CA, BASC etc.

[spinach]

As a follow on to the debate that compo started, and not wanting to hijack it.

How many of you join one or another of our organisations for the insurance and perhaps the "free" magazine and how many for the public voice and sterling work done on our behalf.

Go on be honest without the insurance who would?

John.

[BattleFieldRelics]

I recognise we need a strong united voice. But yes, its the insurance that makes sure I sign up to BASC every year.

 

I dont think they do enough on our behalf in regards to our representation.

[tomov]

Ridiculously, I'm in the CA, BASC and the BDS.

 

I am a member of the CA (and before that the BFSS) because I come from a background of hunting with hounds and the CA is the only organisation effectively representing that particular sport. My BDS membership reflects my interest in stalking and wider interest in deer. BASC I just joined to be able to book ranges at Bisley, although I think they do good work with promoting shooting sports.

 

Even being a member of all three costs me less than £200 a year, which I can ill afford but in terms of what I spend on shooting / hunting overall isn't that much and I feel duty bound to try and secure some kind of future for field sports.

 

The insurance influences me not one bit.

[CharlieT]

Like tomov, I too belong to the CA, BASC and the NGO.

 

I joined the CA (when it was the BFFS) and WAGBI long before membership included insurance. Again, like tomov, the insurance has no bearing on my reasons for joining.

 

My only wish is that people would stop askings the question "which insurance should I get" rather than asking themselves the question "which fieldsports organisation would represent my needs best".

 

How often do we see posters stating that they are joining SACS because of their insurance package and the cost, they don't seem to give a hoot about the effort the CA and BASC do representing us, which should be the real reason for joining. I'm the first to say that sometimes they get it wrong, but to be fair they have a hard uphill slog and they don't have a magic wand.

[Scully]

As a handgunner I was affiliated to the NPA via the NRA, but when their true mettle was revealed I joined the SRA as they were the only organisation making their voice heard, all the others having beat a hasty retreat. We received info' packs and bullet points and along with him who must not be mentioned and Colin Greenwood and Jan Stevenson they were quite vociferous for a while, but as I've mentioned before, they were on their own. Bitter? Moi?

Anyhow, joined the CPSA when I shot a lot of clays, and although I'll never forget the way BASC let us down, I eventually joined them as I felt they were in the best situation to represent me when I started shooting more game than clays. Joined the NGO also some time later. Insurance has never been my motivation.

[triumph_Dave]

I belong to the CA and the BASC ( And in days long gone BFSS and WAGBI ) I also have a hunting background, plus I now fly fish.. I consider that the CA covers the hunting/fishing side and the BASC covers my shooting for game/clay. The main reason I belong to both is for a representation to try and stand up to the people/government that want desperately to stop the ways of our countryside. I do use the insurance but it is very secondary to my main reasons of belonging to the CA and BASC.

[spinach]

Like tomov, I too belong to the CA, BASC and the NGO.

 

 

My only wish is that people would stop askings the question "which insurance should I get" rather than asking themselves the question "which fieldsports organisation would represent my needs best"

 

Well put, though I'm glad they do as I wonder how many would as even under pressure we are an apathetic lot.

John.

[kent]

As a follow on to the debate that compo started, and not wanting to hijack it.

How many of you join one or another of our organisations for the insurance and perhaps the "free" magazine and how many for the public voice and sterling work done on our behalf.

Go on be honest without the insurance who would?

John.

I should and did, many are members of both and add others (you have to stand for something or put up with anything). Will I be joining again? At present very unlikely as regards BASC not just because of their actions on GL of Greylag and Mallard but more for the Stonewalling std response they give when questioned and lack of contact with any of real accountability for the action. Liability insurance is not that hard to obtain the orgs themselves shop around and there are other bodies besides the big two, shame though because we will loose something when they go

[norfolk dumpling]

I'm a member of the 'big two' plus NOBS and UCSW and insurance isn't in the frame as I know my household covers me more than adequately BUT I shoot with several who only join for liability covers even though, when you analyse this, no one can ever recall anyone ever claiming. However I am becoming rather disillusioned with BASC locally - we used to have in the eastern region local 'management' but this has now gone. We are now part of Central with a midlands bias. This worries me as the old guard had a bias towards Essex/Suffolk with Norfolk largely ignored. This is disappointing with Norfolk possibly one of the most heavily shot over parts of the uk - I read somewhere over 80% of agric land - but little in the way of events or visible support. We used to have a shooting event at Easton College which was heavily supported. This was suspended during FMD outbreak and never resurrected (there was one attempt but poorly advertised) leaving us here with little activity now. CA scores much better for me and I'm wondering whether I should drop BASC? Do any other other Norfolk ( and perhaps Suffolk although you do seem to get the odd game cooking/deer stalking event) feel similarly neglected?

[Penelope]

Agreed. I have always been a WAGBI/BASC member, but that may change over their decision to support NE over placing greylag geese on GL.

 

CA or NGO would be the next on my list.

 

Like tomov, I too belong to the CA, BASC and the NGO.

 

I joined the CA (when it was the BFFS) and WAGBI long before membership included insurance. Again, like tomov, the insurance has no bearing on my reasons for joining.

 

My only wish is that people would stop askings the question "which insurance should I get" rather than asking themselves the question "which fieldsports organisation would represent my needs best".

 

How often do we see posters stating that they are joining SACS because of their insurance package and the cost, they don't seem to give a hoot about the effort the CA and BASC do representing us, which should be the real reason for joining. I'm the first to say that sometimes they get it wrong, but to be fair they have a hard uphill slog and they don't have a magic wand.

[kent]

Agreed. I have always been a WAGBI/BASC member, but that may change over their decision to support NE over placing greylag geese on GL.

 

CA or NGO would be the next on my list.

CA voted for GL also on greys, they can be excused a little though because they had issues with ID of feral and woodpigeon not long back. Both bodies have become remote from the membership, otherwise we shouldn't even consider putting a non shooter at the head

[Penelope]

Well that makes the choice somewhat easier to make.

 

 

CA voted for GL also on greys, they can be excused a little though because they had issues with ID of feral and woodpigeon not long back. Both bodies have become remote from the membership, otherwise we shouldn't even consider putting a non shooter at the head

[kent]

Well that makes the choice somewhat easier to make.

I am just a little unsure if this lot can be trusted without us. The membership of an org has a voice and persons have held onto untenable positions only so long in other Orgs when that voice is raised. Don't for one minute believe that people like David, Connor and Mark etc. all believe in this they are employed and pay their mortgages and feed their family with the job that BASC give them. The way I see it are

 

1. We have the wrong guy at the head, no true loyalty to the shooter in the field, woods, moor or on the marsh a career bureaucrat who only shot after joining BASC as our leader- But hey Avery was out of touch with his troops also

2. The ex-head of NE heading the council- PRESENTLY

3. Remoteness through size, grass routes membership needs more say and a possible veto vote on these matters in future

4. The issue of articles and memorandums and charity remit might make some of what has occurred outside the legal scope framework - this has to be looked at in greater detail yet, at present its focus on the consultation.

[David BASC]

And of course the NGO support the NE proposals too...

 

But back to the question in hand, rather than derailing this thread...support the organisation or organisations that you feel support you and your chosen sports the best.

 

Insurance is just part of the package, never forget the political and media work that some of the organisations deliver, the membership benefits, and of course the magazines and other communications,. personally I am BASC, CA, GWCT, NGO and Angling Trust,

 

David

[kent]

And of course the NGO support the NE proposals too...

 

But back to the question in hand, rather than derailing this thread...support the organisation or organisations that you feel support you and your chosen sports the best.

 

Insurance is just part of the package, never forget the political and media work that some of the organisations deliver, the membership benefits, and of course the magazines and other communications,. personally I am BASC, CA, GWCT, NGO and Angling Trust,

 

David

Showing collusion, with their big bother but why should the NGO care for Greylags, they only see them when they out compete grouse for nesting. Nobody I have met has any issue with SL. Ask why did the NGO feel a need to exist if they had a proper home and representation in BASC. The CA I get foxhunting and so many other issues do not come into BASC realm

[David BASC]

You are best asking the NGO about their reasons for supporting the GL proposal , their response is linked off their home page, but if that does not answer your questions then you may with to contact hem directly, their contact details are here: http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/contact-the-national-gamekeepers-organisation

 

I suspect you will find that most members of the NGO are lowland keepers not moorland by the way

 

You may be surprised that BASC and the NGO get on very well indeed, and a lot of our members are members of both organisations.

 

David

[aris]

Insurance is just part of the package, never forget the political and media work that some of the organisations deliver, the membership benefits, and of course the magazines and other communications,. personally I am BASC, CA, GWCT, NGO and Angling Trust,

 

 

How does it work with insurance if you are a member of multiple organisations who offer insurance in their membership package? If you have to make a claim - who do you claim from?

 

I'm surprised that most shooting organisations don't offer the full membership package without insurance. In reality, you only need one.

[David BASC]

Hi,

 

A very good question! Much depends on the wording of the policy. many of them are what's sometimes know as 'last resort' ie they will not pay out if there is another policy in place, such as another organisation, home insurance, pet insurance etc, that could over the claim. In that case you need to take the claim to the other insurers first...

 

The BASC policy does not have that exclusion, we simply take on the claim sort it out for the member with the minimum of fuss

[Kes]

Just a thought - if all the organisations quoted agreed affiliation fees - then you could be a member of one without having 'double anything', enjoying insurance cover from your principal or first choice. However, since insurance is a money earner, it would be like one set of turkeys voting for Christmas. It would however begin to add momentum towards amalgamation. We only join more than one organisation because of so called specialisation - do those who have all memberships benefit from that or is it a concience-clearing issue?

There is no doubt there should be a single representative fieldsports organisation in my mind. Sadly for me its not BASC in its present form and under current leadership. However the slight dissarray in the 'field' might support the development of a 'super-organisation' to which all ot many of the existing orgs could align with and add weight to.

Eventually the 'super-org' would draw financial support from many of the existing groups and they might well wither on the vine, but by ensuiring their 'specialism' is full represented within the 'super org', their purpose and some of their staff would be retained.

One thing is sure by doing nothing we will ensure the current status - quo.

[David BASC]

There is no profit to be made out of liability cover I am afraid, so its certainly no money earner!

 

BASC already offer a 'supporter' package for £31, this does not include insurance cover, or voting rights , but you still get the mag and so on, so in effect a 'no insurance' package is already offered , but few take it up.

 

Personally I support different organisations to help the fund the different projects that specialise in.

 

You may not be aware but there is already a coupe of 'Super organisation's' that many of the organisations belong to such as the British Shooting Sports Council in the UK and FACE in Europe, and these are funded by the organisations that belong to them,

[kent]

You are best asking the NGO about their reasons for supporting the GL proposal , their response is linked off their home page, but if that does not answer your questions then you may with to contact hem directly, their contact details are here: http://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/contact-the-national-gamekeepers-organisation

 

I suspect you will find that most members of the NGO are lowland keepers not moorland by the way

 

You may be surprised that BASC and the NGO get on very well indeed, and a lot of our members are members of both organisations.

 

David

I think you will be correct on that due in no small part to the numbers of Grouse moors to the number of lowland pheasant, partridge and duck shoots. I am not surprised you get on, just surprised there is or ever was a need to fragment. I have always thought we should stand together regardless because one time on one issue your area will become the minority, I personally never shoot driven pheasant but I should fight for it to remain, likewise I don't ride ever when the hounds go out I am there with a shotgun perhaps that's just me but I doubt it. I remember an angler being spoken to by a shooter for gaining support for the ban on lead shot for fowl his response was " go something yourself" you never supported us when we lost lead split shot and we don't chuck it away in such vast quantities

[David BASC]

I would say that the angling world has changed quite a bit, and BASC and the Angling Trust also work very closely together

[Scully]

One 'super organisarion' wouldnt make an iota of difference to the effectiveness of shooters as a significant body with real clout anyway, not unless ALL shooters start singing from the same hymn sheet and are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder to counter each and evey threat to gun ownership.

We don't have the numbers to pose a political threat and even if the numbers were there, there is still the matter of all for one and one for all.

Without political clout we have no real influence I'm afraid.

[David BASC]

I do take your point, but in the (almost) 20 years I have been in this industry I have never known better and closer cooperation between the main organisations on key strategic issues than we have now, and long may that continue.

[Scully]

I do take your point, but in the (almost) 20 years I have been in this industry I have never known better and closer cooperation between the main organisations on key strategic issues than we have now, and long may that continue.

Yes; long may it continue. But it wont make any difference to whatever legislation any government has in store for us.