MC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Maybe then as Shooting campaigns manager you could tell us what it is exactly you do for shooters? The CA (BFSS) always has been dead set against the shooting of foxes as you want to chase them all over the countryside on horseback. Or are you just a glorified fundraiser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 hows about starting another thread about what people would like from the CA for it to be a viable organisation for shooters. Including if you are going to start helping out with licensing issues etc. Then if people can actually let you introduce yourself then maybe we could point you in what would be useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRTaylor Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 al4x agreed - i think we have gone a bit off topic here. MC - As far as foxes are concenred, I have no issue with them being shot. I shoot, I have fox on my certificate. I don't hunt but I do support the hunts. As for what I do, I'm not hired to advertise or raise funds - in the few months I have been here, I can give you a flavour of what I've been up to: I've been live on the BBC against Brian May over the Exmoor Emperor, taken journalists (including one from the Guradian) out stalking and driven shooting as part of Game -to - Eat, worked on the briefing of the MPs for the firearms debate, sat on the the comittees of the British Shooting Sports Council and Uplands Comittee, I'm currently organising National Shooting Week, written many columns and articles for the Sporting press and responses to the national press and I also answer day to day queries regarding certificates, law, permissions etc... I haven't done any fundraing yet New thread to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 You don't say whether teh CA have an issue with the shooting of foxes though do you? I wait with baited breath for your new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 al4x agreed - i think we have gone a bit off topic here. MC - As far as foxes are concenred, I have no issue with them being shot. I shoot, I have fox on my certificate. I don't hunt but I do support the hunts. As for what I do, I'm not hired to advertise or raise funds - in the few months I have been here, I can give you a flavour of what I've been up to: I've been live on the BBC against Brian May over the Exmoor Emperor, taken journalists (including one from the Guradian) out stalking and driven shooting as part of Game -to - Eat, worked on the briefing of the MPs for the firearms debate, sat on the the comittees of the British Shooting Sports Council and Uplands Comittee, I'm currently organising National Shooting Week, written many columns and articles for the Sporting press and responses to the national press and I also answer day to day queries regarding certificates, law, permissions etc... I haven't done any fundraing yet New thread to follow. Well done. Please forgive me, but are you the only person that the CA employs with a remit primarily aimed at shooting? webber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) On the CA claim form it reads: The cover under the Countryside Alliance policy is designed to provide protection where no other cover is in force. You must check other policies you hold to see if they provide cover for this incident and, if you have cover elsewhere for this incident, you must claim under that insurance. This restriction may well apply to other organisations, but I can assure you no such statement or restriction exists on the BASC policy that is a significant difference between the two and you know it David! The £1000 excess applies only to those who park their cars behind where they are shooting - where it is blindingly obvious dead birds will fall and cause damage. If the CAs telesales campaign is saying or implying there is an overall excess on the BASC policy this is very misleading and frankly very unprofessional. Please e-mail me a copy of the telesales script David to david.ilsley@basc.org.uk so I can review it. If you do not have the authority to send it to me I will drop a line to Rob. It also says on the CA web site that: Please note that neither Countryside Alliance nor Countryside Alliance Insurance Services Limited are able to provide personal advice to prospective or actual members concerning the suitability or adequacy of the insurance member benefits So why are you trying to give personal advice on the CA or indeed the BASC liability policy- are you aware of the FSA rules on doing this? If, as you say, its the CAs intention to work closely with BASC why is your advertising campaign only targeting BASC and BASC memberships on price? Why is you telesales campaign evidently targeting BASC? Its not down to BASC to promote what the CA say they did or did not do with the HASC thats up to you! Yes people will make up their own mind of which organisation can and will deliver for shooting, based not least of all on what that organisation delivers for shooting and for its members. The CA package and the BASC package are completely different and you know as well as I do David that BASC delivers far more membership services and support for shooters than the CA can, because we have the resources so to do, so please do not try and kid me or anyone else that you can. The CAs expertise rests in other areas not least of all Hunting BASC spends all its money on shooting, with an emphasis on live quarry shooting. Out of interest, what percentage of the CAs income is spent on shooting? David Edited February 15, 2011 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sorry to post an opinion on this but it seems most are in one camp or the other and whilst I am a BASC member, I only have a loyalty to shooting. As far as I can see, despite what is said, insurance still clouds this issue of which organisation to join. Why, given each and every organisation supports shooting IN SOME MEASURE, dont we get a single insurance offer, the same from each orgainsation? This could then be negotiated on our collective behalfs by the joint organisations and have particular policies for shooters in all their diciplines, gamekeepers etc. Is it too much to ask for the shooters/gamekeepers to be put first, rather than the financial health of each organisation? It would be nice to know if selling insurance is a 'philanthropic act' on behalf of these organisations, or if they receive commission or other financial consideration from their preferred insurers. If the insurance question was dealt with in this way, by having a 'standard' policy, no-one would have to read the small print and we would all know who covered what to what degree and any exclusions/excesses etc. It would then be up to each of us to choose the organisation which we felt met our objectives for our sport at a price we could afford. I think BASC charge too much, I dont think CA have the backup, the NGO are very specific. If insurance were taken out of the equation, such would be the only judgement necessary. So much entrenched opinion casts no light on where we, the punters, want our organisations to go. A good point though two of the reps are at least responding - lets hope you both are up for a bit of listening. The CA is at least asking for a 'warts and all' appraisal of shooting members. Will BASC and the NGO do the same? Peace and love to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Hi Kes, Feedback is very important to all associations, or at least it jolly well should be!. Every BASC member is asked, with their renewal letter, to feedback any thoughts or comments about BASC, the services we offer etc. Over and above this we roll out formal membership research on a regular basis. Best wishes David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) this stands to do as much for your blood pressure david as "that" shooting times advert with half price membership Edited February 15, 2011 by al4x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darren m Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 this is a long topic and gets a bit confusing as to who insures you for what exactley if say in my circumstances i wanted insurance for pigeon shooting rough shooting vermin control clay shooting air rifle target and vermin control beating odd beaters day and odd bit of wildfowling who would i go with thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sorry to post an opinion on this but it seems most are in one camp or the other and whilst I am a BASC member, I only have a loyalty to shooting. As far as I can see, despite what is said, insurance still clouds this issue of which organisation to join. Why, given each and every organisation supports shooting IN SOME MEASURE, dont we get a single insurance offer, the same from each orgainsation? This could then be negotiated on our collective behalfs by the joint organisations and have particular policies for shooters in all their diciplines, gamekeepers etc. Is it too much to ask for the shooters/gamekeepers to be put first, rather than the financial health of each organisation? It would be nice to know if selling insurance is a 'philanthropic act' on behalf of these organisations, or if they receive commission or other financial consideration from their preferred insurers. If the insurance question was dealt with in this way, by having a 'standard' policy, no-one would have to read the small print and we would all know who covered what to what degree and any exclusions/excesses etc. It would then be up to each of us to choose the organisation which we felt met our objectives for our sport at a price we could afford. I think BASC charge too much, I dont think CA have the backup, the NGO are very specific. If insurance were taken out of the equation, such would be the only judgement necessary. So much entrenched opinion casts no light on where we, the punters, want our organisations to go. A good point though two of the reps are at least responding - lets hope you both are up for a bit of listening. The CA is at least asking for a 'warts and all' appraisal of shooting members. Will BASC and the NGO do the same? Peace and love to all. Kes, I pay less for BASC membership a year than the CA charge, how can you say they charge too much? Have you never had help from them? BASC are second to none when it comes to help and support, but you pay your money and take your choice and it won't be until you need them you will find out how good they are. Why take a chance with anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 this is a long topic and gets a bit confusing as to who insures you for what exactley if say in my circumstances i wanted insurance for pigeon shooting rough shooting vermin control clay shooting air rifle target and vermin control beating odd beaters day and odd bit of wildfowling who would i go with thanks You would be a fool to go with anyone other than BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The NGO are specific but they are half the price, they are probably the only viable alternative to BASC at the moment as they do seem to help with issues you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 BUT (and sorry to keep on about this) check the policy wording for any excess that applies or any other restrictions on payout on the policy for a shooting accident. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 David, I have never read the BASC policy as I feel there is no need to. However are there any exclusions that we as shooters should be aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The NGO are specific but they are half the price, they are probably the only viable alternative to BASC at the moment as they do seem to help with issues you have. But they surely don't have anything close to the resources that BASC have. How many full time (or equivalent) people do they have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 David, I have never read the BASC policy as I feel there is no need to. However are there any exclusions that we as shooters should be aware of? yes related to shoot vehicles and property, its in the key facts. Though David keeps saying common sense applies but if you ***** a bird and it flies into a vehicle of a fellow shooter on a driven day you will have a grand excess to cough up. I nearly had one go through a farmhouse window this year, hit hard and just glided 200 yards or so missed the side of the house by a couple of feet but was picked dead would have been interesting whether it would have been covered or not. The small print says no David implies yes so who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) The big one is don't park your car right next to where you are shooting -if you do and you drop a bird onto your cars we will not pay the first £1000. It got daft with the number of claims, mailing from game shooters in particular, who were literally driving up to their pegs, getting out, shooting a drive and then turning round to see their cars covered in dents and feathers! We introduced this specific excess as a form of risk management and its worked many fewer cards being damaged in this way! We do not cover you if you are shooting by way of business We do not insure vehicles subject to compulsory motor insurance We dont cover you own property of property in your custardy and control i.e. you cant sue yourself for damages! Apart from that there are no other significant exclusions, or any other excess on the liability policy. David Edited February 15, 2011 by David BASC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 That is an excess though not an exclusion. It doesn't say that they won't pay, it just means you have to find the first 1K. I don't think I have ever had an insurance policy that doesn't have an excess. I really don't see why your pricked pheasant incident wouldn't have been covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 MC you are spot on, the pricked pheasant incident would be covered, we get quite a few of these each year. The record is held by one that 'flew on' for about half a mile and went through the side window of a vicar’s wife’s car as she drove along a lane! It’s only when, in the sole case of card, you have put your cars in a position where it is blindingly obvious you are going to drop birds on them that we would apply the excess. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 MC, Thanks for your point of view but why should I go with BASC again? With respect i'm sure you have had good service, I have had no cause to use their services yet. I'm just one of those who pays year in year out and never sees anything other than the renewal request. I look at BASC's chief exec and read his messages and think 'oh God'. David earns his corn and is commited, I NEVER see anyone else. The BASC magazine is too self publicising for me to read and I keep thinking why isn't it like Modern Gamekeeping - the best publication for an age on shooting. Aside from BASC insurance (which, together with membership is too expensive IMHO), why else be with BASC? My main point is therefore, make insurance a policy with, say NFU, that we are all recommended to take up because it would be a fair price, negotiated by BASC and CA and NGO and be THE ONLY SPECIALIST ONE AVAILABLE. We, as shooters, could then be confident in its coverage and cost and recommend all who shoot get insured, for the good of the sport. We could do this because we would know its been organised on as favourable conditions for the shooting community as can be negotiated, and is there ONLY for our interests, and not to part fund otherwise expensive organisations. This would leave us to judge the representative organisations on merit alone. Take Webbers point another way, if CA can do more with one man focussed on shooting than ten by BASC or NGO then thats your issue, and you go with CA. Conversely if BASC did more and so on. Insurance is simply a distraction which all of these organistaions should jointly negotiate for all shooters/gamekeepers etc for the good of the sport and not for their own interests. I hope they are listening, as joint lobbying and putting members first is whats needed, NOT publicing squabbles. No criticism intended to anyone but 'how do we all win' should be the focus not 'how do we all lose' - by fighting amongst like minded organisations. Cheers all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 If I wanted a brain surgeon I wouldn't get the Yellow Pages out and plumb for the cheapest. I have found that in life you invariably get what you pay for. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 As you say. Let’s take insurance out of the equation. Last year BASC responded to 50 statutory consultations issued by government organisations, all of which had an impact on shooting- how many did the CA or NGO reply to? Last year over 5000 calls to our firearms team asking for and were given expert help and advice on firearms licensing issues – no one else could offer this level of help. Just a couple of example, yes we cost £0 or so more than the others, and we deliver much more – yes we report it in the mag – surely members should know what we are doing with their money? But pleased to hear what more we should do or how we should get the message of want we do across to you, the members. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Hi Kes, Feedback is very important to all associations, or at least it jolly well should be!. Every BASC member is asked, with their renewal letter, to feedback any thoughts or comments about BASC, the services we offer etc. Over and above this we roll out formal membership research on a regular basis. Best wishes David David, Hi. Your efforts on this thread deserve a personal reply so here it is. Apart from insurance which I have posted on, I am concerned that BASC may not proactively get the opinions of the members who have little or no other contact with BASC than the renewal. OK there's a response form in there but like postcard questionaires, you tend to get a skewed minority (very minor) responding. I obviously dont know what formal membership research entails but one thing we all need at the moment is value for money so maybe that should feature explicitly. I dont mean the obvious 'would you like to pay less' but a dual approach of , say, are you aware that BASC does x,y,z, and which of these services would you regard as less important etc. It would therefore suggest that if BASC, dont like my idea of a single insurer then you could tailor your membership, with its associated insurance cost to 1.a centrefire rifle member who shoots game, 2.a terrier man who hunts alone or with another, etc I suggest this because someone who shoots an air rifle for vermin will not always be as much of a liability as a game shooter who shoots centrefire at foxes for the rest of his sport. Making membership a bit more person and sport specific (and hopefully threfore cheaper for some ), might encourage a lot more membership from people who feel less of a logical BASC member currently. This would also increase the clout BASC could leverage. Just a few thoughts P.S. If BASC and CA, NGO etc dont stop 'one upping' on insurance, we will soon need more Meerkats !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Kes it won't get cheaper thats fact, the insurance part of membership is a tenner so there is no saving there that would make a big difference. The price is put at a level that is as much as most people are perceived to be prepared to pay. Thats so the organisation can expand and do what it does and employ who it does. I have to say ignore the CA as they aren't a viable alternative and keep this thread about the NGO as from what I've heard from people who are members they are pretty happy with the all round package. That includes keepers but certainly isn't only keepers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts