al4x Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 This seems to be a very logical response and as a member of the Countryside Alliance, I am pleased with it. I would also add that as a member of the BASC, I believe their stance is identical. I am not a member of the CPSA, so I do not know (or care) what their response is. indeed there is the idea of throwing money at something that isn't an issue that would be pointless. Isn't there some EU funded food research already done that indicates it isn't an issue? anyway back to the real point of the thread what could the CA do for shooters, obviously helping out members with firearms issues is a big one. Lobbying for a change to the current system where FEO's are god and make the rules up as they go along rather than work to any form of national policy would be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Mr.Taylor, Most of us will know that BASC evolved from WAGBI, the wildfowlers association, and that wildfowlers still play a significant part in BASC. The CA apparently wants to make itself more attractive to shooters including, I presume, wildfowlers. What services can the CA currently offer to the fowling community bearing in mind that BASC currently has a large network of affiliate clubs,representation on the JTG, an agreement with the Crown Commissioners, a full time wildfowling officer, a land purchase fund,dedicated land agency department and a research department which currently contains the countries foremost expert on both lead and non toxic shot? Who provides CA in-house expertise on fowling or, alternatively,from whom does the CA "buy in" advice on wildfowling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anser2 Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 The CA has long been linked with hunting rather than shooting. To give a clearer idea of what you realy stand for how about publishing tables of what percentage of finances , time and effort are the CA spending on various field sports they claim to support. After all there is little point of hunters joining if the majority of effort is going into protecting shooting and visa versa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Al4x Yes you correct, there was the EFSA report that showed exposure to lead from game was very low and that there were many more foods that gave am uch higher exposure to lead. At the CLA last year Mark Avery from the RSPB said in the LAG open forum that it was clear to him that there was no threat to human health from lead shot in game. More details n this report and an analysis of this report is on the LAG web site. As to the question on this thread, I would like to know what the CA is going to do to work along side the other shooting organisations. Specifically Does the CA accept that the shooting organisations are better equipped and resourced to look after their particular aspect of shooting than the CA is? Does the CA accept that it would be better for them and for shooting, to support the lobbying of the other organisations, taking a lead from the expert in these other organisations rather than ploughing their own furrow? Will the CA maintain its blatant attack on BASC memberships to try and recruit members to the CA, and if so why target BASC? What does this do to help shooting? Thank you David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 David, I think the BASC should have discussions on the points you have raised direct with the CA. I don't think that open warfare on an Internet Forum between two organisations vying for memberships, will do anyone any good service. Everyone respects your position on here and hopefully we can extend the same courtesy to representatives of other organisations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 DrTaylor, Maybe you can answer this question without squirming out of the real answer. If lead shot is such a low risk why was it banned for shooting wildfowl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakerboy Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 David, I think the BASC should have discussions on the points you have raised direct with the CA. I don't think that open warfare on an Internet Forum between two organisations vying for memberships, will do anyone any good service. Everyone respects your position on here and hopefully we can extend the same courtesy to representatives of other organisations. point well made Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyn2233 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 DrTaylor, Maybe you can answer this question without squirming out of the real answer. If lead shot is such a low risk why was it banned for shooting wildfowl? ring them up and find out and stop asking the same old ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 The whole point of this thread was to ask the CA what they do for shooters. I as a shooter am asking a question that I haven't had a satisfactory answer to yet. I apologise if I am boring you, but then noone asked you to chip in. DrTaylor asked us to ask questions and that is what I am doing. And by him not answering, or not being able to is just highlighting the fact that they cannot offer shooters the same service as BASC yet they are sniping at their membership list offering a better service and a few quid off. To me the service BASC give is worth more the half a dozen boxes or cartridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 The whole point of this thread was to ask the CA what they do for shooters. No it wasn't it was to suggest what the CA could do for shooters. We know the current offering isn't much but they are looking to expand their shooting side so there is an opportunity to shape the shooting side into something useful. Its one thing to go off at a tangent and say they currently don't offer much but that is pretty pointless as no one is arguing the fact. We have their new rep about who has jumped in at the deep end, answered pretty well DavidBASC's slating of their insurance and come up fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyn2233 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 there all the same money money money but dont you think you should wait for a reply by the way i can have my say just like you mate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Well no they aren't all the same, one provides an excellent service and one is going to providing they get enough money. You are more than welcome to your say, as am I. How long do you have to wait for a reply? Long enough for them to look it up or ask I presume. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 No it wasn't it was to suggest what the CA could do for shooters. We know the current offering isn't much but they are looking to expand their shooting side so there is an opportunity to shape the shooting side into something useful. Its one thing to go off at a tangent and say they currently don't offer much but that is pretty pointless as no one is arguing the fact. We have their new rep about who has jumped in at the deep end, answered pretty well DavidBASC's slating of their insurance and come up fighting. Al4x, The CA have been running a campaign for shooting for years, so it should be what do they do for shooters. Parting with your money to join an organisation who "COULD" do something for shooters is like voting for the green party to run the country. Sheer madness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 yet they are sniping at their membership list offering a better service and a few quid off. actually they are going through their own lapsed members list not the BASC membership list its just some have moved to BASC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Good morning , Trust me I have written to the CA before asking questions and not got a reply so I won't hold my breath, but David seems much more proactive so there is always hope I am certainly not trying to go for open warfare with the CA, just asking questions of the CA who are evidently very keen to have a membership dive for shooters, and indeed as everyone knows very targeted against BASC. Now with two representatives on here from BASC and CA I would hope for some open and frank discussions, so everyone is informed, rather than just private exchanges between two people If David or Rob or Alice at the CA wish to respond to me directly on theses issues, (my e-mail address is david.ilsley@basc.org.uk), but surely this forum is about sharing information and knowledge. anser 2 asked a good question about how much of the CA income / membership fee is spent on shooting by the CA. As you know I have asked the same question on another thread- and been told 'Any money donated to the shooting campaign (badge sales etc...) then 100% gets spent on the shooting campaign’. this doesn't quite answer the question does it, surely the CA's spend on shooting is not totally dependant on badge sales. The CA are indeed a broad church organisation, their major change happened when they evolved form the BFSS (who were focussed on fieldsports) to the CA - where the remit is much wider, indeed they set out their table in their rural manifesto as follows: The Manifesto promotes changes in five key areas that will make a real and lasting difference to the countryside: 1.HOUSING - Promote local solutions to the lack of affordable rural housing 2. EDUCATION - Enable all children to gain a practical understanding of the countryside 3. FARMING - Support British farmers and producers 4. COUNTRY PURSUITS - Repeal the Hunting Act and champion country pursuits 5. SERVICES - Ensure an accessible and reliable rural transport network So we can clearly see where the priorities of the CA rest, and I have absolutory no issue with this, as David says people join the CA because of their wide remit, so lets face facts, the CA are by their own definition a rural lobbying organisation. Alice had made it clear what the priorities for the CA are this year in her latest video: Supporting Point to points and the repeal of the Hunting bill Young people and firearms – the government debates on the HASC Local foods Great stuff, so lets see you promote these on you adverts…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Al4x, The CA have been running a campaign for shooting for years, so it should be what do they do for shooters. Parting with your money to join an organisation who "COULD" do something for shooters is like voting for the green party to run the country. Sheer madness It is until they get fully up to speed, however you have a big organisation that has a pretty good lobbying experience which so far has been used mostly for hunting with dogs but its there all the same. Lets face it all they need is an expert on call for firearms legal issues and pretty much that gets them up to speed with most peoples biggest concern. Obviously they aren't going to have what BASC has at the moment but in all things a bit of competition is good for the end consumer which is us. Give the BASC free reign and no competition and all you'll see is an organisation getting even fatter and premiums going up each and every year uncontrolled. This year its stayed the same is that purely the economy or a bit of competition from others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Up to speed? How long does that take? The CA was born out of the ashes of the BFSS and while I cannot find how long they were going I did find a booklet that they produced around 1950 so they have had 60ish years at it so far. OK not quite as long as BASC but long enough wouldn't you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Up to speed? How long does that take? The CA was born out of the ashes of the BFSS and while I cannot find how long they were going I did find a booklet that they produced around 1950 so they have had 60ish years at it so far. OK not quite as long as BASC but long enough wouldn't you say? yep and so far have provided a service to shooters, no idea how good as I've not been a member but they are looking to expand that side and ask what we want. Now it would be more productive if we said what they needed to do rather than just slate them from a pro BASC standpoint. Davids threatened by them you can see it from the way he has to belittle them at every opportunity, there are members on here so would be good to hear from them rather than just the BASC members trying to beat them with a stick. There must be some good to come from them as their name even got dragged into a thread on NGO insurance. If they were that bad surely people wouldn't try to talk them down at every opportunity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRTaylor Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I think a few of the comments may have been on another thread, but I think if they are consolidated here, then it will prevent that thread from going off topic. Firstly, the CA is not trying to attract BASC members, we are looking for new members who haven’t yet joined an organisation. The latest statistics from the HAC show that there are a lot of shotgun certificates in circulation, and if you add up all of the members of all the shooting organisations (ignoring the fact that some are members of both), you don’t even get close to that figure. That means a lot of people have guns, but are leaving it to the minority to finance their representation. Mudpattern – in terms of services to wildfowlers, we are not in any way trying to emulate the structures that BASC have, we are different organisations. The Countryside Alliance currently offers lobbying and campaigning combined with firearms and legal advice. Graham Downing is hired as a consultant to the Alliance and gives advice on a range of subjects. We also have legal advice from our lawyers. However, we are wanting to work with our members and are happy to provide additional services if members demand it. Anser2 – in the past, the BFSS concentrated a lot more on shooting. Since the merge into the Countryside Alliance and the development of the hunting act, a lot of effort was put into hunting. This is not to say that nothing was done for shooting. However, it was noted that the Alliance needed to put more resources into shooting, hence this thread. I take your point on board about accountability and transparency, others have mentioned it to me before, and I will work with this in mind. MC – I’m not ignoring your questions. Lead wasn’t banned for wildfowl as such. The government ratified the AEWA in 1999. The concern of the agreement was waterfowl ingesting spent lead shot from wetlands. In England and Wales, the government decided to have a species specific ban, whilst Scotland and much of Europe took a more practical view and made the ban area specific. Hence the situation in England where you can shoot a pheasant over water, but not a duck over land, which does nothing for the concerns of original agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Lead wasn't banned for wildfowl "AS SUCH" Really? That is news to me. My understanding of the law in england is you CANNOT shoot ducks or geese with lead shot. Maybe I have been wasting my money using non toxic shot for the past 10 years? Hell, I am going to join the CA and then if I should ever find myself being prosecuted for using lead I will show the police this thread. My original point in asking why lead shot was banned for wildfowl in the first place was to get the answer you have stated. It had absolutely nothing to do with lead being ingested by and entering the HUMAN body. IT was nothing to do with it then and it will be nothing to do with it now. The lobbyists will use any and every means at their disposal and if that means saying that ducks are still dying from ingesting shot left by game shooters over water, or raptors are dying because of ingested shot for left game or vermin then they will. The time to be building a case is now, like the antis are. Or are you in the same train of thought as all the other organisations that really are worried? I have to say that lead shot could be banned tomorrow and it wouldn't affect me one bit. I do not own a gun that I cannot use steel shot through. And I am certain that the rifle ammunition I am using at present isn't lead either. Yet still I do not believe it should happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) DRT Thank you addressing some of the questions raised by some PW members; however I note that you have omitted to address the question posed by me. Its one that I have asked a couple of times via email over a couple of years directly to CA, initially when a syndicate that I was involved with were seriously considering the offer made by CA, and more recently when the CA advertisements appeared to be sniping at BASC. To save you searching the forum, I'll reiterate my question again, hopefully for the final time. Please advise the number of full time or equivalent members of CA staff who are solely tasked to support and protect shooting across the various disciplines and activities undertaken by shooters in pursuit of their sport. I have gleaned from your recent posts that you and Graham Downing are both engaged on shooting related matters, but shall await your considered reply before passing further comment. webber Edited February 16, 2011 by webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 This is a good tangent to go off at MC even by your standards There never was a human health issue with the ban so what is the point? The research was supposed to show it as a threat to wildfowl and because of their digestive system it is plausible. however somewhere down the line the English law turned into a farce whereas Scotland got a far better one. Its cured the RSPB's problems with wildfowl and lead despite the fact its a largely ignored law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRTaylor Posted February 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Webber – my apologies, you did ask this question and I didn’t answer it, and please don’t think I was avoiding it. To answer your question, there is myself and Graham downing who deal exclusively with shooting matters. We are backed up by Rob who is now Deputy Chief Executive. We have a team of four in the political and policy department who devote a large proportion of their time to shooting matters, and the same again applies to the two in the media team. We also have dedicated members of staff for Game to Eat and Events. This tight team means that although we remain busy, there is no redundancy, idleness or wasted resources in the office. I hope this answers your question. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 This is a good tangent to go off at MC even by your standards There never was a human health issue with the ban so what is the point? The research was supposed to show it as a threat to wildfowl and because of their digestive system it is plausible. however somewhere down the line the English law turned into a farce whereas Scotland got a far better one. Its cured the RSPB's problems with wildfowl and lead despite the fact its a largely ignored law Al4x, It wasn't meant to be off on a tangent, it was purely meant to show that the inevitable ban on lead shot will not be from a human point of view. It was (Or wasn't according to the CA) banned because of ducks and the like ingesting it and dying from lead poisoning. However as the point I made somewhere earlier in this thread, lead has been removed and banned from every other source that we used to use (paint, solder, pipes, petrol etc etc) so sooner or later it will be banned for ammunition. I truly believe that all the shooting organisations know this and that is the real reason why they are not doing any research. Any research they do will only reinforce the anti's. As there is no getting away from the FACT that lead is a toxin and people (and animals) die and have died from lead poisoning. If the Oil companies didn't have enough clout to stop it being banned from petrol then what chance do BASC, CA etc have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al4x Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 you say every other source the fact its a naturally occurring substance means getting rid of it entirely is difficult. Yes wildfowl ingest it if its present in the mud in ponds etc but that is very different to how birds feed on land. Petrol and water pipes the evidence is there as was stated earlier there is no evidence it passes to us through the food chain. fundamentally its a perverse argument as its meant to kill in a shooting application and not much else does it as effectively 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.