SASC's

[al4x]

don't knock it a turnover of 8million lets you do a lot of lobbying, its expensive stuff

[Glenshooter]

However to infer as Mark does that you would not get support from BASC until it has been past a committee etc is just nonsense!

 

Well, I can't speak for Mark but I can say that when I needed help from the BASC over a tricky licensing issue that was not of my making nor my foolishness but was potentially serious, the BASC were superb. Nothing was too much trouble, they gave me excellent advice - working with the local regional director and the 'experts' in their headquarters and it all ended very well for me. But if it hadn't been for the BASC, their knowledge, their 'understanding' of the licensing systems at local/ground level, their readiness to help, things could have been very different.

 

So that is another reason why I recommend BASC to all my shooting friends. And they help protect our ability to shoot in the future.

[markbivvy]

I am afraid you will find Mark trawls out this anit BASC rubbish at every opportunity, it is so petty and tiresome and frankly has lost its impact, but he keeps doing it anyway. Don't rise ot the bait just let him get on with it.

 

Mark did not get the service he wanted or expected from BASC and left, that is a matter of fact and record.

 

However to infer as Mark does that you would not get support from BASC until it has been past a committee etc is just nonsense! We clearly detail on our web site he we handle all firearms enquiries.

 

No we do not have a legal expenses insurance policy in place, nor do most organisations, we have looked at it and for the money it would cost think it is simply not worth it for us, like I say you may be surprised how much legal expenses insurance you already have!

 

But to support your point Glenshooter, BASC is growing, it has been growing since I came on staff 14 years ago, and it look like it will keep on growing for the foreseeable future, why? Because I think most shooters can see the value in supporting BASC.

 

Best wishes

 

David

 

You trawl as many as i do david, but i dont disappear or spit my dummy when the threads dont go my way.

see you dont visit the cf uk site no more , ant reason why, to many embarrassing. questions maybe.

[Boromir]

Well, I can't speak for Mark but I can say that when I needed help from the BASC over a tricky licensing issue that was not of my making nor my foolishness but was potentially serious, the BASC were superb. Nothing was too much trouble, they gave me excellent advice - working with the local regional director and the 'experts' in their headquarters and it all ended very well for me. But if it hadn't been for the BASC, their knowledge, their 'understanding' of the licensing systems at local/ground level, their readiness to help, things could have been very different.

 

So that is another reason why I recommend BASC to all my shooting friends. And they help protect our ability to shoot in the future.

 

Yeap BASC give Superd advice http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/ind...&hl=the+bfg

 

SACS also want to protect Shooting and the future of shooting just cause BASC has the biggest Membership doesnt mean there the best, remember the big armies dont always win.

 

Ive had so many people say that BASC done f all for them.

[Glenshooter]

Choose what Organisation you want.

 

SACS and BASC seem to be the same other than price and the infamous BASC Firearms department.

 

Personally if I had to choose It would have to be SACS.

 

BASC acting like government how long do you think they will put up there membership costs again? Im betting 2 years time.

 

BFG, seeing that you think SACS and BASC are the same other than price and the excellent BASC firearms dept (IMHO through experience) can you tell me then what SACS are doing in terms of protecting shooting anywhere, but particularly in Scotland where Kenny Macaskill is not exactly a supporter and judging by what some people are saying in the forums is trying to ban/licence airguns?

 

I would have thought of all people, those who live in Scotland would be very keen for an organisation to be very active in public relations / media work?

[Boromir]

BFG, seeing that you think SACS and BASC are the same other than price and the excellent BASC firearms dept (IMHO through experience) can you tell me then what SACS are doing in terms of protecting shooting anywhere, but particularly in Scotland where Kenny Macaskill is not exactly a supporter and judging by what some people are saying in the forums is trying to ban/licence airguns?

 

I would have thought of all people, those who live in Scotland would be very keen for an organisation to be very active in public relations / media work?

 

The ban on Airguns is coming no matter what we do, we can only delay it in the end.

 

And just because BASC gives you a car sticker does that make em more active in Public. We need to stop this BASC vs SACS thing gets us no where, but I choose SACS because they are doing as much the same as BASC. Why pay £44 extra for a Firearms department £8 million in the bank for lobbying look how much CA had and Fox hunting still got banned.

[Glenshooter]

The ban on Airguns is coming no matter what we do, we can only delay it in the end.

 

And just because BASC gives you a car sticker does that make em more active in Public. We need to stop this BASC vs SACS thing gets us no where, but I choose SACS because they are doing as much the same as BASC. Why pay £44 extra for a Firearms department £8 million in the bank for lobbying look how much CA had and Fox hunting still got banned.

 

I don't have an insight into Scottish politics but it would be unusual if what you say is true. I work day in and day out with lobbyists and 'media people'. Industry spends a lot of money because lobbying DOES work. I have seen it for myself. But it takes a lot of hard work, persistence, professionalism and mutual respect.

 

That's why I think BASC are on the right lines with their media centre. I can also understand why people who are not involved with this aspect of 'media affairs' may be cynical but there are many millions of pounds spent in lobbying because it does work. (Not all the time, obviously - but you can certainly improve the chances of your point being made if the right people are communicated with in the right way and with the right resources.)

 

I still don't know what SACS does. Their website is pretty scant except saying that they sent a press release in respect of the 2 yr old child being shot in Glasgow and that they 'will' respond to the Edinburgh tragedy. And frankly, if the SACS refers to air rifles as 'weapons', as they do on their website (home page left hand margin, it's no wonder you're so defeatist in thinking that the ban on airguns will come 'no matter what we do'. That is amateurism in the extreme on the part of SACS.

 

The BASC are fighting the proposed ban, by opposing the devolution of any aspect of firearms legislation to Holyrood as well as their other work on deer stalking etc. So that's why I don't think they are the 'same'. And that's why I will stay with the BASC and recommend that others do as well.

[Boromir]

The BASC are fighting the proposed ban, by opposing the devolution of any aspect of firearms legislation to Holyrood as well as their other work on deer stalking etc. So that's why I don't think they are the 'same'. And that's why I will stay with the BASC and recommend that others do as well.

 

Well lets see what BASC can do. I'll be really surprised if they can get anywhere with it.

[Mungler]

You only need a quick glance at what SACS does and is capable of doing and what BASC does and is capable of doing to work out which organisation has the most clout and benefits.

 

I think if you wanted to settle the BASC and SACS debate there should be a list drawn up of what shooters think and consider to be important and then add a "SACS" and a "BASC" column and tick off who does what.

 

Apart from price of annual subs, I can't think of a question or issue where SACS would win over, save on cost of annual membership. But there we go, seriously, who buys anything of any merit on price alone?

 

SACS and BASC will never merge or meet in the middle because SACS is constituted of unhappy ex-BASCers. And there we have it.

 

Finally, all this chat about insurance and legal cover - does anyone know of anyone that has actually ever been shot or been injured and needed to draw on one of these policies? No, I didn't think so, so why does it crop up time and again in these threads as some major priority? As for legal cover, that is available for a lot less than either BASC or SACS can provide it for on the usual household policies. Also, everyone has to bear in mind that even if you have legal cover either from a shooting organisation or from your motor policy the insurers will not give cover if the prospect of success is less than 51% - insurance is there but they ain't mugs and they won't back a losing case - that applies to shooting related claims and any other possible claim.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Mungler

[Boromir]

You only need a quick glance at what SACS does and is capable of doing and what BASC does and is capable of doing to work out which organisation has the most clout and benefits.

 

I think if you wanted to settle the BASC and SACS debate there should be a list drawn up of what shooters think and consider to be important and then add a "SACS" and a "BASC" column and tick off who does what.

 

Apart from price of annual subs, I can't think of a question or issue where SACS would win over, save on cost of annual membership. But there we go, seriously, who buys anything of any merit on price alone?

 

SACS and BASC will never merge or meet in the middle because SACS is constituted of unhappy ex-BASCers. And there we have it.

 

Finally, all this chat about insurance and legal cover - does anyone know of anyone that has actually ever been shot or been injured and needed to draw on one of these policies? No, I didn't think so, so why does it crop up time and again in these threads as some major priority? As for legal cover, that is available for a lot less than either BASC or SACS can provide it for on the usual household policies. Also, everyone has to bear in mind that even if you have legal cover either from a shooting organisation or from your motor policy the insurers will not give cover if the prospect of success is less than 51% - insurance is there but they ain't mugs and they won't back a losing case - that applies to shooting related claims and any other possible claim.

:blink:

 

You make sense.

[scolopax]

Finally, all this chat about insurance and legal cover - does anyone know of anyone that has actually ever been shot or been injured and needed to draw on one of these policies? No, I didn't think so, so why does it crop up time and again in these threads as some major priority?

 

Yes, two people. One shot another chaps fingers off in a pigeon hide, the second managed to shoot a beaters dog, the dog lived but is now minus one leg. Both injured parties received healthy pay outs, the shot hand was a few years ago so I do not know all the details but the beaters dog was only a couple of seasons ago. The owner got a very quick service and received full compensation for vets fees and the cost of a replacement fully trained gun dog. Both guns were insured through BASC.

[Willow32]

BASC,SACS,Countryside Allaince.......why for once cant we do what the yanks have done.....have one organisation that covers all Fieldsport....The NRA a hugh political and powerful body that supports all field sports.......

 

Each organisation has its own agenda.......lets face it....Countryside allaince...supports hunting,whats it done for the lurcher and terrier boys :blink:...........BASC....Loves pheasant shooting....does it really care about pigeon shooting or vermin shooting ( unless its foxes to protect pheasants)

 

One organisation for everybody....thats the only answer!

 

Regards

Willow32

[Glenshooter]

BASC....Loves pheasant shooting....does it really care about pigeon shooting or vermin shooting ( unless its foxes to protect pheasants)

 

One organisation for everybody....thats the only answer!

 

Regards Willow32

 

I agree that one organisation would be the best. (And, IMHO, BASC is almost there.)

 

The front page of the BASC Shooting and Conservation magazine for Sep/Oct 09 shows 2 woodpigeon on a branch so guess you have your answer there!!! :blink:

[Slug]

I don't want to get involved in any argument at all with anyone over which insurance is better, just to say that as a Noob to the sport, and only shooting clays on registered grounds , do I need anything other than CPSA ??, I am not competing and non- competitors premiums seem remarkable good cover....But then I don't expect they would deal with any firearms issues that I may have with the boys in Blue ?...Thats why I am still unsure whether to go BASC or CPSA.. :blink:

[reddan]

BASC,SACS,Countryside Allaince.......why for once cant we do what the yanks have done.....have one organisation that covers all Fieldsport....The NRA a hugh political and powerful body that supports all field sports.......

 

Each organisation has its own agenda.......lets face it....Countryside allaince...supports hunting,whats it done for the lurcher and terrier boys :blink:...........BASC....Loves pheasant shooting....does it really care about pigeon shooting or vermin shooting ( unless its foxes to protect pheasants)

 

One organisation for everybody....thats the only answer!

 

Regards

Willow32

 

 

I agree, I clay shoot each week and would like to be able to take part in CPSA registered shoots, but I still think BASC is the way forward for the overall sport. Should I have to join two? I don't see how the objectives of the two differ.

 

Dan

[Mungler]

This is the PM I just sent Slug:

 

 

Go with BASC, CPSA do nothing for shooting unless you are in the elite few who do nothing but registered clay competitions.

 

If you want to support shooting go with BASC. I shoot clays every weekend with mates at a local ground with lots of other people and I am with BASC - the CPSA have done nothing for the clay shooting that I do or the game shooting that I do.

 

I would go as far as to say that you should consider SACS in front of CPSA.

[Bazooka Joe]

I doubt that NOBS actually even has 9,500 paid up members anyway but of more concern is the fact that a NOBS Regional Officer has stated that the third party liability cover is for SPORT only, so any beater or picker up getiing paid - and even a brace of birds, a drink or a lunch constitutes a legal payment - is not covered.

See another thread re insurance

 

 

Just had an email back from Ian at SACS's to clear this bit up;

 

Also quoted on another thread,

 

I think I see what is causing the confusion here, and I'll try to set it out more clearly.

 

Firstly, as a SACS member, if you are taking part in ANY Countrysports activity, you as an individual are fully covered, and the cover includes anything that happens and for which you could be sued, including beating, picking up, etc. for the usual 'payment' that such jobs normally receive.

 

Our insurers have specifically confirmed this in the past, and one of the 'professional' loaders spoke direct to the NFU recently, at my suggestion, and that was again confirmed to him by the NFU.

 

Secondly, if you are a Gun on a shoot, the SACS insurance also covers you against a claim made against you BY a beater or picker-up who is working for the shoot.

 

I think maybe this is where the confusion has come from - both eventualities are covered, though, and there is nothing to worry about.

 

BJ.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Bazooka Joe

[David BASC]

This is a common sense approach from the insurer and I think you will find is pretty much the same for all the shooting associations. They all cover recreational activities and not business or commercial activities.

 

Perhaps your next e-mail to Ian will prompt him to put a copy of the full policy wording, and Key Facts document up on the SACS web site.

 

David

[al4x]

The Insurers are the NFU so it should inspire some confidence being the most recognised insurer to farmers

[Glenshooter]

The Insurers are the NFU so it should inspire some confidence being the most recognised insurer to farmers

NFU are very good. I have my own farm insured with them.

 

However, the other point to consider is that of credibility in the eyes of farmers. I will not let anyone shoot on my land if they are not members of BASC. I'm sure there will be many landowners who might not care but all the ones in my area only recognise BASC. There have been a few people trotting up with BASA and the like looking to shoot and they have been sent packing.

 

It's bad enough to have to pay liability insurance for those people who are on your land and I for one, don't want ANY hassle with someone who is in an association that I am not familiar with. I know that if there would be any problems then I trust the BASC to help sort things out.

[al4x]

I would have thought if you insured your farm with the NFU then you could just check your local reps opinion of their shooting insurance and it ought to carry more weight than say to a non shooting farmer the BASC

[Glenshooter]

I would have thought if you insured your farm with the NFU then you could just check your local reps opinion of their shooting insurance and it ought to carry more weight than say to a non shooting farmer the BASC

Not just for the insurance. Membership of an organisation says a lot about the person. Don't want to labour the point but most farmers know and recognise some organisations more than others. I gave the example above of the BASA guy who was sent packing as we though he was trying to scam BASC.

 

And I can't have confidence in SACS having their insurance through NFU since I see no mention of it on their website, (and that is not to doubt you). Organisations can change insurers at the drop of a hat. And most farmers will not have heard of SACS, IMHO.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Glenshooter

[Glenshooter]

I would have thought if you insured your farm with the NFU then you could just check your local reps opinion of their shooting insurance and it ought to carry more weight than say to a non shooting farmer the BASC

 

Just phoned my insurance agent for NFU and they have never heard of SACS. (This does NOT mean that SACS is not insured with NFU. But your suggestion, fair one I may add, was to check with the local agent. However, as she isn't based in HO, does not know about business outside her own area.) But most farmers wouldn't even be bothered to do this in any case.

[Harnser]

A'rnt we all just our own worse enemys . All ways a thread popping up having a pop at the BASC . I wasent going to reply to this one as it allways gets up my nose . I am a BASC supporter and get fed up with it all . So just join the association of your choice and keep your gobs shut and stop slagging BASC off it dos'nt impress anybody .

Harnser .

[Dunkield]

So just join the association of your choice

 

Sums it up nicely, infighting only weakens our defences.