Latest BASC Magazine

[al4x]

lacked telling us whether they actually got one but certainly something I'd like to try.

[vulpicide]

The point I was making is that none of the other organisations put forward a code of conduct for terrierwork as one was already in place Basc on the other hand did without consulting the Nwtf despite the fact that Basc had already endorsed the Nwtf code of conduct. The Nwtf are not in bed with any organisation and liase with ALL interested parties,that way we dont tramp on anyone elses toes. Thats why in Scotland we are allowed to use terriers to control foxes to protect lambs we liased with the NFU on that one all interested parties had an input.

[David BASC]

I agree a code was in place as agreed with all the orgs - but as I said, when the Hunting Bill was being debated and developed BASC needed to ensure that terriers were still allowed to be used to protect game. Just because there was a Terrier Code in place did not mean it would be automatically accepted in its entirety under the Hunting Act, indeed it would have been naive to think so.

 

As I said, the CA (and it says clearly on the NWTF web site that you work closely with the CA) knew what we were doing and why, and frankly it was up to you guys with or without the CA to do your own lobbying for other non game related issues. How much you did I don’t know – perhaps you could advise.

 

As I say, you cannot blame BASC for your or others failed lobbying for other use of terriers away from game shooting!

 

Once the Hunting Act came into force, with the exemption we had lobbied for, we did produce and publish a Code of Practice specifically relating to the use of dogs below ground to protect game, this is NOT an attempt to usurp the NWTF code but simply a clarification of law. A copy is on the BASC web site

 

So as I have said, over to you guys (and the NFU / CA I guess) if you want to lobby for extensions to terrier work to cover livestock farming- but this is outside of BASC’s remit.

 

Thanks for clarifying your point

 

Best wishes

 

David

[vulpicide]

Nobody tried to get the code of conduct accepted in its entirety but if it was good enough for all the main lobbying parties to endorse then why would one of the parties with the least knowledge of practical terrierwork put forward a code of conduct not fit for purpose . I've already stated All parties in Scotland stuck together and got what was needed not just what one organisation wanted thats why we had SCIE meetings that was Scottish countryside information exchange that way everyones sphere of intrest was looked after, if we all just look after our own sport/pastime/control method we are in a lot weaker position.

[David BASC]

You spectacularly miss the point I am afraid.

 

Having a broad ranging code in place that had been agreed by all was not enough. If it was then it would have been accepted as it was as an exemption under the Act

 

In England & Wales when the hunting act was being debated - NO ONE as far as I can see apart from BASC stood up and lobbied for terrier work! If they had, then maybe it would have been in an even stronger position today than it is.

 

You say that BASC, with the least knowledge of terrier work (apart from our 5000+ gamekeepers and other shoot workers of course) put forward what you call a ‘not fit for purpose code of conduct’ for the use of terrier to protect game, I ask you where the heck were the other organisations that have more knowledge of terrier work? What were they doing?

 

If BASC had sat back and done nothing, like many others it seems, on this issue then I suspect there would have been a significant risk that terrier work to protect game would not have been allowed either- then where would we be in England & Wales?

 

The NWTF web site does not call the current situation’ not fit for purpose’ does it? Nor do I see anything on the NWTF or CA web site that suggests they are going to lobby to get the current situation changed in England & Wales, unless of course it’s all wrapped up in the disappearing carrot of a full repeal of the Act

 

Granted, I suspect a few noticed this and did not make the same mistake again in Scotland, but as I have said again and again don’t blame BASC for the failure of others to lobby effectively in England and Wales!

 

A classic example of what I see all too often – and issue comes up – BASC reacts to protect shootings interests and do our very best with the very best of intentions, others sit back and watch to see what happens, after BASC have done their best the others then pop out of the woodwork to bitch about what BASC have done.

 

By all means start another thread on terriers, if you want to continue this debate.

 

I think it would be interesting and if you think there should be an article in the BASC mag about terrier work then by all means get someone from the NTWF to get in touch with the editor to discuss.

 

All the best

 

David

[anser2]

While I have some sympathy with the hunting community I think its important that BASC keeps its distance from hunting with dogs and only involves itself with direct shooting \dog issues ( which it seems to be doing) and leaves hunting to the Countryside Alliance. There has been a very noticeable drop in anti shooting feelings in the public as the majority of the public are apathic towards shooting while clearly the majority of them are strongly against hunting . If hunting ever becomes reinstated once more the hunt saboteurs and league against cruel sports will see a big rise in membership and again shooting will come under the public spotlight with increased pressures to ban it.

 

While some shooters do hunt and visa versa the vast majority of shooters do not hunt. If I wanted to hunt I would chuck my money away on the Countryside Alliance , but I do not so I want my BASC subs to go to protecting shooting , not hunting , fishing , falconry or other field sports.

[wymberley]

While I have some sympathy with the hunting community I think its important that BASC keeps its distance from hunting with dogs and only involves itself with direct shooting \dog issues ( which it seems to be doing) and leaves hunting to the Countryside Alliance. There has been a very noticeable drop in anti shooting feelings in the public as the majority of the public are apathic towards shooting while clearly the majority of them are strongly against hunting . If hunting ever becomes reinstated once more the hunt saboteurs and league against cruel sports will see a big rise in membership and again shooting will come under the public spotlight with increased pressures to ban it.

 

While some shooters do hunt and visa versa the vast majority of shooters do not hunt. If I wanted to hunt I would chuck my money away on the Countryside Alliance , but I do not so I want my BASC subs to go to protecting shooting , not hunting , fishing , falconry or other field sports.

I did, but no longer, have any sympathy for the hunters. I concede their point about kills is valid but in attempting to argue their case they blamed us shooters for scattering foxes which we'd fatally wounded and left for a painful lingering death all over the countryside. It may have helped their case but did us no good whatsoever.

Apart from that slight disagreement, mate, well said.

[David BASC]

I agree, it’s important for BASC to focus and maintain delivery on shooting and directly related activities. That’s the message we are putting out through the articles in Shooting & Conservation.

 

There are other organisations out there to represent other field sports and specific disciplines and if you have empathy of partake in other activities then of course join those you want to.

 

For example:

 

As a shooter I support BASC

As a fisherman I support the Angling Trust

As someone interested in game I Support the GWCT

As someone who loves the English countryside I support the CPRE

 

Add it all up and that’s about £150 a year – could I get it cheaper? Yes I guess I could. But it adds up to under £13 a month, less than I spend on wine and beer, so if I can afford to keep drinking Stella I can keep affording to support my chosen organisations!

 

In my opinion its better to have well funded specialist organisations concentrating on and deploying their resources in a targeted way, rather then a diverse organisation trying to be all things to al men (and women!)

 

At the end of the day it will take hard cash to keep our sport(s) alive, anyone with any common sense can see this.

 

I do think it is interesting to carry articles in Shooting & Conservation from time to time on other field sports, just to add variety if nothing else but BASC and Shooting & Conservation, will remain focussed on shooting.

 

David

[al4x]

I did, but no longer, have any sympathy for the hunters. I concede their point about kills is valid but in attempting to argue their case they blamed us shooters for scattering foxes which we'd fatally wounded and left for a painful lingering death all over the countryside. It may have helped their case but did us no good whatsoever.

Apart from that slight disagreement, mate, well said.

 

 

that is a little strong but sadly can you say it doesn't happen? Hunters can foxes don't get wounded by hounds its a fast death or clean escape. Its one of those things you've got to try it to be able to knock it not many people do both on here.

[wymberley]

that is a little strong but sadly can you say it doesn't happen? Hunters can foxes don't get wounded by hounds its a fast death or clean escape. Its one of those things you've got to try it to be able to knock it not many people do both on here.

al4x, hi.

I conceded the hunters point about clean kills. It does happen; I've been fox shooting for 30 years and in that time I have lost 2 into good old Devon banks and have been unable to find them. However, this does not match up to the frquency that the hunters would have Joe Public (JP) believe. I have attended countless country fairs in my time and have yet to meet a hunter that in any shape or form resembles the heartless murdering swine that the antis would have JP believe they are.

But, strong? Perhaps, but the alternative is to lay down and let everyone walk all over us and our sport. No thanks!

Cheers,

Phil

[Pinkfooty]

While I have some sympathy with the hunting community I think its important that BASC keeps its distance from hunting with dogs and only involves itself with direct shooting \dog issues ( which it seems to be doing) and leaves hunting to the Countryside Alliance. There has been a very noticeable drop in anti shooting feelings in the public as the majority of the public are apathetic towards shooting while clearly the majority of them are strongly against hunting . If hunting ever becomes reinstated once more the hunt saboteurs and league against cruel sports will see a big rise in membership and again shooting will come under the public spotlight with increased pressures to ban it.

 

While some shooters do hunt and visa versa the vast majority of shooters do not hunt. If I wanted to hunt I would chuck my money away on the Countryside Alliance , but I do not so I want my BASC subs to go to protecting shooting , not hunting , fishing , falconry or other field sports.

 

That's a really difficult conundrum, Robert.

 

There were those parties that cynically suggested that if hunting were banned, shooting would follow. That, of course, was utter rubbish. What you say about it being in the interests of shooting to keep its distance from hunting is probably perfectly true at a PR level.

 

I also agree that BASC should concentrate on protecting shooting. There will undoubtedly be serious conflicts of interest between shooting and hunting at times. When those conflicts arise, I expect BASC to very firmly take the shooting side (and I have never been in any doubt that they would.)

 

But there will also be instances where there are common interests and BASC needs to be able to co-operate with other organisations when there are common interests and a bit of solidarity can be beneficial to everyone.

 

As I say, its a bit of a conundrum. But, in general, where it is possible, we should make friends rather than enemies (and, again, I think that BASC does that, although it is not always reciprocated).

Edited September 8, 2010 by Pinkfooty

[Canis]

This thread has got rather off topic from the initial discussion about the magazine to the usual BASC love it or hate it debate.

 

Clearly as shooters we all join the various organisations for two reasons - firstly to gain insurance but secondly to support the sport we love.

 

As a mainly clay shooter I have been a member of the CPSA, I found that as I had no interest in gaining a classification The CPSA had little to offer me personally beyond insurance and their remit was firmly seated in within Clay pigeon to the exclusion of all other shooting types . Consequently, a couple of years back I Joined BASC.

 

While i will freely admit its a couple of years since i read a copy of Pull , but most of it appeared to be write up from competitions that seemed to be little more than "x y and z all scored 97 ex 100 on the first day and in a blustery 25 bird shoot off in the dark y held his nerve to win 25 ex 25 and won a Baikal mouse mat and 25 cartridges"

 

Compared to this the BASC mag has always been more readable and this current issue I was really impressed with. it is starting to appear like a comercial magazine, not just a club members freebie. I like the adverts, BTW - i probably spend more time reading Ads as reading articles when reading a shooting magazine

 

Yes it was somewhat self praising but why not -The BASC needs to tell every bit of good news it can :-

 

" To beat the Anti the shooting fraternity needs to infiltrate the corridors of power " and play the parlimentary spin doctors at their own game particularly since New Labour ejected hereditary peers who by demographic tend to be Huntin' , shootin', Fishin' types from the house of lords in favour of leftie puritans from their own ranks - to do this we need maximum coverage of every bit shooting news.

 

As shooters I think we need to see an end to this sort of infighting between the factions of shooters & shooting organisations in the UK because only by maintaining a united front can we keep the Anti at bay.

 

On the Lead Issue, I bet the BASC policy of apearing to be willing to talk about lead was a way of ensuring that they are actually at the table when a meeting occurs to discuss a ban, rather than being more vociferously anti at that stage and getting excluded from the process - perhaps someone from the BASC headshed could comment

[Canis]

sorry double post!

Edited September 8, 2010 by Canis

[David BASC]

Afternoon from the BASC Head shed

 

Glad you like the new look magazine , it’s a key form of communication with members and we are always trying to make improvements- looks like we have hit the mark!

 

On lead- frankly our policy on lead has been the same for years! We have resisted and resisted restrictions on lead shot, and for over a decade we prevented the restrictions taking hold in the UK.

 

When they came in we fought and won for some to be relaxed, we fought to limit the number of restrictions in Scotland, and won, but when some restrictions stuck BASC got the blame! But that’s what happens sometimes when you take the lead and others sit on the side lines.

 

Please do not think there is an impending ban on lead! This has been very much a case of media hype! There is no impending lead ban, simply a calm assessment of the real situation regarding lead shot, human health and the environment.

 

Of course BASC wants to be at the ‘top table’ when ever anything is discussed or debated about any aspect of shooting- after all that’s part of out remit, to make sure shootings voice is heard, and listened to. Who else would you like to see taking the lead?

 

It’s important that the CA, GWCT and GTA are all on the Lead Ammunition Group as they all have an equal interest in lead ammunition and are all on an equal footing. None are there to be the ‘watchdog’ of the group as one organisation has started to say in their marketing literature

 

The fact that BASC, and indeed now others, are prepared to sit down and disuses the hard issues should not be seen as a sign of weakness, although it has been portrayed as such by some, and I can’t think why

 

This issue is clear- BASC wants lead shot to be left alone – it is as simple and clear as that. We do not want legislation pushed through without good scientific evidence to prove that there needs to be a change.

 

As the situation developed we will, of course, report in Shooting & Conservation but you can keep up to speed with what’s going on at the lead ammunition web site.

 

My best wishes

 

David

[vulpicide]

Glad to see basc are willing to talk to others on the lead issue, you have been badly misinformed if you think the Nwtf did not lobby at EVERY stage to keep terrierwork legal Barrie Wade worked non stop on it as he did in Scotland I gave more evidence and sat on more evidence days in the Scottish parliament than any other individual from the practicioners section but as said before no one was left out we all got what we needed. This opportunity was missed in England because basc dived in feet first and failed to take advantage of ALL the experience accrued during the Scottish debate. I will finish with the fact that I was a Wagbi member before basc and a Bfss member before the Ca and I took exception to John Swift trying to tell me I didnt understand politics.

[David BASC]

I don’t remember terrier work having been discussed to such an extend over the last 6 years, and as I say I suggest you may wish to start another thread rather than keep diverting this one away from the original theme.

 

It seem clear to me that you don’t understand that BASC did not jump in feet first- we liaised with the CA when the Hunting Bill was going through in England & Wales and Scotland on what BASC was going to do to keep terrier work for ‘keepers and others to protect game. BASC also lobbied to ensure that more then two gundogs could be used to flush and retrieve game. Shooting and associated activities is BASC’s remit and that is what we will stick to.

 

The CA was, rightly, taking the lead on the Hunting Bill, and all associated activities. It was right that all organisations who had an interest in the Hunting Bill played their part , and thus kept the CA fully briefed on what they were doing- just like BASC did, so hopefully the CA coordinate effectively

 

If there was a break down in communication at this point please don’t point the finger at BASC!

 

Surely, someone at the NWTF could have picked up the phone and spoken to someone at BASC if they had terrier work for gamekeepers covered? Communication is a two way deal remember.

 

Exactly what you said to John and exactly what he said and exactly what the context was I don’t know, and if you have an issue with him then take it up with him if you want to.

 

Tell me what the strategy is now for terriers in England & Wales form the NWTF- push for wider use and application as per Scotland? Can’t see anything on the web site, apart from, as I have mentioned, relieft that terriers can still be used on fox.

 

I see from you lots of moaning about what BASC did 6 years ago, but not much mention of what further lobbying the NWTF and others have done in the last 6 years to change the status quo in England & Wales. Moaning about what has happened all those years ago will not change anything will it? Lets be a bit more forward thinking.

 

Speaking to a keeper yesterday from a very large estate I asked how the current terrier code affected them – he said it didn’t, its perfectly workable and practical. However, he did say that in his experience there is allot of misunderstanding about the code and what people must do and what people should do...so as I have said before I think there is certainly millage in an article in S&C.

 

David

[Highlander]

BASC magazine free with a £65 a year sub

Shooting Times £2.20 a week i.e. £114.40

Sporting Gun £3.10 a month i.e. £37.20

Sporting Shooter £3.40 a month i.e. £40.80

Sporting Gazette £3.50 a month i.e. £42.00

The Field £4.00 a month i.e. £48

 

BASC mag seems pretty good value to me.

 

Oh and please don’t start an argument about the prices above, I know you can get deals but those are the cover prices.

 

But you might want to start an argument about the value of magazines from the ‘other’ shooting organisations!

[BlaserF3]

Clay Shooting magazine £37 a year.

 

Country Cover Club insurance £19.95 a year.

 

What more do you want?

[anser2]

Fine if you are a clay shooter , not a lot of good if your a pigeon shooter.

[MC]

Clay Shooting magazine £37 a year.

 

Country Cover Club insurance £19.95 a year.

 

What more do you want?

 

 

Also fine as long as you are not interested in putting anything back into your sport. I would hazard a guess that neither clay shooting magazine or the CCC card are doing anything to promote or protect shooting.

 

I am sure they are only in it for the cash.

[BlaserF3]

Also fine as long as you are not interested in putting anything back into your sport. I would hazard a guess that neither clay shooting magazine or the CCC card are doing anything to promote or protect shooting.

 

I am sure they are only in it for the cash.

 

 

http://www.clay-shooting.com/pdfs/Article%20CS%20April.pdf

 

Everyone is in it for the money, other wise they would do it for free.

[al4x]

I have to say the NGO magazine can be quite good, get that second hand not sure about any of the other offerings.

 

As for terriers underground have to say I think the BASC did well to do what it did and realistically to keep them available for much else was going to be difficult. Gamebirds you release and you have to control foxes however nowhere in 4 years of an agriculture degree did I learn anything that suggested you had to use terriers to help stop predation of livestock, that was left to good stock management and fencing where poultry etc are concerned. Obviously the terrier bods want to do everything possible to save their sport but its so closely linked to dodgy dogmen its difficult. When their own code of conduct has to keep saying make sure you have permission to be on the land it does make you wonder just how professional a set up it is. This isn't the thread for a ruck on the subject though

Edited September 10, 2010 by al4x

[Glenshooter]

http://www.clay-shooting.com/pdfs/Article%20CS%20April.pdf

 

Everyone is in it for the money, other wise they would do it for free.

 

Well BASC for one are non-profit making but of course they have to cover their costs and the good work they do in promoting shooting in all the different ways that they do.