David BASC Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Catamong is spot on - if clay shooting is your main thing then the CPSA is your best bet. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I have been in the CPSA for over 25 years but I decided not to renew at the end of the month. I cannot see the point of being in it when I do not shoot registered clays any more. There is all this talk of join an organisation for the insurance etc:. If you are a householder and you have insurance for your property you will already have public and personal liability insurance. I rang my company today to check and on the policy it quotes in what is not insured-"firearms,except sporting guns used for sporting purposes". So that covers you for all field sports. If you shoot clays the ground owner will have to be insured. So it's up to you if you want to waste money on joining either the CPSA or BASC who might I add they both kept their heads below the parapet and said nowt when handguns were banned. I believe that it's also common knowledge that BASC also wants a lead shot ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Not wishing to hijack this thread but I cannot let these crass and false accusations go! Handguns: BASC were the ONLY organisation to go on TV to try and protect handguns on the day of the shooting- we were the only organisation on TV the following morning and we lead the political campaign to try and defend the sport. We were the ones who were instrumental in keeping 22 handgun out of the ban under the Conservatives - keeping our head down far from it! As for the CPSA- the handgun issue was not reality in their remit was it? And now this hare about a lead ban! name you source if you can ,after all it is common knowledge as you say so it must have been printed somewhere- do us a favour and post it here so we can all read it! Don’t make accusations you can’t substantiate please David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psyxologos Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Predominately I will be shooting clays, but I need insurance for rough and game shooting too. This is why I am between minds... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I might have been wrong regarding BASC's reaction regarding the handgun ban but we all own GUNS and we should all look after each other, Here is a link regarding the lead shot ban http://www.claysporting.com/index.php?name...sc&start=15 Here's another http://www.nfa.ca/files/wfsaleadsymposiumbrochure.pdf http://www.unep-aewa.org/meetings/eN/mop/m...review_rev1.pdf http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Do...25_6178_FRP.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Again I ask you to show me where in the documents you posted it shows that BASC wants a lead shot ban as you stated in your original post? If you want to discuss the lead issue, I suggest you start another thread. There are issues about lead- not least of all the fact is it toxic as you well know, hence its removal from paint, fuels, toys, pipes, most fishing weights, and so on. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 It might be toxic but it makes a much better kill than steel on any quarry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 I am affraid that is was also a very good anti knocking agent in petrol, it was also a very good fishing weight, it was wonderful for pipes...but the toxicity of lead cannot be ignored- you have read the reports you posted from AWEA et al yes?. It would be good to see here the CPSA or indeed others position on lead I think? Please lets not distract from this thread- if you guys want to discuss lead or ask questions then please start another thread and I will do all I can to help. David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter De La Mare Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Predominately I will be shooting clays, but I need insurance for rough and game shooting too. This is why I am between minds... You've answered your own question then. CPSA. You've seen in this thread they they insure for rough and game shooting as well. Or, as I have done, both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 (edited) My apologies to dustyfox for going off track. I will repeat what I and others have posted on here. If you have household insurance you do not need to give money to any other organisation to be insured to go shooting. I have never heard of the CPSA defending anyone in court. They also did nothing when The A1 shooting ground was threatened with closure due to a noise problem. But BASC did a sterling job at Carlisle Crown Court defending a friend on a trumped up firearms charge. The "mistaken" police officer kept his job though! Edited November 20, 2008 by BlaserF3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 20, 2008 Report Share Posted November 20, 2008 Blaser is spot on- most home policies will include liability cover- worth a check, but as I say in most cases the cover is there. Indeed, some organisations use this very fact to walk away from claims...makes you wonder what you are paying them for...but that’s another story! But, as B says, some organisations offer more than insurance and offer other benefits and services that your home policy will not or can not. I have said before- take a look at what is on offer if you want to support an organisation and pick the one that suits you best. David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayman Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 The point of the limits to which the CPSA can help a club with legal problems is often missed. What money it has is members money generated by subscription. The objectives of the CPSA are defined, and include running championships and promoting the sport. Providing legal defense for shooting clubs in financial form is not part of their charter, and members have not paid their subscriptions for this purpose. A single case going to appeal can cost £50,000 or more. The CPSA could never selectively choose to help one ground like this but have no money for other cases. What the CPSA does do for all grounds is provide free visits by Directors and senior staff to advise on problems, information and written reports, support and help with petitions, and introductions to suitable experts in noise / planning / insurance etc. They will also appear as expert witnesses if called to court, and may arrange attendance at hearings to monitor outcomes. All these services were offered to A1 and most taken up by them. As grounds with dilemmas usually only affect their locals, much support is personal and private from county and regional committee members - who go un-noticed, un-paid and often un-thanked ( Thank you JJ for all the tireless support you have given grounds over the 20yrs I have known you, and SB too, and many more). Many grounds have survived noise and planning issues in part because of direct help given by the CPSA, but it was never in the form of money. What the CPSA does not do is donate members money to fight individual cases. Realistically, a minimum fighting fund to support the most deserved cases each year would represent £20-00 on every members fees to accumulate the £500,000 that could easily be spent. Remembering that the CPSA is a non-profit organisation, so it cannot generate a surplus, so any such fund could not come from members subscriptions, and would need to be donations into an outside appeal. How successful would such a request be? It would go down like a lead balloon. When it came to shooters donating out of their own pockets to support A1, there was no stampede. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 A couple of points if I may. You are spot on that the cost of going to court can be very high, and in my opinion should be an absolute last resort. Not only on the grounds of cost, but if you are facing, say, a noise abatement notice chances are you will loose in court anyway. Remember that although there are legal limits on noise, there is no legal limit on what a person says causes them a nuisance! This is the big problem facing shooting grounds, they may well be doing all they can to reduce noise, but if a local resident or two complains and say that the shooting is causing them a problem there is a real problem for the ground. Secondly, and this has happened with a few grounds that BASC have worked with and I am sure the CPSA have had the same problems, a ground is hit by a noise abatement notice from the local council, to reduce noise they could build bunds, they apply for planning permission to build the bunds, the local council refuse planning permission! Aarrrgh! Trust me noise is going to be one of the biggest threats to shooting during the next 20 years, not just clays mind you, we have seen abatement notices services on pigeon shooters! Going to court is not going to overturn the decision in most cases, what will work often (but not always) is for the ground / shoot build up good relations with he locals in the fist place, this often relates to what time shooting starts, what time shooting finishes for example. As to a not for profit organization not being allowed make a profit, of course you are quite correct, BUT a NPO can put money into reserves to build up a fighting fund for example, last set of CPSA accounts I saw showed a very healthy cash reserve! David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clayman Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 The CPSA cash reserves were not generated by surplus of members funds, they came ( in the main) from a large VAT rebate made when it was agreed that the members' organisation was outside the scope of vat, and a large amount of vat collected over previous years was refunded. This surplus has been largely reserved, a loosely represents a years running costs for the CPSA should disaster strike. Its there to ward off major litigation against the CPSA, cope with redundancy / compensation, fire / flood disaster etc. But a few of hundred thousand is really a minimum to ensure the financial safety of the organisation. It will, for instance, be in a good position to weather the credit crunch and can maintain staff and services by calling on reserves if members subs do not meet budgetary expectations. Many persons accuse the CPSA of not doing enough for the sport, but actually in the last few years the board has voted to use up some of the reserves to increase the CPSA profile and lobby, and to protect the sport. Yes, a fighting fund could be created within a NPO, but the danger of a non- specific collection of money within the general sub is that it would end up being used for purposes othet than that for which it was raised. Separate raising of such a fund, isolation of funds, and independant administration would assist the equity of fair use. As David says, noise is the big problem, with the guidelines being interpreted at 55dB - 60dB as a max at public places. When road traffic is 70 dB+, a train in a station 80dB+, lawn movers, dogs barking, pub noise levels etc etc are all well above the level a shoot is supposed to operate at at, it does seem a rather selective application of noise guidelines and nusiance laws. Where a fighting fund should be coming from is the ALL the 600,000 SGC shooters themselves, not just 25,ooo CPSA members. The contribution could be tiny but amount to substantial sums over time. One tenth of a penny collected via cartridge manufacturers, on the cost of a cartridge ( thats £1-00 / 1000 ) would generate something in the order of half a million a year. Probably 80% of the business generated at clay grounds is from non-cpsa members, so why should the CPSA fork out financially. As it is huge numbers of shooters benifit from hard work done by the CPSA in keeping grounds open, while many refuse to recognise that the CPSA does do enourmouse amounts of work. Those people benfit from the existance of the CPSA, but both denegrate it at every opportunity, and refuse to support it financially. Noise and environmental problems are common to all shooters, clays and game, and the source of fighting legislation and its application should come from a universal source, thats all shooters, and the one thing we all use, is cartridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 I believe the CPSA is a total waste of my membership fee and will probably not be renewing next year. The only REAL reason to be a member of CPSA is to be able to shoot at registered shoots and aspire to representative honours. As reported by other people in earlier replies, CPSA HQ do not manage members complaints sympathetically or efficiently if they even bother to address the issue at all. They have rules and policies and procedures to follow but if it suits them they will, and have, totally ignored procedure on numerous occassions. In these difficult financial times that are now facing all of us we all need to get value for money.Your money is best spent for this reason alone with BASC, who have a well organised team that can be accessed and will give guidance on all matters shooting.If you only want insurance specifically for countrysports the best value is with the NGO. CPSA = Can't Provide Sound Advice (apart from 'Save your money don't join us') Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter-peter Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 in reply to david basc. you correctly state there are good shooters well past manchester. the big issue is how the hell can you call a british OPEN. OPEN.if you have to be a member of cpsa to enter. That to me is not open, we have some crack shots in our area some would give faulds and dig a good run for their money ask me why they dont enter. because they object to being told join cpsa or dont bother. open to me means open. I will await all the backlash from cpsa and basc. we insure with the scottish *** for country sports. at a fraction of cpsa charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter De La Mare Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 we have some crack shots in our area some would give faulds and dig a good run for their moneyask me why they dont enter. because they object to being told join cpsa or dont bother. That's the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Jeez, there are some big babies in this sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 That's the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Jeez, there are some big babies in this sport. I'll second that, of course you should be a member of the governing body if you wish to shoot in any major event. That's the way it is in any other sport, quite rightly so. Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulos Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 we have some crack shots in our area some would give faulds and dig a good run for their money Who?? :P I will agree with the above two posts, every other sport requires membership of a governing body to compete so why should shooting be any different? These so-called shooters who could compete with Faulds and Digweed clearly can't be that serious about their sport if they object to paying a subscription that costs the equivalent of 250 game cartridges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salopian Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I can understand why these people do not join the CPSA. But, if the CPSA were run by business men rather than an ignorant Carpenter and his cohorts, they would arrange day membership for these ace northern Digweed beaters and then it truly would be an English or British Open.But that of course would require the HQ staff having to earn their salaries.Perish the thought."Work for the benefit of members?" Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David BASC Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I am not trying to put words in the mouth of the CPSA, they know best how they run their association, but a day membership? There is a cost to setting up and managing a persons records- and this has to be paid for, so I would suggest a minimum cost would be around £5. Surely the rankings for clay shooters run on averages, not just one off shoots – so a chap who wants to be picked to shoot against say GD and others will need a very good average score, not just one or two good scores from your home ground I bet someone wanting to shoot sporting or FITASC for GB would need an average over at least 20 shoots- possibly more, so if you charged say £5 per day membership of CPSA…….better top spend about £50 and be done with it? David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter De La Mare Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 There is a day membership of the CPSA, my non-cpsa shooting partner used it when we shot a registered event at Gatton Bottom this year. It was £3 if I recall correctly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 I can understand why these people do not join the CPSA.But, if the CPSA were run by business men rather than an ignorant Carpenter and his cohorts, they would arrange day membership for these ace northern Digweed beaters and then it truly would be an English or British Open.But that of course would require the HQ staff having to earn their salaries.Perish the thought."Work for the benefit of members?" Never. Goodness me....whatever next...?? I'd love to compete in the British Open Golf Championship, perhaps the PGA will give me a day pass if my mate tells them I can hold my own against Padraig Harrington. You need to be in it to win it, it's no good whinging from the sidelines, if you don't like the management team at HQ why don't you propose a vote of no confidence to be debated at the next AGM in March..?? And once you've voted them all out, just who do you propose should take over..?? Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catamong Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 There is a day membership of the CPSA, my non-cpsa shooting partner used it when we shot a registered event at Gatton Bottom this year. It was £3 if I recall correctly. Pete, Quite right, but it doesn't apply for major championships, which is the way it should be. Cat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter De La Mare Posted November 24, 2008 Report Share Posted November 24, 2008 Pete, Quite right, but it doesn't apply for major championships, which is the way it should be. Cat. Good, I knew that..... I was just testing you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.