Countryside Alliance

[David BASC]

Hi Charlie,

 

I know you, and many others on here are a loyal BASC supporters and I thank you very much for it.

 

I was a member of the BFSS / CA well before I ever became a BASC member; there was no intention to get involved in mud slinging in my above post, look all I said was that in my view the old BFSS was more my cup of tea than the modern CA - that’s all.

 

Having said that if hunting is your thing then there is only the CA that can do anything- as that is where their real expertises rests in my opinion, so those who support hunting should support the CA.

 

How effective they have been in stopping post office closures, increasing rural housing, and rural shops I don’t know – but a they say ‘every little helps’

 

From your very own example, the CA evidently has a package that many find attractive, and so they should promote that package to their market. If any organisation has a good product then it will attract members and grow. Its always best to stick at whay you are best at - diversification simply spreads the limited resources you have even thinner

 

But I don’t think that is it very clever of the CA to launch an advertising campaign that very clearly is trying to get people not to join BASC and join the CA, and one of their ads in this weeks ST was, in my view, well off side. I hardly makes for good relationships, and hardly encourages working together does it?

 

Do we want to see organisations actively targeting each other for membership in the shooting press, when there are already more people who are not a member of anything – surely it’s those who should be targeted?

 

But its their money and their stratergy,

 

David

[webber]

I ceased my support for CA several years ago prior to the fox hunting ban, when shooters, many of them BASC members, and others rallied around and marched on London in support of the CA.

The CA obviously appreciated this support, as their members appeared on television and at game fairs protesting against the proposed legislation, and spouting that shooting foxes was less humane than hunting them with dogs. That was enough for me.

 

A couple of years ago, as part of some research that I was doing, I examined the published accounts of CA. They were not good reading. I have not repeated the exercise since, but I would assume that their latest high profile membership recruitment drive, budget priced, first year special offer, obviously aimed at shooters, rather than their traditional main membership profile, is in my book a direct attack on BASC, and is an attempt to top up the CA coffers.

 

I recently purchased some of those excellent shooting cards in an attempt to gain some shooting permissions. I noted that the cards routinely had a line " please support Countryside Alliance" I requested that the printer remove this, which he did, and inserted the BASC logo instead.

 

I appreciate that some PW members are satisfied CA members, and that's fine by me. I would however be interested to learn as to how many full time members of CA paid staff are engaged solely for the support and protection of shooting. Do they have a dedicated firearms department? What do they do to support gamekeeping, wildfowling, conservation work? I have asked these questions previously, and am still awaiting satisfactory answers. My personal view is that the CA see shooters as a cash cow to be milked.

 

If you want to support shooting, protect shooting, ensure that you have something to shoot, and something to shoot it with, you really do need to support BASC. If you have some spare wonga kicking about and want to support more than one organisation I would suggest GWCT, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. They conduct a great deal of research of benefit to shooting in various ways, and do not directly conflict with the work conducted by BASC.

 

webber

[al4x]

Look at it another way Webber, if hunting is not going to continue and in the face of dwindling support they need to as an organisation focus on different rural areas like shooting so potentially may expand to the areas they are lacking in at the moment. Personally I think competition keeps every organisation on their toes and prices under control. As for them supporting raised cages thats not entirely the full picture they supported the option that all the other organisations like the NGO, Game farmers association etc so not entirely just aiming for battery conditions and indeed the whole thing has been put on hold while a more workable legislation is drawn up.

There is an element that the insurance is more comprehensive as it does cover you for a lot more rural activities if you partake in them. Whichever way it wasn't a bashing thread just a thread to point out it looks like they are starting to focus on what shooters want and gives cheap membership for a year even if you don't renew afterwards

[David BASC]

I fully accept that the CA took their decision to move away from being a dedicated field sports society when they changed from being the BFSS- I was at the AGM when this was discussed. OK that was their decision, and I guess they must have resourced accordingly, i.e. employing people with expertise to look after the wider rural issues as opposed to dedicated field sports experts.

 

I have to agree with Webber, their apparent ‘attack’ on shooting when the hunting debate was in full swing did not exactly float my boat either, and I have seen nothing from them that retracts this position – maybe I am wrong, but that does not fill me with loads of confidence that they will protect my shooting, regardless of how cheap the first years membership is. I have written to the CA, as an ex member, asking them to clarify this very point, I hope they reply soon.

 

Moving on…

 

The Commission for Rural Communities is to be abolished - they were supposed to be the 'rural watchdog' to make sure the needs of the countryside were recognised - rural transport, shops, post office and so on . I think there are other funding cuts and departmental mergers that will have an effect in the countryside; the CA could step into this market surely, play to their strengths.

 

As Charlie says they are apparently already well supported in this sector so it makes sense to develop further here, maybe working along side the CPRE for example.

 

Just a thought

 

Regards to all

 

David

[anser2]

I think the lack of responce to this thread sums up the intrest the Countryside Alliance has in shooting. Any organisation worth its salt would , A, be keeping an eye on web sites such as the Pigeon forum and B , at least make some sort of attempt to defend their position hard though that may be. Or does their lack of any success in the shooting field mean they dare not put their head above the parapit because they cant defend it.

 

I have my disagrements with BASC as David well knows , but they always come up with an honest and prompt defence while at the same time taking its members differing opinions onboard. BASC may not be perfect , but they are by far the best shooting organisation we have.

Edited July 22, 2010 by anser2

[Blackbart]

Hi Charlie,

 

I know you, and many others on here are a loyal BASC supporters and I thank you very much for it.

 

I was a member of the BFSS / CA well before I ever became a BASC member; there was no intention to get involved in mud slinging in my above post, look all I said was that in my view the old BFSS was more my cup of tea than the modern CA - that’s all.

 

Having said that if hunting is your thing then there is only the CA that can do anything- as that is where their real expertises rests in my opinion, so those who support hunting should support the CA.

 

How effective they have been in stopping post office closures, increasing rural housing, and rural shops I don’t know – but a they say ‘every little helps’

 

From your very own example, the CA evidently has a package that many find attractive, and so they should promote that package to their market. If any organisation has a good product then it will attract members and grow. Its always best to stick at whay you are best at - diversification simply spreads the limited resources you have even thinner

 

But I don’t think that is it very clever of the CA to launch an advertising campaign that very clearly is trying to get people not to join BASC and join the CA, and one of their ads in this weeks ST was, in my view, well off side. I hardly makes for good relationships, and hardly encourages working together does it?

 

Do we want to see organisations actively targeting each other for membership in the shooting press, when there are already more people who are not a member of anything – surely it’s those who should be targeted?

 

But its their money and their stratergy,

 

David

 

 

Maybe Rob Grey got "mates rates" on the advertising in ST

 

I dont think it helps anyone either,it just makes it seem as if they are after the loot at any expense.

[mudpatten]

I used to belong to the old BFSS which was always a bit ramshackle and amateurish, but at least it was run by gentlemen and was`nt as cynically manipulating as it`s current evil incarnation, the CA.

 

The main reason I left was the CA`s total failure to safeguard the use of lead shot for wildfowling.

 

In short, the CA failed to safeguard the use of lead for wildfowling and has pretty much failed at every thing else it has touched since then.

[Highlander]

The reasons we all support BASC (yes I do) are well documented on here BUT my point is this; the current recruitment drive by The CA aimed at shooting people is an opportunity brought about by recent BASC mishandling of at least two very important issues to the shooting community. The CA have seen the distrust there is for BASC amongst many of the membership and have chosen this time to see if they can pick up a new following. I personally won’t be joining the CA as I don’t think (as many others don’t) that The CA has the expertise where shooting sports are concerned. I do believe however they do a very good job of promoting the countryside/rural life in general.

 

The guys at BASC (dinosaurs that some are) really need to get their heads out of the sand and see/hear what the shooting community, especially those who work in and earn their living from it, feel about the rearing cages issue and the lead ban issue. It’s not good and many guys I know are leaving BASC for The NGO. I wonder how BASC membership numbers will look in a year’s time.

 

What’s John Swift angling for, a knighthood or a nice cosy job with his pals in one of the ‘conservation’ NGOs!

 

Whilst we’re on the subject just remember who lost us (if ever there was a fight) the lead over wetlands debacle. John Swift’s current comment; that BASC "oppose any unwarranted restriction on lead shot", adding that "restrictions must be science-based and proportionate" worry the hell out of me as we didn’t see such (British researched) evidence to support the wetlands ban on lead and I further believe BASC has accepted that lead ammunition is on borrowed time (read their comments and the drive on here and elsewhere in the shooting press to convince us that steel shot is good).

 

The groups looking into a total lead ban are reported to ‘include representatives from bodies not warmly disposed to lead’ I’d go further and say many on that panel are totally committed to banning shooting! Just you wait and see!

[Cranfield]

I used to belong to the old BFSS which was always a bit ramshackle and amateurish, but at least it was run by gentlemen and was`nt as cynically manipulating as it`s current evil incarnation, the CA.

 

The main reason I left was the CA`s total failure to safeguard the use of lead shot for wildfowling.

 

In short, the CA failed to safeguard the use of lead for wildfowling and has pretty much failed at every thing else it has touched since then.

 

I don't recall that any of the shooting organisations were successful in safeguarding the use of lead shot for wildfowling.

So I assume you are not a member of any of them.

[CharlieT]

I used to belong to the old BFSS which was always a bit ramshackle and amateurish, but at least it was run by gentlemen and was`nt as cynically manipulating as it`s current evil incarnation, the CA.

 

The main reason I left was the CA`s total failure to safeguard the use of lead shot for wildfowling.

 

In short, the CA failed to safeguard the use of lead for wildfowling and has pretty much failed at every thing else it has touched since then.

 

 

That's a bit rich considering the BASC which is the reincarnation of WAGBI, as in Wildfowlers Association, did no better it seems somewhat churlish to blame one and not the other.

 

Charlie

[David BASC]

As I have said before, I am afraid our position on cages and our position on the current lead issue has been shall I say,’ spun’ by some of the comments in the shooting press and other organisations– why they would do this I don’t know.

 

For example, on cages all we wanted was for all laying systems to be of a size and level of enrichment to ensure the welfare of the birds.- is this a mistake? I don’t think so!

 

However it was spun by some to: ‘BASC want all raised laying systems banned.’

 

This is simply not true and was never true- ask yourself why people would say otherwise?

 

 

It always surprises me that BASC takes the flack for ‘loosing lead’ over wetlands – fact is no one else really got engaged in the 30 year fight to be quite honest! And after all there is such a wealth of evidence that lead does cause problems in a wetland environment could we honestly keep on using it. Of course it was BASC that made sure this wetland lead ban did not affect ALL shooting- but this always seems to be brushed aside.

 

And now just because our research team is conducting practical experiments on non toxic shot so people who have to use it are well informed about its real performance, as opposed to theoretical performance we are accused of favoring a lead ban. How ridiculous - why would we?

 

Again I leave it up to you to judge why others would choose to promote such silly stories in the media or on their web site.

 

The LAG are NOT looking into a total lead ban, indeed if anyone was at the CLA yesterday the LAG were there in an open forum – Q&A session. As they clearly said, the LAG is there to review the evidence and see if, in the UK, there is any problem with lead shot in terms of human health or the environment, if, and it’s a very big IF there are any issues identified then the group will look at options for a solution, this certainly does not mean an outright ban!

 

As to being a dinosaur, well I guess I don’t mind being labeled as being one of the most successful, dominant and long lived species in the history of the world

 

But seriously, I hear what you are saying, but that is why its important for all to know – your organisation is YOUR ORGANISATION – get involved, contact them, engage with them, let them know your thoughts on issues, remember you cant change anything when you are no longer a member.

 

Will the CA’s latest attack on BASC survive, who knows? It still beggars belief that they are so directly targeting BASC – they even had a massive poster on their stand that the CLA yesterday comparing their cheap price offer with BASC subscription rates.

 

Well frankly if the message is ‘Join the CA because we are cheaper than BASC’…is that it?

 

Join an organisation that you think can and will make a positive difference to your shooting.

 

My best wishes to all

David

[tweedledee]

i`m fed up listening to this argument. surely in these times a united front against the antis is what we need.surely a separated force can only be a downfall. as far as i can see the days are here when all country sports are under fire. we must unite under one umbrella and dig our heels in.

[David BASC]

Yes I agree a united front with each organisation concentrating on its area of specialism and expertise would be a good thing.

 

With the understanding that in some cases there will be areas of mutual interest where two or more can work together – take the promotion of game meat to a wider audience for example.

 

Organisations should be encouraging non members of any organisation to join them rather than a strategy to try and poach members from each other.

 

David

[mudpatten]

David,

 

Thanks for those words of great common sense. There are a large number of people out there with sufficient common sense to realise that the hysteria whipped up against BASC by the CA sponsored Shooting Times is just that, empty hysteria.

 

The vast majority of thinking shooters have realised that the CA is up to no good and that the BASC stance on rearing cages was correct and that BASC has no intention of rolling over on lead. If you believe what you`ve read in the magazines then you are truly gullible.

 

The CA`s intentions are distinctly dishonourable. They want to increase their membership to fund the keeping of a tiny handful of full time employees in their jobs. But instead of targeting those shooters currently not affiliated to any organisation, incidentally, the vast majority of shooters and a target rich recruiting ground,they have deliberately and cynically decided to attack BASC and steal their members.

 

For those of you who believe that the voice of shooting should be united, please explain to me why the CA is doing this?

 

I see from some of my other posts that we can now put to bed once and for all the CA sponsored myth that BASC alone was responsible for the ban on the use of lead over wetlands. The CA deliberately distanced itself from this unwinnable issue and played no part whatsoever in the fight.

 

The CA lost wetland lead, it lost foxhunting and, from it`s insane handling of rearing cages it will lose anything else you are foolish enough to entrust to it`s slippery hands if you part with your hard earned cash and join it`s deluded ranks.

[al4x]

The only issue with the rearing cages is every other organisation answered the questions asked and the BASC went off at a tangent and had a load of stuff added to the bill which in effect made it unworkable, it wasn't just the CA objecting but the NGO GFA etc etc Fortunately with the change of government we had a shooting and farming man at the head so it got thrown back for re writing and should be back soon I believe. Forget that and the main purpose of the post wasn't about BASC but about the CA looking to focus more on shooting and bring in shooting members, personally having more than one organisation makes perfect sense if anything it keeps costs under control which have been on a steady spiral upwards if there is an alternative then it should lead to competitive pricing which is good for us. They also have a more comprehensive insurance if you partake in a range of rural activities but that is another matter

Edited July 25, 2010 by al4x

[webber]

I'm not surprised; but I'm still awaiting answers to my questions posed a few days ago.

 

How many full time officers do CA employ who are engaged 100% in support and defence of shooting?

 

I take it that no one knows?

 

webber

[anser2]

I would have thought the CA would have answered that question by now or perhaps they do not want the answer to be open knowlege to the shooting community.

 

And if the CA wasn't objecting to rearing battery cages , why has it claimed ( in headline banners ) to be responsible to the change in govenment policy allowing them?

Edited July 25, 2010 by anser2

[David BASC]

Al4x - sorry but you are wrong, BASC did not add things to the original draft code (it was NOT a bill) this is yet more hype that some have fallen for! DEFRA added some bits in that were not in the original consultation reples I think yes – not BASC

 

All the organisations wanted small barren cages banned - BASC took this stance from 2005, the GFA had this in their own code for years, the FAWC report said the same

 

The main difference was that BASC thought it would be a good idea to have in the code some guidance on minimum sizes, to establish what 'too small' was, others disagreed.

 

The government held an open consultation where everyone could put in their submission, BASC ,GFA, NGO etc all did - we all followed the same protocol. it was up to DEFRA to then decide what they thought should be in the new code based on the submissions they received from all of us.

 

As I say some have started stories running that it was BASC that had this that and the other added ‘in secret’ and that BASC even wanted game rearing banned! Well what poppycock – but inevitably some will be fooled by such rubbish!

 

Initially DEFRA added guidance on size and further added a clause that a closed flock had to be just that - a closed flock - although some of the wording round that was 'wooly' and BASC suggested this needed addressing with DEFRA - the CA though put out a press release about pheasants not being able to have sex. This was either CA hype or the CA totally mi-understanding what a closed flock is - take your pick.

 

With the new government in place the new DEFRA minister picked up that there were some inconstancies and some things that needed sorting out so called the working group together again, BASC, CA GFA, RSPB et al and we all sat around in a big meeting and went through the draft code bit by bit sorting out what we wanted, and the new draft code is on the DEFRA web site for all to see.

 

No statement on what a minimum size is, but clealy says small barren cages should not be used, and that enrichment must be agreed by a qualified person (vet?) Fresh stock are allowed to be entered, but only after a period of time with sentinal birds and relevent health checks - there are loads of other ponts- have a look yourself - if you cant find it there is a link of the 'ticker tape' on the BASC home page

 

Now is the time, for those of us in the game shooting, gamekeping, and game raearing industry to work together to seek high levels of compliance with the new code - after it sits before parliament for the required length of time, from game farmers and to encourage UK shoots to buy from UK game farms, that is exactly what BASC will be doing, indeed we have already started doing it!

 

As for the CA, well I guess we who may support hunting, are all looking to them to deliver on their promise that the Hunting Bill will be debated agian in Parliment this parliament - all gone quiet on that front lately..., so maybe they should stop concentrating on trying to recruit shooters and stick to their hunting objective?

 

David

Edited July 25, 2010 by David BASC

[Highlander]

So The CA cannot be trusted which was my point about BASC, the game rearing industry has lost faith in BASC and if as David says BASC were misquoted etc etc in the media and by other organisations why on earth do they have a brand new media centre that should be getting a loud and clear message out to everyone involved in shooting so we (the members) fully understand what’s going on.

 

BASC do a good job, overall, but on some issue they are simply not seeing/hearing the reactions of the members. To offer such platitudes as ‘The LAG are NOT looking into a total lead ban’, when we all know the only agenda LACs (and other anti organisations) have is a total ban on shooting and any other fieldsports or in their eyes bloodsports (by any means) is nonsense and simply propaganda for the masses.

 

Like the BNP, LACs and other anti fieldsports organisations (and I include the RSPCA/RSPB) have learned NOT to show their true face in public! Get real or they'll win the fight!

 

The anti participents taking part in the debate on banning lead are there for one reason and one reason only; it’s their way of putting another nail in the coffin of shooting sports!

[David BASC]

Slightly confused by this post H, but I will take each point in turn.

 

Remembering that only about three or four UK game breeders use the small cages the other 300 or so don’t, and none of the GFA members – to my knowledge – use small barren cages are you suggesting the game farming industry will be harmed by the new code and its guidance that small barren cages sholuld not be used and are not on side with BASC’s ‘Buy British’ campaign that is supported by Shooting Times?

 

We have persistently put our point across in Shooting & Conservation, on our web site and on forums – on cages we wanted small barren units not to be used and the reasons why we did not want them used.

 

LACS are not part of the LAG

 

The LAG’s roles is to assess what if any risks there are to human health and the environment from lead shot.

 

LAG is NOT debating banning lead – as the RSPB et al said at the CLA on Saturday when the LAG held an open forum on Saturday for people to ask questions…there is no point at all talking about what if any action needs to be taken over lead shot IF there is no evidence of risk from lead shot – like you say – get real!

 

But, with respect, cages and lead are a separate debate / thread, this thread is more about the CA’s new strategy to target BASC members, and to encourage shooters to join them rather than BASC.

 

Divisive? You bet!

Shame? I think so!

Will shooters be convinced the CA do a better job for shooting than BASC? I doubt it.

[mudpatten]

Lets just step back for a moment and see what you`ll be getting for your money if you join the CA to help "protect" shooting.

 

During the tragic Cumbria shootings the CA`s tiny and ineffectual press department was rooted to the spot like a rabbit caught in the lamp. Paralysed with fear,completely ineffective, with no policy, plan, strategy, human, financial or technical resources in place it drifted aimlessly and rudderless through the entire incident.

 

And you want to join that?

 

We`ve seen how the CA failed us with the ban on foreshore lead. One of two things happened here. Either the CA cynically assessed the situation,concluded it was unwinnable and turned it`s back and walked way from it, or,the CA has no history of protecting shooting and it`s sudden interest is financially and politically inspired in a crude effort to obscure it`s many other failures. It is attempting to ponce a ride on the back of other organisations by infiltrating and manipulating the strongest surviving field sport.

 

And you want to join that?

 

The CA has given no indication as to how it`s new shooting group will operate. At the moment it appears that it will be by diktat from above with the likes of millionaire landowner Bill Thyrwhitt Drake imperiously passing down his musings for the minions to implement.

 

And you want to join that?

 

Or will it be by committee? I have already offered my services to sit on the CA`s wildfowling committee. I`ve still had no answer to that offer. The CA has a real problem with wildfowling. Almost all fowling clubs are affiliated to BASC. This is due to the way in which such bodies as the Crown Estate operate. The CA cannot access these groups other than through BASC and most clubs are staunch supporters of BASC. A wildfowling committee would be like like holding a viper to the CA`s own bosom and they know that it would bite them at the earliest opportunity.

 

In my opinion the CA`s solution will be to dump fowling. Throw it to the wolves. It`s expensive enough for BASC to service and the CA wont want to spend a similar proportion of its income on a sport still under pressure from the likes of Natural England over complex technical issues such as disturbance.

 

If you enjoy wildfowling and join the CA you will be driving a huge nail into the future of the sport. This, in my opinion, is the most divisive part of the CA`s strategy and the bit they have not yet made public. They talk about unity but plan for division.

 

And you want to join that?

[dazza]

I'm not surprised; but I'm still awaiting answers to my questions posed a few days ago.

 

How many full time officers do CA employ who are engaged 100% in support and defence of shooting?

 

I take it that no one knows?

 

webber

 

Did you contact CA to ask them? Maybe they don't monitor the forum.

 

One thing you have to give the anti's is that they know how to work together. You can bet the LACS doesn't go around slagging of SABS etc. I'm sure the anti's **** themselves when they read these posts.

[Cranfield]

i`m fed up listening to this argument. surely in these times a united front against the antis is what we need.surely a separated force can only be a downfall. as far as i can see the days are here when all country sports are under fire. we must unite under one umbrella and dig our heels in.

 

 

Did you contact CA to ask them? Maybe they don't monitor the forum.

 

One thing you have to give the anti's is that they know how to work together. You can bet the LACS doesn't go around slagging of SABS etc. I'm sure the anti's **** themselves when they read these posts.

 

Two good posts on the subject, I don't think any shooting organisation covers itself with dignity or glory, when it seeks to undermine the work of another similar organisation.

Nor does it advance our cause and interests.

Perhaps they should concentrate on spending more time in making theirs the best and most appropriate organisation for our needs and then leave it for us grown ups to choose which (if not more than one) we chose to belong to.

[al4x]

Webber this isn't the pinacle of the world and yes BASC has the money to pay people to monitor forums and wheels out its big guns when there is an issue likely to affect membership like the bad PR they had over Lead, the CA is less focussed on shooting however it still has the ability to change and grow to account for membership needs. It is after all business the BASC relies on membership for its survival the same as the CA the bigger they are the more successful but everyone starts somewhere. Like Highlander I'll believe they will stick up for the use of lead when the results are published till then I'll stay open minded on what is going on behind the scenes.

[webber]

Did you contact CA to ask them? Maybe they don't monitor the forum.

 

One thing you have to give the anti's is that they know how to work together. You can bet the LACS doesn't go around slagging of SABS etc. I'm sure the anti's **** themselves when they read these posts.

 

I did email CA moments after I made my post. I didn't expect a speedy reply, thats probably why I'm still waiting.

 

webber