Countryside Alliance

[al4x]

Whats changed with them? running a 3 page advert in the Shooting Times about what they are doing for shooting and the membership fee has dropped to £28 or £20 for clubs full insurance included. Thats a fair old offensive they are going on!

[sitsinhedges]

Whats changed with them? running a 3 page advert in the Shooting Times about what they are doing for shooting and the membership fee has dropped to £28 or £20 for clubs full insurance included. Thats a fair old offensive they are going on!

 

 

I rang up yesterday re my renewal and was told it will be £56

[Highlander]

You mean you’ve only just noticed! They've been running ads in the shooting press for a couple of months now.

 

I think you’ll find the guys at The CA are on the ball when it comes to opportunities...after the latest gaffs by BASC over, first the rearing cage issue then the lead shot issue for which they’ve been well hammered by the shooting community I think the guys at The CA have decided it’s time to see if they can pick up members from dissatisfied BASC non returnees.

 

I wonder how long it will take BASC to wake up to the fact that there’s a lot of bad feeling out there and many members (I’m not one of them) will not renew. IMO The CA is the next best thing for the average shooter and BASC may well yet rue the day they rejected the merger offered a few years back by The CA. BASC need to be careful they don't become the dinosaurs of the shooting world. If membership falls below a certain level and consequently revenues they could find themselves begging The CA to merger them

 

IMO the guys and gals at The CA are of a more modern ilk and more in tune with todays marketing and lobbying methods than some of the old hands at BASC.

[KPV4]

I'm just about to join CA the cheque is in the envelope ready to rock and roll in the post tomorrow £28 a year

[leonp9lbw]

Ive just looked on the web site and its saying £56

[Paddy Galore!]

I don't care, i'm sticking with the BASC, i don't want cheapskate insurance or mickey mouse political lobbyists. Good luck to them tho, if it helps the common man and all that.

[UKPoacher]

I was dubious about the CA when it was set up. It appeared to be run by fox hunters for fox hunters and the rest of us were invited there to fight their battle. Has it changed?

[KPV4]

I got my membership form and deal from the Royal Welsh Show, I would email them and ask what deals they have on for new members, I'm sure they will sort you out a deal

[955i]

Something that occurs to me (not wishing to start the age old debate up!) is that when there is an issue and questions being asked on here, I only ever see DavidBASC giving answers from any of the organisations.

 

They may have made a couple of slip-ups, but at least they have a presence in the general populace to answer regarding their actions.

 

For what its worth, my money will stay with BASC

[David BASC]

I think you will find the 'cage issue' is well in the past and a new draft code will be put before parliament very soon. I am not sure that BASC campaigning to ban small barren laying systems was a 'gaff' as you put it.

 

As to lead - Not sure what ‘gaffs’ BASC have made on lead and frankly its only been BASC, up until very recently that have taken the lead issue forward and tried to fight for lead- easy for others to jump in and 'blame' BASC for this that and the other - but where were all these guys 30 years ago when the issue first came to light?

 

But now the CA, GCWT, GTA and BASC are all together with a common objective on the LAG – that’s got to be a good thing.

 

The merger was rejected by the members of BASC, not least of all because it did not make financial sense! And BASC’s financial position continues to be strong.

 

Of course some members were swayed by the reports on what BASC was or was not apparently doing that hit the Shooting press- well some of the shooting press anyway

 

I have no doubt that some will not renew because of it, which is a shame, so I suspect you may be right that this is a prime opportunity for others to try and grab some of the market- indeed the latest CA campaign is directly attacking BASC as one of their adverts in this weeks ST clearly shows.

 

Maybe the CA thinks it’s easier to trey and poach BASC members than trying to target the hundreds of thousands of shooters who are not members of anything?

 

Yes they are offering a cheap deal - to new members only- sorry you loyal CA members will still have to pay full whack!

 

Not too sure what the CA is delivering on shooting, what’s new in their campaign... no doubt they will tell us soon enough

 

But for example I didn’t see them so much as BASC on TV or heard them on the radio when the Cumbria tragedy happened - who was fighting for shooting then?

 

I don’t see them doing much on the Home Affairs Committee issue - probably the biggest thing to effect shooting this millennium... but its early so I guess they will catch up next week – hope so.

 

Are the CA a viable alternative to BASC as an organisation that will protect shooting - I don’t know but as far as I can tell they do not have the same resources for shooting campaigns etc as BASC do.

 

To be honest anything that will help shooting has to be a good thing – but will diluting the market even more and running a campaign that attacks BASC members so directly really help?

 

I wonder how much of the money from shooters subs to the CA will go on shooting projects?

 

As I have said before it’s your money so it’s your choice, join who ever you think relay can and will deliver for shooting.

 

David

[gsm1968]

For what its worth, my money will stay with BASC

 

 

 

[anser2]

You may as well burn your money as waste it on the Countryside Alliance. They seem to have no idea of the tradition of shooting sports otherwise they would not have campaigned to keep battery pheasant breeding cages. Nobody in their right head can agree with the moral aspect of this method of game production. Its a big threat to the majority of traditional game producers in this country and only favours a few big English and the majority of French game farmers. I had to laugh at a Mr Grey who works for the CA , in the Sporting Gun a few months ago when he said we work behind the scenes to get things done , but cant tell most shooters what we are doing. Is that a way to run an organisation that is big in bluster and very poor in results.

 

Unlike BASC the CA does not have individual departments to cover specialist sections of our sport such as wildfowling. When I posed this question to them they answered saying they got consultants in to cover things such as wildfowling . So now you know where your membership money goes - to fund consultants.

 

If you support hunting then by all means join the CA , but if you want a shooting organisation that has a proven track record of getting results in protecting shooting look elsewhere , there is one that stands head and shoulders above all others and its not the CA.

 

I used to be a member years ago when it was the BFSS , but would not consider a membership in its revamped form if it was given to me indeed I consider the Countryside Alliance a major threat to shooting today by linking hunting and shooting togeather.

Edited July 21, 2010 by anser2

[Guest topshot_2k]

i was with CA. waste of money, never recieved anything decent about defending shooting. all seemed to be hunting etc

[Cranfield]

Lets not start any BASC-v-CA-v-NGO-v-anyone else debates.

You pays your money and you take your choices.

 

I think all shooters should be encouraged to join as many shooting organisations as they can.

The louder and more prolonged the lobby, the better for our activities.

[inshallah]

For about the last year I have been buying Shooting Times most weeks and I feel that often they have had some sort of letter or article speaking against BASC. I was suckered at first, thinking that BASC were getting it wrong, but the more articles and letters I read, and the more I considered the issues, the more often I agreed with BASC's point of view. I enjoy ST, and still buy it most weeks, but one thing that puts me off subscribing is the constant BASC bashing. I wonder if the sporting press is responsible in some part for anti-BASC feeling amongst shooters.

 

I'm happy for BASC to speak for my shooting interests. I have nothing against the CA, but as someone interested in shooting rather than fox hunting, I decided to put my money with BASC and joined last week.

[CharlieT]

So the CA don't do much shooting.....................Just remind me who started the "Game To Eat Campaign" 9 years ago to promote eating game and thus shooting.

 

Whilst they may not be a Shooting Only organisation the CA have been representing and promoting shooting for very many years.

 

I remember as a boy in the 1950's reading one of their booklets on pigeon shooting, so don't tell me they have not been promoting shooting for long.

 

As Cranfield says if at all possible we should belong to both, I do.

[Imperfection]

As Cranfield says if at all possible we should belong to both, I do.

 

Same here.

 

Both have their places.

[David BASC]

Hi

 

Game to Eat was partly an initiative supported by many including BASC that the CA then took on - to concentrate on butchers and local suppliers,

 

BASC took forward Game’s On to take game into supermarkets such as Sainsbury's for example

 

Both projects work well as they don't compete as it were - they target different markets

 

I think the old BFSS - of which I was a member of for many years- was much more broad church and did more for shooting and fishing than, in my view, the CA do today,.

 

The CA seem now to have spread their net very wide and campaign for a raft of issues such as post offices and fly tipping, farming, rural housing and so on – so with limited resources the field sports issues will obviously have less funding, that’s is partly why I left the CA. –

 

To be honest if they cut back to concentrating on field sports and leaving all the other rural stuff to the larger and better funded rural organisations then they may well count me among their membership once again.

 

But doubtless there are many who do not share my view and I guess if the CA membership is growing and their income is growing then I guess their strategy is spot on.

 

I have no issue with people joining who they see is best to support shooting, for me its BASC and the GCWT.

 

If an organisation has a good product that will help protect shooting, then shooters will join, of course they will. But it is a bit off side for any one organisation to run an advertising campaign that literally targets another organisation by name.

 

That frankly is not showing solidarity for shooting, or wanting to help shooting on the contrary it is in my view, deliberately divisive - how can that help?

 

David

[hambone]

I was thinking of changing to CA last week as my BASC membership had expired but on thinking about the help and advice (some while not a member) that i have received off BASC over the years i decided to rejoin. I think that it's better for field sportsmen/women to be a member of any representative organisation than none but it's BASC for me.

[Cranfield]

The reason I am a member of the CA is because they represent many rural issues (apart from shooting) that the BASC do not interest themselves in and that includes hunting.

I am also a member of BASC and a couple of smaller organisations with similar interests.

 

As I said, pays your money, takes your choices.

[Blackbart]

The reason I am a member of the CA is because they represent many rural issues (apart from shooting) that the BASC do not interest themselves in and that includes hunting.

I am also a member of BASC and a couple of smaller organisations with similar interests.

 

As I said, pays your money, takes your choices.

 

 

The broader church thing works for me aswell.I have no doubt that Basc do more for shooting and if the only thing you want to do in the countryside is shoot then join Basc,but if you can afford it then join a couple of them.One BIG voice would be ideal but lots of smaller voices can work to.

[lurcherboy]

BASC since I started and see no reason to change.

 

 

 

LB

[CharlieT]

David

 

As I said I belong to both. Hunting and shooting are my passion and I will do everything to support them.

 

Living as I do in an extremely rural area that suffers from the lack of village shops, Post Offices, schools, housing and such but rich in hunting and shooting I wholeheartedly support the CA policy. It may surprise you but if you ask 10 local residents to name the organisation they belong to 8 will say the CA 1 the NGO and 1 the BASC.

 

The BASC do a fantastic job and they have my support and backing but I have to say that your disparaging remarks about the CA in your above post do yourself and above all the BASC no credit whatsoever. Both organisations may have their different stances on certain issues and rightly so, it's a free world, but please don't stoop to mud slinging it's childish and unprofessional.

[Mungler]

You may as well burn your money as waste it on the Countryside Alliance. They seem to have no idea of the tradition of shooting sports otherwise they would not have campaigned to keep battery pheasant breeding cages. Nobody in their right head can agree with the moral aspect of this method of game production. Its a big threat to the majority of traditional game producers in this country and only favours a few big English and the majority of French game farmers. I had to laugh at a Mr Grey who works for the CA , in the Sporting Gun a few months ago when he said we work behind the scenes to get things done , but cant tell most shooters what we are doing. Is that a way to run an organisation that is big in bluster and very poor in results.

 

Unlike BASC the CA does not have individual departments to cover specialist sections of our sport such as wildfowling. When I posed this question to them they answered saying they got consultants in to cover things such as wildfowling . So now you know where your membership money goes - to fund consultants.

 

If you support hunting then by all means join the CA , but if you want a shooting organisation that has a proven track record of getting results in protecting shooting look elsewhere , there is one that stands head and shoulders above all others and its not the CA.

 

I used to be a member years ago when it was the BFSS , but would not consider a membership in its revamped form if it was given to me indeed I consider the Countryside Alliance a major threat to shooting today by linking hunting and shooting togeather.

 

 

 

This about sums it up for me.

[Ozzy Fudd]

This about sums it up for me.