBI with a tiny voice be a better way of safeguard wildfowling ? If you are a wildfowler and care passionately about the future of your sport but are disgruntled with Basc surely the best thing to do is join Basc and make your feelings known to their wildfowling team ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister1 Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I agree but I would add that I would like to see a BASC face once in a while at our committee meetings or at the new members day. Perhaps I should raise it at the next committee meeting. I know there are lots of clubs out there but as we are affiliated they could come a tell us what they have been doing at Marford mill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted June 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) I think you`ll find that you only have to ask. Edited June 20, 2015 by mudpatten Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister1 Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 No doubt your right and I'll raise the point at the next meeting. It would be nice to meet someone from basc and have a chin wag about future developments etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 8000 wildfowler members? Well considering that quite a few pay more than one BASC subscription and I heard 7000 not long back, also the fact that the majority of wildfowling club members are not very active or only list as wildfowling members because that's how they pay their subs (through a club) but then just shoot a few geese in Feb once pheasants have finished- how many does that leave us to for the new WAGBI? not blooming many I think. One day all the orgs will join together, it will save costs and add weight. The trick is when that day comes that we have sub committees that are deferred to be the only voters on things like culling greys in summer on GL it will be voted by Wildfowlers only, Burning grouse moor ? the keepers, deer seasons? Stalking committee. All committee members should have served 10 years continuous membership ( of the org once that term is passed in the new society) as this is the only way we will can protect ourselves better from recruiting another confirmed anti like we just did The sole reason is we must add our support to others when needed and protect their interests while they do the same for us but the spin off is everyone gets what they want and need. Oh we don't include target shooters because they have NOTHING to do with the actual sports we are protecting! Look on it this way 1500 antis join BASC and 5 antis stand, they all vote the same by instruction and we are stuffed- lets do that 10 yrs rule now and not risk it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiler23 Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I fully agree with that 10 year rule, in all aspects of life... Folk should have plenty of experience before being a figure of authority on the subject Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 I fully agree with that 10 year rule, in all aspects of life... Folk should have plenty of experience before being a figure of authority on the subject MP's for example... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 8000 wildfowler members? Well considering that quite a few pay more than one BASC subscription and I heard 7000 not long back, also the fact that the majority of wildfowling club members are not very active or only list as wildfowling members because that's how they pay their subs (through a club) but then just shoot a few geese in Feb once pheasants have finished- how many does that leave us to for the new WAGBI? not blooming many I think. One day all the orgs will join together, it will save costs and add weight. That day will never come for the very reasons we have so many separate organisations now. The trick is when that day comes that we have sub committees that are deferred to be the only voters on things like culling greys in summer on GL it will be voted by Wildfowlers only, Burning grouse moor ? the keepers, deer seasons? Stalking committee. All committee members should have served 10 years continuous membership ( of the org once that term is passed in the new society) as this is the only way we will can protect ourselves better from recruiting another confirmed anti like we just did The sole reason is we must add our support to others when needed and protect their interests while they do the same for us but the spin off is everyone gets what they want and need. Oh we don't include target shooters because they have NOTHING to do with the actual sports we are protecting! So much for sticking together then eh. I know blokes who shoot game, wildfowl and enjoy target shooting, but you at a single stroke have already created a division in shooting 'sports'. Target shooters incidentally, punch holes in pieces of paper, whilst you as a wild fowler actively seek living creatures to kill for your own enjoyment...remember, if you're not not enjoying yourself, stop doing it. Some of the comments on here beggar belief, they really do. Look on it this way 1500 antis join BASC and 5 antis stand, they all vote the same by instruction and we are stuffed- lets do that 10 yrs rule now and not risk it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildfowler.250 Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) I read through the new councillors and was impressed so many were young , new to shooting and female with professional occupations. This is surely new fresh ideas coming into shooting and are possibly future fowlers ? Since being elected how many wildfowling clubs have invited them out this coming season to get them into wildfowling or at least give them them the opportunity to learn about fowling and how best they can support it There is no point moaning they are not from a wildfowling background and then not welcoming them into wildfowling. BASC need membership numbers to fight for all shooting . The general public haven't a clue about pigeon shooting , pheasant shooting or wildfowling we are all just shooters , so how would breaking away from Basc with a huge voice to influence politicians and the public and trying to restart WAGBI with a tiny voice be a better way of safeguard wildfowling ? If you are a wildfowler and care passionately about the future of your sport but are disgruntled with Basc surely the best thing to do is join Basc and make your feelings known to their wildfowling team ? Good post One day all the orgs will join together, it will save costs and add weight. The trick is when that day comes that we have sub committees that are deferred to be the only voters on things like culling greys in summer on GL it will be voted by Wildfowlers only, Burning grouse moor ? the keepers, deer seasons? Stalking committee. All committee members should have served 10 years continuous membership ( of the org once that term is passed in the new society) as this is the only way we will can protect ourselves better from recruiting another confirmed anti like we just did The sole reason is we must add our support to others when needed and protect their interests while they do the same for us but the spin off is everyone gets what they want and need. Oh we don't include target shooters because they have NOTHING to do with the actual sports we are protecting! /quote] That is what I hope will happen but I would include target shooters. They still have similar interests but more importantly, safety in numbers.. Edited June 21, 2015 by wildfowler.250 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 You know my own experience in target shooting is a fair proportion of the guys in it think shooting live quarry is wrong. Not all but quite a fair proportion and some don't hold back on letting it be known, some even think that sporting shooters of live quarry put their firearms under greater risk and the NRA did little to keep Auto loading post Hungerford as it wasn't used in their event TR. Now do you still think you want them in our ranks? Personally and it is personal I don't for this very reason Its a primary reason why I am against someone who voted strongly in favour of a foxhunting ban sitting on the BASC council. Yep a target shooter Now talk to me again about sticking together, target shooting isn't a field sport and that's crucial in my mind Angling, ferreting, foxhunting, hunting with dogs, Falconry etc are field sports, the fact that we all wear boots and play outdoors means as little as target shooters also owning guns! Should we bring in the 4x4 green laners also? Ok that's ridiculous but the point stands, its just the same as target shooters. Ok so the fact it was peddled at the BASC election as a good thing to involve a target shooter got a guy on the BASC council who was a factor in getting our first legal field sport stuck of the list when he cast his "strongly in favour" vote for a ban Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 I think we should all keep a weather eye open for the direction that BASC is moving in. For some years now it would appear that they are more concerned with politics and conservation than with promoting and endorsing shooting. I have been a member for many years and well remember the late Tony Orchard warning me to be careful as a BASC volunteer as 'they are users'. Not so recently they appointed a lady who had no interest in shooting and never wished to shoot as Head of Shooting Standards ! Some of you may remember the late Roy Jordan of The Packington Estate , BASC's Honorary Gundog Advisor , that was until they replaced him with a Lady, but didn't bother to tell Roy! We also have Alison Lorum a none shooter with no idea who wrote the BASC paper with Dr. John Harradine for a fee that the WWT then used to punish us with. Now we have a raving anti elected to Council ! 'Oh Happy Days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 You know my own experience in target shooting is a fair proportion of the guys in it think shooting live quarry is wrong. Not all but quite a fair proportion and some don't hold back on letting it be known, some even think that sporting shooters of live quarry put their firearms under greater risk and the NRA did little to keep Auto loading post Hungerford as it wasn't used in their event TR. Now do you still think you want them in our ranks? Personally and it is personal I don't for this very reason Its a primary reason why I am against someone who voted strongly in favour of a foxhunting ban sitting on the BASC council. Yep a target shooter Now talk to me again about sticking together, target shooting isn't a field sport and that's crucial in my mind Angling, ferreting, foxhunting, hunting with dogs, Falconry etc are field sports, the fact that we all wear boots and play outdoors means as little as target shooters also owning guns! Should we bring in the 4x4 green laners also? Ok that's ridiculous but the point stands, its just the same as target shooters. Ok so the fact it was peddled at the BASC election as a good thing to involve a target shooter got a guy on the BASC council who was a factor in getting our first legal field sport stuck of the list when he cast his "strongly in favour" vote for a ban There are clay shooters who believe live quarry shooting is wrong, and clay shooters who also shoot live quarry. The one thing we all have in common over the anglers (and yes I know some anglers also shoot, but there are many more who don't) is that we all own guns. The reason we have so many organisations now is because of the attitudes of those who despite owning guns, don't agree with some of the things other sections of the shooting community do. You have about as much chance of amalgamating all fieldsports as you call them, into one big happy organisation as I do of walking across Lake Windermere. It aint gonna happen; the CPSA have their own agenda and priorities and have already once attempted to distance themselves from live quarry shooters, and the NRA tried to cut a deal to ensure its members and its members only kept service rifles such as the FN-FAL, and the NPA sold out its members following Dunblane and the apathy of BASC ensured at least one more organisation sprung into being following Dunblane, and another group who thought they were ignored broke away to form the NGO, so I don't quite see how you plan to achieve 'one day all the org's will join together'. They wont. 'The sole reason is we must add our support to others when needed'! But rather than offer some sort of conciliatory offering, in an attempt to get another group on board, you immediately cause a rift by excluding a group of shooters you consider not to be a 'fieldsport'. Hilarious. We get what we deserve, we really do. I'm not a wild fowler by any means, but up to now would back your cause. Your arrogance has me wondering why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted June 22, 2015 Report Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) Salopian you really should try to get your facts correct before you post... Have you bothered to ask any of our volunteers if they feel 'used' - I doubt it. We have a loyal bunch of long standing volunteers all of who are immensely valuable to BASC The lady you refer to was not appointed head of Shooting Standards, the Shooting Standards team was not established until almost 17 years after she left! She was an educationalist who was appointed head of training with the brief of consolidating and developing BASC's training program Roy, who I knew well, had already agreed to start standing down and had been presented with a reward in recognition for all his work over many decades at the Royal Show (I was there when it happened!) as a thank you for all he had done over the many years he was with us as he moved into his BASC gundog retirement . It was only then when one region appointed another person ,out of necessity due to Roys imminent standing down, to help them with their gun dog program And as for Alison's work on the BASC members survey of their knowledge and understanding of the lead shot regulations, the result of which was the recommendation by WWT that more needed to be done to advise shooters of the law is hardly 'punishing' shooters is it? What punishment has been handed down to shooters from this work may I ask,? No change in law, no prospective change in legislation.... As for the accusation of a member of Council being a 'raving anti' may I suggest you say this to his face Trust me, wildfowling is still important to BASC and BASC Council, there are several senior members of Council who are wildflowers. BASC Council will stand up for all shooting sports, although our roots are in live quarry shooting, we will not tun our back on those who only enjoy target shooting, accepting that the target shooting orgnaisations are probably better placed in this regard as they run the national and international competitions but personally i think it is very counter productive for one shooting sport to criticize another David PS on a personal note I find wildfowling absolutely terrifying - walking out onto a marsh or off it in darkness , fills me with dread, i have tried it twice and have rarely been so scared , and i don't scare easily.. never the less if you want to do it I will support you in any way I can, just don't ask me to come along, unless you want to see an ex rugby player and an ex karate instructor quiver and shake..... Edited June 23, 2015 by David BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 David, Thank you for your reply above , which may I add is factually incorrect on a number of points. But the various threads on this website that 'bash ' BASC are becoming far too numerous . As you know I personally have a great deal of respect for yourself and personally feel that you are holding the fort alone. Therefore I will refrain from any further postings on this or any BASC subject. In closing I would like to point out that I was Roy Jordan's friend , colleague, and assistant and your account is not actually the truth although it may be all the facts that you have at your disposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted June 23, 2015 Report Share Posted June 23, 2015 There are clay shooters who believe live quarry shooting is wrong, and clay shooters who also shoot live quarry. The one thing we all have in common over the anglers (and yes I know some anglers also shoot, but there are many more who don't) is that we all own guns. The reason we have so many organisations now is because of the attitudes of those who despite owning guns, don't agree with some of the things other sections of the shooting community do. You have about as much chance of amalgamating all fieldsports as you call them, into one big happy organisation as I do of walking across Lake Windermere. It aint gonna happen; the CPSA have their own agenda and priorities and have already once attempted to distance themselves from live quarry shooters, and the NRA tried to cut a deal to ensure its members and its members only kept service rifles such as the FN-FAL, and the NPA sold out its members following Dunblane and the apathy of BASC ensured at least one more organisation sprung into being following Dunblane, and another group who thought they were ignored broke away to form the NGO, so I don't quite see how you plan to achieve 'one day all the org's will join together'. They wont. 'The sole reason is we must add our support to others when needed'! But rather than offer some sort of conciliatory offering, in an attempt to get another group on board, you immediately cause a rift by excluding a group of shooters you consider not to be a 'fieldsport'. Hilarious. We get what we deserve, we really do. I'm not a wild fowler by any means, but up to now would back your cause. Your arrogance has me wondering why. Ugh? Now your confusing me a bit back (to which I responded you citied my not wanting target shooters into a merged field sports society). Target shooters are facing just one threat, the fact you don't need guns to perforate paper or break clay. The fact is although its often forgot we as a nation actually need firearms to manage the countryside and although unreasonable restrictions are placed on them from time to time an outright ban? well I don't think it will ever happen personally. Now the fact that you say your "not a wildfowler by any means" perhaps backs my view that one shouldn't meddle in the business of another area of the sport by voting on it in any way Yes Anglers wont join, yet wanted us to join them to save spilt shot when we gained no support from them as they kept their heads down about their use lead shot and waterfowl when we lost it, superior attitude? Yes for some reason (and I am a very keen angler) I could list a lot of reasons why my shooting is more humane than angling and as I have also worked hunting dogs could make similar arguments for them over shooting. The fact is we do need to join up BUT THEN LEAVE WILDFOWLING MATTERS TO WILDFOWLERS and add WILDFOWLERS SUPPORT TO THE OTHERS WITHOUT INTERFEARANCE IN ANY WAY. Foxhunting showed us who is next, we need to re-instate it legally and join together like the musketeers one for all and all for one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.