Jump to content

stagboy

Members
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About stagboy

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

404 profile views
  1. Quite so. Like you , I have never been stopped at the Swiss border, either driving or skiing. And the Swiss are very prosperous (and have a very strong shooting community, incidentally). They are doing very well outside the EU, but trading with the EU. Because they have a system that involves a certain amount of direct democracy (ie referenda on important issue) their political class has never been able to hoodwink the populace into subjecting itself to the EU. Whenever they have tried, they have been told where to go by ordinary voters. Interestingly, if you want to become a Swiss citizen, you have to reside there for at least 10 years before you can even apply. Then you have to pass stiff citizenship test, and finally you have to be interviewed by representatives of the local community who must give their blessing to your application. I they don't, then you fail, no matter how well you did in the rest of your application. Not exactly EU compliant, is it? I know from skiing that European Health Insurance Cards are valid in Switzerland, just as elsewhere in the EU. In short, Switzerland seems to get most of the benefits of EU membership, without the drawbacks and remains in control of its own society. Good on them.
  2. Note the key word here "solely" . WJ omit this "solely" later in their submission. Pest control can also be commercial and/or recreational at the same time, surely?
  3. Try Lycetts. Very good for farms and other rural properties.
  4. So, the usual suspects among the anti-BASC brigade are out again. Meanwhile, BASC has grown to a record 150,000 members over recent years. It's not a perfect organisation, of course (and I've had my own issues with it over the years) but it is clearly much more successful than the others, some of which have been losing members for some years now, and all of whom are tiny compared with BASC. The market seems to be voting with its wallet. And many members have had some very good service from the BASC firearms team (I know I have - and they also saved a friend's certificate). GunPlan doesn't even have a firearms advice team. Look, there is an organisation for everybody - so choose one that suits. Rant and rail if you like, but the BASC membership growth figures speak for themselves. Nobody is forced to join BASC. There are plenty of alternatives. But joining a shooting org - any shooting org - must better than being a cheapskate freeloader and buying bargain-basement shooting insurance from a commercial insurance supplier, thereby simply putting money into the pockets of commercial shareholders who might even be anti-shooting.
  5. So you left the leading (not for profit) shooting organisation with a large firearms advice department and bought a cheap no-frills insurance product from a commercial outfit that provides no advice whatsoever. You get what you pay for, I am afraid.
  6. No. You posed a question based on your own interpretation. Yawn.
  7. Well all that looks pretty ominous for the future of game shooting.
  8. I don't bother because your question is not necessarily relevant to the Code - as other posters have explained. I know that every shoot I go on has a home for its game (usually the Guns and beaters). I can only hope the BGA gets results, for the overall good of shooting. But in the absence of any restraint or responsibility from some of the "I'll shoot as big a bag as I can buy and damn what happens to it after that" lot it has an uphill struggle.
  9. I have sympathy with your view. However, just one point - very little game is officially allowed to be called "organic". This is not just because of the chemicals used in rearing - even wild venison from the hill cannot be labelled "organic", at the risk of big fines from Trading Standards. "Organic" meat has to be reared on a registered organic holding, where it can be shown it is not exposed to synthetic chemicals etc and regularly inspected by an accredited organisation, like the Soil Association. . Sadly, the ordinary meaning of the word "organic" has been captured by officialdom, and I recall a retailer being given a rap over the knuckles, at the instigation of an anti group, when he had the temerity to describe shot pheasants as "organic".
  10. No. Can't be bothered to ask, even, because the question is irrelevant and a distraction from my point, which is that that the Code of Good Shooting Practice stipulates that game is to be treated as food, and shoots shouldn't produce game unless they know can dispose of it properly, ie into the human food chain. Exactly how they do that is up to them - some give it away, it seems, from earlier posts. Fair enough; as long as it isn't wasted. Anybody who participates in a shoot should, to my mind, satisfy themselves that it is abiding by the Code. It's irresponsible to do anything else, in my opinion. Here is the relevant section of the Code, once again: "Shoot managers must ensure they have appropriate arrangements in place for the sale or consumption of the anticipated bag in advance of all shoot days." If you don't agree with this, then that's up to you. I am sure the antis would welcome you with open arms. Now, the current "oversupply" of game meat is an observable fact. Whatever the reason, it exists. That's why shoots are giving it away - or even paying for it to be taken away. We need to recognise this basic fact in order to deal with it. And the evidence (see links in earlier posts) suggests that both the total number and the density of pheasant rearing has increased greatly in recent decades. Yet I see no evidence that the overall number of game shoots has increased markedly over the same time. So, this suggests that some of the big shoots are getting even bigger. Hence more game is flooding the market. And this has led to problems for shoots of all sizes, in my opinion, as the commercial value of game meat has collapsed, depriving shoots of income, and at the same time giving the antis potent ammunition to attack the public perception of game and game shooting. The BGA, it seems, is attempting to address the current supply/demand imbalance by stimulating demand, rather than restricting supply. That's a perfectly respectable position. I wish them well.
  11. Well, yes, it is "simple" - too much game meat (supply), not enough of a market (demand). But that's not just my own opinion. Here is what the British Game Alliance states on its website, under FAQs: "The BGA is the only organisation tackling the ever-increasing issue of oversupply of game on to the market as well as implementing credible self-regulation. We cannot afford for the issue to worsen as it is our Achilles heel and if allowed to continue to crash would result in government intervention and subsequently shooting being heavily restricted. We have been warned of this as far up as No 10."
  12. Well, this sounds like it is meeting the Code of Good Shooting Practice, so that's good. But what a pity that we see high quality, free range game meat effectively being given away these days.
  13. RE release and bag trends, I suggest you look at the GWCT website.https://www.gwct.org.uk/research/species/birds/common-pheasant/ Or the recent Madden study, published in the European Journal of Wildlife Research,https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-018-1199-5 the intro of which states (my emphasis): "Each year, pheasants Phasianus colchicus are artificially reared in captivity (hereafter ‘reared’) and released into the UK countryside for game shooting. Numbers of released game birds have been put at 25 million (Sage et al. 2005), 34.9 million (BASC 2015), 40 million (PACEC 2008) and 50 million (including partridges at likely < 20%) (Harper 2014; Winter 2013). Interpretations of such data vary and exact numbers are disputed. Regardless, there is a general pattern of increased release numbers over the past 50 years, with around nine times as many pheasants released in 2011 compared to 1961 when monitoring began (Robertson et al. 2017). In any case, the collapse of the market price for game meat speaks for itself; we are shooting more game than the market wants. Re the purported increase in the number of game shoots, where is the evidence? Shotgun certificates are fewer now than in the 1980s. According to the latest (2017) GunsOnPegs/Strutt and Parker shoot survey: "The majority of game shoots in the UK are small, DIY syndicated or private shoots that shoot a handful of small bag days. However, just over 7% of shoots accounted for half of the total number of birds put down and shot." RE Code of Good Shooting practice, you seem to be suggesting that most commercial shoots are breaking it. I do hope not. The relevant section of the code (4) states: Shoot managers must ensure they have appropriate arrangements in place for the sale or consumption of the anticipated bag in advance of all shoot days.
  14. I see no evidence that there has been any real growth in the number of game shoots overall - only in the size of the total UK bag, caused by a relatively small proportion of shoots that produce increasingly large bags, I believe. And the ensuing oversupply of game meat is now a key problem for driven game shooting, no matter what the size of the shoot, not to mention issues associated with overstocking etc. Anybody who participates in a shoot - of any size, commercial or private - should satisfy themselves that it is obeying the Code of Good Shooting Practice, which basically stipulates that game must not be shot unless it has a pre-arranged market for human consumption. That's what I mean by taking responsibility.
×
×
  • Create New...