The Croc Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 David after what has been said over the last few weeks i would have thought that council should be fitting in a special council meeting to discuss it all .To not do so and to ignore it would seem extremely arrogant and out of touch.Its not too late for them to support their members views. +2, the Mill should be jumping with activity over this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strongbow Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) +3 After David mentioned the Constitution I thought I would trawl the BASC web site and found this 3. THE BASC MISSION The BASC mission is threefold: with added extras (the way I see it.) a) to promote and protect sporting shooting and the well-being of the natural environment throughout the United Kingdom and overseas, unless we need to help out Farmers* and reduce Natural Englands paper work. b) to represent members’ interests by providing an effective and unified voice for sporting shooting, provide individual services to members and others that may be more important or influential than the aforementioned members and c) to act for the benefit of the community, by promoting practical habitat conservation, wildfowl, game and deer management, good firearm licensing practice, best practice, education and scientific research or ourselves, as it suits. *Post #289 I believe the main point of this thread is that BASC claim to be "the voice of shooting" but once again they haven't listened. I hoped with a new CEO things were going to change. I think his quote should read "No evidence Of Change" Sorry but this is what happen when you spend an evening with Mr Blayney. Edited May 8, 2014 by strongbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Good evening, Croc - yes Council can request the CEO to call and SGM if it is minded to do so or indeed members can if 1% or more request it, that is enshrined in the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge no members have formally requested an SGM, this is not me trying to avoid the point, its an important one, and please do not take this the wrong way but although forums are very important in my view, they are not the way to call or push Council for an SGM. To the best of my knowledge there has been 1 email to Council on this issue. And yes I have spoken about this to members of Council and expressed your (collective) feelings. Also, Mark has been to several club meetings recently and is feeding back the points raised at these meetings. Strongbow, taking just point a of your red edits...given that farmers control one way or the other the vast majority of shooting opportunity in this country for inland shooters,and the majority of BASC members gain their shooting because it helps the farmer in one way or the other, do inland shooters want to be on the wrong side of farmers any more than coastal shooters want to be on the wrong side of the Crown Estates or example? In closing this point, may I say that I take your concerns very seriously indeed and I want us to work through this and keep working together so the sake of shooting. I am sorry that some do not accept the validity of the evidence upon which Council based its collective decision (as listed on the BASC web site)and yes I have listened to and understood the points some on here have made on their local observations of bag returns, and in my view its very important that we all work together to keep a very close eye on these returns come what may, over the coming years so we can all work together to ensure our shooting opportunity, both in terms of access and in terms of a healthy quarry population. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 (edited) David i have mailed the council but the answer that i received was from the chairman,i had requested my message to get to all council members but i presume it wasnt passed on .David you seem to be working tirelessly but are you and Conor the only people at BASC who are allowed to respond .We should be hearing from the head of wildfowling the council chairman and the chief executive .If they keep hiding the problem will get worse it needs sorting. Edited May 8, 2014 by holloway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Mongrel- Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Council can request the CEO to call and SGM if it is minded to do so or indeed members can if 1% or more request it, that is enshrined in the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge no members have formally requested an SGM, this is not me trying to avoid the point, its an important one, and please do not take this the wrong way but although forums are very important in my view, they are not the way to call or push Council for an SGM. To the best of my knowledge there has been 1 email to Council on this issue. I think that may be about to change somewhat. Who exactly should we email and what information must the email contain to be considered valid please David? I was undecided on this one until recently, but all of the information I can find suggests that there is actually no valid reason to put Greylags or Mallard on GL and as such I cannot help but feel that there is something else driving this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 In a day that communication by email is reliable and virtually instant I would have thought it was not beyond the wit of BASC to canvas the feelings of their wildfowling members without calling an SGM. Just email every member of a wildfowling club or syndicate that gets its insurance by way of BASC. At the same time canvas the official views of the clubs and syndicates by the same method. Should take very little time to set up and administer. You just need the will to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Firstly, all chairmen of Wildfowling clubs have been written to outlining BASC Councils decision and the background to it, those that want to respond will do I am sure. We use letter rather than email as a lot of emails go unopened. To the best of my knowledge there is me, Conor, and Christopher who are members of this forum, Mark I know is in contact with wildfowling clubs directly, and Richard, the CEO is contactable by letter or email but is not a member of this forum. For information my facts and figures on goose numbers, and bag returns for example that several have criticised as wrong, were only posted after I checked them with the head of wildfowling The Chairman is equally contactable by email or letter, and the Chairman represents Council, and I believe, although its silent within the constitution, that members should contact either the CEO or Chairman on maters of policy. The only thing driving this are the points that are listed on our web site, there is nothing else. As to canvasing inland shooters, well I cant speak for all of them obviously, but I know if you canvassed my shoot (inland) and we have loads of geese on our land , canadas and more recently quite a lot of greylags, I know their view would be so what if they are on GL, we may have a shot at them in season but not at any other time. Speaking as the 'keeper, and with the ear of the Chairman ( of our shoot) I would not allow it. But again I would point out that all of you can have your say by responding to the consultation, you do not have to reply to every question of course, but please use he official protocol by following the link on the BASC web site for example. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 David, Thank you for that - Very detailed. Chaps, Get writing or emailing to BASC. Contact your clubs and make sure they are very aware of this situation and respond to it as well. Grandalf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holloway Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) All please do not lose sight of the real threat ,your responses should go to Natural England as priority dont forget all BASC are doing is supporting the changes not suggesting them. Edited May 9, 2014 by holloway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strongbow Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Hi David Firstly, I take my hat of to you for your resolve and faith in your employer, if more people showed your level of fight I don't think we would be in this situation. Maybe you should go for Council next year. My edits in red are just how I see it, I am not saying it's wrong to support the farmers, far from it, although according to the NE consultation only 30 SL were issued in 2012 for agricultural damage and none were refused (hardly a need for a GL), and it is, no doubt, a good political move to buddy up with the newly appointed chairman of NE.I just don't believe it should be done at the expense of the members. I will be emailing NE with my views on this matter, I just hoped I wouldn't have to because I felt the unified voice of shooting I subscribe to would be doing it any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotslad Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 +1 on above, really important u all contact NE individually and state ur case. (and by 19th May) Even if Basc did oppose it it might only register as 1 voice aggainst it and not be a big deal for NE Was an article in wed ST about the changes to the GL wording, althou it was more focussing on corvid and pigeon control, 'shoo before u shoot' and think want to follow wot we do up here with ID number on crow traps etc The biggest problem with these government bodies (and Basc in this case) is there minds are already made up, u only have to look at tail docking (latest study again finds evidence of tail damage, yet looking like going to order another study) and proppsed law change on airguns 90% of respondents where against it but still pushed on with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 As a member of staff I don't think I am eligible for council...maybe when I retire Fully understand strongbow, and as they say 'its good to talk! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Good evening, Croc - yes Council can request the CEO to call and SGM if it is minded to do so or indeed members can if 1% or more request it, that is enshrined in the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge no members have formally requested an SGM, this is not me trying to avoid the point, its an important one, and please do not take this the wrong way but although forums are very important in my view, they are not the way to call or push Council for an SGM. To the best of my knowledge there has been 1 email to Council on this issue. And yes I have spoken about this to members of Council and expressed your (collective) feelings. Also, Mark has been to several club meetings recently and is feeding back the points raised at these meetings. Strongbow, taking just point a of your red edits...given that farmers control one way or the other the vast majority of shooting opportunity in this country for inland shooters,and the majority of BASC members gain their shooting because it helps the farmer in one way or the other, do inland shooters want to be on the wrong side of farmers any more than coastal shooters want to be on the wrong side of the Crown Estates or example? In closing this point, may I say that I take your concerns very seriously indeed and I want us to work through this and keep working together so the sake of shooting. I am sorry that some do not accept the validity of the evidence upon which Council based its collective decision (as listed on the BASC web site)and yes I have listened to and understood the points some on here have made on their local observations of bag returns, and in my view its very important that we all work together to keep a very close eye on these returns come what may, over the coming years so we can all work together to ensure our shooting opportunity, both in terms of access and in terms of a healthy quarry population. David David, You published the link to contact the council when I asked why this decision was made yet I was side swiped via Mark and got the same std response, just saying play by the rules please. How many persons is 1% might I ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Croc Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 By my reckoning Kent it's 1300 plus or minus a few Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Yes just over 1300 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Thanks, needs to be a club thing then to get done. A proper link might be good at this moment please David? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harrycatcat1 Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 In a day that communication by email is reliable and virtually instant I would have thought it was not beyond the wit of BASC to canvas the feelings of their wildfowling members without calling an SGM. Just email every member of a wildfowling club or syndicate that gets its insurance by way of BASC. At the same time canvas the official views of the clubs and syndicates by the same method. Should take very little time to set up and administer. You just need the will to do it. Have you not had your email from BASC that came yesterday? Regards H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerblayney Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 The question that needs to be answered is "why did Basc not consult wildfowlers at conference, or wildfowling clubs pre conference BEFORE they made their decision. This is now a shutting the stable door exercise. As BASC has recommended to accept these changes they have given very strong evidence for NE to justify pushing them through. I have asked BASC to detail exactly what benefits they saw to shooting in such a move, and supporting a couple of farmers (at best) and cosying up to NE just does not cut it. The figures from NE are 12 SL's for greylag and 7 for mallard last year. An insignificant number.Both species are amber listed. This is "chair shuffling" There were 498 SL's for cormorants. They are green listed. No GL here then! So no benefits but many possible dangers for shooting as have been listed in the threads above. If there was to have been a cull of adult birds BASC should have tried to have had it organised through wildfowling clubs. Who better. We have the correct weapons, the correct amunition, the correct skill level and the correct monitoring system in place. Did no one at "head office" think this one through. It seems not. Special Licences would seem to have been made for this localised damage. The only problem with Special Licences is that NE are too inefficient to organise them in a timely manner. SL's need to be made available promptly to deal with an immediate problem. Going over to a GL is just a cop out to bolster up NE's inefficiency. Its primary motive is not to save red tape, otherwise the rest of their consultation would not be so full of it. Whatever BASC like to say or think, there is no doubt from the furore above that many wildfowlers feel badly let down by BASC. I tried to get BASC to discuss it.at conference. They refused. Now they are in a mess yet again. And the only people in line to benefit? WWT and their overstocked zoos. ----- oh and perhaps a couple of farmers. And for these we could have rightly used the Orkney cull system. I suggest that, given all the views that I have seen expressed here, BASC remove their YES Agreement to NE's consultation on GL's for greylag and mallard, and either replace it with NO or find some way to properly consult their members, especially wildfowlers in whose realm this matter lies before re-entering a decision. If in doubt, the answer must be NO, but as a start I will check with our committee on Monday and I suggest other clubs ballot theirs. Because one thing is for sure. If larger culls do take place (and there will be no counting of them under GL's), then there will be less quarry about for the wildfowler than their could have been, while the slain will generally be dumped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy baxendale Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Firstly to all those against this senseless move - surely 1300 members calling for a SGM is a very achievable number? How do we go about doing this? Secondly to David and Conor - Many thanks for coming on here and entering into dialogue with us. One thing that has stood out from your postings is that your are defending the proposed changes rather than outlining strong reasons for the changes. The reality is that the SL's give protection to those few people that need it and are not open to abuse like the GL. The only argument for the proposed change seems to be that the SL is an administrative burden for NE and are too slow in some cases - Are there any other reasons for the change because I haven't heard any ? If i am right then the fact that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation has supported this change beggars belief. 1) Inclusion on the GL opens a magnificent sporting bird to abuse not least of all when it has dependent young so you are failing to support conservation 2) It has the potential in the future to muddy the water in the water in terms of the Greylags status as a sporting quarry, so in my mind you are also so you are failing to support Shooting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Firstly, may I repeat that the back ground to Councils decision is on the web site. Secondly, we have been encouraging members from the very start to reply to the consultation themselves, go for an SGM if you want but do not forget to respond to the consultation Information on this has been on our web site since the end of February and was in the S&C issue that went out on 1st March Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guy baxendale Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 David - I replied to the consultation before BASC issued their view - should i now do so again? I have alerted a couple of people in the sporting press as to this issue so hopefully they will publish on it and raise the profile of the problem and start to put some pressure on BASC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 As far as I know you can only reply once, as to the sporting press, well I am sure they are already well aware of what's going on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry P Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 David, many have taken part in the NE consultation, but it hardly helps our cause when the largest shooting org just rolls over and agrees to put 2 more species on the GL. 2 amber listed species at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 No one rolled over, as I have said time and time again the decision Council took was evidence based as detailed on the BASC web site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strongbow Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Firstly, all chairmen of Wildfowling clubs have been written to outlining BASC Councils decision and the background to it, those that want to respond will do I am sure. We use letter rather than email as a lot of emails go unopened. To the best of my knowledge there is me, Conor, and Christopher who are members of this forum, Mark I know is in contact with wildfowling clubs directly, and Richard, the CEO is contactable by letter or email but is not a member of this forum. For information my facts and figures on goose numbers, and bag returns for example that several have criticised as wrong, were only posted after I checked them with the head of wildfowling The Chairman is equally contactable by email or letter, and the Chairman represents Council, and I believe, although its silent within the constitution, that members should contact either the CEO or Chairman on maters of policy. The only thing driving this are the points that are listed on our web site, there is nothing else. As to canvasing inland shooters, well I cant speak for all of them obviously, but I know if you canvassed my shoot (inland) and we have loads of geese on our land , canadas and more recently quite a lot of greylags, I know their view would be so what if they are on GL, we may have a shot at them in season but not at any other time. Speaking as the 'keeper, and with the ear of the Chairman ( of our shoot) I would not allow it. But again I would point out that all of you can have your say by responding to the consultation, you do not have to reply to every question of course, but please use he official protocol by following the link on the BASC web site for example. David Hi David Just heard from the Chairman of Gloucestershire Wildfowlers, via email, his said he got a call saying that a letter was on it's way but has received nothing. Might be worth checking the mail room. Can anyone else lay claim to any other Club have received this letter ?? 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.