Anyone read "Shooting Voice" from the fella from BASC

[Mungler]

Very interesting read I have just had on the bog.

 

The article is by Conor O'Gorman of BASC and it's about the recent review of the general licenses - oh yes, the general licenses that we all rather take for granted.

 

It seems:

 

1. very few people or organisations that are "pro-shooting" bother to write in and make representations about what should or should not be on the general license.

2. some pro-shooting organisations that did write in, only did so to self serve e.g. the British Pest Control Association wanted only "professionally qualified" people to be able to make use of the general license; whatever that means, but I could have a rough guess.

3. plenty of anti shooting organisations found the time to make submissions e.g. RSPB, RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports etc etc and their views and submissions ranged from:

• each time you go pigeon shooting or catch a magpie in Larsen trap you have to submit a record to Natural England - thank you RSPB
  
• you must positively demonstrate that there was no alternative to shooting or trapping (whatever that means) - thank you again RSPB
  
• no trapping of magpies in back gardens <full stop> - yep that's the RSPB again
  
• support for the removal of all gull species from the general license (IOS, Wildlife Trusts and RSPCA) primarily because there were no "pro shooting" voices suggesting that they should remain or evidencing why they should remain.
  
• the usual nonsense from the anti brigade about how wildlife management doesn't require the trapping or shooting of birds.
  

 

Anyhoos, I have been reminded:

 

1. why I pay my BASC subs, because they appear to be the only sustained and credible voice for shooters.

2. what we take for granted within the general license is under a constant and sustained attack

 

If I get the time tomorrow I'll scan it in.

[Billy.]

Please do scan it

[Billy.]

Very interesting read I have just had on the bog.

 

...And you can not deem a trip to the toilet a 'decent' trip, if you didn't read something whilst you were there.

 

 

:good:

[David BASC]

BASC plans to put parts of the mag on line in the not too far distant future, so non members can get a good idea of the fights we are fighting, and the fights we are winning.

 

Currently we try to keep everyone up to date on our web site under 'Key Issues'. This shows you the consultations and other projects we are working on typically at a national level, the background, how it could affect shooting, BASC's position and reapose etc.

 

The General licence renewal was quite a busy time for us this year. In the initial draft licence the sale of shot woodpigeons was BANNED! We go that over turned PDQ!

 

As far as the gulls were concerned, BASC made sure that procedure were put in place so that keepers etc who need to control certian gulls can carry on doing so. If anyone wants or needs more info on the control of gulls let me know.

 

Best wishes

 

David

[starlight32]

Very interesting read I have just had on the bog.

 

The article is by Conor O'Gorman of BASC and it's about the recent review of the general licenses - oh yes, the general licenses that we all rather take for granted.

 

It seems:

 

1. very few people or organisations that are "pro-shooting" bother to write in and make representations about what should or should not be on the general license.

2. some pro-shooting organisations that did write in, only did so to self serve e.g. the British Pest Control Association wanted only "professionally qualified" people to be able to make use of the general license; whatever that means, but I could have a rough guess.

3. plenty of anti shooting organisations found the time to make submissions e.g. RSPB, RSPCA, League Against Cruel Sports etc etc and their views and submissions ranged from:

• each time you go pigeon shooting or catch a magpie in Larsen trap you have to submit a record to Natural England - thank you RSPB
  
• you must positively demonstrate that there was no alternative to shooting or trapping (whatever that means) - thank you again RSPB
  
• no trapping of magpies in back gardens <full stop> - yep that's the RSPB again
  
• support for the removal of all gull species from the general license (IOS, Wildlife Trusts and RSPCA) primarily because there were no "pro shooting" voices suggesting that they should remain or evidencing why they should remain.
  
• the usual nonsense from the anti brigade about how wildlife management doesn't require the trapping or shooting of birds.
  

 

Anyhoos, I have been reminded:

 

1. why I pay my BASC subs, because they appear to be the only sustained and credible voice for shooters.

2. what we take for granted within the general license is under a constant and sustained attack

 

If I get the time tomorrow I'll scan it in.

 

 

Unfortunately the only organizations which present structured inputs to BASC in respect of general licences are Wildfowling clubs/associations.

 

These reports can also swallow up hundreds of man hours of time from both sides of the fence. The trouble is, too many people take for granted things such as pigeon shooting...To be honest it can go at any time or become restricted as it is in parts of Europe and scandinavia.

 

We have to be vigilant and more informed regarding what we do, as it is very rare for anything that is lost to be re-instated.

 

I am not saying people should be the brain of Britain in fieldsports-Just spend a little more time understanding what we do.

 

It does become apparent to me certainly from some questions asked on this forum on occasion, (from adult individuals) that people do go out, obtain a shotgun and have little knowledge of what ever form of ahooting sport they are undertaking

[alexr]

We've had threads on this kind of thing before. The one that sticks in my mind was to do with the opposition to gun control in the US. The fact of the matter is that as a sport we have no coherant voice. The various 'big' players, BASC, CA, CLA etc need to form a collective political direction that would allow them to lobby as hard as the RSPB, RSPCA etc. At the moment they seem to be a lot of little voices all shouting different things. We need to face some simple facts, our sport is under threat now. Hunting with dogs was only the start. pigeon shooting might be next, Who knows! We are faced with a slow creeping death here, wilst most of our representantive's efforts are put into trying to role back laws that already exist, they appear to be ignoring the future.

[Highlander]

Mung and I thought I kept up to date with stuff...well done and said.

 

Alexr the CA (Countryside Alliance) grew out of the old BFSS are (still IMO) mostly concerned with hunting with hounds. The CLA (Country Landowners Association) are mostly concerned with just that country landowners WHILST BASC are soley concerned with fieldsports and predominently shooting. Mind you didn't mention SACS, NOBS, NGO or any of those other none entities! I say none entities because when did any of them have a proper voice supporting our game? As Mung points out we are under seige and all those organisations ranged against us spend fortunes on 'having a go' behind the scenes whilst we know nothing about it. Now that's what BASC do for a measley £64 a year from me...money very well spent IMO!

[Cookiemonsterandmerlin.]

After reading this on this very forum I voiced my concerns over BASC and what they offered to shooters in insurance terms etc,which now I know I was wrong in some of my views.

 

I shall be renewing my membership now as it seems I did not fully understand what was going on in the background .

 

A very sorry OTH

[alexr]

Alexr the CA (Countryside Alliance) grew out of the old BFSS are (still IMO) mostly concerned with hunting with hounds. The CLA (Country Landowners Association) are mostly concerned with just that country landowners WHILST BASC are soley concerned with fieldsports and predominently shooting. Mind you didn't mention SACS, NOBS, NGO or any of those other none entities! I say none entities because when did any of them have a proper voice supporting our game? As Mung points out we are under seige and all those organisations ranged against us spend fortunes on 'having a go' behind the scenes whilst we know nothing about it. Now that's what BASC do for a measley £64 a year from me...money very well spent IMO!

 

sorry for the way it was put, I am a bit annoyed by some of this. As you quite rightly say the RSPB/CA can and do throw money at this kind of thing. They are good at what they do and they lobby hard on the issues they choose to address. Because we don't have a unified voice as a sport, but rather consist of a variety of small groups with specific intrests we are drowned out by these larger more vocal NGO's. If there was a single co-ordinated voice for the hunting, shooting and fishing types, then that would be more effective. I also wonder how much of a difference £1 or even £5 would make on the ' measley £64 a year ' if you knew that that money was being spent to effectivly lobby for your way of life. I don't mean mass marches through London, but rather directed lobbying of political parties on specific subjects. In industrial terms lets stop behaving like the NUM in the early eighties and behave more like the CBI do now.

Edited January 14, 2010 by alexr

[David BASC]

If you want to see the targeted political work we are doing take a look at the Key Issues on the BASC web site.

 

Ta

David

[alexr]

I Know the BASC are working hard behind the scenes to try and protect shooting as a sport and the way of life that goes with that, and the last thing I wish to do is belittle the efforts of the hard working and dedicated people who are attempting to prevent this governments from steamrolering us into the ground. What I am saying is that unless we all talk with one voice they will not hear us. The BASC may be the biggest of the shooting orginisations but it can not claim to represent us all. There are to many other groups out there. And as long as the government can say that they represent a minority of shooters (even if it is a sizable minority) they can choose to ignor it.

Edited January 14, 2010 by alexr

[Highlander]

I Know the BASC are working hard behind the scenes to try and protect shooting as a sport and the way of life that goes with that, and the last thing I wish to do is belittle the efforts of the hard working and dedicated people who are attempting to prevent this governments from steamrolering us into the ground. What I am saying is that unless we all talk with one voice they will not hear us. The BASC may be the biggest of the shooting orginisations but it can not claim to represent us all. There are to many other groups out there. And as long as the government can say that they represent a minority of shooters (even if it is a sizable minority) they can choose to ignor it.

 

It's like talking to the proverbial 'brick wall'...BASC cannot claim to represent us all BUT if you and others like you stopped supporting all those next to useless 'other' organisations (who seem not to have anyones ear) and put your money into BASC maybe they could!

[alexr]

Highlander, Your tone is slightly off there.

 

1) I am not disagreeing with what is being said.

2) How do you know what I belong to?

3) if my opinion is different to yours I still have the right to hold it, and defend it as vigorously as you.

 

Perhaps its you who is the 'Brick wall' here?

[Mungler]

I think what Highlander is saying is that rather than expect the various smaller shooting groups to fall in behind BASC and for one united group to step forward (cos it ain't gonna happen) the easiest and most direct way to support "shooting" is actually to support BASC.

 

I can neither suggest nor influence all of the shooting organisations to join together as one, but I can right here and now fight the good fight (and do my bit to support shooting) simply by continuing to pay a BASC sub.

 

Simples.

 

EDIT:

 

This isn't the prelude to another SACS (etc) bashing but to make people understand that day to day there is stuff going on that only BASC has the resources and wherewithal to tackle, and the "stuff" that goes on affects all of us.

 

As Rob says, once it's gone and off the general license it's not going to go back on again is it? Well not without a large shooting organisation lobbying and doing the boring paperwork stuff with government consultations and euro directives etc. which again ends up with shooters "needing" BASC.

Edited January 14, 2010 by Mungler

[alexr]

Simples

[David BASC]

To be honest I cannot see all the orgs coming together, many do work together under the umbrella of the British Shooting Sports Council for example, but at the last count there were over 40 shooting orgs in the UK!!!

 

Different orgs have different views on some subjects, for example the use of large raised cages for large scale pheasant egg production. BASC is absolutely against this. We want to see local dealers supplying eggs produced in the traditional way – which includes the continued use of partridge boxes, indeed we are staring a campaign entitles Local and Traditional is Best…but I can tell you others disagree with the BASC position, I will post about that separately.

 

Too much division is bad I would agree, but I can see the need to dedicated specialist organisations to represent different types of shooting, but I suspect there does need to be more communication.

 

David

[alexr]

To be honest I cannot see all the orgs coming together, many do work together under the umbrella of the British Shooting Sports Council for example, but at the last count there were over 40 shooting orgs in the UK!!!

 

Different orgs have different views on some subjects, for example the use of large raised cages for large scale pheasant egg production. BASC is absolutely against this. We want to see local dealers supplying eggs produced in the traditional way – which includes the continued use of partridge boxes, indeed we are staring a campaign entitles Local and Traditional is Best…but I can tell you others disagree with the BASC position, I will post about that separately.

 

Too much division is bad I would agree, but I can see the need to dedicated specialist organisations to represent different types of shooting, but I suspect there does need to be more communication.

 

David

 

That is telling it as it is and also admitting it could be better. The simple admission that there has to be more communication is in itself a great start to the process. And although there may be different opinions on the technical issues, surely there is agreement on the bigger picture.

If it takes a small surcharge on the annual fees to fund a forum in which these can be debated and a common strategy be found to preserve our sport in its various forms then surely people would be happy to pay that.

 

I know I would.

[David BASC]

The door to BASC is always open, we will happily speak or meet with any CEO or other representative of any shooting organisation.

 

As i say we already speak with may though the BSSC and other groups, official and unofficial meetings

 

On many issues, firearms licensing, quarry seasons, Open General licence, political support for shooting, balanced comment in the media, access to shooting and so on there is of course common ground, although the approach to the solution to an issue may vary, the objective is the same.

 

On other issues (cages for example) the approach and objectives are different, so there is the potential for conflict.

 

David

[alexr]

On other issues (cages for example) the approach and objectives are different, so there is the potential for conflict.

 

David

 

Surely if Euro skeptic conservatives and pro Europe conservatives can agree to differ on that subject whilst agreeing to pull together to fight an election or old labour can sacrifice clause 4 to allow new labour to fight an election, we can put some issues on the back burner to allow a unified front on others.

[Mungler]

Surely if Euro skeptic conservatives and pro Europe conservatives can agree to differ on that subject whilst agreeing to pull together to fight an election or old labour can sacrifice clause 4 to allow new labour to fight an election, we can put some issues on the back burner to allow a unified front on others.

 

Wrong analogy because those you refer to are still members of the Conservative party and are under the Tory whip.

 

A better analogy would be representatives of UKIP, Conservatives and the LibDems joining together..... and that ain't gonna happen, and if it did (under a hung parliament) well it won't work (as history has shown us).

 

Without going all round the houses, the long and the short is that it's BASC that's sorting out the day to day shooting business and if you want to support shooting just pay a BASC sub. Wishing for all shooting organisations to join together in perfect harmony and for there to be a wider shooting lobby for an extra surchage is an absolute pipe dream.

 

It is at this stage I am reminded of this:

 

God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference.

 

Amen to that.

[alexr]

mungler

 

Thank you for starting what has been an interesting debate. However I think it is time for me to concede.

Before i do though one last point.

 

I like your analogy about the different parties, but there is such a thing as a national unity government that has in the passed come together at times of crisis. Also there are universally accepted political points, admittedly universal taxation is one (perhaps not the best example, but there you go).

 

When I left shooting in the 1980's there was a lot less legislation and regulation involved in the sport. Coming back to shooting over the last 2 years I have been horrified by some of the restrictions now in place. For example I feel like a criminal using my air rifle to plink in the back garden, and possibly am. This concern has reached the point where I no longer do it, JUST IN CASE. As a sport shooting is under threat and we can all recognize that. It would be sad if our petty differences allow a hostile government to divide and conquer.

 

As for your prayer

 

We have to strive to change what we perceive to be unchanging- That surely is to be human.

 

all the best

 

Alex

Edited January 15, 2010 by alexr

[Mungler]

For example I feel like a criminal using my air rifle to plink in the back garden, and possibly am. This concern has reached the point where I no longer do it, JUST IN CASE.

 

Whilst it's not on topic, I would say that's a very interesting point you raise - I back onto woods and likewise I used to wallop maggies and squirrels in my back garden with a .22 air rifle but don't any more because I know the poo storm that would follow. Plod wouldn't know the difference between my .22 S310 or my .22 Ruger and the natural conclusion would be the loss of everything whilst it was "looked into" over the course of the next year.

 

The squirrels and maggies are now getting out of control again - I can look at the window and see a dozen magpies and maybe half a dozen squirrels at any time.

 

I did consider trapping, but that's even more public than a silenced air gun.

 

Mind you, I saw a rat in the back garden last night and may change my mind. The cold weather pushes them out of the woods and they go looking to dig under the houses for food and heat. Worst of all are the bird feeder fat balls - they are like a magnet to them in this weather.

 

I digress....

[wymberley]

Before I rant, could I pick up on two things that Alex said?

Not only is the thread interesting, it's good: It's Forum at its best and surely that's as it should be. Shooting in the 1980s; that is relevant and I'll come back to it later.

 

Although I don't think we are going to lose out altogether, sooner rather than later we are going to be hit hard, very hard and it's going to hurt. It can only be the government that will affect us. This is made up of politicians and will therefore be political in nature. Like it or not, want it or not, we are in Europe and are increasingly controlled by that State. How long do you think it will be before some bureaucrat decides that we should conform to the hunting (we say shooting) legislation as prevails in many other EU countries?

The only way we can avoid this is by appeasement. (Some older members may find the connotations of, and the use of, this word offensive. I apologise, but am using it in its true sense) The way to do this is by education which costs money.

 

OK, money. What would happen if every shooter joined the association applicable to their discipline? I think we can assume the associations are pretty much the same and the figures would average out. Even if not, the principle remains valid. In round figures, As I understand it, even with the new police computor system, we still haven't got an accurate idea of shotgun certificates held in the UK, but it would seem that 800,000 is not too far out and of these 480,000 owners shoot live quarry (PACEC). As a member, I'm familiar with BASC so let's use that as an example. They have 130,000 (very round figures to keep the maths easy) members with an annual membership fee of £60. Lets say it costs £30 to service each member. This gives £3,900,000 to spend on projects. Assuming this was deemed sufficient, with the missing 350,000 on board the membership fee could be reduced to £44 or, if left as per, generate an additional £10,500,000. OK, we've got some money. How do we spend it?

 

Education. This is two fold. We need to educate the politicians and Joe Public. It must be said that our organisations and particularly BASC as the biggest are already very good at this. With more money, they could do even better. Secondly, we need to educate ourselves. Gentlemen, we are sitting on our laurels and they are wilting! In the 1980s shooting was on a charge as was BASC with membership soaring. Then BASC made a mistake. No, not Staff or Council, after all, it could be judged criminal to continue pouring money into something that the membership didn't want and those two elements are in place to reflect the membership's requirements. No, it was all of us. There is no blame attached to this as quite simply the whole country did it; schools and industry, etc,etc. Did what? We dumbed down. Well, it's high time we wised up.

 

20 years or more ago a straw poll was taken from a group of reasonably responsible (with the head education officer at the time they were instrumental in getting the coaching programme started which has turned into a great success so they weren't complete drongos) BASC members who because of their work were well in touch with grass roots shooters throughout the country and were attending a meeting. Although the result was a 50,50 split, his reaction was such that it was obvious that it shook the the chairman rigid. The chair then asked a staff member if there were any contigency plans for this in place. The answer was no. I would imagine that this is unchanged. The poll question was, " do you think some formal qualification is necessary in order to shoot live quarry in this country"?

 

 

There is a BASC publication called "HANDBOOK OF SHOOTING The Sporting Shotgun". This was the "bible" for the Proficiency Award Scheme (PAS). FACE stated that this scheme was compatible (I'm not sure if that was the exact word, but that's what was meant) with the existing requirement within Europe where applicable. Look again at that book title; there's a clue there. It was to be a trilogy with two others to follow sub-titled, "The Sporting Rifle" and "The Sporting Air Rifle" each with its own PAS. In order to fight off any statutory requirement (which would cost the earth and make someone a shed full of money) that said bureaucrat might feel inclined to throw at us and to show Joe Public that we do care and that we do know what we're doing, BASC should get this reinstated and we really should partake. If we do not I fear that the wilting laurels will quickly turn into a bed of thorns.

 

Reading through; no, I don't expect everyone to join their organisation, it's not in our nature but those organisations should increase their effort in the field of recruitment. And yes, I was at that meeting and I voted "yes" on two counts; one, because that was my opinion, and two, because it was the opinion of the PAS students that I was representing. However, both counts were on the proviso that it was voluntary. ie organisation led.

 

Rant over.

Cheers,

Phil

Edited January 17, 2010 by wymberley

[Pinkfooty]

Several good points on this thread but also several serious misconceptions.

 

BASC has never claimed to represent all shooters. Primarily it is concerned with those sports that involve shotguns or sporting rifles for shooting live quarry.

 

When you do a real analysis of how many people regularly engage in those sports, it is a much lower figure than is commonly imagined. When you exclude those people who use a gun as a working tool and those who keep a gun just so that they can take up the odd invitation to a posh shoot (in the same way that they might take up an invitation to play a round of golf at a posh club), I reckon we are talking about a maximum of 250,000 keen sporting live quarryshooters in UK. So, with 130,000 members, BASC already has more than half in membership.

 

Secondly, the concept of a "single voice" for all fieldsports is often suggested. That is simply not practicable. Certainly the various organisations should work together when they can - and there are lots of examples where they have done that - but there are also many potential conflicts and differences where the interests of one group will be directly opposed to the interests of another. In game shooting, for example, the interests of the commercial operator are often hugely detrimental to the interests of the ordinary local shooter. The example given further up the thread of the interests of professional pest controllers being very different to the interests of the sporting pigeon shooter. Another current example - the interests of some game farmers is contrary to what we believe is important for the credibility of sporting shooters who place huge value on respecting the welfare of their quarry.

 

This thread started off by referring to what Conor O'Gorman wrote in Sporting Shooter. It is virtually a full-time job for him just co-ordinating the responses that BASC has to make to all the consultations that take place every year. Behind him, there is a whole team of people who have to supply the data and information necessary for those responses. And there are dozens of such consultations that affect sporting shooting every year.

 

BASC is the only organisation that is even remotely equipped to do this work on our behalf. It is also the only organisation that will put the needs of the sporting shooter top of its priorities without having to also cater for conflicting views or conflicting sports or conflicting commercial activities.

 

Maybe David BASC could pass on to Conor our appreciation for what he does on our behalf.

[Mungler]

This thread started off by referring to what Conor O'Gorman wrote in Sporting Shooter. It is virtually a full-time job for him just co-ordinating the responses that BASC has to make to all the consultations that take place every year. Behind him, there is a whole team of people who have to supply the data and information necessary for those responses. And there are dozens of such consultations that affect sporting shooting every year.

 

BASC is the only organisation that is even remotely equipped to do this work on our behalf. It is also the only organisation that will put the needs of the sporting shooter top of its priorities without having to also cater for conflicting views or conflicting sports or conflicting commercial activities.

 

Maybe David BASC could pass on to Conor our appreciation for what he does on our behalf.

 

 

Here here.

 

And everyone that benefits from his and BASC's work should make sure they get a BASC sub going - no one like a free loader do they