Jump to content

Labour and game birds


ShootingEgg
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ShootingEgg said:

 we've had a Labour govt, it was 5years + of free stuff for everyone, then we run out of money as a country and will be 15 years of picking up the pieces and blaming the  current  govt for said carp created.. 

That's quite right - spend, spend, spend, then let someone else pick up the debts.  Easy and quick to spend, very hard to pay back.

3 hours ago, Bobba said:

I certainly agree with your point here. However, it is not these activities which are coming under fire (sorry, couldn't resist), but shooting is and in particular pheasant and grouse shooting. People of all persuasions and incomes will happily pay to go to concerts etc. and probably hold no grievance against those who choose to go when they do not. My point is that when the Anti's construct their case then should they choose to include the cost per gun day, irrespective of who is paying, then this can be a persuasive arguement on lower income families.

I agree shooting is sort of hard to justify on cost, but actually believe that is an easier one to justify by comparison - whereas the "moral/ethical /cruelty issues" is much harder - especially to urban dwellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not too worried really; we have many allies in Parliament still, and as long as the big commercial shoots get their act together and are honest about what they do and why they do it ( unlike the fox hunters ) we should get it sorted. Regulation may play a part but we're a long way from a ban on rearing as yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 14/02/2018 at 08:32, miroku mk70 said:

Unfortunately there arent many gamekeepers represented around the coffee shops of islington and the urbanites will never miss up the chance for a cheap dig at the hunting and shooting toffs... which is obviously what we all are.

Bethnal Green last month, apparently.

IMG-20180119-WA0000.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scully said:

I'm not too worried really; we have many allies in Parliament still, and as long as the big commercial shoots get their act together and are honest about what they do and why they do it ( unlike the fox hunters ) we should get it sorted. Regulation may play a part but we're a long way from a ban on rearing as yet.

I have very much the same view on the matter .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BASC's press release could have been worded a little better, with more caution implied than enthusiasm. 

I love hunting with hounds and I am seriously concerned that Corbyn would do as he says and remove any 'loopholes' which currently allows some form of hunting with hounds to continue. The Scots have it better in this regard, with the use of hounds to flush to guns etc. but Sturgeon, another raving leftist, is about to attempt to stop hunting completely by eliminating all of these perceived loopholes. 

As for banning intensive game rearing, well it all depends on definition. We could be left with hatching a few eggs under bantams.

We could soon be in a situation similar to the near continent, with no rearing allowed and a very restricted quarry list. All it would take is a very left wing Labour government, which is a distinct possibility, especially since the Conservatives are totally distracted by sorting out Brexit and paying less attention than they should to actually running this country efficiently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anti fieldsports activists rely largely on an emotional argument, it is a particularly effective one for an uninformed, anthropomorphic public to want to get behind, our defence is openness and peer reviewed science.....burying our heads in the sand, ignoring the anti fieldsports lobby, hoping they will go away, is no longer an option!.......

As is always the case, one side doesn't win an election....the other side give it away, the ruling party are always seen as battle weary, incompetent, self servers, which gives the electorate no choice, but to elect their opposition!.....it's Labours turn to screw the country (and probably shooting!) up next!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/02/2018 at 08:36, scolopax said:

 

As for banning intensive game rearing, well it all depends on definition. We could be left with hatching a few eggs under bantams.

 

Or would that be considered intensive too? Potentially brooding under pheasant hens could be the only natural way.

I do believe we are our own worst enemy, excessive days will be the end of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the Labour Party shut down a £2billion pound industry , approx 300 game farms ..Then what  ? The purge will continue , it started with Hunting with hounds , the next on the agenda is driven shooting , starting with grouse , that will then move on to pheasant , partridge,duck once that is banned do you then think the Labour / anti brigade will stop there ? ....not a chance , any form of shooting or hunting  with dogs will be the next in line and I hope no one is nieve enough to think there sport will not be targeted ..the best you can hope for is clays..So all shooting is banned and the anti brigade all retire ...more chance of swimming the Atlantic with a cooker on your back ..game fishing , salmon , trout , put and take trout are the next natural targets , the last sport on the agenda will be there biggest challenge , but after separating and defeating the shooting sports one at a time they will be in a strong position, course fishing will be the last and biggest challenge ...Thankfully I’ll be dead before that day ...I’m not so sure about game shooting though  ...

Remember once the Big shoots are gone , it will be the turn of the small ones next ..then ....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/02/2018 at 13:45, ShootingEgg said:

 we've had a Labour govt, it was 5years + of free stuff for everyone, then we run out of money as a country and will be 15 years of picking up the pieces and blaming the  current  govt for said carp created.. 

Not disputing that either.

Just illustrates the situation of politicos once in power developing amnesia allied to developing a thirst for being off piste and untouchable for years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/02/2018 at 19:30, moose man said:

So the Labour Party shut down a £2billion pound industry , approx 300 game farms ..Then what  ? The purge will continue , it started with Hunting with hounds , the next on the agenda is driven shooting , starting with grouse , that will then move on to pheasant , partridge,duck once that is banned do you then think the Labour / anti brigade will stop there ? ....not a chance , any form of shooting or hunting  with dogs will be the next in line and I hope no one is nieve enough to think there sport will not be targeted ..the best you can hope for is clays..So all shooting is banned and the anti brigade all retire ...more chance of swimming the Atlantic with a cooker on your back ..game fishing , salmon , trout , put and take trout are the next natural targets , the last sport on the agenda will be there biggest challenge , but after separating and defeating the shooting sports one at a time they will be in a strong position, course fishing will be the last and biggest challenge ...Thankfully I’ll be dead before that day ...I’m not so sure about game shooting though  ...

Remember once the Big shoots are gone , it will be the turn of the small ones next ..then ....

 

Rats and cheese, nibble, nibble, one day all gone?

We do seem to make it easy for them though, no cohesion between our organisations and total apathy from some individuals?

Has anyone else badgered their organisation to work together to benefit all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, old man said:

Rats and cheese, nibble, nibble, one day all gone?

We do seem to make it easy for them though, no cohesion between our organisations and total apathy from some individuals?

Has anyone else badgered their organisation to work together to benefit all?

At the time the hunting ban was introduced, I was (with two colleagues) running a moderately large game shoot.  We had quite recently been through the 'foot and mouth' outbreak where all fieldsports were banned (in our area) - fortunately the ban being lifted in time for the season.  It was a worrying time, as a shoot commits money early in the spring (rents, wages, chicks etc.) and had there been no shooting I would have owed the bank a significant sum of money.

When hunting was banned, we decided then that the 'antis' would not rest - but would turn their attentions to other field sports.  We decided to wind up our shoot in an orderly and business like manner whilst we could still pay all of the creditors etc.  It was a shame, but we all had other business interests, and one of my colleagues was getting old etc.

As it happens, different flavour of government, prominence of other things (e.g. badger cull, alleged infringements of legal hunting rules) has meant that it has not (yet) really turned to shooting.  However - I still believe it will happen - and those shoots that are targetted will have an unpleasant and difficult time (just as some perfectly legal hunts have).

I was contacted by the BASC last week to respond (constructive and polite responses) to the Labour Party consultative paper - which I have done.  I would urge others to do the same.

The Countryside Alliance was an organisation which I though was supposed to be an 'alliance' of the various field sports supporters.  I did support them for some years, but in retirement, one can't support every good cause - and I have left them, but remained in the BASC.  I rather felt that they duplicated what others were doing - rather than pooling to save funds.  I may be wrong in that view, but it seemed to me that by paying two separate subscriptions, I was supporting two separate organisations trying to do the same thing with different teams, different mailshots, different headquarters ....... in other words two sets of overheads ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

At the time the hunting ban was introduced, I was (with two colleagues) running a moderately large game shoot.  We had quite recently been through the 'foot and mouth' outbreak where all fieldsports were banned (in our area) - fortunately the ban being lifted in time for the season.  It was a worrying time, as a shoot commits money early in the spring (rents, wages, chicks etc.) and had there been no shooting I would have owed the bank a significant sum of money.

When hunting was banned, we decided then that the 'antis' would not rest - but would turn their attentions to other field sports.  We decided to wind up our shoot in an orderly and business like manner whilst we could still pay all of the creditors etc.  It was a shame, but we all had other business interests, and one of my colleagues was getting old etc.

As it happens, different flavour of government, prominence of other things (e.g. badger cull, alleged infringements of legal hunting rules) has meant that it has not (yet) really turned to shooting.  However - I still believe it will happen - and those shoots that are targetted will have an unpleasant and difficult time (just as some perfectly legal hunts have).

I was contacted by the BASC last week to respond (constructive and polite responses) to the Labour Party consultative paper - which I have done.  I would urge others to do the same.

The Countryside Alliance was an organisation which I though was supposed to be an 'alliance' of the various field sports supporters.  I did support them for some years, but in retirement, one can't support every good cause - and I have left them, but remained in the BASC.  I rather felt that they duplicated what others were doing - rather than pooling to save funds.  I may be wrong in that view, but it seemed to me that by paying two separate subscriptions, I was supporting two separate organisations trying to do the same thing with different teams, different mailshots, different headquarters ....... in other words two sets of overheads ........

Ten organisations are each under the control of ten duplicate sets employees paid for by the members, One organisation is controlled by one set of employees paid for by the members!....why would the ten organisations, with their ten duplicated sets of controlling employees want to amalgamate into one organisation controlled by one set of employees?..... it's in the memberships interests to have one organisation controlled by one set of paid employees....it's in the ten sets of paid employees interests to keep control of their ten organisations!

These organisations main interest is looking after themselves and keeping their jobs..........not the interests of the membership!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, panoma1 said:

These organisations main interest is looking after themselves and keeping their jobs..........not the interests of the membership!

Whilst I see the point you are making, and share similar views in many ways, it is in BOTH the organisation AND the membership's interests that there is something to represent!  If shooting disappears, there will be no need for a BASC and I'm sure similar things apply to the other nine.

I now only belong to one organisation (happens to be the BASC) because I don't have the same disposable funds available I once had and though I used to support others - in particular the Countryside Alliance at the time of the hunting ban debates.  I even (many years ago) supported the RSPCA and RSPB  - when they were non political and fought against animal cruelty and promoted wild bird conservation - not fighting against field sports (which if carried out properly are not in my view cruel).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, panoma1 said:

Ten organisations are each under the control of ten duplicate sets employees paid for by the members, One organisation is controlled by one set of employees paid for by the members!....why would the ten organisations, with their ten duplicated sets of controlling employees want to amalgamate into one organisation controlled by one set of employees?..... it's in the memberships interests to have one organisation controlled by one set of paid employees....it's in the ten sets of paid employees interests to keep control of their ten organisations!

These organisations main interest is looking after themselves and keeping their jobs..........not the interests of the membership!

I’d have to agree with most of this. There is nothing to gain for any one of the major organisations to amalgamate with another. 

The reason we have so many organisations is because certain disciplines feel they are under represented by the major ones. Differences of opinion can also lead to rifts and then before you know it some have left and formed their own organisation.....hence the now defunct Shooters Rights Association and the very capable NGO.

You pays your money and takes your choice I’m afraid, but if you’re a participant in any of the minor or more obscure disciplines, don’t expect the major organisations to fight your corner, even if you’re a member. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Money talks, if we had one specific representative shooting organisation rather than the many we currently have encompassing (I suspect for financial reasons?) shooting with other fieldsports related interests, their overheads, bills, employee and on costs etc would be significantly less, and consequently more could be spent on campaigning and protecting our sport, for example, the big protectionist organisation "sponsor" MP's, Peers and on occasions their families, to push their anti shooting agendas, shooting has friends in the Commons and the Lords....with more money, shooting could do many more things including buying (sorry sponsoring!) a few more MP's and Peers!

Shooting and other fieldsports related organisations are supposed to exist to represent and protect the interests of their membership...........not to maintain highly paid employment, expenses, luxury accommodation and other perks for their own employees!

500,000 people shouting at any one time resonates more than ten lots of 50,000 shouting at different times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Money talks, if we had one specific representative shooting organisation rather than the many we currently have encompassing (I suspect for financial reasons?) shooting with other fieldsports related interests, their overheads, bills, employee and on costs etc would be significantly less, and consequently more could be spent on campaigning and protecting our sport, for example, the big protectionist organisation "sponsor" MP's, Peers and on occasions their families, to push their anti shooting agendas, shooting has friends in the Commons and the Lords....with more money, shooting could do many more things including buying (sorry sponsoring!) a few more MP's and Peers!

Shooting and other fieldsports related organisations are supposed to exist to represent and protect the interests of their membership...........not to maintain highly paid employment, expenses, luxury accommodation and other perks for their own employees!

500,000 people shouting at any one time resonates more than ten lots of 50,000 shouting at different times!

Another on it's way possibly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, old man said:

Agreed, but if something isn't done on a cohesive basis ultimately there won't be any need for their opinions anyway?

Simples. No sports, no organisations needed?

Very true, but that still won’t mean our organisations amalgamate; far too many agendas, egos and salaries at stake. There have already been examples of representational organisations prepared to turn their backs on certain disciplines out of fear of being tarred with the same brush. 

I certainly can’t see any of the major organisations sticking their heads above the parapet in support of practical shotgunners if and when someone decides to go doolally with a 13+1 semi auto or pump. Can you? 

Singing from the same sheet wouldn’t even come into it in those circumstances. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture reactions in those circumstances. P

Theyll all take your money, but when the chips are down the survival of the organisation is the priority.

Edited by Scully
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had just one shooting organisation, we'd actually have fewer members and less influence, I reckon. People join different orgs for  different reasons - and they all have a slightly different ethos. Without this diversity (in its true sense) there would be fewer folk in total signed up to anything.

However, what we do need is for orgs to come together on certain major issues, having sorted out their differences (if any) behind closed doors.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scully said:

Very true, but that still won’t mean our organisations amalgamate; far too many agendas, egos and salaries at stake. There have already been examples of representational organisations prepared to turn their backs on certain disciplines out of fear of being tarred with the same brush. 

I certainly can’t see any of the major organisations sticking their heads above the parapet in support of practical shotgunners if and when someone decides to go doolally with a 13+1 semi auto or pump. Can you? 

Singing from the same sheet wouldn’t even come into it in those circumstances. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to picture reactions in those circumstances. P

Theyll all take your money, but when the chips are down the survival of the organisation is the priority.

Till there is no membership left maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...