WWT Lead Shot Plans

[mudpatten]

Some interesting observations, but I note that no one has grasped the nettle of explaining to me in,say,twenty five words, why this issue has assumed such importance in the minds of some people. It should be simple enough.

 

And if some people are excercised at the thought of BASC not giving up information I trust you will join me in principle when I ask Gunsmoke, yet again,if he is connected to another organisation, specifically the Union of Country Sports Workers?

[Scully]

Some interesting observations, but I note that no one has grasped the nettle of explaining to me in,say,twenty five words, why this issue has assumed such importance in the minds of some people. It should be simple enough.

OK,I'll give it a go.

Monies paid to BASC by ANY body(government run or not) may affect their impartiality/commitment, regarding this issue.

Nineteen words I make that.You were correct;it was pretty simple.Nettle grasped?

Can I,yet again,ask you to point me in the direction of the information you claim is freely available to members?

[David BASC]

Scully, Thank you for that.

 

Firstly can I confirm that the costs of the BASC membership survey were covered by WWT as I think I mentioned before.

 

Secondly, there was and is nothing in the agreement that binds or restricts BASC in any way, although I can of course understand your concerns, but please take my word that the research we did was totally impartial.

 

I have taken the opportunity to discuss the funding issue with my colleagues who were in charge of the project. Apologies for the delay (should have told you earlier I guess) but due to a combination if illness and holidays it was not possible for me to do this until today. The upshot is that if any BASC member wants to know the cost of this 2009 project can PM me with your membership number please.

 

Sincere best wishes

 

David

[Scully]

if any BASC member wants to know the cost of this 2009 project can PM me with your membership number please.

 

David

Many thanks David,but as has been mentioned before,it is not the 'cost' we are interested in,but rather how much BASC were 'paid'.

I of course realise that once I PM you my memebership number,you will have all my details(can't see me remaining a memeber for long after that,can you!)but do you realise that once you've PM'd me the information I will post it on here for all to see?Either way my membership is over.

You initially claimed BASC were paid 'nothing',are you now saying this claim is untrue?Were you telling porkies?For you to PM me back with the 'cost',or the word 'nothing',and cost me my membership, is not really what I had in mind. :unsure:Mmmm,what to do...what to do.

[al4x]

Many thanks David,but as has been mentioned before,it is not the 'cost' we are interested in,but rather how much BASC were 'paid'.

I of course realise that once I PM you my memebership number,you will have all my details(can't see me remaining a memeber for long after that,can you!)but do you realise that once you've PM'd me the information I will post it on here for all to see?Either way my membership is over.

You initially claimed BASC were paid 'nothing',are you now saying this claim is untrue?Were you telling porkies?For you to PM me back with the 'cost',or the word 'nothing',and cost me my membership, is not really what I had in mind. :unsure:Mmmm,what to do...what to do.

 

 

frankly does it matter? If they got paid for staff time and admin costs then so be it, far better than spending membership money on a survey for the WWT. As for David cancelling your membership I can't see it personally they enjoy your money more than that. The skirting round questions like a politician are what usually bugs me most be better to say simply I'm not going to answer. The fundamentals on this really are do we believe BASC in that its not a done deal or not, like many I really don't know.

[David BASC]

I made it clear that I made an error on recalling the details of the 2009 project and corrected this on a later post. Obviously you missed this Scully.

 

The costs were paid by WWT as I have said, so we did not spend any members money on it.

 

As I said the delay in replying in detail was caused by a combination of sick leave and holiday, and I accept I should have made that clear.Apologies for that.

 

 

David

[mudpatten]

As I said, the information is available to members.

[wymberley]

I think that we should be grateful to mudpatten. The tone of his posts was arguably responsible for raising the tempo of this thread and forcing the 'U turn' which David and BASC may have been able to avoid without that interference.

[Graham M]

Well I'm absolutely staggered by the blatant refusal to answer a simple question, and it does reinforce my belief that BASC WAS paid and paid handsomely for their part in all this.

 

Will they tell anyone how much?

 

What do you think!

 

No wonder I left and joined another organisation, because the whole fiasco smacks of double-talk and back-stabbing.

 

I raised this question about lead ages ago and never received a decent answer, and now it has been raised again, and once again the wriggling continues with the statement that -

 

“The costs were paid by WWT as I have said, so we did not spend any members money on it”

 

 

Which was NOT the question asked and you know it David.

 

The question asked was-

 

How much was BASC paid

[David BASC]

See my post 328.

 

Sadly just more BASC bashing from you and your pals as normal.... keep it up and I am sure the mods will close the thread.

 

David

[wymberley]

I'm sorry, David, but your last post simply isn't good enough.

As a business (and let's make no mistake about that is what BASC is) I expect my "company" when employed to use its knowledge and expertise by a client, to make a profit on the job. 'Cost covering' is a well known term in business to disguise making a loss.

[Graham M]

See my post 328.

 

Sadly just more BASC bashing from you and your pals as normal.... keep it up and I am sure the mods will close the thread.

 

David

You sincerely hope they will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Waffle, waffle and waffle again.

And if all that fails, simply accuse the people asking the questions of BASC bashing.

 

If this was as straight and as honest as you make out you would have answered without hesitation. But the fact that you have squirmed your way though page after page without the slightest attempt to give a straight answer to a straight question suggests to me that you don't want your members to see what's going on behind their backs.

 

 

Not going to bother with this any more because it's obviously futile. It's like getting a politician to give a straight answer to a question he knows that the public isn't going to like.

 

 

G.M.

[al4x]

while this thread has similarities with Tony Blair and the question of WMD's does it really matter?

 

if they made money out of it so much the better, if they didn't well thats slightly poor but I can see it as doing their part in the lead survey. What I don't get is why they didn't question wildfowlers about compliance, the survey that was done played right into the hands of the WWT. Or was that the idea all the way along the quicker it happens as the less money needs to be spent defending it (if its believed to be a done deal) Speaking as a member of 10 years plus rather than purely a basher.

[poontang]

keep it up and I am sure the mods will close the thread.

 

David

 

Quite.

 

I think how much BASC was paid is moving the thread away from the more important question of what do we do to combat the WWT/RSPB threat.

 

There are certainly questions that need answering and I for one am pleased that David comes on here and does what he can, unlike a certain chap from the CA, who soon disappeared when his back was up against the wall. Trying to point score against BASC doesn't really help anyone, and it would be a real shame if this thread were locked because of it.

 

Al4x, you're quite right that BASC played into the hands of WWT by conducting the survey on their behalf.

WWT made it quite clear a year before the survey was carried out that they wanted a complete ban on lead ammunition. Whether BASC's involvement in the survey was a case of naivety or complicity remains to be seen, but these are the sort of questions I would like to see answered rather than how much money changed hands.

[David BASC]

Wymberley thank you,

Fair point but I am using the term cost covering literally. The costs which were incurred including:

Printing the questionnaires

Printing and personalising the covering letter

Inserting the above into an envelope with a business reply envelope and posting out

Paying for the outbound postage

Paying for the BRE reply postage

Paying for the time of the members of staff to input the data and then do the data analysis were covered by the fee paid.

 

Arguably one could say that the costs to cover the data inputting / analysis was ‘profit’ as this was done by salaried staff .

 

GM, sorry if I am failing to get my point across but as I said above, the delay in answering was because due to holidays, sick leave and working way, it was not until today that I could get a couple of points confirmed, as soon as I did I posted that any member can get in touch, and I will be happy to tell them how much we got to cover all those costs. So explain please how this is hiding anything from the members or going behind their backs?

 

Al4x, Thank you.

The sample was random to reflect the fact that not just wildfowlers shoot wildfowl. As I said very early on, if reported compliance had been higher we would have been in a better position wouldn’t we? Its my understanding that compliance within wildfowling clubs is very high indeed due to active self policing, am I wrong?

 

Poontag, thank you.

Our involvement with the survey was not naive or in any way complicit with any anti shooting objective. Again as I said earlier, we had been telling shooters since 2002 that Defra were going to look again at compliance with the law. So we asked in 2009, making it very clear why were were asking and where the info was going and the results were going, 45% of respondents said they sometimes or never complied.

 

Agreed not good news and not perhaps what any one of us wanted to hear, again I say what if it had come back that less than 5% sometimes or never complied…what a good news story that would have been…

 

But it is something we can do something about isn’t it

 

Please let me know if there any other questions.

 

David

,

[scolopax]

teh only folk anti shooting are those folk that a: shoot wildfowl with lead when the should'nt, and b: are then so utterly stupid enough to flog them to a game dealer.

[wymberley]

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

It was said when, I think, John Anderton took over the reins at WAGBI that there were some 2000 members and all the applicable paperwork fitted into a suitcase. It would seem that the business of BASC is being run on similar lines.

The tasks that were detailed I would expect to be charged out at cost plus 50% minimum and furthermore, there was no profit made by the staff doing the data inputting/analysis. If fact, they made a loss because someone else had to do what they would have otherwise been doing. Here I would have expected costs (salary) plus100%.

Now, I don't need telling that the staff at the Mill are a particularly hard working bunch of folk - I've seen them. However, to expect this pensioner to cough up a fair old chunk of his hard earned few pence income which should be helping to earn us all a handsome profit, is, in effect, being squandered due to the apparent lack of a hard headed business brain at the financial helm is, quite frankly, intolerable.

[poontang]

 

 

 

 

Poontag, thank you.

Our involvement with the survey was not naive or in any way complicit with any anti shooting objective. Again as I said earlier, we had been telling shooters since 2002 that Defra were going to look again at compliance with the law. So we asked in 2009, making it very clear why were were asking and where the info was going and the results were going, 45% of respondents said they sometimes or never complied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry David, but I have to disagree. I think it was incredibly naive to get involved in the survey.

 

WWT made it very clear at the Peregrine Fund conference that their aim was a complete ban on lead ammunition, even to the point of mentioning ways of getting the public 'on board' by using worries over human health.

 

I've posted below some of the minutes from the BASC Wildfowling Liaison Committee on 30/08/08, and have added a couple of questions.

 

 

Lead shot/ammunition brief

 

1. Defra is seeking tenders for a two-season regulations-compliance study starting this September. It will include buying birds from game dealers plus other measures yet to be decided. Did BASC put in a tender for the study? If not, why not? Surely they would be best placed to carry out such a study?

 

2. WWT is expected to begin a study this season of lead contamination of shot game in terms of potential transfer of lead to human consumers. This follows the recent US conference where human health risks were identified from consumption of lead-shot birds and animals (including rifle-shot large game). BASC, together with the GWCT, is taking the subject seriously, but carefully, as the evidence is persuasive, and have begun quietly talking to other shooting/countryside organisations to work out how to manage the issues, not least as and when the issues reach public awareness and the media. What plans did BASC and others have to 'manage the issues' (bearing in mind the LAG hadn't been formed at the time)? Would this not have been the time to dig into the 'fighting fund' and commission a UK based survey to challenge some of the 'persuasive' evidence from the US conference?

 

It seems strange to me that in May 2008 (and probably before) WWT made clear their intentions.

 

In August 2008 BASC decide the best way to deal with this attack on shooting is to be 'careful' and talk 'quietly' to others about managing 'the issues'.

 

Then in 2009 they carry out a survey on behalf of the very people who want to damage shooting.

 

Surely the alarm bells should have been ringing?

 

Edited June 6, 2012 by poontang

[utectok]

Oh and David hang in there your contribution on the forum is important to basc members at least we can talk to someone so thanks for putting up with the bashing

[utectok]

I of course realise that once I PM you my memebership number,you will have all my details(can't see me remaining a memeber for long after that,can you!)but do you realise that once you've PM'd me the information I will post it on here for all to see?Either way my membership is over.

 

I don't understand why your membership will be over they won't chuck you out surly

[gunsmoke]

David BASC,

 

May I as a BASC member thank you for resisting the blandishments of others to place confidential financial details of BASC on an open access internet forum.

 

 

I`ve kind of lost the thread about this issue. Perhaps one of the other contributors could explain to me again why knowing if BASC was paid anything is of such importance?

 

Sorry. This is taxpayers money and confidential financial details goes out the window. This is open government to stop misuse of public funds.

You've lost the thread.

I asked the question. How much was BASC paid for their part in the WWT/BASC report? Simple!

[gunsmoke]

 

We have our own evidence for the level of compliance based on our membership survey of course, which I would trust over and above the WWT research, where 45% admitted they did not comply sometimes.

 

David

 

Here you go again misleading people on this forum. The 45% comes from the BASC own survey. It was NOT the WWT research that came them 45% it was BASC.

 

That is why I asked how much BASC got paid for their part in the WWT/BASC report. I am trying to get people to understand that BASC and WWT wrote the report together.

[David BASC]

Gusmoke,

 

Again you make accusations you cannot back up,in this case by the looks of it because you do not understand the basic punctuation used in my post, you consistently refuse to qualify the points you make

 

I made it clear in the post that this was evidence based on our survey - what’s misleading about that? Tell me....

 

I have said several times in the last 24 hours that the information in the moneys paid are available to BASC members, you are not a BASC member as you keep telling us!

 

Good morning Poontag,

 

I will ask the two questions posted in red and get back as soon as I have an answer.

 

David

[MartynGT4]

David, you do seem to be taking some stick over this research issue!

 

Perhaps now would be a good time to put it to bed once and for all by posting a copy of the invoice or similar? If everything is above board then failing to disclose the actual figures isn't going to help your or BASCs cause, quite the opposite really. Personally, I think the question does need to be answered and quickly or BASC will loose credibility, if they haven't already. I'm not a BASC 'basher' as you put it, but I'm probably not the only BASC member starting to have doubts about this issue, that should be reason enough for disclosure!

 

I started this thread to bring peoples attention to the WWTs plans to use human health scares and celebrity chefs to further their clear aim of getting lead shot banned. I was hoping our community could collectively find ways to counter this very real threat. Lets get the WWT research invoice issue dealt with once and for all and get back to the important issue of heading off a biased public campaign of misinformation about lead shot risks.

[al4x]

back in 2008 Poontang they had the advisory committee saying it was inevitable and how to break it to members in a way that Tony Blair would be proud. This got leaked and they had to go into crisis management on how not to loose a fair chunk of their income sorry membership. So basically there was nothing done at that stage on those fronts simply because they were not committed to the fight till it was too late, now its all a saving face exercise.