al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Hi A14x, you`re up early! Presumably you are lighting todays bonfire. I`m sure you know this alrady but a sure way to make huge amounts of smoke is to burn lots of green timber and leaves. We look forward to peering at you through the murk whilst we await the arrival of CA Dave who will doubtless put all our fears to rest with a clear statement of the direction the CA plans to take. possibly, I have to say i'm actually a BASC member though just believe sometimes people need to be given a chance to explain what they have to offer rather than the BASC supporters and marketing department just shooting them straight down. This hasn't been constructive for Dave2 at all so really why should he bother it makes him and his organisation look worse having a public spat. If you have a look at things yes the BASC is set up to have a department for this that and the other forms of shooting but how many have the same staff member on the roll call, its more than a couple. I don't buy this the CA is purely anti shooting as it simply isn't as CharlieT has said and never has been. yes at one point they claimed hunting never wounded any foxes unlike shooting and is that possible to argue They weren't calling for shooting to stop just putting the point across for hunting. The way the BASC mob go you'd think they were the anti-christ when actually they have a similar sized organisation which does lobby government well as far as hunting is concerned and I am fairly sure would turn its hand to shooting if it came under the same pressure and that is simply because an awful lot of its members hunt and shoot and support rural sports. You've tried de railing it with wildfowling I guess we could try the same with deer stalking with the BDS being a force there and this that and the other. One things for sure we are better having different organisations as if you don't agree with one you can move your allegiance. One thing is certain through the more people I meet through shooting the more you appreciate that not always everyone agrees with the way forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRTaylor Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 This has turned out to be in interesting and frank discussion which seems to have taken its own course. Nevertheless, I do actually value everything that has been said, positive and negative. I seem to have been slated for not answering questions, but I every question that has been posed has been answered surely? If there is anything outstanding, please say... David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 You have never answered mine about lead shot, but then I didn't expect you to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I would not say that this thread has not been constructive for DavidT, after all as we know you ask a question on here (or any other forum) and you will get a range of views! And just like any time an association is discussed we get strong supporters for all sides voicing their opinion. Let’s face it; neither BASC nor the CA will ever have universal appeal! I suspect David T has got the message – which frankly he was pretty well aware of if you read the opening post- that he recognises there are concerns from the some parts of the shooting fraternity as to what the CA’s intentions are as they have certainly ramped up their marketing almost exclusively in shooting sector in the past 12 months. David ,I hope, you can understand that there are many out there who mainly shoot , these people are simply expressing their concern that they don’t want to see the association they support attacked in any way by another organisation. I know you say that this was not the intention of the campaign last year, but it has certainly been seen by many as just that. But let’s learn and move on, no point at all harping on about the past is there? As I have said before, I see the strength of the CA being its board approach, and would certainly like to see it promoting itself more widely across all the fieldsports – hunting, fishing and shooting as well as in the rural lifestyle titles to recruit from the rural and suburban sector, who directly benefit from the CA’s lobbying work in these areas. I think if we saw more of this broad church marketing of the CA it would belay some of the concerns expressed by some in the shooting community that the CA is just targeting shooters to prop up their funding of the hunting appeal! The CA’s rural manifesto – which As far as I know ‘sets out the CA’s stall’ as it were and I think shooting and fishing should be given equal billing on the manifest with hunting in the rural pursuits section. As it says on the CA web site: The Alliance is politically non-aligned and acts in partnership and cooperation with many other rural groups including BASC, The CLA, FUW, GCT and NFU. Let’s work on the cooperation, I think that’s what shooters want to see- cooperation not conflict and competition. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 possibly, I have to say i'm actually a BASC member though just believe sometimes people need to be given a chance to explain what they have to offer rather than the BASC supporters and marketing department just shooting them straight down. This hasn't been constructive for Dave2 at all so really why should he bother it makes him and his organisation look worse having a public spat. If you have a look at things yes the BASC is set up to have a department for this that and the other forms of shooting but how many have the same staff member on the roll call, its more than a couple. I don't buy this the CA is purely anti shooting as it simply isn't as CharlieT has said and never has been. yes at one point they claimed hunting never wounded any foxes unlike shooting and is that possible to argue They weren't calling for shooting to stop just putting the point across for hunting. The way the BASC mob go you'd think they were the anti-christ when actually they have a similar sized organisation which does lobby government well as far as hunting is concerned and I am fairly sure would turn its hand to shooting if it came under the same pressure and that is simply because an awful lot of its members hunt and shoot and support rural sports. You've tried de railing it with wildfowling I guess we could try the same with deer stalking with the BDS being a force there and this that and the other. One things for sure we are better having different organisations as if you don't agree with one you can move your allegiance. One thing is certain through the more people I meet through shooting the more you appreciate that not always everyone agrees with the way forward It really beggars belief that an organisation that is, or certainly in the recent past has been anti-shooting as you have indicated above, in addition to my own interactions where 100% of the members that I know regard foxes as for horsehunting only, is now trying to poach shooters to join a non shooting organisation. Non shooting in my view because - 1) as you say they accused us fox shooters as being cruel 2) inherently against reducing foxes by shooting so that the hunt would have less to 'hunt' 3) have negligible ability to support shooters in the way that we expect and BASC are the Gold standard here What has been highlighted in these 2 threads is the complete lack of resources for shooters that CA have. I genuinely never expected them to only have only one person dedicated to shooting and even that position, was only created in the last few months. And this is completely non personal as I have absolutely no bone to pick with David CA. Hence my amazement that they are trying to protray themselves as a shooting organisation with membership costs similar to BSAC, who time after time have proved themselves very capable of supporting shooters with their 110 staff. Unbelievable, IMHO. Now, if I was an enthusiastic hunt follower, things would be different and it certainly would be CA every time. And I think their media campaigns on hunting (and countryside issues) are actually very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Dave T, here are a couple of questions that have slipped under the radar, both from my post no.76. In respect of the proposed wildfowling committee, or any other democratic committee which gives rank and file members access to the policy making process, "Regarding the cost of running a democratic committee system. How much have you provisionally set aside to run it?" And again in respect of the wildfowling committee given the hard wired tie-ins with BASC "How does it sit with senior CA management to know that an expensive and vociferous committee is entirely composed of BASC members. How can the CA make this work?" I`m just looking back through my posts in case there are any more that have been inadvertantly missed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) David CA you have also not answered my question on what percentage of the CAs revenue is spent on protecting shooting ? How does this compare with the amount you invest in saving rural post offices , fight against the closure of rural schools. Here is a list from your campaigns section headlines in your website. Reducing fuel poverty Rural services Lead shot Farming Rural housing Land management and fly tipping More access to the countryside Renewable energy Moor lands and grouse Planning policy concerning flood risks Closure of rural schools Hunting Angling Local democracy Education in the rural life Food labelling Encouraging Business innovation and enterprise Rural crime VAT Rural employment Reducing urban influence on the countryside Devolving power from Whitehall Increasing training and resources to Parrish council officers Animal rights Nature Conservation The role of food in Tourism Local Foods Hunting Act Self regulation in shooting Green Energy Rural tourism Cutting business Red tape Protecting Shooting Many worthy causes there no doubt , but what percentage of a membership fee goes into supporting shooting and how much of the remainder is spent on other rural issues. I suspect very, very little is spent on shooting. Its time for a little honesty here , from the above list your heart in the right place in protecting the rural way of life , but shooting clearly is just a small part of your aims and as such only you can only afford to put very limited resources into it , unlike a shooting targeted organisation such as BASC or NGA. Edited February 18, 2011 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think David2 can clarify they have never been anti shooting, they stated foxes don't leave injured foxes shooting can do that is fact not fiction. Anyway this is getting a tad boring if you've not been a member then the idea CA called you is fiction. As for all members being no shooting come on you really are pushing the boundaries of reality a little far Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Would you not say that using a statement like shooting foxes is cruel is anti shooting? Because I sure as hell would. Obviously not as cruel as chasing them to exhaustion and then letting dogs tear them apart. Or is that anti hunting? You see it works both ways doesn't it? I am in no way anti hunting, I don't actively support a hunt, and I don't hunt. But I do respect other peoples right to do so if they wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 This debate has proved what has been said on PW numerous times previously. If you want to support and protect shooting you should be a BASC member. If you follow the hunt, or partake in countryside activities that the CA have traditionally supported you should be a CA member. If you do both, the only true way to properly support and protect your sports is to join both organisations. Clearly the CA are not best equipped to fully support the shooter in the fashion of BASC, and several PW members have gone to great pains to point this out. The CA are not unique when this comparison is made. You pays your money, and make your choice, but when full price membership costs are compared the difference is around the cost of 25 decent cartridges. Therefore, for me, as primarily a shooter, its BASC, who can offer me far more bang for my buck. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenshooter Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I think David2 can clarify they have never been anti shooting, they stated foxes don't leave injured foxes shooting can do that is fact not fiction. Anyway this is getting a tad boring if you've not been a member then the idea CA called you is fiction. As for all members being no shooting come on you really are pushing the boundaries of reality a little far You're mis-quoting me on 2 points. I have been a member, but left them largely due to the attitude of a member on the CA stand who made it very clear that he, and I assumed the CA, stongly disapproved of shooting foxes. And my issue was not that they phoned me (as an ex-member). It was the comments re BASC that I regarded as unwarranted. ALL the members of the CA that I know personally. 100% of them - and for clarity that's about 7 or 8. Every SINGLE one that I know, do not want me to shoot foxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) You're mis-quoting me on 2 points. I have been a member, but left them largely due to the attitude of a member on the CA stand who made it very clear that he, and I assumed the CA, stongly disapproved of shooting foxes. And my issue was not that they phoned me (as an ex-member). It was the comments re BASC that I regarded as unwarranted. ALL the members of the CA that I know personally. 100% of them - and for clarity that's about 7 or 8. Every SINGLE one that I know, do not want me to shoot foxes. Have you ever asked them why they do not want you to shoot foxes? I doubt it is so they have more to "hunt". It is so it can be demonstrated that the only effective way of controlling foxes is chasing them on horseback. When every town, city or village is overun with urban foxes they can use that as a lever to a repeal. How ever despite Al4x's claims shooting IS the only effective way of controlling foxes, and it will always remain so. I have never been a member of the CA, I was a member of BFSS for several years as a keen coarse angler but they have lost the way on that as well. Edited February 18, 2011 by MC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 How ever despite Al4x's claims shooting IS the only effective way of controlling foxes, and it will always remain so. it depends where in the country you are, I was on a shoot in Devon where they are pretty pro hunting and they held the hunt in high regards as particularly useful due to the terrain. With small hilly fields that are too wet to drive on and too small to cover a decent area they are very hard to lamp and the local hunt was far more effective, they have their place. Here they just play at fox hunting but in certain areas they are useful. As for all this anti shooting malarky for how many years now have a fair few packs relied on driving foxes to waiting guns? and that is super effective aren't there a fair number of people on here that have shot on that kind of day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRTaylor Posted February 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 MC - the only question I can see of yours is: If the evidence is there to show that lead shot in the water causes harm to wildfowl why is it that you can shoot pheasants with lead which fly over a pond? As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s the choice of legislation creates this situation, not evidence or common sense. If this is the question you were referring to, I apologise, I thought it was rhetorical. Mudpatten As I said, we have no ambition to replace the BASC structure. The CA currently has a National network of county committees for this very purpose. Many committee members are BASC members, and I know of at least one BASC employee who sits on a county committee. If you are a member and wish to join your local committee, I will be happy to provide you with the Chairman’s details. I believe this addresses both points. Anser2 I plan to work on your suggestion by producing these figures and making them available. It is a question that I have been asked before, and I think it it’s only fair for the shooting members of the Alliance to know these figures. However, as you can probably appreciate, I don’t have all of these numbers directly to hand. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyffyllog Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I would not say that this thread has not been constructive for DavidT, after all as we know you ask a question on here (or any other forum) and you will get a range of views! And just like any time an association is discussed we get strong supporters for all sides voicing their opinion. Let’s face it; neither BASC nor the CA will ever have universal appeal! I suspect David T has got the message – which frankly he was pretty well aware of if you read the opening post- that he recognises there are concerns from the some parts of the shooting fraternity as to what the CA’s intentions are as they have certainly ramped up their marketing almost exclusively in shooting sector in the past 12 months. David ,I hope, you can understand that there are many out there who mainly shoot , these people are simply expressing their concern that they don’t want to see the association they support attacked in any way by another organisation. I know you say that this was not the intention of the campaign last year, but it has certainly been seen by many as just that. But let’s learn and move on, no point at all harping on about the past is there? As I have said before, I see the strength of the CA being its board approach, and would certainly like to see it promoting itself more widely across all the fieldsports – hunting, fishing and shooting as well as in the rural lifestyle titles to recruit from the rural and suburban sector, who directly benefit from the CA’s lobbying work in these areas. I think if we saw more of this broad church marketing of the CA it would belay some of the concerns expressed by some in the shooting community that the CA is just targeting shooters to prop up their funding of the hunting appeal! The CA’s rural manifesto – which As far as I know ‘sets out the CA’s stall’ as it were and I think shooting and fishing should be given equal billing on the manifest with hunting in the rural pursuits section. As it says on the CA web site: The Alliance is politically non-aligned and acts in partnership and cooperation with many other rural groups including BASC, The CLA, FUW, GCT and NFU. Let’s work on the cooperation, I think that’s what shooters want to see- cooperation not conflict and competition. David David BASC , that is a fair reflection, and, I wish to agree that looking into the future is what is important here. Just like the old adge, Family and Friends, you can choose your friends. I also support debate about any issue, it is healthy. Deep breaths are sometimes needed though, responding and not reacting is what is often required. Webber has the right idea in his last post a well thought out level headed reply to the thread. Now on a lighter note, I think that as we have a 'David BASC' , DRTaylor should seek the permission of the adminitrators and become 'DavidCA' don't you agree? level playing field ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 David, My question went around the houses a little but it was basically questioning your statement that there is no evidence regarding lead shot and the damage it causes so you (CA) aren't doing anything about it. My suggestion was that there is pages upon pages of evidence which is what the original wildfowling ban was brought in using. Do you honestly believe that organisations like the RSPB are sitting back on their laurels? Because I sure as hell don't. They will stop at nothing to get lead shot banned. And once they have done that they will start on steel as so many shooters are slating it saying it is no good. There was a letter in this weeks shooting times saying exactly that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 that evidence revolves round filter feeders picking lead up from mud though MC a slightly different issue. Making the current law more like scotlands would sort that one if its an issue. as all has gone quiet I'd suggest it isn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I never thought you were that naive Al4x, So there is no evidence that raptors pick up shot from eating left game or vermin? I think the peregrine fund may disagree with you. Also noone in the world have ever died from lead poisoning either? Maybe in your blinkered little world lead isn't classed as a toxin and they still sell 4 star at the pumps and paint and solder still contain lead as well. The evidence is overwhelming to anyone who can be bothered to read it. And to not be doing anything is daft to put it mildly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 the peregrine fund though have research from the USA and ok it can sort of be applied here we do hunt in different ways and also have different birds of prey. lead in paint got banned rightly as it was prooved to be harmful as did petrol but you'll find the lead wasn't held in small lumps it was in an easy to absorb format hence the issue. So far there is no evidence lead shot is harmful to human health, the evidence with ducks is valid when ground in the crops with grit it does produce small enough particles to cause poisoning. Thats why all the official lines are that they are keeping an eye on the evidence, its highly unlikely there will be a link as no shooter has ever made the news as being poisoned as far as I know and indeed the human testing didn't show a harmful rise even in people who lived on game. What would you like to be done? more human testing? or testing on wild birds? it probably will be banned eventually but won't be down to proper scientific reasons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 No you are right, it will be banned to apathy and the fact that the shooting organisations had their heads in the sand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) With reference to lead shot , there several of the same species of raptors in the USA such as peregrines and almost all the others are very closely related to UK species , i.e. marsh hawks and very closely related to hen harriers , Coopers hawks to sparrowhawks and red tailed hawks to common buzzards. Basically they genetically related and are filling the same ecological niche and running the same risks both sides of the Atlantic. I posted up a number of US papers on this forum last year showing birds as diverse as pigeons and gamebirds all pick up lead shot and can die from lead poisoning. Its just that few shooters want to read them rather than preferring to stick their heads in the sand and claim lead does no harm without the evidence to back it up. BASC is already starting to look at the problem with experiments on lead contamination of soils going on at Marford Mill or so I have read. I fear the shooting community will not like the results. Its no good not having the information to hand when the crunch time approaches when your opposition has already done the work. The powers to be will only have one , possibly bias set of data to work with. We need to get our own experiments done. The WWT did the research into lead poisoning fairly quickly and produced unshakable results that ingested lead shot did kill ducks. A project on similar grounds with game birds , song birds and other land species could prove or disprove the problem quite quickly too. Then we need to see if its a problem in the open countryside. The main difference between the USA and UK is that lead density in the open countryside is likely to be a lot lower in the USA than in the UK as they do not have the driven game drives we have where lead pellets are deposited in the same area year after year. David CA thanks for looking into what the CA spend their money on and I look forward to seeing the results, but to be creditable it must be a straight forward honest answer rather than the underhand methods some of your work mates are doing in touting for members from BASC. You say the CA is not targeting BASC members. You say this is not happening , but if this is true why are CA staff ringing up BASC members at home and offering so called cheaper deals and rubbishing the BASC insurance ? BASC publish in their yearly accounts where the money is being spent , wages , research , politics and so on. I am surprised this data is not ready to hand in the CA. Edited February 18, 2011 by anser2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 You say the CA is not targeting BASC members. You say this is not happening , but if this is true why are CA staff ringing up BASC members at home and offering so called cheaper deals and rubbishing the BASC insurance ? can't comment on the latter but the only place they could get the details is of their own lapsed members, so really not just targeting BASC members that sadly is business. Its a bit like getting the hump at Orange for calling you when you've swapped to vodafone. Its the same principle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Dave CA, many thanks for your answer although I`m bound to say that you have rather imperiously brushed aside the detail ending with ".... I believe this addresses both points." when actually it does not. I understand that you have no ambition to replicate the BASC structure for accessing the grass roots opinions of members, why would you want to find out what members really want or indulge in democracy which is so damnably expensive? I conclude that there is in fact no money available for the running of such committees and that democracy figures low on the CA`s list of priorities. You willfully do not want to know what your members desire since it would hamper your ability to make up policy as you go. Plainly, the CA intends to ditch wildfowling and I assume that my chairmanship of that committee will not now come to pass. Your comments about the Regional Committees are rather confusing. Many years ago I sat on a then BFSS regional committee whose entire focus was directed towards local events and fund raising. Indeed that appears to still be the case with the current job description for a regional officer including the undertaking to raise £80,000 per annum. And so it should. But the fact is that the regional committees are not intended to be a conduit for members to influence policy or have their say in the CA`s direction other than through the leaden procedure of lobbying the elected Board. There are no Advisory Committees because the CA hierarchy does not want to hear what its members have to say. Why would any one want to sign up to an association where your money speaks but no one is interested in what you have to say? (David, Don`t try to answer that one! No. Go on, have a stab at it!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 I have sat and read the posts as they have come along on this thread. I would like to make the following observations. Wecome D R Taylor to this forum, I hope you make a success of your new job, I certainly hope that you do a better job than your predecessors who I had the misfortune of working with.You ask how you may help? Easy promote shooting. What is the income from your shooting appeals /shooting badge sales etc., Where does the money go? Certainly not back into shooting methinks.I have offered on four occassions to put on a clayshoot for the CA totally free of charge with ALL monies going to the CA. They have never taken up this offer. I have offered to run clayshoots for BASC and Young shots days, a Game shoot for youngsters on behalf of BASC, how much interest have BASC shown? BASC have advertised, promoted and assisted in any and every way possible. David BASC is in a very responsible post at BASC and has more than enough on his plate without getting into bunfights on this forum. The fact that he does is a measure of the man. Five and many times Seven days a week at BASC HQ, but still when he has time off you will find him beating with his daughter on a Game shoot (not standing on a peg kissing Mr Swifts rear). BEATING getting muddy, sweaty and dirty tramping the coverts and fields putting birds up over you and I. If you want to organise a clayshoot for friends or have a shooting query, if you 'phone David up he is only too happy to help, it may not be his subject but he will refer you someone who can help. Finally DavidBASC you do not need to worry about the CA (which I am sure you don't) the sooner we all work together for the good of shooting the better. David Taylor, Actions speak louder than Words. I with Trevor Scott ran Young Shots days for the BFSS before BASC even thought about it. What happened? The CA were too interested and budget mad on Hunting, your loss was BASC's gain. Yours is an uphill struggle, but I will be there for you if you need a pull up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulpicide Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Graham Downing gave me a great deal of help when I was a CA member the man is a wizard. As for shooting foxes I work terriers to Fox and am obliged by law to shoot them.I was a Wagbi member and BFSS member but I live in Scotland and the organisation I am in is SACs if you want to know what the CA did for terrierwork see me at Shugborough or wait till I write my book. Apparentlly we all have one in us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.