Countryside Alliance

[MC]

There are many materials that are naturally occuring that do us or animals no harm at all where they are.

 

It is only when man extracts them and uses them.

 

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?

 

Most game shoots that have a duck drive will be filling their lakes up with lead.

[al4x]

 

 

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?

 

 

 

that is best aimed at our delightful lawmakers as its completely ridiculous, I guess it may stem from trying to make the law more enforceable by people who didn't have the first idea. To someone on the outside they may not have realised the problem and just thought only ducks and wildfowl could be found over water so name the type of bird you can shoot. In theory then any ducks etc shot with lead would be illegally shot rather than trying to work out where they were shot

[David BASC]

Good morning David,

 

Could you answer my points please?

 

1.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?

 

To perhaps answer my own question there is no doubt that the membership services offered by the dedicated shooting orgnisations is greater than that offered by the CA.

 

But of course as you have shooting members you now need to service them, hence you very valid questions on here; as the £28 they paid to join last year is about to leap up to £60, you will have your work cut out to retain them. I speak from experience)

 

Normally, (with my marketing hat on) you sort out your product first before you set the price and promote it. Not get them in cheap, double the price then ask what they want. But I fully appreciate that much of this was already in place before you started.

 

As you say you have 4 lobbyists and 2 media people looking at al the issues the CA campaign for, but as Country sports is just 1 or 5 key issues for you, and then with Country Sports 4 out of 5 on the list and within Country sports hunting is by far and away the CA’s top priority (as I think it should be as there is NO ONE else who can do it for Hunting!) perhaps you can understand why people on here are questioning what you will be able to deliver for shooting when your resources may be focused elsewhere.

 

Dangerous to overpromise and under deliver as I am sure you know!

 

 

2. 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?

 

Again perhaps to answer my own question, surely it is, if lobbying is what the CA set their stall out to de best- then surely they take a lead from the specialist organizations

 

 

And fianllly, to suggest that your campaign is not trying to attract BASC members, please are you serious? If this were so then;

 

Why were the CA going round BASC clubs and syndicates saying effectively leave BASC and join the CA?

 

Why were your telesales people specifically mentioning BASC and frankly not being to clear about the VERY SPRECIFIC vehicle excess on the BASC policy?

 

Why were you adverts promoting the CA cut price deal specifically against the BASC membership fees and not mentioning any other orgnisation?

 

I think Al4x’s comments about the need for parity with licensing is key, something we all want and need and this was something that came out in the HASC evidence sessions. Something both CA and BASC want.

 

Or pick up the phone if you want a chat

 

David

[DRTaylor]

Good morning David,

 

Looks like you’ve already gone to the trouble of answering the questions for me. As others have said, this thread was supposed to be about what the Alliance can offer shooting people, but you keep turning it into a BASC promotion exercise. However, I suppose that is what you are employed to do. So, if I may add:

 

1. I don’t understand where you are going with this question, are you further trying to suggest (in addition to previous posts) that we should divide shooting up into its constituent’s parts and defend them individually? Or do you think that having more than one voice actually helps.

 

2. No I do not accept that at all and all you are trying to do by asking this question is belittle the CA. Recent history has shown that there can be difference of opinion even within the organisations – Raised laying pens is a prime example. Which is why I see the irony in the latest BASC “Buy British” campaign when you effectively lobbied to have game farming sent overseas.

 

3. As I have said, we are not specifically targeting BASC members; the same cannot be said after BASC advertising campaign at the Game Fair last year....

 

 

David

[al4x]

nice Darts David2 I reckon that puts it back to Duce in the scoring stakes

 

point 2 has had a lot of air time on here and probably highlights why people need more than one voice, if you don't agree with an organisations stance and there is no alternative you are somewhat out in the cold. From memory the BASC stood on their own over the cages with the GFA, NGO and CA taking a slightly different stance and indeed didn't DEFRA repeal the issue and take the other proposed option

[MC]

Depends who you believe really?

 

The organisation who helps shooters and defends shooting or the one who hopes to sometime in the future.

 

For the CA to say they are not targetting BASC members really ought to have a word with whoever proof read their adverts.

[Scully]

There's only one way to settle this......FIIIIIGHHHHT!

[David BASC]

As you choose to avoid directly answering my questions on the forum (and I understand why) then you could e-mail me, you have my e-mail address. But I will drop you / Rob a line

 

I am not suggesting anyone looks at splitting shooting into bits.My point re other organisations is this:

 

CPSA delivers for clay shooting

BASC delivers for live quarry shooting

NRA delivers for full bore rifle shooting

NSRA delivers for small bore rifle shooting

 

So what’s the CA’s angle? Broad brush or discipline specific? I think we need a coordinated lobbying approach to key shooting issues, with the lead organisation taking point and others supporting them – multiple coordinated voices – don’t you?.

 

I am not trying to criticise you or the CA when I state the FACT that the CA is a broad church orgnisation with 5 key areas of activity (as per your web site) and Country sports are one of those 5. – After all that’s why I joined!

 

How is the fact that Alice keeps on saying that Hunting is the CA’s top priority (see your latest film on the CA web site) belittling the CA? . I think it must be your top priority as you guys are by far and away the experts on hunting, and if the Bill is going to be over turned then only you guys can make it happen!

 

 

As MC says you cannot possibly say you are not targeting BASC with your current campaign, let alone your telesales and direct contact with clubs, it beggars belief! This will be covered in my letter to you and Rob. BASC have NEVER mentioned the CA in any of its marketing and promotional literature.

 

As for mud slinging- which you accused me of on another thread I see you are now at it too!, (pot. kettle, black springs to mind)

 

Your accusation that BASC lobbied to have game rearing sent overseas is totally wrong, inaccurate and frankly mischievous , or is it aimed to be deliberately damaging to BASC? We lobbied for no such thing.

 

We simply lobbied for more guidance on the minimum size for laying systems –on or off the ground, and said ANY system, on the ground or in the air that was too small should be banned on animal welfare gorunds.

 

You also know that we too were at the new meetings with the new Defra minister to re-draft the Labour document, and you know too that we lobbied for the devolved parliaments to adopt the new English code. I thought we had all agreed on the new code and moved on – evidently I am wrong!

 

You may not have heard David that BASC and the GFA are working together on promoting British birds this year… I am not sure what is ironic about the largest shooting organisation in the UK and the Game Framers Association working together to promote British reared game – perhaps you can explain?

 

But back to shooting…

 

So to summarise of what I think as a shooter and CA member the CA should do for shooting:

 

Support BASC and the GFA in the promotion of British reared game.

 

Support the expert organisations on their lobbying, with the experts taking the lead and bring your weight to the fight with them.

 

I think the CA should accept that there may have been differences between organisations the past, but accept people and organisations move, and follow their example of working in partnership not harping back to the last row they had.

 

I think the CA should market research their members as to what their demands and needs are.

 

David

Edited February 16, 2011 by David BASC

[al4x]

David this is meant to be a thread about what shooters want from an organisation rather than a BASC CA spat, can't you just leave it alone?

 

As for a broad spectrum organisation well a lot of us who shoot, also live in the countryside and partake in countryside activities working dogs etc, I ride from time to time and if the opportunity came up I would go hunting. Perhaps I'd be better with a broad spectrum provider

[arjimlad]

To quote David : -

 

What I think as a shooter the CA should do for shooting:

 

Support BASC and the GFA in the promotion of British reared game.

 

Support the expert organisations on their lobbying, with the experts taking the lead and bring CA weight to the fight with them.

 

I think the CA should accept that there may have been differences between organisations the past, but accept people and organisations move, and follow their example of working in partnership not harping back to the last row they had.

 

I have been very disappointed to see the CA's attempt to raid BASC members having slandered shooters so much in its attempt to preserve hunting.

 

However, I hope the CA will be able to turn over a new leaf and use its lobbying with BASC to preserve shooting.

[David BASC]

Let’s hope so,

 

I think that’s what shooters want, and surely CA shooter members also want this. Perhaps some CA members, other than me and David, could add their views?

 

The Game to eat campaign has certainly played its part in promoting game to a wider audience, and should continue in my view.

 

The National shooting week (a BSSC project) helps to promote shooting widely, but I think it would be great if the CA promoted this more in the general media such a local and regional newspapers.

 

Make sure shooting features / news in Update are on parity with those features on hunting, fishing etc so shooting gets its fair share as it were.

 

 

David

[BlaserF3]

It's starting to get rather bitchy now

 

Handbags at dawn anyone?

Edited February 16, 2011 by BlaserF3

[Glenshooter]

So, let's get it all out, what are people's honest opinions of the Alliance? what do/don't you like? what do you think we should/should be doing?

 

The CA has been very vocal in their support of hunting (with horses). It remains to be seen how successful they are at getting the ban repealed and I wish them well, having been a member and also having been on the Big March.

 

However, they are not and I fail to see how they can ever be, a 'professional' shooting organisation. One or two people 'on shooting' is nothing like the resources that others have, or need. And let's be clear, I mean specifically BASC. One of the resources needed to be effective at grass roots level to help shooters is to know the licensing authorities at regional/local level. And for that, you need a sizable team.

 

The CA are also anti-fox shooting. I was told this on a number of occasions by CA members. They have never had a gun on display at the CLA game fair, at least when I have been there (although I wasn't there last year).

 

I did not rejoin the CA as I do not wish to subsidise their hunting lobbying with the money that I would rather see invested in protecting the future of shooting. (And I assume that there are plenty of people with deep pockets happy to fund the hunting ban lobbying.)

 

I would not support BASC trying to 'poach' members from the target rifle associations. Nor would I support BASC trying to recruit 'natural' CA supporters/horse back hunters.

 

And I certainly don't support CA trying to recruit members from outside their core interests, particularly their obvious attempts to recruit BASC members. I can full understand David BASC being on the case. I think we all would, if we were in his shoes.

 

So, having outlined my views, my question is

 

Do you wholeheartedly support people who wish to control foxes using guns?

[Canis]

:lol:In an Ideal world not affected by historical or political issues we would have one shooting organisation supporting everyone involved in shooting in the country regardless of what we shoot at or shoot with, with diferent sections of the organisations representing the the game shooters, wildfowlers, the target shooters and every other subset of shooting community.

 

A single unified voice would undoubtedly protect us better from the ravages of the Anti. - look at the power of the NRA in the States for example

 

As it is, in the uk we have a number of organisations that all purport to be our shooting organisation, provide our insurance and be the place for us to get support.

 

In my mind the BASC is clearly the largest organisation representing shooting in this country and offers the nearest to the ideal - between this and the fact that they seem to offer the best support to individual members regarding licencing issues etc, my membership is with them.

 

While i would applaud any organisation that would support shooting, other organisations pilfering members of the biggest organisation on the basis of being slightly cheaper for sporting insurance is not helpful to the bigger picture.

 

In short DRTaylor, if your organisation wants to help shooting in the bigger picture, how about affiliating the CA to the BASC instead? perhaps each organisation could offer discounted membership to members of the other organisation? increasing both organisations membership and you could even save the cost of providing shooting insurance to your membership possibly?

Edited February 16, 2011 by Canis

[Glenshooter]

While i would applaud any organisation that would support shooting, other organisations pilfering members of the biggest organisation on the basis of being slightly cheaper for sporting insurance is not helpful to the bigger picture.

 

That's actually what I was meaning to say in my previous post.

[David BASC]

A formal affiliation like you suggest is a matter of policy, and would need agreement by the respective Councils and more importantly the support of members at AGM. We have been down this track before some of you will remember, about 15 years ago.

 

As some have said (although I do not personally agree) they would not want their sub being spent on hunting, and there may (I say may) well be hunters who feel the same way about shooting.

 

So realistically the CA and BASC will always be separate organisations, I think.

 

So in this context my honest view of the Alliance as I have said above is I do think the CA have a roll to play by supporting the main shooting organisations and would welcome Davids thoughts on how he will support CPSA, BASC, NRA and NSRA.

 

The CA did try a discount membership package a few years ago, not a million miles away form what you are suggesting Canis.

 

From memory it cost £15 to be a member of the CA through this scheme IF you were already a member of one of the other organisations, you got no insurance with the CA, but did not need it as of course you were covered by their other associations insurance. It lasted about 2 years if I recall then the CA pulled it, I dont know why maybe David does? I guess it just did not work, some things dont but you never know until you try.

 

I am not too familiar with the detail of the CA contract with their underwriters, i.e. they may be in a fixed term deal, and I am not sure if their policies over the last 10 years for example have been on a claims made or claims occurring basis. So before there was any thought of merging insurance polices this sort of details would need to be addressed. But honestly I am not convinced its a starter anyway.

 

So to end this post with another honest view of the Alliance as requested by David… I like the robust stance the CA are taking on Hunting and if you hunt or support hunting then I think you should support the CA.

 

David

Edited February 16, 2011 by David BASC

[mudpatten]

Mr. Taylor,

 

Thank you for your reply.

 

I am very concerned about your comments in respect of wildfowling, a branch of shooting sports very much at the sharp end of legislative change when you state that..."we are not in any way trying to emulate the structure that BASC has."

 

BASC has a democratic structure accessible at a number of different levels. Specifically in respect of wildfowling, BASC has its affiliated clubs and the nationally representative Wildfowling Liason Committee which reports directly to BASC Council,in addition to a full time Wildfowling Officer.

 

You appear not to want to embrace democracy and seem to want to leave wildfowling shivering outside in the cold.

 

You are plainly not equipped to defend wildfowling and yet seem determined to actually split shooting down the middle by hiving politically savvy fowlers and fowling off to one side whilst seeking to attract the money from politically naieve non fowling shooters who will be unamused to find that, when push comes to shove, policy is not decided by an elected committee into which they can feed their ideas and opinions, but is decided behind close doors by the likes of millionaire landowner Bill Tyrwhitt Drake whose shooting experience is very different from most of ours.

 

So, my suggestion as to how the CA can best improve its service to shooters is,either leave it to BASC or set up a series of advisory committees. We can work out the expenses later but pencil me in for a seat on the CA`s Wildfowling Liason Committee.

[Scully]

When all's said and done,the best any of the organisations can offer is damage limitation.None of them can 'ensure' the future of shooting.The spat thay has just taken place on this thread is a clear indication to anyone just how fractured the shooting community is,and as such,they can lobby,and have the ear of some influential people,but if you think that they hold any real political influence,then you're deluding yourself,and if the organisations tell you different,then you're being mislead.In the face of political determination we just aren't a real force to reckoned with(from what has just taken place on here,more farce than force)and politicians do not fear us.The way things are going(and they're 'going' fast)I genuinely do not hold out much hope for the future of my sons shooting career.

It would serve us all right if shooting were banned outright(don't worry,it's not going to happen.It'll happen bit by bit,and probably by the 'back door')then you would see the true capability of the organisations.As fractured as we are,we deserve what we get.

[AlistairB]

In response to a request in another thread, I'm starting this one. As you may be aware (I put it on my introduction post - I admit these are hardly ever read), I'm the Shooting Campaigns Manager at the Countryside Alliance. I've only been in the post since October, but my job is focused on shooting and shooting alone.

 

I think there are a few myths surrounding the Countryside Alliance about many things that we do and don't do, mainly because there has been little presence on online forums such as this. I hope to change that. So, let's get it all out, what are people's honest opinions of the Alliance? what do/don't you like? what do you think we should/should be doing? As many people here are members and many aren't, I'm sure you all have a questions, suggestions etc...

 

I'm probably going to live to regret this but I'm pretty much starting this job from scratch, I plan build the shooting side to the needs of the members, not the Alliance. Because without members, there is no Alliance.

 

I'll now retreat to a corner and await the onslaught.

 

PS I promise to be honest and objective with everything I post, and not give a hard sell.

 

I've read this thread with interest, there are some clear unambiguous questions that I hope DRTaylor will be able to answer, but to be honest, give him a break.

 

He's been in the job 4 and a half months, he's not going to know all the answers and fundamental policies structures of the CA by now - who would, the whole thing is mired in history.

 

At least David (not BASC!) has had the courage to ask what you want, many wouldn’t have done that.

 

For my tuppence, ask the questions you want answered, and leave the mud slinging etc till later. To be fair DavidBASC has had a hard enough time on here in the past.

 

Regards

 

AB (a member of BASC)

[markbivvy]

When all's said and done,the best any of the organisations can offer is damage limitation.None of them can 'ensure' the future of shooting.The spat thay has just taken place on this thread is a clear indication to anyone just how fractured the shooting community is,and as such,they can lobby,and have the ear of some influential people,but if you think that they hold any real political influence,then you're deluding yourself,and if the organisations tell you different,then you're being mislead.In the face of political determination we just aren't a real force to reckoned with(from what has just taken place on here,more farce than force)and politicians do not fear us.The way things are going(and they're 'going' fast)I genuinely do not hold out much hope for the future of my sons shooting career.

It would serve us all right if shooting were banned outright(don't worry,it's not going to happen.It'll happen bit by bit,and probably by the 'back door')then you would see the true capability of the organisations.As fractured as we are,we deserve what we get.

 

 

this man knows.

[Glenshooter]

When all's said and done,the best any of the organisations can offer is damage limitation.None of them can 'ensure' the future of shooting.The spat thay has just taken place on this thread is a clear indication to anyone just how fractured the shooting community is,and as such,they can lobby,and have the ear of some influential people,but if you think that they hold any real political influence,then you're deluding yourself,and if the organisations tell you different,then you're being mislead.In the face of political determination we just aren't a real force to reckoned with(from what has just taken place on here,more farce than force)and politicians do not fear us.The way things are going(and they're 'going' fast)I genuinely do not hold out much hope for the future of my sons shooting career.

It would serve us all right if shooting were banned outright(don't worry,it's not going to happen.It'll happen bit by bit,and probably by the 'back door')then you would see the true capability of the organisations.As fractured as we are,we deserve what we get.

 

 

Well "Yes" to bits of this. But not all of it.

 

I work with politicians both directly and indirectly in my day job. So I believe it's a wee bit cynical or depressive to believe "the best any of the organisations can offer is damage limitation".

 

I don't believe that most politicians are actually anti-shooting, IF they know what its about. We can salami slice shooting into the more 'politically' acceptable slices, and grade them accordingly. For example, 10m air rifle shooting at 6 ft lb energy in an indoor range is not likely to cause offence to too many people including politicians or all colours. I can argue the case for shooting these targets with most people successfully, even those opposed to 'guns'.

 

Whereas rich people blasting away at pheasants that have been 'artificially' bred to be made to fly over a line of guns can be less acceptable to some people. And I have done both of these forms of shooting so I have no axe to grind personally. But the common person with no interest in shooting, finds this one harder to swallow. But I can still justify food production by this means and the game tasting/eating initiatives by BASC, and perhaps CA too, are useful for this reason.

 

But, an organisation like the BASC is engaging with politicians. They also provide 'Facts for journalists', excellent advice on how to lobby your MP. http://www.basc.org.uk/en/departments/political-affairs/how-to-lobby-your-mp/

And with our support, they can do more. These are some of the reasons that I think shooting does have a future in the UK and why BASC is doing such a good job is maintaining and 'increasing' this future.

 

And as I said before, BASC with 130,000 members is a force to be reckoned with. Their election campaign was well conducted last year and this has been spontaneously mentioned to be by a number of politicians since then.

 

But imagine what impact they could have if they had 250,000 members or 500,000 members. That's approaching 1000 in every or some constituencies. Now that WOULD make many politicians pin their ears back and agree that we shooters are good and that shooting is a safe, healthy and enjoyable sport.

 

And that's why I dislike the CA, or indeed, any other organisation, trying to poach BASC members to fund their work in trying to overturn the hunting ban. (And I do hope it is overturned.)

[Scully]

I wish you were right,but BASC,or any of the organisations,are not a FORCE of any description.I wish they were.If ALL shooters were members of ONE organisation,then we would possibly get somewhere,but it isn't going to happen.I am still incredulous that less than one per cent of shooters bothered to lobby MP's or the HASC when faced with possibly the most srious threat to shooting following the shootings in Cumbria.

I'm not being deliberately negative,I'm being realistic.Shooting isn't a hobby for me,and I would dearly love to be wrong regarding my previous post,but I'm not delusional.BY all means,join any one of the organisations,but don't kid yourself as to their 'power'.

[Glenshooter]

I wish you were right,but BASC,or any of the organisations,are not a FORCE of any description.I wish they were.If ALL shooters were members of ONE organisation,then we would possibly get somewhere,but it isn't going to happen.I am still incredulous that less than one per cent of shooters bothered to lobby MP's or the HASC when faced with possibly the most srious threat to shooting following the shootings in Cumbria.

I'm not being deliberately negative,I'm being realistic.Shooting isn't a hobby for me,and I would dearly love to be wrong regarding my previous post,but I'm not delusional.BY all means,join any one of the organisations,but don't kid yourself as to their 'power'.

 

 

BASC currently has 'influence', not power. Power is an aspiration. If more people would join say BASC then politicans would have something to fear in constituencies where the number of signed and paid up shooters is greater than their majority. But you're right when you say that so many shooters can't be bothered and that is our biggest threat.

 

If every shooter joined a shooting organisation, and they would co-operate, as most do I believe, then THAT would be power.

[anser2]

DRTaylor , I have just been running through the CA website with a keen interest on the attention they pay between the two field sports. While I was a little surprised to see shooting had equal billing with hunting with 3 each posts in their campaign section , fishing had one , while what I would group under any other business from rural services , rural business ventures and other non field sports issues were a lot more important with 39 campaigns listed. That’s 87%of the targets you are setting yourself have nothing to do with field sports and just 6% of your campaigns directed to shooting. It looks very much to me that the CA is riding on the backs of field sports to pursue other agendas to fight such issues such as closure of rural post offices. You seem to want shooters money to fund this as far as I can see. This affirms my personal experience with my encounter with your now director at a meeting last year where she clearly demonstrated a very limited knowledge of shooting.

 

To me the CA is looking like one big con from a shooters point of view!!!

Edited February 16, 2011 by anser2

[DRTaylor]

Thanks for all your comments, in response to the outstanding questions:

 

Mudpatten. I do not want to leave anyone out in the cold, nor would i like to leave any part of shooting out in the cold. My comment was made in respect to the fact that we are in no way trying to make ourselves a carbon copy of BASC, not to be un democratic. I have reserved you a chair on the committee.

 

DavidBASC. Regarding the £15 deals, that must have been over 5 years ago now and well before my time as an employee. National Shooting Week – I am running this for the first time this year and have seen many areas where it can be improved. As far as advertising goes , we currently provide £10,000 to local ranges and clubs to advertise at the local level, the CA deals with the National Level. Although the wheels have been set in motion this year, I hope to develop this as the years go by. Point taken regarding Update - ex-Shooting Times editors can be quite stubburn sometimes

 

Glenshooter – As I have said, the CA is not anti fox shooting and I myself have fox on my certificate. It should be the choice of the landowner as to how they wish foxes to be controlled on their land.

 

Thanks, David

Edited February 17, 2011 by DRTaylor