al4x Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 going back to post 71 then Mark what are we loosing or have lost? all any organisation do is lobby before any law etc is brought in. After that you have to hope you've made enough noise and educated those making the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Why is it a kick of. just asking questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) do you have many starlings round you Mark we have none at all, very bizarre I was thinking about it the other day and haven't even seen one locally for a couple of years. Cormorants aren't that well spread either its usually a few irritated anglers that makes it seem like we're over run with them Edited October 20, 2009 by al4x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 going back to post 71 then Mark what are we loosing or have lost? general licence used to be a lot longer years ago. take a look round the forums, then ask what are we loosing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 do you have many starlings round you Mark we have none at all, very bizarre I was thinking about it the other day and haven't even seen one locally for a couple of years. Cormorants aren't that well spread either its usually a few irritated anglers that makes it seem like we're over run with them so your all right sod everyone else. good attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 HAven't you got any answers then Mark? What is it that we are losing? As I see it a couple of gulls. Hardly a sporting or edible bird are they. And if they really are a pest then I am sure you can get a licence to shoot them in the same way you can shoot cormorants etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 oh *** Mark just making an observation of whats happening round me, but somewhere someone is doing research on numbers and taking birds off and adding them as is deemed necessary. Canada Geese are now on so its not just getting shorter, so you'd keep all species on it and shoot them out of existence in the UK? To my mind the whole reason the general licence is discussed and changed regularly is so we can look after population numbers without wiping them out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Aren't ring necked parakeets going on it as well so you have lost 2 and gained 2, when I was at school that meant it stayed the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Getting something back once it is lost is very hard work, anyone will surely accept that. So the first step is to prevent loss. What the organisations do is spend much of their time campaigning to stop things being lost! Of course this may also come across as organisations doing nothing, as you cant see what you haven’t lost (It makes sense to me!) There is relatively little friction between organisations believe it or not; indeed there are many issues that groups of organisations work on together for the common good, and that is how it should be. There is plenty of friction between some members of organisations though. :blink: David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 HAven't you got any answers then Mark? What is it that we are losing? As I see it a couple of gulls. Hardly a sporting or edible bird are they. And if they really are a pest then I am sure you can get a licence to shoot them in the same way you can shoot cormorants etc. M. disregarding the Gl, if you think shooters are not loosing out now and have been for the last few years your head must be well and truly buried mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 so you'd keep all species on it and shoot them out of existence in the UK? do you have trouble reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) Mark, Are you a politician? I asked you what we are losing and you come back with some drivel about having my head buried. So read this very slowly WHAT IS IT THAT SHOOTERS ARE LOSING? Is it that you did not get your .243 without a bit of aggro? Maybe you have a chip the size of yorkshire on your shoulder. The actual quarry list hasn't changed a great deal in the 20 or so years I have been shooting. You can still shoot all species of deer. You can still own whatever shotgun you feel like, or hold as many as you want. If you have a valid reason for owning a firearm and the land suitable for it's use then that is not an issue either. Cartridges can be held without locking them up and if you use a lot of section 1 ammo then you get the authority to puchase and posess what you need. Edited October 20, 2009 by MC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 all I can add MB is hope SACS do what you want seeing as it looks like BASC don't. So if they aren't why aren't you pushing your organisation to do what you want them to do instead of bashing another organisation you don't contribute to. Or is it just SACS is incapable of doing what you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 All the organisation have a roll to play, not just in terms of the services they offer to their members but also in the big picture of keeping shooting, etc safe. However, lets be realistic, the smaller organisations have fewer resources, so they really should focus / target issues they can deal with effectively, rather than trying to spread themselves too thinly. I am very sure the members of those organisations will accept that. BASC is lucky, in that it has large resources so we can focus effectively on and deliver on numerous issues- for example take a look at the ‘Key Issues’ section of the BASC web site and look at all the issues BASC has worked on in the last 6 months, with all respect to the smaller orgs there is no way they can do this level / volume of work, so they should focus on far fewer issues. This doe not mean they are not trying, but if I were a member of a smaller organisation like SACS I would much rather they deliver on one or two key issues a year than spread themselves too thin and in reality deliver on nothing. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 MC. its not about me or any trouble i had with my FLD. its about what we have lost and stand to loose. but if people like your self get stuck into your shooting organisation like you do to topics like this then we might have a fighting chance. AL. still looks like you have reading trouble. please tell me of a restriction that the old bill, ACPO,defra,etc have brought in that your or any organisation have over turned . bashing another organisation new it would not be long before this sentence came out. do you just pay your membership and ask no questions. if you question your shooting organisation like i question mine, things might get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I take it Canada Geese and Parakeets being added to the General License don't count. Your question is pretty irrelevant as once passed things are very hard to overturn. The stage you have to stop them is before they are law but because this doesn't fit your agenda it doesn't count in instances that organisations have stopped restrictions becoming law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 this doesn't fit your agenda it doesn't count in instances that organisations have stopped restrictions becoming law so what shooting organisation has stopped anything becoming law. and what was it please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicle Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 As a serving officer I can see the rationale behind creating an incident when lamping, I do it out of common courtesy. What you have to remember its poaching season and a lot of forces are out there patrolling rural areas looking for the odd flash of light across the fields, I’m part of the task force that is out for many hours a week looking for the flash of the lamp. If we know you are in the area that’s being monitored then it’s helpful to us all to know who’s out and about. The other thing that comes into it is if someone reports gunfire then the force has a responsibility to the public to respond to it, an ARV responding to a report of gunfire could have been deployed instead of responding to something potentially more urgent but that resource would now be committed to deal with you. Just my point of view... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 As a serving officer I can see the rationale behind creating an incident when lamping, I do it out of common courtesy. What you have to remember its poaching season and a lot of forces are out there patrolling rural areas looking for the odd flash of light across the fields, I’m part of the task force that is out for many hours a week looking for the flash of the lamp. If we know you are in the area that’s being monitored then it’s helpful to us all to know who’s out and about. The other thing that comes into it is if someone reports gunfire then the force has a responsibility to the public to respond to it, an ARV responding to a report of gunfire could have been deployed instead of responding to something potentially more urgent but that resource would now be committed to deal with you. Just my point of view... Dont you think my idea would be easier ? There is only 2 people lamp on this land,so instead of me phoneing 900 hundred times a year to say "it's only me,nowt going on"Me and the other lad could give you our number and then if and when something gets reported you could phone us and say"is it you,or is there owt going on"before you send the A team which you rightly say could be responding to something more urgent. Mr BASC say's working with the police is more beneficial and i am all for it as long as it is a two way thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Forgot to add,i am off out lamping now..should i phone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 What you have to remember its poaching season thought this was a civil offence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bionicle Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Dont you think my idea would be easier ?There is only 2 people lamp on this land,so instead of me phoneing 900 hundred times a year to say "it's only me,nowt going on"Me and the other lad could give you our number and then if and when something gets reported you could phone us and say"is it you,or is there owt going on"before you send the A team which you rightly say could be responding to something more urgent. Mr BASC say's working with the police is more beneficial and i am all for it as long as it is a two way thing. I take your point and it’s a valid point, but if I’m out on patrol at 3am and see lamp light flashing across the field and then decide to phone you to see if it is you and your tucked up in bed then don’t you think that a bigger inconvenience to you and your family? It wouldn’t bother me I’m already up.. Also, if we couldn’t raise you on your mobile (some areas have very poor signals) then we would phone your land line. Who would be the one put out by this action, me or you? Remembering I’m already up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think flexibility is the key. If you dont want to let the police know you are out and say give them your moblie number then fine its up to you. All I would say is (and any police officer reading this please correct me if I am wrong) the police and sporting shooters are not enemies, we are on the same side, the side of the law. A police officer I am sure has much better things to do than to stop you our me when we are out lamping. All the cops I know, including an ARV guy, are far more concerned about trying to prevent real crime that stoping a legit shooter and wasting everyones time. And Mark dont you get the feeling you are loosing the battle here? Take your own advice and look at the forums and look at the association web sites and see what they are doing to keep shooting etc safe. Strikes me you are not happy with any of them, but as a member of SACS maybe you should sit down with Ian and re-write the SCAS policy, stratergy and plan and then take persoanl responsibility to make sure it happens. That should keep you busy for a bit! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I clicked the link to SACS website from Marks post to check on the SACS code of practice or policy on lamping. I couldn't find one. Which may just mean that I didn't try hard enough; or it may mean that they don't have one after 15 years, yet are happy to criticise work produced by BASC for their members use. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markbivvy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think flexibility is the key. If you dont want to let the police know you are out and say give them your moblie number then fine its up to you. All I would say is (and any police officer reading this please correct me if I am wrong) the police and sporting shooters are not enemies, we are on the same side, the side of the law. A police officer I am sure has much better things to do than to stop you our me when we are out lamping. All the cops I know, including an ARV guy, are far more concerned about trying to prevent real crime that stoping a legit shooter and wasting everyones time. And Mark dont you get the feeling you are loosing the battle here? Take your own advice and look at the forums and look at the association web sites and see what they are doing to keep shooting etc safe. Strikes me you are not happy with any of them, but as a member of SACS maybe you should sit down with Ian and re-write the SCAS policy, stratergy and plan and then take persoanl responsibility to make sure it happens. That should keep you busy for a bit! David Why would i take advise from a man and an organisation that change there views at the drop of a hat. please. 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.