BASC or not?

[Cranfield]

Thats an excellent letter webber, well done . :o

 

I ceased buying the ST many, many moons ago and share your opinions of John Humphreys, although I have held that opinion also for many moons.

 

The main reason some shooters leave the BASSC is financial, because they only join for the insurance.

You can get that cheaper either directly from an Insurance Company, or through another of the so called country sports organisations with cheaper fees, because they only basically provide insurance cover and not much else.

 

Like everything else in life, you tend to get what you pay for.

 

In my opinion the BASC isn't perfect , but it is the best organisation out there representing our interests.

[Glenshooter]

The Media Centre is one case of an expensive waste of membership money.

I would have preferred that money to have been spent on buying Doveridge, moving the HQ to central England, near to the Motorway links, owning their own clayground to promote shooting and a training facility, near to a Deer Management facility (Castle Donnington) or more access to the foreshore.

Instead we get an expensive white elephant. What on earth was wrong with the internet, faxes, telephone and video confererancing?

 

You forgot to add to the first sentence above, 'IMHO'. There are some media professionals who think that this is the absolutely correct way to go - to have a modern communications facility to take on the anti-field-sports brigade. You can't do that anymore out of a portacabin.

 

It's no white elephant, IMHO. It is the best weapon that we shooters can have to protect shooting. And FWIW, my opinion is based on experience in defending my (day-job) industry through 'communications' - and that includes working with the government.

[Glenshooter]

Thats an excellent letter webber, well done . :o

 

I ceased buying the ST many, many moons ago and share your opinions of John Humphreys, although I have held that opinion also for many moons.

 

The main reason some shooters leave the BASC is financial, because they only join for the insurance.

You can get that cheaper either directly from an Insurance Company, or through another of the so called country sports organisations with cheaper fees, because they only basically provide insurance cover and not much else.

 

Like everything else in life, you tend to get what you pay for.

 

In my opinion the BASC isn't perfect , but it is the best organisation out there representing our interests.

 

 

I agree Webber. Great letter.

 

John Humphreys is yesterday's man who just doesn't understand the new environment. He's so 1970s.

 

I know several people who have not renewed/stopped buying ST for this very reason. There are other very good mags out there with contributors who live in this (relatively) new century and understand the threads to shooting.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Glenshooter

[Mr Potter]

Thats an excellent letter webber, well done . :o

 

I ceased buying the ST many, many moons ago and share your opinions of John Humphreys, although I have held that opinion also for many moons.

 

The main reason some shooters leave the BASSC is financial, because they only join for the insurance.

You can get that cheaper either directly from an Insurance Company, or through another of the so called country sports organisations with cheaper fees, because they only basically provide insurance cover and not much else.

 

Like everything else in life, you tend to get what you pay for.

 

In my opinion the BASC isn't perfect , but it is the best organisation out there representing our interests.

 

 

I agree Webber. Great letter.

 

John Humphreys is yesterday's man who just doesn't understand the new environment. He's so 1970s.

 

I know several people who have not renewed/stopped buying ST for this very reason. There are other very good mags out there with contributors who live in this (relatively) new century and understand the threads to shooting.

 

Can I add my name in agreeing with webber, Cranfield & Glenshooter. I had got fed up of Shooting Times after many years of subscribing and cancelled my direct debit about 6 weeks ago, my subscription runs out in early June. When I read that article of Humphries reasons for not renewing his BASC membership I wish I'd cancelled sooner. The absolute sh*******te Ive read recently knocking BASC, particularly about lead, makes me wonder just how many people can grasp the wrong end of how many sticks.

Suffice to say I am a BASC member, I don't need to be I'm insured by my CPSA membership which I (reluctantly) have to be a member of for my competitive clay shooting so my membership is purely to contribute to the coffers of the organisation that does the most (effectively) to promote the future of shooting. Cranfield hit the nail on the head, BASC isn't perfect but it's certainly the best we've got.

 

Mr Potter

[Breastman]

There's strength in unity within shooting and what unity there is is within BASC.

 

Christopher

 

Here here!! :o

 

Mark

[Harnser]

Sorry if this has been done to death but I haven't been on PW for a while.

 

Not intending to stir up trouble here but here's a question. I've never felt compelled to join BASC as it's always seemed like a sort of clique, and I was also put off by the high membership fees for which members seem to get little but a plush new HQ for the employees.

The CA has been established for a fraction of the time BASC/WAGBI has been but it seems to be a much, much stronger group? And look at the clout the NRA has in America, rightly or wrongly. In recent times BASC failed on the handgun ban and the lead shot over wetlands/on wildfowl - I'm sure they do a lot of good for shooting in terms of PR, but now with the recent controversy over the lead advisary group I've been off for good.

In light of this, I'm interested to find out what your thoughts are & how many of you members are going to cancel/not renew your BASC membership?

 

Cheers all,

 

Ross.

You are obviously a BASC knocker and promoter of the CA . Thats your choice . So go and find your self another forum to peddle your propogander . The BASC has a strong following on this forum mainly because this forum has many good shooters belonging to it and are good sensible countryman who can see further than the end of their noses .

 

Harnser .

[MC]

If you are a true sportsman you will join every organisation that will support your sport.

Obviously no organisation can be all things to all men. BASC concentrate on game shooting and wildfowling leaving hunting to the CA and clayshooting to the CPSA.

Where BASC goes wrong in my opinion is in believing they are bigger than their members.

Many of the staff are inexperienced in their field and do not seem accountable to their management. The Board has always been manipulated by peer groups and this is why you see a steady flow of enthusiastic amateurs through the board. It is noticable that many of these 'failures' bleet in the letters page of Shooting Times.

I do take exception the way that HQ railroad things through without finding what the membership feels through opinion polls.

The Media Centre is one case of an expensive waste of membership money.

I would have preferred that money to have been spent on buying Doveridge, moving the HQ to central England, near to the Motorway links, owning their own clayground to promote shooting and a training facility, near to a Deer Management facility (Castle Donnington) or more access to the foreshore.

Instead we get an expensive white elephant. What on earth was wrong with the internet, faxes, telephone and video confererancing?

 

 

You really don't have a clue what you are talking about do you?

 

I had a conversation with a BASC employee about land purchase yesterday and they could not have been more helpful. The conversation alone was worth my membership fee regardless of the outcome.

 

As Harnser says Basc members are true sportsmen who can see further than the end of their noses.

 

The Media centre is exactly what BASC needs, all arguments are fought in the public spotlight these days. Where would you propose that BASC sort out their campaigns? In a local pub with a few notes on the back of a beermat?

 

Why did the CPSA not step up and buy Doveridge? After all it would make far more sense for a clay shooting organisation to own a clay ground wouldn't it.

[RossEM]

I consider myself proved wrong after reading Christopher Graffius' and others comments. However, there are quite a few vitriolic comments on the thread which are completely disproportionate to the tone of my original post.

 

Let me be very clear on this - quite obviously I was using the CA as an example alternative to BASC, due to their high public profile, and I am not toting for membership of, peddling propanga for, nor promoting the CA.

 

I never mentioned hunting, and I'm not a huntsman or regular hunt follower. I've followed in a car a handful of times and go to meets on Boxing Day. I'm a shooter through and through - I support the CA's campaign for hunting as I feel there wider issues involved and banning a fieldsport wholesale worries me as a shooter.

 

Maybe I was a bit rash to say the handgun/lead ban was BASC'S failure but I did not this thread to "bash" BASC - I was merely wondering what the deal was with them currently and why (it's been reported that) some members aren't going to renew their memberships. I wondered what members thought of the situation. As I said, I'd prefer there to be one organisation for all of us, and if that was to be BASC then great I'd join - but still question their actions if I disagreed on policy or assignment of funds, etc. as would any "countryman who can see past the end of his nose."

[Christopher Graffius]

Thank you Ross, that's a courageous post. Very few people are prepared to admit to being wrong - but any error there is is mine - I should have better communicated what we do to you.

 

The deal with regards to BASC at present is as follows: shooting is being attacked for its use of lead ammunition. This attack has now reached government which decided it was serious enough to set up an independent committee to review the evidence and make policy recommendations. BASC thought it would be disasterous for shooting not to play a key role o this committee, so with the support of all other shooting organisations, John Swift, CEO of BASC took the chair. The shooting reps form the largest group on the committee and that will ensure that we test the evidence rigorously and that shooting won't be damaged through ignorance or prejudice.

 

It appears that some members of smaller organisations saw this as an opportunity to attack BASC, prompt mass resignations and pick up the memberships and money. They have been prompted by their own lack of success and encouraged by a shooting magazine which readily printed their copy. Hence the gossip you heard.

 

As a member of BASC you have every right to question the actions of the organisation, and you get a vote and the opportunity to raise your concerns and play your part. I hope that you'll join us to ensure that shooting gets the best representation possible.

 

Christopher

[Psyxologos]

I am a member of BASC since 2008 and in the few occasions I have looked for advice I have been impressed with the level of support the organisation offers to its members. They know what they are talking about, they are helpful and they are willing to take the time to listen to what the issue is. They are offering far more than just an insurance policy, they have a great role to play in ensuring the continuing existence of shooting in this country.

 

Just my personal opinion.

[Alanl50]

I was a hand gun owner, no one one person or body could ever have stopped the banning of handguns and we are as dissjointed now as we were then, It was a political move.

 

The BASC as an organisation does a damn good job for the support of shooters, the services they provide have costs thats why the memship is priced as it is but they recognised unemployed student etc and have a structured price plan to cover all walks of life, crikey my missus does the membership cost in cigarettes every two weeks!

 

Is £66.00 really to much to pay to have a organisation fight for your rights and provide all the other services they offer?

I dont think so.

Alan

Edited May 23, 2010 by Alanl50

[dann boy]

i think you would be better joining the ngo membreship is only 30 quid and u get same insurance as u do with bacs cos only 2 pound of yr fee goes on the insurance cos thay r both coverd by the nfu

[Boromir]

As Harnser says Basc members are true sportsmen who can see further than the end of their noses.

 

Statements like that really ****** me off. Just another example of people thinking they got more superiority than others just because they are a member of a certain Organisation.

 

How many people including the ones that work in the countryside like Gamekeepers are not a member of BASC? and all them are not true sportsmen because there not a member. Jeez now ive heard everything.

[Christopher Graffius]

We all agree that one should join an organisation - not primarily for the insurance, though that's a factor - but to ensure that your sport is promoted and protected. But the organisations are not the same -bit like guns, and rifle calibres - so how do you choose?

 

I suggest you find out the following:

 

- On insurance, check the policy limitations - the grounds on which it will not pay out. Cheap versions may let you down when you really need it.

- How many staff does the organisation employ and what do they do? If the bulk of them are press officers that tells you something about the organisation's priorities. If they're mostly part-time or voluntary will they be there when you need their advice?

- What do the accounts say - if they're constantly in debt and financially shaky will they have the resources to help you and promote shooting? Do they have a reserve just in case the proverbial hits the fan and shooting faces another crisis like Dunblane? Or do they want your sub to help pay debts. If you can't readily find the accounts, ask. But that fact tells you something more.

- Are they non-profit making and does all your sub go to your sport.

- What is their record of activity? Ask them or check their websites to see what they're doing - you may rather put your money where it will be used actively for your sport.

- What say can you have as a member? Do you get an equal vote to everyone else and the chance to use it in elections and to influence policy.

- Are they credible? Do they have the resources both human and financial to do the job?

 

If you attend the CLA, the Midland or other fairs you can meet some of the staff and that maay help you make a decision.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Christopher

[Glenshooter]

Statements like that really ****** me off. Just another example of people thinking they got more superiority than others just because they are a member of a certain Organisation.

 

How many people including the ones that work in the countryside like Gamekeepers are not a member of BASC? and all them are not true sportsmen because there not a member. Jeez now ive heard everything.

 

Might help if you read what he said rather than getting all precious. He didn't say that anyone else wasn't a true sportsman, and certainly not a member of a shooting organisation.

 

But, anyone who only buys insurance and does not belong to a decent organisation, is not thinking of the future, IMHO.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Glenshooter

[Boromir]

Might help if you read what he said rather than getting all precious. He didn't say that anyone else wasn't a true sportsman, and certainly not a member of a shooting organisation.

 

But, anyone who only buys insurance and does not belong to a decent organisation, is not thinking of the future, IMHO.

 

Well it certainly reads the way I said about it. It was just like that guy a couple of months ago which he said if your not a BASC member you shouldnt be shooting.

 

Im not going to get into any arguments on this as you's all jump on a bandwagon so end off.

[MC]

i think you would be better joining the ngo membreship is only 30 quid and u get same insurance as u do with bacs cos only 2 pound of yr fee goes on the insurance cos thay r both coverd by the nfu

 

 

Very true, you could join the NGO and do nothing to safeguard the future of shooting in the same manner as the NGO are.

 

Statements like that really ****** me off. Just another example of people thinking they got more superiority than others just because they are a member of a certain Organisation.

 

How many people including the ones that work in the countryside like Gamekeepers are not a member of BASC? and all them are not true sportsmen because there not a member. Jeez now ive heard everything.

 

 

It is true a leopard cannot change its spots can it, your posts are as bumb now as they ever were. When you read and understand this thread and all the others like it you will see that being a member of BASC is the only way to go, especially as you are supposedly a wildfowler.

 

And just because you work it the countryside it doesn't automatically make you a sportsman. Would a tree surgeon need to be a member of BASC? or a hedge layer?

 

I firmly believe that BASC are the only organisation that can and do take the battle to where it needs to be. As I have said time and time again you will only ever fail if you try in the first place.

 

If you don't get stuck in you never will fail. As Alan has said the handgun ban was always going to happen, noone could have prevented it.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

[fortune82]

BASC just appears to be a job for the boys. Not really stood up for much in the shooting world from what I can see. Countrysude alliance is cheaper, looks at the countryside as a whole and has been promoting the eating of game very succesfully which can only be good.

 

CA for me!

[Glenshooter]

BASC just appears to be a job for the boys.

 

What do you mean?

[mudpatten]

I had a real laugh today when reading the CA`s tame muckspreader, the Shooting Times,in the shape of an article written by the "voluntary and hopefully independent chairman of the Code of Good Shooting Practice Steering Committee" one Bill Tyrwhitt-Drake.

 

Bill, like a lot of rehearsed BASC knockers often uses the work "arrogant" when sniping at BASC`s activities.

 

What follows is my opinion and where it is not opinion it is undisputed fact.

 

Bill himself is one of the most arrogant men it has ever been my misfortune to meet. Like a lot of men of short stature Bill has something of a chip on his shoulder and at about 5ft 4inches he has to physically look up to most other people.

 

It has`nt helped that he was born into immense wealth and inherited a large chunk of our sceptered isle and has never actually had to do a proper job, something his public school education well prepared him for. That his wife ran off with his gamekeeper, despite his millions,might suggest that he`s also lacking something in another department.

 

BASC has fought long and hard to democratise shooting yet the CA seems determined to return the reins to the hands of the idle rich. Make no mistake, the chinless wonders are aiming to re take what they see as their rightful position at the top of the pile.

 

I`ll be very surprised if the management of the CA`s new Game Shooting Alliance consisted of anything but large landowners and game farmers determined to turn game bird production into factory farming.

[chrispti]

BASC just appears to be a job for the boys. Not really stood up for much in the shooting world from what I can see. Countrysude alliance is cheaper, looks at the countryside as a whole and has been promoting the eating of game very succesfully which can only be good.

 

CA for me!

[fortune82]

Whats so amusing about that?

[MC]

Whats so amusing about that?

 

 

What you mean apart from the only fact there is that they are cheaper?

 

The CA are not interested in shooting, they are only interested in raising money from shooters to fund their campaign to repeal the hunting with dogs ban. They only look as far as the fox hunts and I assume the BASC's "Game to eat" campaign and all the " A taste of game " evenings don't exist.

 

Maybe you could explain to the masses what the CA are doing about the lead shot restrictions and how they helped out the wildfowlers with their lead shot ban?

 

As already said, you can't lose if you don't take part.

Edited May 23, 2010 by MC

[fortune82]

What you mean apart from the only fact there is that they are cheaper?

 

The CA are not interested in shooting, they are only interested in raising money from shooters to fund their campaign to repeal the hunting with dogs ban. They only look as far as the fox hunts and I assume the BASC's "Game to eat" campaign and all the " A taste of game " evenings don't exist.

 

Maybe you could explain to the masses what the CA are doing about the lead shot restrictions and how they helped out the wildfowlers with their lead shot ban?

 

As already said, you can't lose if you don't take part.

 

What exactly are BASC doing about the lead shot ban? They REALLY helped wildfowlers out as well! I think you will find the CA are part of the same working group on lead that BASC are.

 

I think you will also find the Game To Eat campaign is run by the CA not BASC. It is credited with introducing game to up to 23 million people. If people are buying game in large numbers that can suerly only be a good thing for our sport.

 

Looks like MC has got his fact wrong AGAIN!!! :good:

Edited May 23, 2010 by fortune82

[mudpatten]

BASC are fighting the lead ban. But in a reasoned, scientific and logical way with no melodramatic histrionics such as are much beloved by the CA.

 

BASC fought successfully for 20 years to keep the wildfowling non toxic issue at bay. Unfortunately the government had previously signed up to legislation in which it agreed to ban it eventually.

 

You are very perceptive when you state that BASC REALLY helped out the fowlers. Without their input the ban would have come in years before it did and before workable alternatives were available. They did an outstanding job.

 

The final nail was driven into the lead for wildfowl coffin by the Government, not BASC.

 

Having said that, do pray tell us,as MC has pointed out, what miraculous rabbit did the CA pull out of the hat with the lead for fowling ban?