Pinkfooty

Wildfowlers have a particularly critical view of this subject. The bans (different in Scotland, England & Wales and N. Ireland) were brought in despite very strong opposition from BASC in a situation where there was no serious evidence to support the bans. Did BASC fight hard enough then? I would have liked to have seen them fight much harder (or at least longer) - simply to keep faith with their wildfowling membership. But, make no mistake - even if BASC had thrown 105% of their total resources into that fight, and bankcrupted the organisation in the process, they would still have lost. There is absolutely no doubt about that whatsoever. The purpose of BASC supporting the setting-up of the LAG was to try to avoid such a situation developing again. Instead of fighting any further bans, irrespective of evidence either way, they signed up to a process that should result in hard evidence being produced. If the evidence supports an extension of the current bans, BASC will not be obliged to fight them. If (as we all hope) the evidence does not support further bans, then the government should accept that. But do we trust politicians? If not, it is them we should be worrying about - not BASC, an organisation that we will still need irrespective of what happens to lead ammunition.

Too early to panic guys. Bear in mind that even the worst estimates of the current population are still 4 times as many as there were back in the 1960s when the population was in the 60- 70,000 range. And we didn't need any restrictions on shooting pinks then and they still increased incredibly over the next 40 years. There have been a couple of poor breeding seasons but that is a normal cyclical pattern. Geese are long-lived birds and a few bad seasons does no lasting damage to the ongoing population. It is really only if we can discern serious reasons leading to a population decline that we need to think about taking any action.

I signed the Petition against licensing of airguns in Scotland but I just received a widely circulated "social media" message from some moronic imbecile leading the anti-airgun-licensingcampaign bearing the slogan: "WE DON'T BLAME CARS FOR DRUNK DRIVERS. WHY BLAME GUNS FOR VIOLENT PEOPLE?" Apart from the crass insensitivity of this inane message in the aftermath of recent events in USA, which is bound to turn 99% of decent people against our campaign, what cretinous **** imagined that it was a good idea to compare guns to cars in an anti-licensing campaign??? Did they not realise that to legally drive a car in public, BOTH the car and the driver have to be licensed and that the driver has to pass a TEST to get a license? Is that what they are campaigning for in shooting?? To call those eejits mentally defective is an insult to all other mental defectives.

Tell your wife/girlfriend to look here

Personally, Martyn, I agree with elements of that. Although the role of Council has to be much more directive than merely a "critical friend". Having served two separate terms on BASC Council, my view is that it is the ultimate role of Council to determine BASC policy in what is a very broad and complex field. It is the role of the Chief Executive to implement that policy with, of course, the assistance of the 100+ staff whom he manages. That role is not always appreciated by staff. In 2007 Lee Freeston and I successfully steered a policy in relation to wildfowling through Council: "BASC will do everything within its power to promote and protect the sport of wildfowling. It will encourage and facilitate entry to the sport at all levels. BASC will furthermore oppose at all levels any restriction being placed upon wildfowling that is not, in the opinion of both the Council and its Wildfowling Liaison Committee, capable of being shown by clear evidence to be necessary for the future of wildfowling in the UK and the wildfowl and wildlife habitat on which wildfowling depends." Unfortunately that policy has not always been observed by some staff. It is the role of the Chief Executive to manage his team in a way that does facilitate them to act within Council policies like that.

The BASC election process limits what candidates can write in the official circulation to 500 words. Both John Graham and Alan Jarrett have prepared fuller manifestos so that BASC members can see what they stand for and what they will do if elected. Read them here: John Graham - http://www.wildfowling.co.uk/elect4.htm Alan Jarrett - http://www.wildfowling.co.uk/elect3.htm Please also share those pages on Facebook and Twitter so that the word gets out as far and as fast as possible.

If a person has his BASC membership via an affiliated club and that club then disaffiliates, then surely it is reasonable for BASC to write to the individual members pointing out that their BASC membership (and insurance) will lapse unless they join as an individual member. The communications within some clubs is so dire that there is a real danger that some members will not even realise that they have lost their BASC membership unless BASC draws it to their attention. Usually there will be another affiliated club that can be joined if guys prefer the less expensive option of club membership rather than full individual membership. I am sure that if the OP asks, David will be able to point him towards his nearest affiliated club.

It may be different in England & Wales, but in Scotland a tenant farmer who is resident on the land has a right to control agricultural pests or to authorise one other person to do so on his behalf. Normally, if the landowner wishes to prevent any such authorised person from shooting on the land, he will give the tenant farmer a written undertaking to control pests or to authorise another person to do so. The tenant farmer would retain a right to override this agreement if he could show, to the satisfaction of a Court, that the landowner or the landowner's nominee was failing to adequately control the agricultural pests.

I don't think I have ever read so much tripe about wildfowling in Scotland. The situation is perfectly clear: There is a public right to go wildfowling on the foreshore in mainland Scotland. There is a public right to carry a gun over private land without the permission of the landowner in order to gain access to land where the person has a right to shoot. (e.g. the foreshore). The gun does not have to be in a slip (but it would be wise to use one) but the dog does have to be under control. The only exceptions to that are National Nature Reserves (e.g. Caerlaverock on the Solway) or Local Nature Reserves (e.g. Wigtown Bay on the Solway) or on land controlled by the Ministry of Defence or Harbour and Port Authorities. Permits for Caerlaverock can be obtained from SNH and permits for Wigtown Bay can be obtained from Dumfries & Galloway Council. Apart from those two nature reserves, wildfowling on the Solway is a public right, as is access to the foreshore. If you want to support Solway Wildfowlers by buying one of their permits, then that is good. It will let you use their car parking (remember that the public right of access is for pedestrian access only - it does not include vehicles). If you are unsure about any particular stretch of foreshore, then (assuming you are a BASC member) phone the BASC Scottish Office and ask. They are really helpful. .

David/Al4x, I think the problem is that one has no control over what is done with film taken by a 3rd party. The guy could have been filming for LACS and I don't think that ST (or BASC) would like to see material filmed on their stand at a Fair being twisted into anti-shooting propaganda. Even if an independent film-maker established his credentials as pro-shooting, you would still want to be sure that sequences filmed on your stand were not inadvertently used with the wrong slant or interpretation. It's like magazine editors completely changing the meaning of something you have written by just altering a few words. It's happened to me umpteen times. Nowadays, when I submit anything to a magazine, I mark it "for use unedited or not at all". Even then you can't guarantee that an ignorant sub-editor doesn't foul it up. I had an example in last week's ST where they picked up on our Wildfowling Club's newsletter, copied a bit out of it in their "round the country summary of wildfowling prospects" but by changing "Iceland" to "Scandinavia" made the report look crassly stupid.

They all include full membership of BASC. To apply for permits under the BASC scheme, you do not have to be a member of another wildfowling club but, obviously, you do have to be a member of BASC. For anyone interested in wildfowling, the cheapest way to get full BASC benefits and a lot of wildfowling is to join your local/nearest wildfowling club and then use the permit scheme to try out the marshes of other clubs. For example, for anyone who lives in Scotland or even who visits once or twice a season, it can be a good idea to join ESAWC. That not only gives you full membership of BASC but also allows you to shoot geese and ducks on the club's private shooting near Edinburgh. As a BASC member, you can then obviously apply for permits on other clubs' shooting in many areas of England and Wales under the BASC permit scheme. Full membership of ESAWC costs £66 a year and that includes full BASC membership. The other point to bear in mind is that if you join more than one wildfowling club (a lot of wildfowlers belong to 3 or 4), you can reclaim all the duplicate subscriptions from BASC, so, in effect, you only pay one BASC subscription and that is at the discounted club rate anyway. Great value for money.

That's a really difficult conundrum, Robert. There were those parties that cynically suggested that if hunting were banned, shooting would follow. That, of course, was utter rubbish. What you say about it being in the interests of shooting to keep its distance from hunting is probably perfectly true at a PR level. I also agree that BASC should concentrate on protecting shooting. There will undoubtedly be serious conflicts of interest between shooting and hunting at times. When those conflicts arise, I expect BASC to very firmly take the shooting side (and I have never been in any doubt that they would.) But there will also be instances where there are common interests and BASC needs to be able to co-operate with other organisations when there are common interests and a bit of solidarity can be beneficial to everyone. As I say, its a bit of a conundrum. But, in general, where it is possible, we should make friends rather than enemies (and, again, I think that BASC does that, although it is not always reciprocated).

The hotel used to do well from anglers. At one time the sea-trout fishing in Loch Maree was the best in the country but now it has virtually disappeared (disease from salmon farming???) I don't know what sort of clientele the hotel will have nowadays.

That is a very important point Grandalf. BASC really only purports to cover live quarry shooting with shotguns, rifles and air-rifles but, even then, there will always be some amongst the 130,000 members who disagree on specific policies. That is inevitable - and, indeed, welcome as it keeps everyone aware that there are different points of view. It is one of the reasons why I do not support the call that is trumpeted from time to time, suggesting that all shooting interests should be covered by one organisation or, indeed, that all field sports would be covered by a single organisation. I reckon that trying to truly and fairly represent all live quarry sporting shooters is just about as wide as any organisation can comfortable encompass. cast the net any wider and you get into conflicts of interest that probably are irreconcilable - and rightly so. The classic example was the question of rearing pheasants in tiny raised cages. BASC and every game shooter I know was firmly of the view that such practices conflicted with their sporting ethics. But a very few of the very large game farmers took the opposite view. A clear conflict of interest where no single organisation could possible represent both sides. Similarly, there will always be potential conflicts of interest between sporting agents, seeking to hoover up all the shooting for commercial purposes, and the ordinary shooter wanting to follow a traditional countryside pursuit. It would be wrong if BASC tried to represent the commercial boys. Even in the gun trade, the interests of the supplier are not always the same as the interests of the consumer. So it is right that there is a specialist Gun Trade Association. Then there is the divide between live quarry shooters and inanimate target shooters. On some issues the interests of both groups will coincide but, on other issues there may be differences. So it is far better that the target shooters have their own organisations to properly represent their interests. As a wildfowler there have been times when I worried that when WAGBI changed to BASC, wildfowling interests would be submerged under the weight of game shooters, stalkers, vermin shooters, etc. On balance I think that the present set up is just about OK. But I would seriously worry if wildfowling became an even smaller minority interest within an even wider umbrella organisation. I see the priority as getting an even larger proportion of recreational live quarry shooters into BASC rather than expanding the range of shooting interests that BASC represents.

The complaint about the General Licence for woodies is very illfounded. I am not going to get into the business of slagging off the ignorance of any particular other organisation but you will recall that one of them, a couple of years ago, called for woodpigeon to be taken off a pest control licence and placed on a W&CA schedule allowing them to be shot as a sporting quarry like ducks and geese. What those particular numpties totally ignored was the fact that, under European law, any bird on those W&CA schedules has to have a close season covering its entire breeding season. That's OK for ducks and geese. For woodpigeon the breeding season in UK runs from February to November. WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT WOODPIGEON COULD ONLY BE SHOT IN DECEMBER AND JANUARY! That is one really ******* brilliant idea, isn't it. Thank God BASC saved us from that one. Thank God that BASC also got the clarification which meant that woodpigeon did not have to be actually damaging crops in the exact location where they are shot. Without that victory, decoying them on stubbles would have been banned. Nothing is ever quite as black and white as some folk would want us to think. On the lead shot for wildfowling issue, BASC fought a ban successfully for 20 years. When it was eventually banned, BASC did NOT "approve" the ban. They continued to say that it was unnecessary and wrong. What they did do was advise members about the pros and cons of alternatives and advise members that, even though it was a bad law, they must abide by it to avoid losing their shotgun certificates. Admittedly, in Scotland, they did negotiate a better arrangement about wetlands rather than species, than in England. But the fact that, in Scotland, BASC delayed the imposition of the ban by a further 3 years is evidence enough that they never gave up and kept fighting for us. At least when I started this thread, I was not wrong in my suggestion that PW is often used as the knocking shop for those who want to knock BASC!