BASC or CA

[mudpatten]

For me, with regard to the idea of a merger, the problem is that there are as many points of view as there are shooting organisations.

 

Indeed,it is that difference in viewpoint that has led to there being these different organisations in the first place. Trying to get them all to agree on a set of principles would be all but impossible.

 

From my perspective, it is in the diversity of the various organisations that lies their strength.

 

BASC is often accused of taking a soft line. The advantage of this soft line is that politicians simply don`t want to engage with people who are foaming at the mouth,shouting and banging on the table, something the CA are good at. More political progress can be made with reasoned argument than with a fist fight.

 

By deliberately deploying the CA to turn over some political tables and throw teddies out of prams politicians soon realise that having a reasoned debate with BASC is better for all concerned.

 

We don`t need mergers. We need joined up tactical and strategic thinking between the associations that we already have.

[compo90]

Mudpatten argues for an alliance, no pun intended.

 

As I said before basc scare a lot of firearms licensing departments and carry great weight there...... That's through knowledge and not being afraid to argue and fight if needed.

 

An umbrella organisation is one solution but still not as politically important as one super sized massive organisation.

 

I know a few of us are members of more than one and that can be used to show increased figures, but I think politicians and anti's realise that and account for it.

 

One organisation including all would be more reflective of our strength and remove that doubt.

 

I am enjoying this debate.

[grahamch]

why not merge the lot and have a strong united voice, look what the NRA has achieved

[compo90]

Grahamch that's very true...... However in the states gun ownership is more than just sport shooting......and that's what the nra represents..but it could work here... Last time we had this debate it ended with a load of people identifing why it wouldn't work. No one saying what needs to be done and no pressure or suggestions made to any organisation.

 

But what I would like to see is a nra sized and similarly motivated organisation here, but one representing everything, the team that are basc running the firearms and shooting side, ca and others for the hunting, angling etc, brought in too...... Each specialist representing their specialist department but under a joined up and centrally heard voice.....no one running down another sport and all fighting as one, clever pr people and strong leadership......... The point has been made about working mens sport, the ca missed the boat there and allowed the hunting act through by repeatedly showing mounted hunts and never someone from a council house with a lurcher....... Likewise when licensing fees for sgc's came up I feel basc didn't do enough to show the bottom end of the shooting group and humanise the issue.

 

A bigger and better planned group could do that better...... Fight all issues effectively

[Scully]

why not merge the lot and have a strong united voice, look what the NRA has achieved

As much as it pains me to say it I'm afraid there is no comparison with any of our shooting organisations, even as one entity, and the NRA. The NRA has the numbers to back it up and is therefore a powerful political lobby; we don't and aren't.

If the anglers came on board, that may make a difference (after all, it is regarded as a 'cruel sport') but otherwise we just don't have the power, nor the most important criteria...the will.

[spanj]

For me, with regard to the idea of a merger, the problem is that there are as many points of view as there are shooting organisations.

 

Indeed,it is that difference in viewpoint that has led to there being these different organisations in the first place. Trying to get them all to agree on a set of principles would be all but impossible.

 

From my perspective, it is in the diversity of the various organisations that lies their strength.

 

BASC is often accused of taking a soft line. The advantage of this soft line is that politicians simply don`t want to engage with people who are foaming at the mouth,shouting and banging on the table, something the CA are good at. More political progress can be made with reasoned argument than with a fist fight.

 

By deliberately deploying the CA to turn over some political tables and throw teddies out of prams politicians soon realise that having a reasoned debate with BASC is better for all concerned.

 

We don`t need mergers. We need joined up tactical and strategic thinking between the associations that we already have.

I think we do need mergers and the unified organisation could have the specialised departments that we see with basc now. This org should represent all field sports as we are sufering the death of a thousand cuts starting a couple of decades ago. There is no sense in the CA saying shooting foxes is not right and then promoting hunting with hounds. There is no sense in having an organisation that defends you taking a soft line of any sort, that is appeasement in my eyes. What we do is not popular with an ever increasingly soft and over anthromorphosised general public, we need to defend our sport and our rights robustly. Shooting is shooting in the eyes of the public, most dont know (or care) about the differences between clay, target, game or wildfowl shooting. The lead ban will affect ALL shooters so the fragmented stance we have now isnt working. Pistol shooters were easily picked off (pardon the pun), what makes ANY other discipline think they couldnt be? The my org is better than your org view will hasten our sports end in my opinion. We NEED a unified approach (this should include hunting and angling IMO)

[mudpatten]

Part of the problem about a Super Shooting Group is precicely the issue of numbers.

 

Many feel that with, notionally, 50,000 people in BASC, 50,000 people in the CA and 50,000 in the NGO that the total number of people that it would then represent will be 150,000+.

 

It won`t.

 

With many multiple memberships the numbers of subscriptions paid to, and therefore available as money to fight with, will be significantly less than it is with people paying to belong to more than one organisation.

 

And we shooters tend to forget that fox hunting, not shooting lies at the core of the CA and brings with it a completely different set of political and public prejudices, many of which shooting does not currently suffer from.

[compo90]

Shooting does suffer with class prejudice already...... That's part of the way the proposed licence fee increase was played......by the police federation on facebook at least...... The presumption in the media is we are all loaded landed gents with more money than sense, and that the public purse is being used to support a rich blood sport (I paraphrase) ...... Which I see is exactly the same ruse they used with the hunting ban and which the ca allowed to propogate, make it a class issue and show its participants as rich and privelidged ........... I own a whippet, one ferret and the shotgun I use the most cost a tenner........ Which ever organisation I am a member of needs to represent my end of the spectrum and highlight its ordinary working class folk too........ One organisation would show our true numbers but I feel that would be a good thing as the antis etc.... Anticipate we are members of all groups.......and estimate lower numbers than we are actually..... Again the reasons why not are starting to come out louder than the reasons for one........