Jump to content

BASC


Wasabi
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not suggesting BASC morf into the NRA. What I'm suggesting is that they become more proactive. Why were they not pointing out the moorland fires on Ilkley potentially being caused by a lack of management by keepers. Why was it that the NFU was on radio 2 today rather than BASC. Why have I only ever seen Dig Haddoke and *********** on mainstream TV promoting the benefits of shooting. We need to be drowning out the whinge of Packham and co through a concerted media campaign on national levels and on social media. I honestly believe the old boys club at the helm of our organisations does not understand how to go about this.

Edited by Wasabi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

31 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

True but BASC isn't a poor organisation.

I do think we have a bit of a Judean People's front /People's Front of Judea issue though.  BASC, CA, CPSA, GKA....in the eyes of Joe Urban Public, one and the same surely?  Is there a case for mergers?

There is nothing to be gained by a merger when BFSS wanted to merge With BASC tweenty odd years ago there was not a need. Then as now BASC might win where Another Org fails and visa versa the more bolts we have to fire the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

True but BASC isn't a poor organisation.

I do think we have a bit of a Judean People's front /People's Front of Judea issue though.  BASC, CA, CPSA, GKA....in the eyes of Joe Urban Public, one and the same surely?  Is there a case for mergers?

Poor or not, BASC still don’t have the funds to fund political campaigns, and a merger will never happen for the very reasons so many different organisations exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wasabi said:

I'm not suggesting BASC more into the NRA. What I'm suggesting is that they become more proactive. Why were they not pointing out the moorland fires on Ilkley potentially being caused by a lack of management by keepers. Why was it that the NFU was on radio 2 today rather than BASC. Why have I only ever seen Dig Haddoke and m ike y ard ley on mainstream TV promoting the benefits of shooting. We need to be drowning out the whinge of Packham and co through a concerted media campaign on national levels and on social media. I honestly believe the old boys club at tge helm of our organisations does understand how to go about this.

Nobody has the answers to these points here and If you want to know ask BASC . Assuming they are not doing anything is naive at best.

If they were not there or did not do they will have reasons. ASK THEM! IF you are a member.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Terry2016 said:

Have you wondered why none of the other organisations didn't see it coming either?  oh thats right..because everyone of them was unaware ........

STOP BASHING AND START SUPPORTING ... the divide will only make it worse 

  

Correct. Pulling the plug on your membership is not going to help a fiasco that was not of BASC / CA / or NGO making. Feel free to give Natural England and ear bashing if you will, but I suspect you wont get much of a response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, BASC have not been proactive at all, whereas the CA have. BASCs answer to the GP debacle? Pay a private firm £120 for a certificate. Great work guys, real champions. 

When it comes to the latest issue they're on the back foot completely, it's taken Field Sports Britain to reveal the unholy alliances between the RSPB, NE and WJ. I'm sorry but I paid my sub for an organisation to be on the front foot when it comes to defending our rights, not for mild mannered, well fed, beardy blokes in green branded gilets to announce their 'disappointment' at such a terrible decision. I'm afraid it's all got a bit too comfortable at the Mill. 

Edited by mick miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mick miller said:

BASCs answer to the GP debacle? Pay a private firm £120 for a certificate. Great work guys, real champions.

That is not the experience I had when I contacted them on GP fees.  I received good advice, and followed it - leading to a satisfactory outcome with no fee paid to a GP.  I have covered this on another thread, but BASC were helpful and their advice was successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎24‎/‎04‎/‎2019 at 19:12, Konnie said:

They were that on the ball they didn't pick up the GL was all too cock 

 

Again it doesn't matter to them swanky pheasant shoots not affected

And, until recently, neither did any other shooting organisation, the Government, Natural England, or most importantly the thousands of shooters who regularly used these licenses. (you know, the ones that are supposed to ensure that the fully understand and comply with the terms of the license)

Some of the responses on social media to this event have been quite frankly pathetic at best and downright divisive at worst. There is a lot of talk about the likes of Packham / Avery / Tingay et al. being the biggest danger that shooting faces, to be honest I think that the biggest danger is the MASSIVE negative attitude and divisiveness displayed by a lot of shooters.

Now is not the time to be bitching and whining about shooting organisations, now is the time to get behind them. If you don't like the way they are run then do something about it. Stand for election, change the way that they work.

Or you could continue to whine on the internet, that will obviously solve the problems...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Aagh, thats because they are all very busy NOT issuing the `new` licence`s !

Oh yee of little faith !

Natural England have assured me personally they have 3 staff working very hard to get licence`s out.  Albeit they probably have no understanding of the underlined part ! 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jonno243 said:

And, until recently, neither did any other shooting organisation, the Government, Natural England, or most importantly the thousands of shooters who regularly used these licenses. (you know, the ones that are supposed to ensure that the fully understand and comply with the terms of the license)

Some of the responses on social media to this event have been quite frankly pathetic at best and downright divisive at worst. There is a lot of talk about the likes of Packham / Avery / Tingay et al. being the biggest danger that shooting faces, to be honest I think that the biggest danger is the MASSIVE negative attitude and divisiveness displayed by a lot of shooters.

Now is not the time to be bitching and whining about shooting organisations, now is the time to get behind them. If you don't like the way they are run then do something about it. Stand for election, change the way that they work.

Or you could continue to whine on the internet, that will obviously solve the problems...

I have got behind them, I just joined the CA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Sorry, BASC have not been proactive at all, whereas the CA have. BASCs answer to the GP debacle? Pay a private firm £120 for a certificate. Great work guys, real champions. 

When it comes to the latest issue they're on the back foot completely, it's taken Field Sports Britain to reveal the unholy alliances between the RSPB, NE and WJ. I'm sorry but I paid my sub for an organisation to be on the front foot when it comes to defending our rights, not for mild mannered, well fed, beardy blokes in green branded gilets to announce their 'disappointment' at such a terrible decision. I'm afraid it's all got a bit too comfortable at the Mill. 

 

This ...................

 

What do BASC use the multi million pound media centre for ?  storing their Barbours and wellies  ? The new CE as a former soldier should be leading from the front but has been invisible as far as I am concerned yet the headcount has gone up significantly- they have only just (and are still advertising for)  political and press officers

 

and before anyone says it, I have paid my BASC subs for over 35 years 😛

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wasabi said:

I'm not suggesting BASC morf into the NRA. What I'm suggesting is that they become more proactive. Why were they not pointing out the moorland fires on Ilkley potentially being caused by a lack of management by keepers. Why was it that the NFU was on radio 2 today rather than BASC. Why have I only ever seen Dig Haddoke and *********** on mainstream TV promoting the benefits of shooting. We need to be drowning out the whinge of Packham and co through a concerted media campaign on national levels and on social media. I honestly believe the old boys club at the helm of our organisations does not understand how to go about this.

Like many folk who use social media I have spent more time reading than working the last couple of days and I believe Wasabi's post does highlight weaknesses that need urgently addressing.

I have seen a great deal of organisation bashing without the balance of ideas on how to change things for the better so here are just a few ideas that I have based on my current experience of working for a very long established company whose directors still ask "what is the benefit of social media?"

1. The protection of shooting should be treated as a war. It is no good simply being reactive. Each of our organisations need to employ strategists who can see where the next attack is coming from and prepare a suitable defence to all scenarios well in advance. I would have hoped that the chairperson of each of our organisations would be such a person but it appears not. The lack of this activity since January has shown a weakness in our organisations that needs addressing and I do not mean the sacking of anyone but rather acknowledging the weakness and acting upon it rapidly. Should they achieve this new way of thinking then this event could end up being the greatest own goal ever scored by the antis.

2. There is a clear lack of media personalities publicly supporting what we do. The funds are available to ensure that such folk in the public eye have their expenses covered to enable them to be available as a balancing voice in interviews. If no such voice is requested by the media company then our organisations need to have someone on the ball at all times raising official complaints both to the organisation concerned, their governing body and to MP's.

3. Communication - our organisations need to employ a public relations company to teach them how to communicate all the the good work that they are doing to their members and to the public. The old excuse often quoted to me when I have complained in writing is "a lot of work goes on behind the scenes". Well that is the way it used to be done. Our opponents do not do things this way at all anymore they do things very publicly - it is time we did the same. Our organisations publish magazines for their members, I think almost everyone would agree that the list of the activities per area seem disproportionately small - tell us everything that you are doing.

4. Our organisations really do need to start working together, sharing costs and resources. The challenge to all the current chairs is to achieve at least a broad outline of this in the next 3 months.

I would be interested to see other positive ideas and turn this thread into one that the PW massive could be proud to show to the chair of each organisation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jonno243 said:

And, until recently, neither did any other shooting organisation, the Government, Natural England, or most importantly the thousands of shooters who regularly used these licenses. (you know, the ones that are supposed to ensure that the fully understand and comply with the terms of the license)

Some of the responses on social media to this event have been quite frankly pathetic at best and downright divisive at worst. There is a lot of talk about the likes of Packham / Avery / Tingay et al. being the biggest danger that shooting faces, to be honest I think that the biggest danger is the MASSIVE negative attitude and divisiveness displayed by a lot of shooters.

Now is not the time to be bitching and whining about shooting organisations, now is the time to get behind them. If you don't like the way they are run then do something about it. Stand for election, change the way that they work.

Or you could continue to whine on the internet, that will obviously solve the problems...

Hear hear! That is the most sensible well considered post I’ve read in the all the topics covering this mess, I’ve almost given up on pigeonwatch due to the amount Ill  informed drivel that’s spouted out weighing the sensible knowledgeable content, now more than ever we need to be united as one loud voice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all shooters are united, but just frustrated that the biggest UK shooting and conservation association that they are members of (or not), appears to be very much in the background when things go against our interests.

The "opposition" either are media celebs, or can wheel out others that are instantly recognised by the general public, to peddle their message.
Unfortunately these talking heads do influence public opinion and the media coverage.

We appear to have nobody, Jack Hargreaves did it once, many watched his shows without ever owning a gun or fishing rod, he was respected by the general public.
It can't be beyond the ability (or finances) of our Associations to have some instantly recognisable celebs/media savvy people to roll out as our spokespeople.
They should appear in good/positive times as well as bad/negative times.
Preferably not Lord something, or anyone else obviously upper crust and they definitely should not be wearing a tattersall shirt, yellow tie and game keepers shoot day suit.

 

 

 

Edited by Cranfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the secretaries at work love Chris Packham. Yes we’ve had conversations that the facts of life are that some species do have to be killed; if you've got a rat problem,  you want traps and poison not crystals, kind words and poems, and the same goes for crows, pigeons and magpies. 

I can explain all that, but it doesn’t stop them all loving Chris Packham and in a ‘for or against’ issue promoted by Chris Packham (and which doesn’t actually directly affect them) they will support whatever Chris Packham supports.

I genuinely blame the BBC for giving Packham, Oddie etc the profile and coverage. I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mungler said:

I genuinely blame the BBC for giving Packham, Oddie etc the profile and coverage. I digress.

You are right - both in what you say - and to digress - because how he gets his 'podium' that gives him what is basically uneducated and unthinking support is important.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

You are right - both in what you say - and to digress - because how he gets his 'podium' that gives him what is basically uneducated and unthinking support is important.

J

It unbalanced too - who on telly is given the same prominence to put forward a counter argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 243deer said:

Like many folk who use social media I have spent more time reading than working the last couple of days and I believe Wasabi's post does highlight weaknesses that need urgently addressing.

I have seen a great deal of organisation bashing without the balance of ideas on how to change things for the better so here are just a few ideas that I have based on my current experience of working for a very long established company whose directors still ask "what is the benefit of social media?"

1. The protection of shooting should be treated as a war. It is no good simply being reactive. Each of our organisations need to employ strategists who can see where the next attack is coming from and prepare a suitable defence to all scenarios well in advance. I would have hoped that the chairperson of each of our organisations would be such a person but it appears not. The lack of this activity since January has shown a weakness in our organisations that needs addressing and I do not mean the sacking of anyone but rather acknowledging the weakness and acting upon it rapidly. Should they achieve this new way of thinking then this event could end up being the greatest own goal ever scored by the antis.

2. There is a clear lack of media personalities publicly supporting what we do. The funds are available to ensure that such folk in the public eye have their expenses covered to enable them to be available as a balancing voice in interviews. If no such voice is requested by the media company then our organisations need to have someone on the ball at all times raising official complaints both to the organisation concerned, their governing body and to MP's.

3. Communication - our organisations need to employ a public relations company to teach them how to communicate all the the good work that they are doing to their members and to the public. The old excuse often quoted to me when I have complained in writing is "a lot of work goes on behind the scenes". Well that is the way it used to be done. Our opponents do not do things this way at all anymore they do things very publicly - it is time we did the same. Our organisations publish magazines for their members, I think almost everyone would agree that the list of the activities per area seem disproportionately small - tell us everything that you are doing.

4. Our organisations really do need to start working together, sharing costs and resources. The challenge to all the current chairs is to achieve at least a broad outline of this in the next 3 months.

I would be interested to see other positive ideas and turn this thread into one that the PW massive could be proud to show to the chair of each organisation.

 

243deer, i wholeheartedly agree with you, we need these organisations to take the fight to the anti's. if they are spouting rubbish to social medias and the press, we need our representatives to be correcting them on the same platform and promptly, and we need to educate the whole demographic of the Uk from schools to nursing homes. 

once they are given the full picture, they will make there own educated decisions, we cant let them be brain washed.

we need the whole country to understand what and why we shoot, because at the moment the majority of the general public think it is only the upper classes who shoot, and they dont give a **** about them !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 243deer said:

Like many folk who use social media I have spent more time reading than working the last couple of days and I believe Wasabi's post does highlight weaknesses that need urgently addressing.

I have seen a great deal of organisation bashing without the balance of ideas on how to change things for the better so here are just a few ideas that I have based on my current experience of working for a very long established company whose directors still ask "what is the benefit of social media?"

1. The protection of shooting should be treated as a war. It is no good simply being reactive. Each of our organisations need to employ strategists who can see where the next attack is coming from and prepare a suitable defence to all scenarios well in advance. I would have hoped that the chairperson of each of our organisations would be such a person but it appears not. The lack of this activity since January has shown a weakness in our organisations that needs addressing and I do not mean the sacking of anyone but rather acknowledging the weakness and acting upon it rapidly. Should they achieve this new way of thinking then this event could end up being the greatest own goal ever scored by the antis.

2. There is a clear lack of media personalities publicly supporting what we do. The funds are available to ensure that such folk in the public eye have their expenses covered to enable them to be available as a balancing voice in interviews. If no such voice is requested by the media company then our organisations need to have someone on the ball at all times raising official complaints both to the organisation concerned, their governing body and to MP's.

3. Communication - our organisations need to employ a public relations company to teach them how to communicate all the the good work that they are doing to their members and to the public. The old excuse often quoted to me when I have complained in writing is "a lot of work goes on behind the scenes". Well that is the way it used to be done. Our opponents do not do things this way at all anymore they do things very publicly - it is time we did the same. Our organisations publish magazines for their members, I think almost everyone would agree that the list of the activities per area seem disproportionately small - tell us everything that you are doing.

4. Our organisations really do need to start working together, sharing costs and resources. The challenge to all the current chairs is to achieve at least a broad outline of this in the next 3 months.

I would be interested to see other positive ideas and turn this thread into one that the PW massive could be proud to show to the chair of each organisation.

 

Well posted!

If I may, I'll chuck in my tuppence worth.

If you look at the main thread on this overall topic, it soon becomes apparent that not everyone realises what the GLs are. What they're not is an open ended 'licence to kill' willy nilly. Consequently, it would be a great help if our associations got together with NE and produced some guidlines. One element of this is as reflected in the topic referred to in as much as the legality of roost shooting and shooting over stubble to name just two activities is in question. To be of any value in reducing damage, it is no good what-so-ever in placing too many restrictions on what is legally acceptable. As in the case of the previously mentioned guidlines, clarification here would also be advantageous.

Any stalker who qualified as an 'Authorised Person' under the terms of the 1963 Deer Act will understand what I'm on about in as much as it wasn't necessary to catch your deer 'red handed' in order to prevent damage being done by shooting it on the spot while it was so doing. It didn't even have to be the same animal, but one of the same species. However, there were restrictions, one of which was that the deer could only be culled on the land where the damage was being done and not on the land where it had come from. Consequently, it would be advantageous if the GLs could adopt a similar policy which would then remove any ambiguity about the legality of the activities mentioned above. It would also enhance the effectiveness of the legislation to the level of that we've just lost provided it was carried out in a location which had previously incurred damage. This would then cover the  protection of new drillings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A cracking post by 243deer above.

 

I have long said that ALL the orgs should stick £5 on subs to go into a joint education/fighting fund.

The best younger minds in the 2 or 3 orgs helping together when neeeded on social media, like has been said they should be tackling FAKE news as soon as they see it.

The antis are probably the founders of fake news when u think some of the stories they've peddled for decades ( releasing grouse etc)

 

Also shooting orgs need to get on the front foot with educating. certain professions, esp journalists or environmental type folk, taking them out infield visits to estates showing them conservation in  action, shooting clays even simulated drives and some targets with rifles. Target a few tabloids as well as university courses etc.

 

While it would be great if more celebs stood up in public for shooting,    but sadly it might not be that great a carear move for them.

David Bellamy was the original TV naturalist but got binned because of his shooting opinions ( and just supporting not actively shooting).

Nowadays with social media and the way many behave it's not that easy a decision to make. When u hear off something off the things said to that American hunter bird, plenty off death threats, just crazy

 

It's all very well saying have 1 org but the danger with that is if that super org is rubbish, then u really have a problem relying on 1 org.

In an ideal world the orgs should be keeping each other on there goes and hopefully pick up where the other has failed.

 

Mick ur deluding itself if u think CA are doing anything better.

U mentioned the GP fiasco, no other org has done anything, I also thought the 120 was actually 55 quid fee and still only in discussion stages yet.

Far from ideal but more than any other org has done, in Scotland u here off GPs charging £200+ or worse still point blank refusing which means no guns.

Least u will have an option

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cranfield said:

I think all shooters are united, but just frustrated that the biggest UK shooting and conservation association that they are members of (or not), appears to be very much in the background when things go against our interests.

The "opposition" either are media celebs, or can wheel out others that are instantly recognised by the general public, to peddle their message.
Unfortunately these talking heads do influence public opinion and the media coverage.

We appear to have nobody, Jack Hargreaves did it once, many watched his shows without ever owning a gun or fishing rod, he was respected by the general public.
It can't be beyond the ability (or finances) of our Associations to have some instantly recognisable celebs/media savvy people to roll out as our spokespeople.
They should appear in good/positive times as well as bad/negative times.
Preferably not Lord something, or anyone else obviously upper crust and they definitely should not be wearing a tattersall shirt, yellow tie and game keepers shoot day suit.

 

 

 

These are also my thoughts, a proactive average person, with a very wide knowledge of natural history, covering all things to do with the country from conservation to game cooking etc, etc.

Who will get the public's support ? a kind gentle animal loving Packham or gun wielding camo wearing shooter

 

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.

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...