A mandate for BASC

[Kes]

Anyone interested in signing a petition from BASC Members to mandate BASC Council to research, scope and report on the potential for significant amalgamation of field sports associations?

If more than 25 sign then it will be worth continuing to a proper survey, starting with the list of BASC members and thus to social media, trade members etc..

Edited May 21, 2014 by Kes

[wymberley]

After half a lifetime I voted with my feet a while back so can't. One thing about this topic is that it's keeping our minds off NTS. I think this probably won't work on the grounds that staffing and council manning levels will be reduced for a single organisation as opposed to the existing several and I can't see anyone recommending the loss of their own jobs/perks.

 

So, as this is more than likely dead in the water, is there any update on progress by the LAG?

[CharlieT]

As a member of the CA and the NGO, why would I wish them to amalgamate with BASC, a relatively small single issue (shooting) organisation that only serves one small aspect of my recreational needs.

 

They already work closely with all the other field sports organisations and are taken seriously by government and the media, why water down their remit by joining forces with non specialists.

[webber]

I think that there is a lot of merit in one large organisation representing the various aspects of shooting related activities. An organisation with say 200,000 members carries far more political clout than an organisation with say 25,000 members.

 

However I seriously doubt that I will ever see it happen. I fear that there are too many snouts in too many troughs for the smaller organisations to ever come under the BASC umberella. There are significant economies of scale to be had, but I fear that self preservationists will always make a case for status quo. Maybe if an organisation gets into financial dire straights it could happen, but other than that I fear that BASC would be wasting members brass on an interesting but fruitless exercise.

 

webber

[Glenshooter]

I think that there is a lot of merit in one large organisation representing the various aspects of shooting related activities. An organisation with say 200,000 members carries far more political clout than an organisation with say 25,000 members.

 

However I seriously doubt that I will ever see it happen. I fear that there are too many snouts in too many troughs for the smaller organisations to ever come under the BASC umberella. There are significant economies of scale to be had, but I fear that self preservationists will always make a case for status quo. Maybe if an organisation gets into financial dire straights it could happen, but other than that I fear that BASC would be wasting members brass on an interesting but fruitless exercise.

 

webber

 

 

I agree with you. Our opinion would be much more influential if we had a bigger organisation. My day job is 'communications' and I am regularly saddened by the attacks by misinformed and naive shooters regularly thrown at BASC and CA. Nobody is perfect, but BASC as a shooting organisation, is pretty good.

 

However, if shooters want smaller more specialist organisations that is understandable, but it sure reduces the impact of what could be achieved by a single, large and well funded organisation.

[Therealchucknorris]

Trouble is, at present, BASC are a larger scale organisation with small scale staffing levels. One shooting organisation would be good to have, not forgetting the other local issues supported and championed by smaller scale organisations.

[CharlieT]

the potential for significant amalgamation of field sports associations?

 

 

I thought that the BSSC was exactly that, a united voice of all the organisations representing shooting sports.

[kent]

some who follow hounds, hunt with hawks, shoot only targets, only kill vermin etc etc will always not wish to include a faction. It sounds great but the brief I fear might be too vast. Look on it this way we have a foxhunting anti running in the BASC election

[anser2]

Having all the fieldsport organisations togeather under one organisation sounds good , but as we have just seen with the greylag \ BASC issue any small group withing the whole organiastion will be ignored and most of the effort will be centered on the main intrest groups. BASC has just produce a prime example of this. An organisation I always beleved trustworthy has proved itself very untrustworthy.

Edited May 22, 2014 by anser2

[kent]

Having all the fieldsport organisations togeather under one organisation sounds good , but as we have just seen with the greylag \ BASC issue any small group withing the whole organiastion will be ignored and most of the effort will be centered on the main intrest groups. BASC has just produce a prime example of this. An organisation I always beleved trustworthy has proved itself very untrustworthy.

 

This is just it. For such a plan to work a one for all, all for one type of rule needs to be at the forefront. Other than that's its like NATO with a Chicken-out clause if the opponent is too powerful and the member nation not important enough.

[Kes]

It is obviously easier to live with what you have for many than change and put some effort in.

Apathy and cynicism is a deadly combination and thats mostly what I see here.

You cant blame BASC if you dont try and change it.

You cant complain about stronger representation without contemplating amalgamation as competing interests will proliferate.

You cant blame those who have no vision if you refuse to use your own.

Most importantly, you cant expect a 'knight in shining armour' to do something unless you know what he might look like and openly look for him.

The latter requires all the former to be in place.

Again, I'm out.

[scotslad]

I actually think it is a good thing to have 2 org's as they hopefully keep each other on there toes. In the old days was always a member of BFSS as well as Basc now SGA

 

Kes the reason urself and a few others are upset with Basc is the recent decision which is understandable esp with Basc's history but u will have an even smaller voice in a bigger org. But ll other shooting orgs also had the exact same response as Basc to the GL yet no others are getting the hard time basc are

As it is the ones mentioned Basc, CA, Ngo and SGA all sit on the top tables and do speak to the decision makers and politicians as well as press/tv

If u had a bigger org with a lot of fishermen, do u really think they would be aggainst greylags going on the GL, would imagine many will reguard them as vermin anyway

 

The other problem with bigger companies is higher overheads so more expensive subs, far too often shooters are only interested in the cheapest sub's/ins and not wot other things that org does for the sport

[islandgun]

I'm not sure why fowlers as a group cannot stay within BASC (if they are in already) yet also have the ability to put their names together in protest, as the protest registers better under one banner, anything else that develops meetings or website etc would be a bonus,

[Beretta06]

Eggs, basket, all, in springs to mind. I think multi organisations gives us choices. As some said in other spots, they voted with their feet. If there is only one choice, you have no choice actually. I'm a big fat 'no' for support of the OP on this occasion.

[Scully]

It makes no difference if there is just one organisation or twenty one. What matters is the numbers of shooters, and that they are all united. We have neither numbers nor unity.

Who was the copper (so he claimed on here recently) who was going to email the organisations re' one big happy organisation? He's gone awfully quiet.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Scully

[kent]

Lets be fair which org is going to ratify a merger and loose a load of staff (mainly the ones who sit in the big offices and make the real choices on policy)

[RossEM]

If you look at what's about to go down in Scotland in terms of land ownership and airgun licencing, it's evident that BASC doesn't have the clout, on it's own, to affect governmental policy change. BUT, it is not really their failing - they are hard-fighting and have a huge voice when you consider their small size.

 

An amalgamation of ALL sporting associations would of course have a massive effect on governmental policy, because you are now talking about millions of voters, rather than thousands. It is a sad fact that at the moment, the powers that be are not really concerned about shooting sports - none of those considerations are seen to translate into potential votes, because our representative bodies are so small and fractious. Look at the NFU - they were in a position to dictate policy to government on Bovine TB. We need that sort of scale and strength.

 

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, BASC should be fighting for a 'Shooting Charter' to protects the public's right to shoot from erosive legislation.

 

The general licences are a farce and miss several important pest species (cormorants, for one.) I do not trust NE office staff to choose which species should or should not be controlled - I doubt even the RSPB would disagree with that. The game laws are archaic and need extensive change.

 

Can you imagine all legislation affecting shooting sports being revised by a committee of people who actually know what they're talking about? That is what BASC should be fighting for!

[Scully]

 

 

An amalgamation of ALL sporting associations would of course have a massive effect on governmental policy, because you are now talking about millions of voters, rather than thousands.

Millions? Really?

[CharlieT]

 

Look at the NFU - they were in a position to dictate policy to government on Bovine TB. We need that sort of scale and strength.

You are joking, I must have missed it as I'm still waiting for some decisive government action to help me deal with bTB.

 

 

 

The general licences are a farce and miss several important pest species (cormorants, for one.) I do not trust NE office staff to choose which species should or should not be controlled - I doubt even the RSPB would disagree with that. The game laws are archaic and need extensive change.

You must remember that all birds, with the exception of game birds and wildfowl, are protected. Licenses are not there to provide sport, but to negate economic and environmental impact. Licenses are available for cormorants.

I would also point out that the vast majority believe that there is nothing wrong with the current game laws.

 

 

[David BASC]

May I point out that there is a significant point that's been missed.

 

Most significantly its not the senior staff of the organisations that make the final decision on mergers, its the members of the organisations. Some on here will remember the proposal back in the late 1990's for a merger between BASC and BFSS. This was rejected by the members of BASC at a general meeting.

 

The cooperation and coming together on key issues between the main organisations have never been better in the 18 years I have been directly employed by the shooting industry and that is a very good thing.

 

Having a free choice of shooting organisations is important, as it keeps everyone on their toes.

 

But the key issue is that at least half of all shooters cant be bothered to join any of them....imagine if they did even if the proportions joining each remained roughly the same you would have BASC with over 300,000 members...

 

David

[Scully]

 

 

But the key issue is that at least half of all shooters cant be bothered to join any of them....imagine if they did even if the proportions joining each remained roughly the same you would have BASC with over 300,000 members...

 

David

It's also worth pointing out that the numbers in any given organisation will only ensure the income that organisation receives, and is no indication of an organisations ability nor willingness to fight.

There are two significant factors which UK shooters need to be effective, and neither is financial. It is the willingness to FIGHT as a UNIFIED body, and we don't have it. It simply isn't that important to many shooters.

Any organisation could have 5 million members but it would matter little unless all those members were willing to react to any given threat we faced, and as history has shown, we don't have that willingness. In some cases not even our organisations have been willing to fight. We only have ourselves to blame.

[RossEM]

Well said David. I assume a significant number of those who aren't part of any organisation don't have insurance, either.

 

Hi Scully, yes millions; look at the figures for firearm & shotgun licence grants, add airgun users (thought to be more in number than FAC/SGC holders put together.) Add the potential trade members, affiliated clubs, supporters, the list goes on...

The problem is lack of awareness. If every single person involved in shooting was more aware of, and more motivated to meet, the threats we face, they would therefore be compelled to join an organisation.There is a genuine danger that we are sleepwalking into being legislated out of existence. I believe that having a larger organisation to meet those threats is crucial - I would rather the fight not pan out like David and Goliath. I've introduced 5 friends to shooting in the past few years - they all are members of BASC, because at the very least, the more numerous we are, the better. Perhaps we would then be better equipped to achieve a top down, comprehensive review of all the legislation governing shooting (including NTX, General Licences, SGC/FAC grants & renewals) and to achieve a positive result for everyone concerned?

 

Hi Charlie T - I'm well aware that all birds are protected by law with the exceptions made for game and pest species. What I am trying to convey is that I don't believe the General Licences are fit for purpose (let alone in the form the may well take in future.) I believe we should have legal recognition to shoot pest species for any appropriate reason - because we are the ones that take responsibility for negating that economic and environmental impact, and a great many of us are on the sharp end of the damage that pest species do. Cormorants are a great example of this - they are not in anyway endangered, they are not native to inland areas, yet cause immense damage to commercial and private fisheries - why on earth aren't they on the General Licence to protect flora & fauna?! Instead, those who are genuinely feeling the effects of the predation have to go through an intense and sceptical process of application, ending in them being licensed to cull a handful of birds per year. The system does not work, and in many cases people are forced to break the law. What we have at the moment is a licencing system biased towards protectionism - what good is that for those at the receiving end?

 

On an entirely separate note, American shooters have the right to hunt for food - is that such an unimaginable goal for us?

 

Let me just explain myself by saying I am NOT of the opinion that we should be allowed to shoot whatever we want, when we want. It would just make more sense to have a set of regulations in place that actually reflect the true environmental impacts of pest species, and to have legal recognition and respect for the value of shooting to the environment and beyond. It would be fantastic to have the security of those laws being written by people who are truly knowledgeable on the subject - not just some power-wielding DEFRA or Europa committee. It would also be ideal for all avenues of shooting to be protected against the kind of piecemeal, problem-causing legislation we have experienced in the past, and no doubt will in the future.

 

I totally disagree with your comment that the vast majority find nothing wrong with the current game laws - tell that to the wildfowler who works 6 days a week and lives in a county where wildfowling is banned on Sundays - there are a lot of them about. Why does the partridge season extend til the end of January, when birds are pairing up? Why can deer not be controlled with shotguns (controversy-free) as they are in other countries? Why is there no closed season for hares? Multiple centuries have passed since the game laws were drafted and they are no longer relevant!

 

 

As for the badger cull, as far as I knew, the only reason that the pilot cull was given any creedence was as a result of continued lobbying by the NFU, culminating in DEFRA/Jim Paice & Caroline Spelman authorising it. If you know any different please enlighten me.

[RossEM]

It's also worth pointing out that the numbers in any given organisation will only ensure the income that organisation receives, and is no indication of an organisations ability nor willingness to fight.

There are two significant factors which UK shooters need to be effective, and neither is financial. It is the willingness to FIGHT as a UNIFIED body, and we don't have it. It simply isn't that important to many shooters.

Any organisation could have 5 million members but it would matter little unless all those members were willing to react to any given threat we faced, and as history has shown, we don't have that willingness. In some cases not even our organisations have been willing to fight. We only have ourselves to blame.

I think that's very true, but - is there a case for mandatory membership - at least under the guise of needing insurance? At least a vastly increased total membership might scare the politicians into thinking.

Just to play devil's advocate here - I think Countryside Marches proved that it doesn't really matter how prepared to fight people are, if a government is determined to do something undemocratic, they'll do it - just look at Kenny MacAskill.

[Beretta06]

The combined power of the people is long since dead. September 2002, over 400 000 people marched in London, contesting, amongst other things, fox hunting. The result was they were basically ignored and the people were railroaded.

 

The 'collective voice' is a thing of history and hasn't shown to be really effective for many years now. You can have as many people in as many groups (or one big group) as you wish and modern Gov will still decide 'what's best for us'. We kick and scream, but it isn't changing any time soon

[Scully]

Well said David. I assume a significant number of those who aren't part of any organisation don't have insurance, either.​ Possibly true, but you don't know that for a fact, you're assuming as you said. I for example, will be getting my insurance elsewhere after letting my membership to the two organisations I'm in lapse at next renewal.

 

Hi Scully, yes millions; look at the figures for firearm & shotgun licence grants, add airgun users (thought to be more in number than FAC/SGC holders put together.) Add the potential trade members, affiliated clubs, supporters, the list goes on...Go on then; give us some figures. The higher the better actually as it only goes to prove my point, and here's an example. How many FAC/SGC holders are there out there? 100,000? 200,000? Out of the millions of us you claim there are and with the backing of most of our shooting organisations, how many lobbied MP's, the HO and parliament in general following the shootings in Cumbria? Less than 2% . LESS THAN 2% ! Asked to lobby by petition by our shooting organisations for the reintroduction of .22 rf pistols out of the millions you claim there are the number has now settled around the 11,000 mark last I looked. In Scotland, there were calls for lobbying against the licensing of air rifles. Out of an estimated 500,000 air rifles in circulation, the number of owners who could be bothered to lobby settled around the 20,000 mark. Impressive if those estimated 500,000 air rifles are owned by 20,000 people, but somehow I doubt it.

The problem is lack of awareness. No it isn't , it's APATHY. If every single person involved in shooting was more aware of, and more motivated to meet, the threats we face, they would therefore be compelled to join an organisation. I did, for many years. I'm fed up of funding some blokes lunch even if he is in talks with the HO. When they turn round and say to those who oppose us, 'we're not doing it', and that's that. Enough is enough. We don't need a license to get a gun, we do it because we're law abiding people and want to stay within the law. Stop pushing us', then they can double subs and I'll pay it.There is a genuine danger that we are sleepwalking into being legislated out of existence. Couldn't agree more, but the organisations we pay to help us aren't delivering. I sincerely hope our subs haven't subsidised J Swifts pension fund; that would be a huge kick in the teeth. I believe that having a larger organisation to meet those threats is crucial - Possibly, but only if it fights. It aint gonna happen. I would rather the fight not pan out like David and Goliath. If you believe in fairy stories then we're going to get nowhere, but didn't David win? I've introduced 5 friends to shooting in the past few years - they all are members of BASC, because at the very least, the more numerous we are, the better. I've forgotten how many I've introduced. I recommended they all become members of BASC I'm embarrassed to admit. We now have a CEO who doesn't shoot and an anti vying for council.Perhaps we would then be better equipped to achieve a top down, comprehensive review of all the legislation governing shooting (including NTX, General Licences, SGC/FAC grants & renewals) and to achieve a positive result for everyone concerned?Good luck with that.