Kes

Funny you should say that .

David, you remember the thread a long time ago where we talked about Greylag Geese ? Well I do and this is a reference to that. Your reference to the mods getting tired is worrying, is it a request? Check the thread where we discussed what might happen to GL Geese if they were put on the GL and look above. Why would I lay anything 'at your door' that was not correct. Either you are unduly concerned, or your memory needs a wash and brush up. For correctnesses sake you wre taking about people respecting geese that were put on the GL. Maybe you can now recognise my, and others concerns at that time?

If you value your 'sport' and value other people shooting for years to come then you will act responsibly and read the GL. Canada's may be a non-native species and on the GL and therefore not protected but they are a part of the countryside and whilst their numbers may need to be controlled now and then in a particular area or crop we are not intending to exterminate them. Be real about this - they are not 'vermin' they are occasionally a problem for crops and need to be managed but all the time they are a beautiful, wild and thoroughly wonderful goose. Listen to them calling and compare them to rats and realise the difference. DavidBASC, you were wrong - fairly obviously here.

I've had it done twice on the same knee. The most recent about a week ago. It involves a general anesthetic and a local one in the knee or shoulder. Arthroscopy involves a relatively small tube and in my case they trimmed some cartilage, in your case it looks like they are 'browsing'. The affected joint is initally pumped up a touch with sterile fluid to give a bit of 'wriggle room' and in my case it took about an hour. The first time (15 years ago) I was in overnight and the knee had a drain, which was removed the following day - no problem at all. This time they were tidying it up as I'd had stiffness and a bit of discomfort after walking (beating) 5 or 6 miles. I went in at 7.30, was prepped for the procedure at 8.00 and collected at 2.00 pm after being cleared of drowsiness after the anesthetic. I was walking immediately. A big bandage on the knee to protect it which I took off when home. Plasters over the entry and drain holes (remember saline solution) for 7 days and that was it. The knee is better than the one which has had no surgery and I'd happily do it again. All I can say is, question your surgeon so you know he's up to the job and go for it - I can say that, apart for a swollen knee for 2/3 days it was back to normal almost immediately. Good Luck. I hope and expect your problem will be resolved an hour after you go under. Let me know !

It is always worth reading the General Licence and see what you are 'required' to do before shooting, since you may be asked.

www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph I found this article disturbing because its credible. There are many parallels and I wonder if the values we used to cherish (and which this guy still has) have been sacrificed for money, or maybe influence ?

Trade your old one in and get a pulsar n870 (with in-built rangefinder - the only one to do this). At least, I'm hoping thats part of the answer, since I have just done it ! Woodies tend to fly without lights as well - walk through a wood and they'll take off in pitch black.

Thank you all, I will have a go and see what I can achieve. I'll take a few pics before and after and post them if it looks like an improvement !

I am after a little advice. I would appreciate an 'idiots guide' to ironing out stock blemishes where these are due to knocks - the gun isnt very expensive - an old Parker Hale as a 'starter' gun but I'd like it to look its best and will refurb it for the next person. Can anyone provide a simple step guide to how to do this, temperature? just steam, contact / no contact. etc. Thanks,

Probably but you get the drift.

I would suggest this too as there is a full 5 year warranty on all parts and you will pay maybe £35K max for an absolute top of the range. I have had Hyundai for 10 years and will be getting my new one soon. Fuel wise they do maybe 35 on average, not too bad. Certainly worth a look at least.

I would be very happy with that statement without the prejudicial four words at the end of it. Would you call Peter Osborne (Telegraph), the Hacked Off campaign, the usual suspects. I know I dont have to visit by the way.

My view would be that the debate is fair, since the CA's CE's comment that this all goes back 5 years to when JS was CE at BASC. To me that means that unless BASC distances itself completely from JS and his views and calls for the LAG to be disbanded or re-Chaired, there still appears to be some historic connection which has not been severed. C. Graffius attends FACE for BASC does he not, JS is treasurer I believe (from linkedin) - perhaps some comment here might be relevant? I wont talk about other aspects of F.A.C.E. It is also interesting that CA's experts see no relevant data in the LAG papers to justify a ban, so where, when he was CE of BASC, did JS get converted to the views of the WWT and RSPB ? Even DEFRA have commented on JS's leaks but not BASC. I havent seen anything coming back on that, or have I missed it? Can no-one bottom why this happened, went unnoticed, is being allowed to continue - I feel sure many orgs members feel heartened by their org's stances, some wont be.

I think you may find they dont - its interesting that the CA comment I posted confirms "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. This comment alone suggests that, although ridiculed for it Gunsmoke has been correct. If this statement is true and I have no evidence to suggest it isnt, then JS was fixed in his views, now revealed, whilst CE of BASC. You tell me how BASC can fight a ban realistically when its CE was 'set on his conclusions before the LAG was formed'. I am afraid all that follows will be damage limitation in one form or another. BASC is a business - it will treat this as a 'setback', its easy however to see it as a betrayal by the organisation which still says 'no evidence-no ban' - shame the former CE wasnt 'on-message'.

David, I was going to reply to an earlier post but it is obviously pointless, since I do not know the circumstances you cannot reveal. However, I have read the full post on Shooting UK and it does seem that the applicant was never told the real reason for the possible refusal. The reasons given have been debated and a large number of other people agree he should not have compromised on the reasons he was given at the start i.e. lack of experience etc. If there is reason to compromise then I dont see it, because, perhaps, its confidential. On the facts presented he should NOT have to compromise. For me therefore the answer to your question is no and he would have been grated an SGC. If something else forms a legitimate reason for refusal then the law should be upheld. I would not trust the police in this case to make a valid judgement - I apparently do not know all the facts. I also suspect BASC would not have become involved if he didnt have a strong case - the question is perhaps best directed to BASC - why now do you believe compromise is in your members best interests ?

My submission to you is that Keg's case should be where any advocacy case begins, its not shouting the loudest, its changing minds, its sticking to principles, basically doing all you can and a bit more. I take Wimberleys point - look at the P Osborne resignation statement, thats compromising the Telegraphs principles, some may regard it as realism that the Telegraph did what he says. Compromise is the death of principle - PO thought so - thats why he resigned. Thats why I did from BASC. When there is too much at stake to stick to your principles you have something wrong - JS is the compromise, still nothing other than a denial of his current association with BASC. Yes, of course, that really is all that is necessary. Too many hostages to fortune.

The Norwegian parliament today (3 February) resolved by 79 votes to 16 to reintroduce lead shot for live quarry hunting outside wetlands. The decision follows a lengthy campaign by the Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers – the Jegernes Interesseorganisasjon (JI). In a statement issued on 29 January last week jointly with Norway’s Weapons Council (Våpenrådet), the JI had said that the country’s four main political parties were supportive of the move to bring back lead shot for hunting in spite of “massive pressure from a smaller group of researchers and veterinarians against lead ammunition”. “The fact that these parties have not been affected by excessive argumentation on the basis of campaign based research commands respect,” the statement said. Banned in 2005The JI has been campaigning to bring back lead – which it sees as “the most suitable material in hunting ammunition” – since the Norwegian government brought in a lead shot ban in 2005. The organisation criticised the ban on the grounds that it lacked a solid evidential basis and that the use of alternative ammunition posed animal welfare risks. Non-lead ammunition does not kill as cleanly or as efficiently as lead, and therefore causes unnecessary suffering to quarry, the JI has argued. It also maintains that the potential adverse effects of such substitute materials on health and the environment have not been studied in sufficient detail. This is not the first time that proposals to repeal the lead shot ban have come before Norway’s politicians and in 2013, a move to bring lead back was defeated when a parliamentary majority voted against it. Political supportHowever, last year, the tide appeared to be turning again, and the JI received statements of support for partial repeal from Norway’s Conservative Party, Progress Party, Christian Democratic Party, Center Party and the Social Democratic Party, which it believes should give the proposals a clear majority in a parliamentary vote. In spite of their optimism over the latest vote, the JI remains conscious that the lead shot issue is still a live one. It said: “The case is probably not over even though parliament now chooses to lift the ban. The pressures from those who want to ban all lead based ammunition are most likely maintained and they will probably try to find new ways to succeed. They already have their focus towards a ban for lead based rifle bullets. We as dedicated hunters, shooters and professionals must keep up the commitment that our victory is to be a permanent one.” “The conclusion now reached by the Norwegians that there is insufficient evidence to justify the continued ban of lead shot outside of wetlands and clay shooting grounds clearly shows that one should only act on firm scientific evidence when considering restrictions to types of ammunition. We should also not be told to use alternatives when the full impact of those to the environment and human health remain unknown.” This is what 'no compromise' looks like. JS is way behind the curve and we have simply confirmation that he is no longer..... He does however retain an involvement with FACE, as treasurer (?) which BASC regularly attends. Face has very strong links to international bird groups and may well have a different view on lead. Given JS's stance, should BASC perhaps argue for JS to be removed from both FACE and LAG, or doesn't it really matter. Anyone who finds compromise difficult would probably say - YES, it does matter and its an obligation.

For Info and from the CA website - they clearly feel a bit let down and arent afraid to say so. 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 5 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.

I normally like your posts. Thank you for your view from your real world. If you live in a world where compromise is necessary and the starting point, then you will always lose what you have, since shooting will always be under attack. Do anti's compromise ? No? Should anyone begin by accepting they will achieve less than what is fair and reasonable? Do you pay membership fees for someone to compromise on your behalf ? Do you give anyone less than they expect because you have to be realistic about compromise ? It is the manner and issues on which you choose to be uncompromising that give you credibility and respect. Like lead. You are sadly saying we are all doomed eventually by a compromise which delivers small wounds. I have and will never subscribe to that approach. I'd rather go down fighting an unwinnable situation but true to my principles. I think we should both do and believe what we both choose to - I dont do appeasement and have no time for those that do.

I have to say I agree fully with this and until all orgs focus on delivering members expectations, instead of compromise, it will continue to be a downward spiral.

David - yes I agree 'one team' is the best solution, provided all the players are going for the same goal. That hasnt been the case now has it ? I fully accept you are 'on message' and have to be, but if you performance managed BASC as a whole, its not currently the organisation to lead the 'fightback', or even hold the line, in my opinion. Genuinely I would like to change that and to start from the strength that BASC has in numbers and loyalty but I am no longer a member and doubt my involvement would be appreciated, no, actually, I am sure it wouldn't be. We both know why. I commend your attitude and sincerely hope its yours alone. I am however more concerned about your management - where is the lead and direction and more importantly response to the current situation ? I am perhaps an exception in my view, I hope so, for BASC's sake. With regard to the difficulties you mention, no-one escapes such things but I am confident in what I can expect, having read-up and listened for quite a while. So, when having my problems whilst a BASC member, I managed them by myself and, fortunately, succeeded, never needing to call on BASC. I, like you, am passionate about shooting but have to satisfy no-one but myself and that is a great strength and a freedom, even a luxury you may not have. I just hope your management see the writing on the wall and respond, for all our sakes. End of truce.

I think everyone wants a large and powerful shooting organisation, one that can be trusted with shootings best interests, one which is uncompromising, driven and known for its focus on facts and members interests. I'm not saying any more after what has happened recently.

If there was a genuine concern of criminal behaviour being likely, as might be expected from the deployment of cameras, then the above comment is very valid. There wont be much wildlife to discourage with a shotgun around a goshawks nest, so it looks like persecution - jail them when caught - no excuse.

We have all been one of those at times, you have made a generous apology - that should be more than enough.