BASC (and other representative bodies) pointless and toothless?

[Scully]

41 minutes ago, miki said:

Here's part of the Scottish Gov response ...

The Scottish Government
agrees it is important to ensure
that everyone who shoots deer
in Scotland has the same basic
level of training which would
benefit both deer welfare and
public safety. We considered
the SAWC findings, alongside
the DWG report, that a register
of persons competent to shoot
deer would ensure every
person undertaking deer
management has the same
basic level of competence and
skill to do so.

This recommendation will allow
the Scottish Government to
enact powers to introduce a
register of persons competent
to shoot deer as at
recommendation 14.

----

 

I’m assuming that’s a copy of a statement by some part of the Scottish government regarding….what? You seem to have gone off on a tangent about stalking for some reason. Voluntary qualifications for stalking have been available for some time and BASC don’t have the monopoly on conducting courses. 
I’m asking for a link to BASC’s intended purpose of expanding training in response to a government inititiative for qualification of gun owners/hunters, as you mentioned. 
Right, have just see your edited post, so I’m assuming there is no such initiative currently which BASC is responding to. 

I’m sorry for being a pedant, but we have to be careful what we post because there is already far too much mis-information out there regards shooting already. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by Scully

[grahamch]

6 hours ago, Dave at kelton said:

BASC certainly influenced the continuation of wildfowling at Caerlaverock. Without their support and that of SACS it would have been closed to us four years ago!

Committee are universally pro BADC other than me

[8 shot]

1 hour ago, miki said:

This is (IMO) the start of setting up legislation to cover all forms of hunting and to require a 'licence', in the future, to 'hunt' be it for your (or others) table and would include (for safety reasons) vermin control. As I said it appears that BASC are currently looking to expand their training program presumeably so they can step into any future requirement that a missguided government comes up with in regards to only allowing "qualified persons" to own a gun/hunt.

If the BASC are going offer me advise on hunting ,then i'm out ! Looking at the people employed by them over the last 20+ years or so they are no more qualifed than i am. Some of the films they put on The Tube and on there own website shows just how incompetant most of them are 

[wymberley]

2 hours ago, miki said:

Here's part of the Scottish Gov response ...

The Scottish Government
agrees it is important to ensure
that everyone who shoots deer
in Scotland has the same basic
level of training which would
benefit both deer welfare and
public safety. We considered
the SAWC findings, alongside
the DWG report, that a register
of persons competent to shoot
deer would ensure every
person undertaking deer
management has the same
basic level of competence and
skill to do so.

This recommendation will allow
the Scottish Government to
enact powers to introduce a
register of persons competent
to shoot deer as at
recommendation 14.

----

This is (IMO) the start of setting up legislation to cover all forms of hunting and to require a 'licence', in the future, to 'hunt' be it for your (or others) table and would include (for safety reasons) vermin control. As I said it appears that BASC are currently looking to expand their training program presumeably so they can step into any future requirement that a missguided government comes up with in regards to only allowing "qualified persons" to own a gun/hunt.

BASC being one of the larger 'shooting' organisations in the UK would be called on to offer 'guidance' as they have done with the Medical Certificate and use of lead free bullets.

@wymberleygot my point, I wasn't suggestint that there is imminent change afoot.

 

Without going to too much trouble, if you have access could you post "recommendation 14"?

Cheers.

[HantsRob]

8 hours ago, harkom said:

I did raise the question with a club treasurer regarding a change to club rules regarding proposal to change compulsory bsac membership and offer alternative providers - but this was countered by "most of the club (committee ?) members are life members of bsac" - so obviously no mileage there.

I hear you but again that’s not serving the interests of the club either. By all means make it a preferred choice as many will still do it, but I’d challenge the compulsory part as unless there’s backhanders there’s no reason why you can’t give support whilst allowing members to choose.

 

11 hours ago, Dave at kelton said:

BASC certainly influenced the continuation of wildfowling at Caerlaverock. Without their support and that of SACS it would have been closed to us four years ago!

It’s a shame that gives an intrinsic requirement. It’s a shame that choice doesn’t come into it, as above many would still go for BASC anyway 

[jall25]

50 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

I hear you but again that’s not serving the interests of the club either. By all means make it a preferred choice as many will still do it, but I’d challenge the compulsory part as unless there’s backhanders there’s no reason why you can’t give support whilst allowing members to choose.

 

It’s a shame that gives an intrinsic requirement. It’s a shame that choice doesn’t come into it, as above many would still go for BASC anyway 

The thing is when you run a club and sort the membership - not only is everyone afforded the same cover but you can stipulate the start and end date to be the same for all members - So much easier

If i didnt do this and had 40 / 50/60 individuals with varying expiry dates for their insurance as well as shot gun and firearm licences the paperwork just grows and grows. 

[clangerman]

55 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

I hear you but again that’s not serving the interests of the club either. By all means make it a preferred choice as many will still do it, but I’d challenge the compulsory part as unless there’s backhanders there’s no reason why you can’t give support whilst allowing members to choose.

 

It’s a shame that gives an intrinsic requirement. It’s a shame that choice doesn’t come into it, as above many would still go for BASC anyway 

that’s the closest to the truth this is going to get your absolutely correct shooters should have the option to benefit from lower costs so if basc really had shootings best interests at heart they would call for people to have the option of who they join but no they prefer to enjoy the profits a closed shop brings them at greater cost to shooters so shame on them! 

[oowee]

1 hour ago, HantsRob said:

I hear you but again that’s not serving the interests of the club either. By all means make it a preferred choice as many will still do it, but I’d challenge the compulsory part as unless there’s backhanders there’s no reason why you can’t give support whilst allowing members to choose.

 

It’s a shame that gives an intrinsic requirement. It’s a shame that choice doesn’t come into it, as above many would still go for BASC anyway 

Many clubs will choose the BASC route for four reasons. They provide first resort insurance (others do not). They provide specific advice to members. They provide access to club support structures and guidance. They support shooting in a wider context at a substantive level. 

If all members are signed up to BASC it provides confidence that members have a standard of support that reduces risk for the club and the owners of the land over which members shoot. Land is hard to get and very easy to loose. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by oowee

[jall25]

1 hour ago, clangerman said:

that’s the closest to the truth this is going to get your absolutely correct shooters should have the option to benefit from lower costs so if basc really had shootings best interests at heart they would call for people to have the option of who they join but no they prefer to enjoy the profits a closed shop brings them at greater cost to shooters so shame on them! 

God im glad you are not in my club - you really are making this hard work

Just now, jall25 said:

God im glad you are not in my club - you really are making this hard work

Why not just join BASC because you have to with your club - keep your shooting and all your companions and then join another organisation that you think will help in the ways you want

[miki]

9 hours ago, Scully said:

<snip>
I’m asking for a link to BASC’s intended purpose of expanding training in response to a government inititiative for qualification of gun owners/hunters, as you mentioned. 
Right, have just see your edited post, so I’m assuming there is no such initiative currently which BASC is responding to. 

I’m sorry for being a pedant, but we have to be careful what we post because there is already far too much mis-information out there regards shooting already. 

@Scully

There isn't a web link. There is a link though. The link is that BASC (as one of the countries shooting organisations) will be automaticaly included into any consultations/reccommendations that a missguided (my words) government makes regarding gun ownership/icencing.

There is a consultation proposal that there is a "standard, country wide qualification" (SQ) for those hunting game and that all 'hunters' would need to have this qualification in order to hunt game.

It is aimed (as you rightly have noticed) at deer stalking but (as with many things government) will have a much broader reach and I believe will encompass all 'hunting' activities with firearms.

BASC, after this consultation had been muted, has started advertising/trialing an intermediate training course which is is not a DMQ qualification (but then you know all this as you read the thread in the link I posted) which would bolster thier position regarding training in the eyes of the government.
Nepotistic I muted, as 'if' this SQ was to become a reality BASC would say 'look, we have been doing this for a while, why dont you let us administer this for you'.

Please be pedantic and (if you want) argue against my opinion/point of view as much as you like.

[old'un]

11 hours ago, clangerman said:

that’s the closest to the truth this is going to get your absolutely correct shooters should have the option to benefit from lower costs so if basc really had shootings best interests at heart they would call for people to have the option of who they join but no they prefer to enjoy the profits a closed shop brings them at greater cost to shooters so shame on them! 

Are you saying all members of the club should be allowed to join whatever org they wish and also make sure they have the correct insurance cover?

[clangerman]

2 hours ago, old&#x27;un said:

Are you saying all members of the club should be allowed to join whatever org they wish and also make sure they have the correct insurance cover?

yes I am as cover is explained at point of sale they have no worry there nobody can deny it’s common sense shoots or clubs wish members to save money if something does not make sense we all know what that indicates but don’t listen to a crackpot judge for your self who profits from a closed shop we know it can’t be the shooters 

[manthing]

Is a club requiring membership of BASC really any different to the various registered clay shoots requiring CPSA membership to get on the score board.

Or any of the shooting disciplines for that matter.

I'm not sure how it works but as I understand it, if you shoot a clear round as "birds only" you won't get on the board and it will only be mentioned if the club decide to publish that information or you yourself jumps up and down about it.

[Conor O'Gorman]

It's strange what some do when faced with a problem.

Firearms licensing is in chaos – blame BASC
Some politicians threaten shooting – blame BASC
A GP doesn't co-operate on medical verification – blame BASC

BASC is there to fight for its members and shooting, but it isn't the government, it isn't the police and it's not the medical profession.

What's the point of BASC and any other organisation? It's worth remembering what Judge Colin Bishopp said in his summing up at the First-tier Tribunal in a case which revolved around BASC's contribution to shooting: 

“In my judgment it is an inescapable conclusion that without its campaigning, advisory, educational and land management activities sporting shooting in the United Kingdom, in all its forms, would be of a materially poorer quality and in some cases might not exist at all.” 

BASC, and the other organisations, ensure that shooting has a voice in those areas that impact on shooting. That voice cannot dictate the outcome, but just imagine what it would be like with no voice at all.

Specifically on firearms licensing, BASC:

- Has the only full-time professional firearms team to advise and assist members
- Is the only organisation to have monitored and reported on the performance of firearms licensing departments - for the last 25 years.
- Has a programme of working with firearms licensing departments to improve their service
- Has a programme of meeting PCCs and arguing for their intervention where licensing departments are failing
- Briefs Ministers and MPs on the failings of the licensing system and what can be done to improve it.
- Provides materials and the means for individuals to lobby their MPs and PCCs on firearms licensing, such as this latest PCC campaign webpage. 
- Has a fighting fund which takes up and fights firearms licensing cases where a principle is at stake which affects everyone who shoots.

What does this achieve? In recent years it has contributed to:

- A sensible fee structure equating to roughly a third of the sums that the police demanded in 2014
- Firearms enquiry officers trained in those departments prepared to work with BASC
- Politicians and civil servants informed of the hard evidence – not just anecdotes – of the failures in firearms licensing.
- PCCs lobbied and encouraged to intervene where services are failing.
- Representation – with BSSC - for shooting on the current Home Office firearms fees working group
- The defeat of the proposed ban on .50 cal through the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting for which BASC provides the secretariat and briefing.
- The ability to use any registered medical practitioner for medical verification when the government wanted to limit it to GPs only
- The defeat of damaging proposals on firearms storage, home loading, ammunition purchase and the use of airguns by 14 year olds in the recent firearms safety consultation.

We all want more, and BASC is working for that, but we can't deliver everything everyone wants at the time they want it. And don't think that BASC staff don't have just the same problems with firearms licensing services as everyone else.

By being a BASC member, and particularly an active member, you contribute to this work. By opting out, only paying the minimum for insurance and nothing else, you still benefit from BASC’s work without contributing. You decide what's the best choice for the future of shooting. 

The following BASC firearms licensing campaign page is open to all to use

https://basc.org.uk/firearms-licensing-contact-your-police-and-crime-commissioner/

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Connor, straight question;

How many Members does BASC have now?

[Conor O'Gorman]

15 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Connor, straight question;

How many Members does BASC have now?

c. 150,000 depending on the time of year – it’s more during the season and fewer in the off season.

Have a look at BASC's 2021 annual review for details of the work done for members and shooting last year.

https://basc.org.uk/basc-annual-review/

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Strange it never seems to change.

[HantsRob]

46 minutes ago, manthing said:

Is a club requiring membership of BASC really any different to the various registered clay shoots requiring CPSA membership to get on the score board.

Yes, it's different as a CPSA registered shoot is a shoot for the CPSA. So for your score to count you need to be CPSA registered. But, you can still shoot a CPSA shoot and get a score. So very different. I am a CPSA member and have done CPSA shoots and my score still doesn't count as I am a low down member

14 hours ago, oowee said:

If all members are signed up to BASC it provides confidence that members have a standard of support that reduces risk for the club and the owners of the land over which members shoot. Land is hard to get and very easy to loose. 

That's probably the straightest answer to the question I posed. Thankyou.

15 hours ago, jall25 said:

The thing is when you run a club and sort the membership - not only is everyone afforded the same cover but you can stipulate the start and end date to be the same for all members - So much easier

If i didnt do this and had 40 / 50/60 individuals with varying expiry dates for their insurance as well as shot gun and firearm licences the paperwork just grows and grows. 

So ease for you and the club justifies this? I am not sure I agree. If someone has insurance and an end date, it is very little admin to add that to a calendar for verification. Or, to legally draw something up where they are liable for any costs outside of their insurance.

I think oowee's comment covers it better though.

[udderlyoffroad]

33 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

It's strange what some do when faced with a problem.

Indeed.

The OP appears to have had an issue with licencing, never contacted BASC about it, then wonders why BASC have done nothing to help him, then posts on a public forum?

Whether or not you agree with BASC's direction of travel, acting such a manner will get you nowhere in life.

IMO, we need representation now more than ever before.

If you are not a member of an organisation, be it BASC, or GWCT, or whoever, YOU are part of the problem. 

The only alternative to membership is that you spend your life as hobby-lobbyist making representations to your local MP/MSP/AM.

Or just do nothing other than moan on a forum, and watch shooting and its associated conservation and stewardship die.

[old'un]

56 minutes ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

It's strange what some do when faced with a problem.

Firearms licensing is in chaos – blame BASC
Some politicians threaten shooting – blame BASC
A GP doesn't co-operate on medical verification – blame BASC

BASC is there to fight for its members and shooting, but it isn't the government, it isn't the police and it's not the medical profession.

What's the point of BASC and any other organisation? It's worth remembering what Judge Colin Bishopp said in his summing up at the First-tier Tribunal in a case which revolved around BASC's contribution to shooting: 

“In my judgment it is an inescapable conclusion that without its campaigning, advisory, educational and land management activities sporting shooting in the United Kingdom, in all its forms, would be of a materially poorer quality and in some cases might not exist at all.” 

BASC, and the other organisations, ensure that shooting has a voice in those areas that impact on shooting. That voice cannot dictate the outcome, but just imagine what it would be like with no voice at all.

Specifically on firearms licensing, BASC:

- Has the only full-time professional firearms team to advise and assist members
- Is the only organisation to have monitored and reported on the performance of firearms licensing departments - for the last 25 years.
- Has a programme of working with firearms licensing departments to improve their service
- Has a programme of meeting PCCs and arguing for their intervention where licensing departments are failing
- Briefs Ministers and MPs on the failings of the licensing system and what can be done to improve it.
- Provides materials and the means for individuals to lobby their MPs and PCCs on firearms licensing, such as this latest PCC campaign webpage. 
- Has a fighting fund which takes up and fights firearms licensing cases where a principle is at stake which affects everyone who shoots.

What does this achieve? In recent years it has contributed to:

- A sensible fee structure equating to roughly a third of the sums that the police demanded in 2014
- Firearms enquiry officers trained in those departments prepared to work with BASC
- Politicians and civil servants informed of the hard evidence – not just anecdotes – of the failures in firearms licensing.
- PCCs lobbied and encouraged to intervene where services are failing.
- Representation – with BSSC - for shooting on the current Home Office firearms fees working group
- The defeat of the proposed ban on .50 cal through the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting for which BASC provides the secretariat and briefing.
- The ability to use any registered medical practitioner for medical verification when the government wanted to limit it to GPs only
- The defeat of damaging proposals on firearms storage, home loading, ammunition purchase and the use of airguns by 14 year olds in the recent firearms safety consultation.

We all want more, and BASC is working for that, but we can't deliver everything everyone wants at the time they want it. And don't think that BASC staff don't have just the same problems with firearms licensing services as everyone else.

By being a BASC member, and particularly an active member, you contribute to this work. By opting out, only paying the minimum for insurance and nothing else, you still benefit from BASC’s work without contributing. You decide what's the best choice for the future of shooting. 

The following BASC firearms licensing campaign page is open to all to use

https://basc.org.uk/firearms-licensing-contact-your-police-and-crime-commissioner/

Good post Conor, dont know if you are one of the Indians or a chief at BASC but I would think like any other organisation the Indians sometimes get a bit frustrated at their chief/s unwillingness to listen to them.

[jall25]

1 hour ago, HantsRob said:

Yes, it's different as a CPSA registered shoot is a shoot for the CPSA. So for your score to count you need to be CPSA registered. But, you can still shoot a CPSA shoot and get a score. So very different. I am a CPSA member and have done CPSA shoots and my score still doesn't count as I am a low down member

That's probably the straightest answer to the question I posed. Thankyou.

So ease for you and the club justifies this? I am not sure I agree. If someone has insurance and an end date, it is very little admin to add that to a calendar for verification. Or, to legally draw something up where they are liable for any costs outside of their insurance.

I think oowee's comment covers it better though.

Pretty simple really as i said - if everyone has the same cover with the same insurance company its all so much easier for everyone concerned. 

Why spend more money on drawing something up when it is just oh so simple 

You join our shoot - you join the representative body we pick at the AGM dead simple

[old man]

22 hours ago, Conor O&#x27;Gorman said:

It's strange what some do when faced with a problem.

Firearms licensing is in chaos – blame BASC
Some politicians threaten shooting – blame BASC
A GP doesn't co-operate on medical verification – blame BASC

BASC is there to fight for its members and shooting, but it isn't the government, it isn't the police and it's not the medical profession.

What's the point of BASC and any other organisation? It's worth remembering what Judge Colin Bishopp said in his summing up at the First-tier Tribunal in a case which revolved around BASC's contribution to shooting: 

“In my judgment it is an inescapable conclusion that without its campaigning, advisory, educational and land management activities sporting shooting in the United Kingdom, in all its forms, would be of a materially poorer quality and in some cases might not exist at all.” 

BASC, and the other organisations, ensure that shooting has a voice in those areas that impact on shooting. That voice cannot dictate the outcome, but just imagine what it would be like with no voice at all.

Specifically on firearms licensing, BASC:

- Has the only full-time professional firearms team to advise and assist members
- Is the only organisation to have monitored and reported on the performance of firearms licensing departments - for the last 25 years.
- Has a programme of working with firearms licensing departments to improve their service
- Has a programme of meeting PCCs and arguing for their intervention where licensing departments are failing
- Briefs Ministers and MPs on the failings of the licensing system and what can be done to improve it.
- Provides materials and the means for individuals to lobby their MPs and PCCs on firearms licensing, such as this latest PCC campaign webpage. 
- Has a fighting fund which takes up and fights firearms licensing cases where a principle is at stake which affects everyone who shoots.

What does this achieve? In recent years it has contributed to:

- A sensible fee structure equating to roughly a third of the sums that the police demanded in 2014
- Firearms enquiry officers trained in those departments prepared to work with BASC
- Politicians and civil servants informed of the hard evidence – not just anecdotes – of the failures in firearms licensing.
- PCCs lobbied and encouraged to intervene where services are failing.
- Representation – with BSSC - for shooting on the current Home Office firearms fees working group
- The defeat of the proposed ban on .50 cal through the work of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting for which BASC provides the secretariat and briefing.
- The ability to use any registered medical practitioner for medical verification when the government wanted to limit it to GPs only
- The defeat of damaging proposals on firearms storage, home loading, ammunition purchase and the use of airguns by 14 year olds in the recent firearms safety consultation.

We all want more, and BASC is working for that, but we can't deliver everything everyone wants at the time they want it. And don't think that BASC staff don't have just the same problems with firearms licensing services as everyone else.

By being a BASC member, and particularly an active member, you contribute to this work. By opting out, only paying the minimum for insurance and nothing else, you still benefit from BASC’s work without contributing. You decide what's the best choice for the future of shooting. 

The following BASC firearms licensing campaign page is open to all to use

https://basc.org.uk/firearms-licensing-contact-your-police-and-crime-commissioner/

Personally, if all of the different organisations grew a pair and really aligned and collaborated fully at a national level we could get somewhere. 

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, old man said:

Personally, if all of the different organisations grew a pair and really aligned and collaborated fully at a national level we could get somewhere. 

Aligned on what? There is often collaboration between the different organisations. Are you suggesting a merger? Different organisations come about from a perceived lack of focus on a particular area of interest. 

[wymberley]

44 minutes ago, oowee said:

Aligned on what? There is often collaboration between the different organisations. Are you suggesting a merger? Different organisations come about from a perceived lack of focus on a particular area of interest. 

But some then decide to expand their theatre of operations and bite off more than they can chew. It takes more than just a name change. Far better to do what you do best and build in a facility to collaborate on situations of common interest.

[old man]

6 hours ago, oowee said:

Aligned on what? There is often collaboration between the different organisations. Are you suggesting a merger? Different organisations come about from a perceived lack of focus on a particular area of interest. 

Aligned on robust unified defence and promotion of country pursuit?

Maybe their areas of interest need to be more aligned with our future?