Jump to content

BASC Council election results confirm that wildfowling is now a spent


mudpatten
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.....

 

If someone votes " in favour" in support of a ban on foxhunting he is by definition an anti- field sports supporter (this is a matter of public record and hence provable). Shooting of live quarry is a major field sport. I should love to hear the response that is anything but laughable. Heck the ban effectively limited gun packs (a shooting sport if we go by the fact we are actually ok being anti anything other than guns for killing) "we are not a target association last time I looked" to a brace of hounds, how the heck do you drive foxes out of Sitka forestry or drive a moor effectively with just one couple. :rolleyes:

Edited by kent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Thanks for that Kent, you have just single handedly ensured I will no longer be voting for anything remotely in defence of wild fowling or wild fowlers. :good:

Your 'need' for firearms is no greater than anyone else's incidentally. You haven't got any relatives on PW perchance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Kent, you have just single handedly ensured I will no longer be voting for anything remotely in defence of wild fowling or wild fowlers. :good:

Your 'need' for firearms is no greater than anyone else's incidentally. You haven't got any relatives on PW perchance?

 

have you ever tried another way of harvesting coastal birds? Clap nets don't work too good over water you know :rolleyes: As this it has been our right and has been for centuries (something wildfowlers will throw at you if prompted as its held dear to us), its eaten we are supplying food (it used to be a profession supplying birds to market). What about the fact that the governments actually paid for Rudy duck to be shot? Not netted, scared etc but shot! Obviously there is a need then because the EU (ie the taxpayers across Europe) funded it. The badger cull, deer management, the vermin act etc. You have a whole heap of proving their is "no need" for ownership of firearms to manage the countryside etc. as I stated and one heck of a job overturning reams of associated other legislation.

Now correct me if I am dead wrong here but specific vermin control needs saved the rapid fire .22 from the post Hungerford auto ban does this lead one to any conclusions, we have unlike some nations the provision of full bore sound moderators that came from the health and safety act AT WORK in the main, no argument could obviously be made full bore rifles themselves were not needed nor the tools to make them safer for the user!

Hey don't take it I am an anti target shooter I don't do anything but odd days now but must have been a member of over a dozen or more clubs over the years but BASC is not a target club last time I looked and live quarry (hunters or cullers call them what you like) can prove guns are required simply by other law and government payments made to our rank. Heck we even have some stalkers being issued handguns as section 5 (bad unenforceable legislation sticking plaster that it is) Yet at the same time our pistol team cant train or take issued guns off range

Edited by kent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

have you ever tried another way of harvesting coastal birds? Clap nets don't work too good over water you know :rolleyes: As this it has been our right and has been for centuries (something wildfowlers will throw at you if prompted as its held dear to us), its eaten we are supplying food (it used to be a profession supplying birds to market). What about the fact that the governments actually paid for Rudy duck to be shot? Not netted, scared etc but shot! Obviously there is a need then because the EU (ie the taxpayers across Europe) funded it. The badger cull, deer management, the vermin act etc. You have a whole heap of proving their is "no need" for ownership of firearms to manage the countryside etc. as I stated and one heck of a job overturning reams of associated other legislation.

Now correct me if I am dead wrong here but specific vermin control needs saved the rapid fire .22 from the post Hungerford auto ban does this lead one to any conclusions, we have unlike some nations the provision of full bore sound moderators that came from the health and safety act AT WORK in the main, no argument could obviously be made full bore rifles themselves were not needed nor the tools to make them safer for the user!

Hey don't take it I am an anti target shooter I don't do anything but odd days now but must have been a member of over a dozen or more clubs over the years but BASC is not a target club last time I looked and live quarry (hunters or cullers call them what you like) can prove guns are required simply by other law and government payments made to our rank. Heck we even have some stalkers being issued handguns as section 5 (bad unenforceable legislation sticking plaster that it is) Yet at the same time our pistol team cant train or take issued guns off range

Harvesting? Do you mean killing? Are you a professional pest controller or professional wildfowl shooter? Whether you are or not your 'need' can and will be taken away by legislation, don't ever doubt it. There are many RFD's who WILL lose their businesses regardless of income, if a shooting ban comes into force. Like you I can't see it happening, but make no mistake about it, it CAN happen. I have it on first hand authority from a senior BASC representative that it can also, with the admission 'and there would be nothing we could do to stop it'. Political expediency couldn't give a fig about your 'centuries of right' believe it or not.

I'm not sure as to what you mean by including .22 rf for pest control, nor if they were spared post Hungerford because of their use for that purpose, but unless I'm mistaken you don't shoot geese with a .22rf, unless you're suggesting geese are a pest species of course, in which case there wouldn't be a closed season.

All manner of wildfowl can and are farmed for the consumer market, and if demand rises then your 'harvesting' certainly wont be relied upon to meet that demand. You've already admitted you only do 'odd days' so where is the 'need' you seem to think will guarantee your 'sport'.

You're not much good to a game dealer with customers to supply and revenue to make if he rings you up and you tell him you only managed a couple this morning. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the combined efforts of every wild fowler in the UK could keep up with demand if the demand was there? Ridiculous notion.

Big up your 'harvesting' by all means if it makes you feel important, but don't make the mistake of thinking your 'sport' is safe just because of the need to control pests; your 'needs' are small fry compared to the media whipping up of an unknowledgeable and often anti- general public. You can call it fieldsports 'til the cows come home; it's still bloodsports to them. Antis they may be, but they at least can stick together for their common cause, unlike UK shooters, who will readily rubbish another discipline to save their own. We'll never learn, and you're living proof of that.

If your 'sport' isn't under threat why are you suggesting 'fox hunting showed us who is next' and your three musketeer rallying call of 'all for one and one for all'?

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harvesting? Do you mean killing? Are you a professional pest controller or professional wildfowl shooter? Whether you are or not your 'need' can and will be taken away by legislation, don't ever doubt it. There are many RFD's who WILL lose their businesses regardless of income, if a shooting ban comes into force. Like you I can't see it happening, but make no mistake about it, it CAN happen. I have it on first hand authority from a senior BASC representative that it can also, with the admission 'and there would be nothing we could do to stop it'. Political expediency couldn't give a fig about your 'centuries of right' believe it or not.

I'm not sure as to what you mean by including .22 rf for pest control, nor if they were spared post Hungerford because of their use for that purpose, but unless I'm mistaken you don't shoot geese with a .22rf, unless you're suggesting geese are a pest species of course, in which case there wouldn't be a closed season.

All manner of wildfowl can and are farmed for the consumer market, and if demand rises then your 'harvesting' certainly wont be relied upon to meet that demand. You've already admitted you only do 'odd days' so where is the 'need' you seem to think will guarantee your 'sport'.

You're not much good to a game dealer with customers to supply and revenue to make if he rings you up and you tell him you only managed a couple this morning. Are you seriously trying to tell me that the combined efforts of every wild fowler in the UK could keep up with demand if the demand was there? Ridiculous notion.

Big up your 'harvesting' by all means if it makes you feel important, but don't make the mistake of thinking your 'sport' is safe just because of the need to control pests; your 'needs' are small fry compared to the media whipping up of an unknowledgeable and often anti- general public. You can call it fieldsports 'til the cows come home; it's still bloodsports to them. Antis they may be, but they at least can stick together for their common cause, unlike UK shooters, who will readily rubbish another discipline to save their own. We'll never learn, and you're living proof of that.

If your 'sport' isn't under threat why are you suggesting 'fox hunting showed us who is next' and your three musketeer rallying call of 'all for one and one for all'?

good grief, if I could only discern an actual point in there I might respond further. Perhaps you might like to actually try wildfowling the use of words like harvesting is exactly how most of us think of it. We are not shooting pests and we are not paying for birds we are harvesting a small crop of wild bounty for personal consumption. In the case of Geese it isn't even legal to sell birds.

 

I guess democracy gives everyone a voice hence the recent BASC election result

 

There is only one thing I am rubbishing and that's target shooters representing live quarry shooters interests on the BASC council, I think that pretty much a fair point of view as BASC are not a Target org or club

Edited by kent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

good grief, if I could only discern an actual point in there I might respond further. Perhaps you might like to actually try wildfowling the use of words like harvesting is exactly how most of us think of it. We are not shooting pests and we are not paying for birds we are harvesting a small crop of wild bounty for personal consumption. In the case of Geese it isn't even legal to sell birds.

 

I guess democracy gives everyone a voice hence the recent BASC election result

 

There is only one thing I am rubbishing and that's target shooters representing live quarry shooters interests on the BASC council, I think that pretty much a fair point of view as BASC are not a Target org or club

With the above in mind then I fail to see what your post at 78 was all about! You gave the impression wild fowlers provided an invaluable service to the food industry and pest control.

You distinctly give the impression you regard wild fowlers have a centuries old 'right' which will protect your 'need' for firearms and that geese cannot be harvested in any other manner, which is codswallop.

I prefer the context of your meaning regarding your attitude towards target shooters in your last sentence and can see your point, but it is very different to the first point you made regarding their inclusion of your pie in the sky mega organisation. They may not know anything about wild fowling but as firearms owners they should not be excluded from your elite club.

Incidentally, you can call it harvesting, you can call it gathering, you can call it reaping, you can call it sweet fanny adams, but the only person you're deluding is yourself if you think its a means to inject a little noble romance into what you do. I may try wild fowling sometime, as you suggest, but I'm under no illusion about 'harvesting'.

Times have moved on and there are many many people out there who no longer regard what you do as acceptable, and know that the term 'harvesting' is simply an attempt by you to justify what you do. You're killing for your own enjoyment, and they know it even if you don't want to admit it. Wake up and smell the roses; now is not the time to alienate any shooting disciplines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen in pains me to read comments like the ones above. All shooters have one thing in common - we shoot. That means we own guns and use ammunition.

If there was ever a need for one large organisation to represent shooters it is now. We will all be the losers if the anti blood sports and/or the anti guns action groups get there way.

The 'mega' organisation should only be involved in protecting the fundamental right to legally own firearms for sporting purposes. They should not get involved in the inter sport rivalry.

The NRA in America is just such an organisation - It works if you look at it from the view point of the millions of sensible firearm users in the states. Now I know the situation in America is totally different to what we are faced with here in Britain but it works for them.

We need all our representative organisations to get together and form one strong action group to represent shooters - all of them. Then the organisations can get on with protecting their own particular interests.

United we might stand - Divided we will undoubtedly fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen in pains me to read comments like the ones above. All shooters have one thing in common - we shoot. That means we own guns and use ammunition.

If there was ever a need for one large organisation to represent shooters it is now. We will all be the losers if the anti blood sports and/or the anti guns action groups get there way.

The 'mega' organisation should only be involved in protecting the fundamental right to legally own firearms for sporting purposes. They should not get involved in the inter sport rivalry.

The NRA in America is just such an organisation - It works if you look at it from the view point of the millions of sensible firearm users in the states. Now I know the situation in America is totally different to what we are faced with here in Britain but it works for them.

We need all our representative organisations to get together and form one strong action group to represent shooters - all of them. Then the organisations can get on with protecting their own particular interests.

United we might stand - Divided we will undoubtedly fall.

 

:big_boss: /\ /\ /\ THIS!!!!

 

I can't believe that after wildfowlers have had a TINY taste of what semi-auto full-bore rifle and pistol shooters got in SPADES from shotgunners (i don't discriminate :lol: ) some apparently still haven't woken up and realised that we all need to stick together under the banner of firearm ownership and their legal use, whatever that might be :rolleyes:

 

A mega-organisation is the best way forward and i really don't get why all of the different organisations can't just join together in an official capacity (but each still runs the niche department they all do separately now). Like a proper, membership based version of the BSSC. :good:

 

FYI I'm a BASC member but 99% of my shooting is target related, although i have been deer stalking, game shooting, slotted 2 foxes bothering a friends chciken coops and praise jeebers i've even been wild-fowling!!

Edited by Breastman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:big_boss: /\ /\ /\ THIS!!!!

 

I can't believe that after wildfowlers have had a TINY taste of what semi-auto full-bore rifle and pistol shooters got in SPADES from shotgunners (i don't discriminate :lol: ) some apparently still haven't woken up and realised that we all need to stick together under the banner of firearm ownership and their legal use, whatever that might be :rolleyes:

 

A mega-organisation is the best way forward and i really don't get why all of the different organisations can't just join together in an official capacity (but each still runs the niche department they all do separately now). Like a proper, membership based version of the BSSC. :good:

 

FYI I'm a BASC member but 99% of my shooting is target related, although i have been deer stalking, game shooting, slotted 2 foxes bothering a friends chciken coops and praise jeebers i've even been wild-fowling!!

Think you'd have an uphill struggle. Assuming it's representative, BASC's opinion is here:

 

http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/topic/314112-joint-association-committee/

 

Edit: Invalid sentence deleted

Edited by wymberley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is already a joint working group for gun interests which BASC are part of so what needs fixing?. BASC have some serious media stuff and can act quickly to help this doesn't need to change. What does is Target shooters getting a vote on the council voting what keepers do, wildfowler, stalkers, game shots, gundog guys,etc. The clue is in the thread title at the top of the page. BASC elections prove wildfowling is now a spent force. If we could only stop messing in someone elses business.

 

What I say and said is we need numbers to support individual causes but we also need to back down from others business. Only last year BASC council supposedly recommended the summer killing of Greylag geese and egg pricking of Mallard nests to go on GL, this created total outrage among wildfowlers! Doubtless there are persons who hold all sorts of views about another's sport, the fact remains that the thread shows us how ready some are to meddle in something they know nothing about and pick pointless fights based on Lord knows what so perhaps I am wrong and Wildfowlers are better following the path of the likes of the NGO etc.

 

BASC is the British association of shooting AND CONSERVATION sometimes the last bit is forgotten imo often through ignorance of the facts in a haste to gain PR. I feel sure somebody thought shooting geese in summer with dependant young sounded cool (maybe even offered extra sport) and forgot it was the BASC founders who re-introduced the native breeding flock after it was shot out previously. They did this by moving Geese down from Scotland were some still existed. It was a big betrayal as was the interaction rather than revocation of the recommendation when it kicked off

 

Due to the above there is a large disconnection of the wildfowling members, clubs must be BASC members but many clubs have told members they do not and as long as they have insurance they are OK. Wildfowlers have often had multi BASC membership fees and never bothered to claim surplus ones back as they believed in the cause, I changed and only now pay one fee I suspect others have also

 

The thread is good and the non fowlers have pretty much made my mind up about how safe wildfowling is in the hands of todays "average" BASC member. Under the Council of an anti target shooter and some inexperienced but supposedly all important female council members things are far from rosey in the garden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet again you miss the point, your entire bug-bear with the 'mega-organisation' (which i will now refer to as UKFUA - UK Firearms Users Association - and FGS don't get hung up on that, its an irrelevant detail) seems to be the possibility of non-wild-flowers voting on wild-fowling issues, a minute detail which could be addressed with a small alteration to the voting system e.g. Everyone who is a member of UKFUA states which disciplines they actively take part in during the membership application/renewal process and can only vote on those issues. Or some other change, the point being this is easily addressed. Target shooters would be as uninterested in voting on which species of birds are or are not on the general licences as you would be on which shape/size target is used for competitions.

 

The BSSC is a 'cloud' organisation which has no direct membership, and hence accountability. The very fact that you apparently have little afinity with target shooters suggests the BSSC has little to no influence over the members of the associations they supposedly bring together. Don't get me wrong the BSSC has done great work which i appreciate, but IMO it is not the type of organisation which is needed, it seems to very much suit the needs of the politicians, not the shooters. The benefits of the UKFUA would be that when ANY firearms/shooting related issue came up, one unified voice could reply with the backing of the combined membership numbers of BASC, NRA, CPSA, CA,UKPSA etc etc etc. The more voters that are effected the more politicians take notice, its that simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen in pains me to read comments like the ones above. All shooters have one thing in common - we shoot. That means we own guns and use ammunition.

If there was ever a need for one large organisation to represent shooters it is now. We will all be the losers if the anti blood sports and/or the anti guns action groups get there way.

The 'mega' organisation should only be involved in protecting the fundamental right to legally own firearms for sporting purposes. They should not get involved in the inter sport rivalry.

The NRA in America is just such an organisation - It works if you look at it from the view point of the millions of sensible firearm users in the states. Now I know the situation in America is totally different to what we are faced with here in Britain but it works for them.

We need all our representative organisations to get together and form one strong action group to represent shooters - all of them. Then the organisations can get on with protecting their own particular interests.

United we might stand - Divided we will undoubtedly fall.

 

Wise words from someone who has been around a while if I may say so.

 

So just a quick look at the BASC election results reveals 12,281 votes cast. BASC state they have 140,000 members. My adding machine tells me that's 8.77%. Actually, the real return is a lot less as the electorate could've voted for more than one member as I understand it.

 

Not very good is it? I suppose the BASC Council has to be representative of it's membership.

 

I wonder weather the electorate understood candidate credentials or was it just confusing and relegated to the " can't be ***** box".

Edited by Whitebridges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wouldn't need any organisations other than the ones we have and possibly not even them, if all shooters would stick together, but they wont, so I fail to see how one more 'mega' organisation is going to change matters. Not all shooters are members of any shooting organisation, so therefore there is a loss of much needed revenue there, and the only way to resolve that issue is to make it compulsory to be a member of an organisation, which would also have the added bonus of ensuring every shooter was insured.

Even a mega organisation would be filled with members all wanting an equal bite of the pie to fund and support their particular discipline, and if one party feels they're not being represented as well as others, or as well as they should be, then, well......it all sounds so familiar doesn't it.

The same situation would arise even if the wild fowling section was voted on by only wild fowlers and clay shooters only voted on their section as all matters of funding would have to be sanctioned by the over-riding committee members whose role it is to control finances.

If wild fowling members contributed to only wild fowling issues and clay shooters did likewise to clay shooting issues, then it wouldn't be too long before the minority groups within a minority started complaining that because they don't have as many members as some of the other organisations they aren't capable of funding their own agendas, which brings us onto the question would clay shooters be happy to know that some of their contribution was going towards shooting geese, or deer stalkers happy to find a proportion of their contributions were funding wild fowlers? If so, then all is hunky dory, but we aren' t in that situation, nor likely ever to be for one simple reason; UK shooters cannot bring themselves to stand up for each other, and indeed themselves.

We get what we deserve, and it's happening right now. We are getting what we deserve, and when the **** hits the fan next time instead of rallying round each other we'll either sacrifice one group in the hope another will not be noticed, or leave the lobbying to someone else.

Get out there and enjoy it while you can, it may not be as good as it could be, but it's the best it's ever going to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet again you miss the point, your entire bug-bear with the 'mega-organisation' (which i will now refer to as UKFUA - UK Firearms Users Association - and FGS don't get hung up on that, its an irrelevant detail) seems to be the possibility of non-wild-flowers voting on wild-fowling issues, a minute detail which could be addressed with a small alteration to the voting system e.g. Everyone who is a member of UKFUA states which disciplines they actively take part in during the membership application/renewal process and can only vote on those issues. Or some other change, the point being this is easily addressed. Target shooters would be as uninterested in voting on which species of birds are or are not on the general licences as you would be on which shape/size target is used for competitions.

 

The BSSC is a 'cloud' organisation which has no direct membership, and hence accountability. The very fact that you apparently have little afinity with target shooters suggests the BSSC has little to no influence over the members of the associations they supposedly bring together. Don't get me wrong the BSSC has done great work which i appreciate, but IMO it is not the type of organisation which is needed, it seems to very much suit the needs of the politicians, not the shooters. The benefits of the UKFUA would be that when ANY firearms/shooting related issue came up, one unified voice could reply with the backing of the combined membership numbers of BASC, NRA, CPSA, CA,UKPSA etc etc etc. The more voters that are effected the more politicians take notice, its that simple.

 

Yes, to the no vote on matters they don't partake in. Also we might add 10 yrs continuous membership before a person might stand. I do have affinity with target shooters and although I haven't been on a range or competed for over half a decade now have done far more than my share in a number of disciplines . I just don't see why field sports shouldn't stand apart from the Gun ownership question. Yes some of the fieldsports use them but our fight against the anti and legislator I feel is different, I have shot with some raging anti field sport people at club level. I just don't think target and quarry mix its a bit like people who like cars for racing, classic cars and cars to commute to my mind.

To give you an idea of some of the things we face a new head of the NE for an area was appointed and mostly all clubs need consent to shoot on wildfowling sites. Thing is she was horrified that people actually shot migrant wildfowl (did even know it was something that existed) . Now she was ok after her "education" but you see fieldsports have very separate issues but are linked to each other in other ways than gun ownership. How hard might it be to recruit other minority sports say falconers , if they new their funds was going into gun ownership issues week on week. The likelihood is the biggest majority might get the most funding. Remember the BFSS they fell fighting for foxhunting and I can tell you as an ex-member many other sports were pushed into a corner when they also had issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We wouldn't need any organisations other than the ones we have and possibly not even them, if all shooters would stick together, but they wont, so I fail to see how one more 'mega' organisation is going to change matters. Not all shooters are members of any shooting organisation, so therefore there is a loss of much needed revenue there, and the only way to resolve that issue is to make it compulsory to be a member of an organisation, which would also have the added bonus of ensuring every shooter was insured.

Even a mega organisation would be filled with members all wanting an equal bite of the pie to fund and support their particular discipline, and if one party feels they're not being represented as well as others, or as well as they should be, then, well......it all sounds so familiar doesn't it.

The same situation would arise even if the wild fowling section was voted on by only wild fowlers and clay shooters only voted on their section as all matters of funding would have to be sanctioned by the over-riding committee members whose role it is to control finances.

If wild fowling members contributed to only wild fowling issues and clay shooters did likewise to clay shooting issues, then it wouldn't be too long before the minority groups within a minority started complaining that because they don't have as many members as some of the other organisations they aren't capable of funding their own agendas, which brings us onto the question would clay shooters be happy to know that some of their contribution was going towards shooting geese, or deer stalkers happy to find a proportion of their contributions were funding wild fowlers? If so, then all is hunky dory, but we aren' t in that situation, nor likely ever to be for one simple reason; UK shooters cannot bring themselves to stand up for each other, and indeed themselves.

We get what we deserve, and it's happening right now. We are getting what we deserve, and when the **** hits the fan next time instead of rallying round each other we'll either sacrifice one group in the hope another will not be noticed, or leave the lobbying to someone else.

Get out there and enjoy it while you can, it may not be as good as it could be, but it's the best it's ever going to get.

 

my point shooting disaplines like clay shooters wouldn't like their money and org fighting things that many of their rank might agree with. My primary reason for not having them in this "never gonna happen" org.

 

Most likely there will be a new WAGBI type org before long if the situation carries on it wont hold a lot of weight just like the NGO etc. but it will serve its members better I feel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We need all our representative organisations to get together and form one strong action group to represent shooters - all of them. Then the organisations can get on with protecting their own particular interests.

 

If I've got it wrong, I apologise, Grandalf.

 

It seems to me that what is suggested here is similar to my idea which is linked at Post #84 above. I think Grandalf is talking about a combined action group which would be available in the event of a specific threat. That, certainly, is what I envisaged and if I've read Grandalf's post correctly, we seem to have gone off at a tangent.

 

Unfortunately, there is but one problem. Scully has mentioned it above so it doesn't need repeating. Suffice to say, it's all to do with numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I've got it wrong, I apologise, Grandalf.

 

It seems to me that what is suggested here is similar to my idea which is linked at Post #84 above. I think Grandalf is talking about a combined action group which would be available in the event of a specific threat. That, certainly, is what I envisaged and if I've read Grandalf's post correctly, we seem to have gone off at a tangent.

 

Unfortunately, there is but one problem. Scully has mentioned it above so it doesn't need repeating. Suffice to say, it's all to do with numbers.

No apology required. You have got it right this time.

One action group to represent anyone who shoots with any firearm. Disciplines and sports don't need to come into it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

my point shooting disaplines like clay shooters wouldn't like their money and org fighting things that many of their rank might agree with. My primary reason for not having them in this "never gonna happen" org.

 

Most likely there will be a new WAGBI type org before long if the situation carries on it wont hold a lot of weight just like the NGO etc. but it will serve its members better I feel

I think you're probably right, one more little group with their own agenda easily picked off by legislation because of their insular attitude. This applies to all our organisations, let me add.

Even BASC, the biggest organisation we have, and even with its high tech media centre, can't inspire more than 2% of UK shooters to respond to direct threats to shooting sports. It isn't always the fault of the organisations, but it is always the fault of the firearms owner.

There was no unification following Hungerford, and even the NRA tried to cut a deal via the old school tie network; didn't work. Ditto for hand gunners who were left out hanging on their own with no backing from any other shooting disciplines at all.

If someone with a high powered stalking rifle takes to the roof tops and decides to snipe at shoppers or kids in a school playground, I have no doubt the door will be shut on them also when it is asked in parliament if civilians really have a 'need' to own such 'deadly weapons,' and in such a case you can bet your bottom dollar the deer society will make much of the fact the individual was not a deer society member of professional stalking quality (unless he was) in the hope any legislation will only effect the casual fox shooter.

if any legislation is brought out regarding shotguns, it will effect clay pigeon shooters every bit as much as it will wild fowlers; respective intolerances of each others disciplines will count for nought.

If live quarry shooting is banned, that's the clay pigeon shooters left on their own, until........and then that's the top end Internationals forced to train abroad. It's all so familiar.

If you still have doubts ask how many shooters whether owners of air rifles or not, have bothered to take the time to lobby Scottish parliament regarding the legislation proposed up north, which will have who knows what effect on the vast majority of young lads and lasses introduction into shooting disciplines. Have you lobbied?

It's an old cliche, but nevertheless true...divided we fall.

This is my last post on this thread; I'm about as tired of writing the same old rant to people who wont listen as people are of reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the realism of hunting with guns being banned? Is it something that could potentially happen? Iv already been on the receiving end of one ban, my true love was lurchers and coursing, which I no longer do obviously, having your sport taken away from you isn't a nice feeling fellas..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the realism of hunting with guns being banned? Is it something that could potentially happen? Iv already been on the receiving end of one ban, my true love was lurchers and coursing, which I no longer do obviously, having your sport taken away from you isn't a nice feeling fellas..

just buy or steal a caravan then you could carry on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the realism of hunting with guns being banned? Is it something that could potentially happen? Iv already been on the receiving end of one ban, my true love was lurchers and coursing, which I no longer do obviously, having your sport taken away from you isn't a nice feeling fellas..

 

Banned? unlikely IMO. Restricted? certainly a risk that will be ongoing. Do remember BFSS of old down talking to the many members who had lurchers, treating them like a bunch of ner do well poachers- I do! This is the issue when people go for numbers but don't support the minority on an all for one basis, BFSS I thought was run for the foxhunters but others were welcome to pay the subs. Firearm ownership is a separate issue to the threat to fieldsports to my mind at least. Sporting use of firearms has a practical role to play in management of the countryside (beyond pest control but yes including it) Its also worth a great deal of money to our economy and a fair proportion of it foreign money. We do have political parties that don't give one about this but luckily they are a long way from being electable at present. One of the biggest genuinely provable fact in public protection of people from firearms is suicide in farming communities, the number puts all the horrific killings from deranged nutters into perspective yet never do we hear this being debated- you see more votes to be lost than gained

 

I think history has demonstrated that firearms restrictions don't stop anything but the issue is it might win more votes than it looses a political party. A lot of this stems from the general public not having enough PR directed at them about our sports and for many of us way of life. How crazy is it BASC counted so few votes and I wonder how many who have commented on this thread actually looked into those they voted for past the point of the positives they put forward ? this brings us back to the "will it gain me more votes than it will loose me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...