Not BASC Bashing

kes

Well-Known Member
BASC is now committed (apparently) to argue that clause 81 concerns are valid sic. Would be interesting to hear why the change of heart after suggesting it wasnt necessary ?

[h=1]Clause 81: BASC now supports amendments to Policing and Crime Bill[/h]Leave a reply
[FONT=&quot]14 April 2016 – The British Association for Shooting and Conservation now wants the controversial Clause 81 of the Policing and Crime Bill to be amended to include shooting organisations.
Last week UK Shooting News reported that the clause, as drafted, puts a duty on the Home Secretary to consult the police – and only the police – on changes to the Home Office Guidance on Firearms Law. Other clauses in the bill will make the guidance legally binding on police.
This week the Scottish Association for Country Sports said there was nothing to worry aboutand that shooting organisations would still be consulted on changes, via the police Firearms and Explosive Licensing Working Group (FELWG)’s practitioner working group.
Now BASC has announced that it is actively seeking changes to Clause 81. From documents issued earlier today by the association, we learn:
At subsection 5 to this clause [81], the Home Secretary is required to consult the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland before issuing guidance. BASC asserts that this duty should be extended to shooting stakeholders. The Home Office routinely draws upon the shooting community’s expertise already by asking for comments on each new tranche of its guidance. This arrangement ought to be formalised.
It continues:
No indication is given about enforcement to ensure compliance. This could lead to delays in decisions being made. Certificate holders need to have access to balanced, independent decision makers e.g. the judiciary. No mention is made of any such mechanism.
There are a raft of other changes BASC suggests which go into detail, relating to the other firearms clauses in the bill. These include a recommendation that Home Office club approval should apply to all section 1 firearms, not just rifles and muzzle-loading pistols, and that the proposed airgun power limit be raised to 3 joules, as reflects the evidence available on lethality.
The full BASC submission can be read here (PDF)
[/FONT]
 
A State where only the police have guns, is a Police State. I think this might be what some of the police want.
 
Kes starting a thread entitled Not BASC Bashing :-|. Reminds me or the fable of 'The Fox and the Scorpion' :D:coat:
 
Kes I don't know if you realise but Gazza the journalist who operates the UK Shooting News website isn't entirely unbiased when it comes to BASC. From previous communications it would appear that BASC did not show him the respect that he thought that he deserved when once requesting information from them.
 
Kes I don't know if you realise but Gazza the journalist who operates the UK Shooting News website isn't entirely unbiased when it comes to BASC. From previous communications it would appear that BASC did not show him the respect that he thought that he deserved when once requesting information from them.

Now I find that hard to believe although I have heard a BASC representative suggest their view was 'non-conforming' ! more power to his elbow since this is a simple fact really - they have changed their minds.
 
I simply asked, why, after suggesting the concern over clause 81 was alarmist, they have seemingly become 'alarmed'.
P.S. Not heard the one about the 'fox and the scorpion', will it ruin my day ?
 
Do you have a link to the "BASC announcement" please, nothing on the website
 
Do you have a link to the "BASC announcement" please, nothing on the website

As far as I know BASC have not commented formally (press statement), just sent a formal response to the government on the relevant legislation. I could be wrong. The article quoted above has a link to the response where it says Can be read here - last line, first post.
 
A State where only the police have guns, is a Police State. I think this might be what some of the police want.

But never going to happen - UK and the devolved Governments are all committed to increasing the area of woodland cover, in order to meet international climate change commitments. They also have a duty to protect vulnerable habitats - both these factors require deer control so outlawing private gun ownership is never going to happen - no mater what the wooly hat brigade want. (the same woolly hat brigade also like tree and habitats but are incapable of seeing the conflict in their anti-gun objectives)
 
I simply asked, why, after suggesting the concern over clause 81 was alarmist, they have seemingly become 'alarmed'.
P.S. Not heard the one about the 'fox and the scorpion', will it ruin my day ?

Guaranteed not to ruin your day but might give you a good chuckle if one draws an inference from your 'strained relationship' with BASC and the title of this thread.:D
The story goes along the following lines:

  • A fox and a scorpion both need to cross a river.
  • The scorpion asks the fox for a ride on its back as it cannot swim.
  • The fox refuses saying “no you’ll sting me”.
  • The scorpion replies that it wouldn’t, as it would damage the both of them.
  • The fox agrees and allows the scorpion to ride on it’s back.
  • Half way across the river the scorpion stings the fox.
  • As the poison takes effect on the fox and it starts to sink it asks the scorpion, “Why?”
  • “Why did you sting me, now we are both going to die?”
  • The scorpion replies, “I couldn’t help myself, it’s in my nature”.
 
Keep dreaming slider, they may not ban public ownership of firearms, but will make it more difficult to obtain them, ( unless you do it illegally) rightly or wrongly there is a large groundswell in the UK that is anti gun, it may not happen in our lifetimes.
 
Guaranteed not to ruin your day but might give you a good chuckle if one draws an inference from your 'strained relationship' with BASC and the title of this thread.:D
The story goes along the following lines:

  • A fox and a scorpion both need to cross a river.
  • The scorpion asks the fox for a ride on its back as it cannot swim.
  • The fox refuses saying “no you’ll sting me”.
  • The scorpion replies that it wouldn’t, as it would damage the both of them.
  • The fox agrees and allows the scorpion to ride on it’s back.
  • Half way across the river the scorpion stings the fox.
  • As the poison takes effect on the fox and it starts to sink it asks the scorpion, “Why?”
  • “Why did you sting me, now we are both going to die?”
  • The scorpion replies, “I couldn’t help myself, it’s in my nature”.


Really enjoyed the story but what is in my nature I hope isnt simply reactive but (I would liek to think) fully thought through. There are a number of instances which led me to my present view. Be sure about one thing - I try very hard not to do 'stupid' . This topic is kind of important and I would have expected any pro-shooting organisation to have twigged this early on - not criticised those who did.
 
Keep dreaming slider, they may not ban public ownership of firearms, but will make it more difficult to obtain them, ( unless you do it illegally) rightly or wrongly there is a large groundswell in the UK that is anti gun, it may not happen in our lifetimes.

Well aware that its not going to get any easier but with a deer population that grown exponentially in both range and numbers they will have to be controlled and a rifle is currently the only way to do this. We have a shrinking (because of urbanisation) land area with greater completion from various land uses>

Roe numbers have increase 600% in the last 50 years, Red 200%, Muntjac have spread from 0 to 40,000 in the last 100 years and are increasing at 12% per year. 1,000's of hectares of natural woodland in poor condition due to browsing, 60,000 RTA's a year and on and on.

I have enough faith in this that I am moving my emphasis from game shooting to stalking (I can see the end in site for game shooting)
 
Well aware that its not going to get any easier but with a deer population that grown exponentially in both range and numbers they will have to be controlled and a rifle is currently the only way to do this. We have a shrinking (because of urbanisation) land area with greater completion from various land uses>

Roe numbers have increase 600% in the last 50 years, Red 200%, Muntjac have spread from 0 to 40,000 in the last 100 years and are increasing at 12% per year. 1,000's of hectares of natural woodland in poor condition due to browsing, 60,000 RTA's a year and on and on.

I have enough faith in this that I am moving my emphasis from game shooting to stalking (I can see the end in site for game shooting)

I definitely agree about the deer numbers.

There was a very interesting article about conservation of woodland in Scotland my sister showed me (she works in conservation, but also thankfully is pro-shooting!) which said that a few hundred years back Scotland used to be thick forest all over but now has large swaths of open hill partially as a result of booming deer numbers.

Basically the article stated that there were two conflicting aims of various conservation programs - The folks who wanted to reduce deer numbers to let the trees grow back and the folks who have built strong healthy herds of deer up over many years who now dont want to go and cull a whole load of them!

Why do you say you can see the end for game shooting?
 
This is rather old news, its from 2 months ago! yes we did press release it with a copy of our response on the 13th April and the draft bill was widely discussed in the shooting press.

Why its surprising that the UK's largest shooting organisation wants to make sure its involved in any discussions on firearms licencing with the home office and senior police officers is beyond me
 
I definitely agree about the deer numbers.


Why do you say you can see the end for game shooting?

I just think the anti's have the ability to make a stronger case and gather political support - game birds specifically reared to shoot etc. Whereas with deer we are managing a natural resource to the benefit of the environment. - Not that I agree game shooting should be stopped at all, just that I feel the pressure will be stronger on that than deer.
 
This is rather old news, its from 2 months ago! yes we did press release it with a copy of our response on the 13th April and the draft bill was widely discussed in the shooting press.

Why its surprising that the UK's largest shooting organisation wants to make sure its involved in any discussions on firearms licencing with the home office and senior police officers is beyond me

Because David, before, BASC was happy with informal consultation (I can find your comment if you wish) and now, apparently BASC wants to be a MANDATORY consultee for changes to HO guidance i.e. part of the group (FELWG) that agrees changes to HO Guidance, when, following the Guidance becomes a 'legal requirement'.
You remember we discussed clause 81 and BASC said " clause 81 isn't a problem - why worry we are a consultee" - now you want BASC to be a member on the group with direct, not secondary input (i.e. a statutory consultee). That's why its surprising. Is that beyond you (as you put it ) or would you like me to find you chapter and verse ?
I think that change of heart can be classed as a U turn by BASC, based on missing the point the first time.
 
We live in the real and ever changing world, in the past the less formal links were perfectly workable but as time went on it became more clear that a more formal relationship would be better. You can take it any way you like Kes, I frankly could not care less
 
I definitely agree about the deer numbers.

There was a very interesting article about conservation of woodland in Scotland my sister showed me (she works in conservation, but also thankfully is pro-shooting!) which said that a few hundred years back Scotland used to be thick forest all over but now has large swaths of open hill partially as a result of booming deer numbers.

Basically the article stated that there were two conflicting aims of various conservation programs - The folks who wanted to reduce deer numbers to let the trees grow back and the folks who have built strong healthy herds of deer up over many years who now dont want to go and cull a whole load of them!

Why do you say you can see the end for game shooting?


Completely off topic but that is rubbish peddled by some conservation groups who see deer as vermin. (No offence intended)

There will be many reasons for deafforrestion over the years but most of it was long long ago, plus any ground over 3-400m will almost be above the timber line anyway (possibly even lower if 100% natural growth) and most off the northern 'flow' country will never have grown trees either.
Some of the soil/peat core pollen analysis from Rannoch moor and quite a few other moors show trees tended to die out about the same time around 15/16th century all over scotland and thought to be a shift in climate and then no doubt some man made issues after that, a lot would be cleared for sheep too if not already cleared then.
Honestly doubt deer had any real impact in the great caledonian forest disappearing

Deer numbers are now affecting regen no doubt but u could well argue that unfenced regen is a bit of a pipe dream anyway as deer numbers need to be soo low for it to happen over the whole of there range.
Also wot happens to all this regen if it ever grows? It does not provide any jobs or revinue for the landowner or locals, its conservation value could be dubious as well without some form of management and esp nowadayss with the ammount of vermin that would thrive in it.


I know slider know's his stuff and the deer population numbers will be fairly accurate but is a rise always a bad thing, I would dispute there has been any real rise in Roe in this area (sw scot) which is heavily forrested, well since the 80's anyway
Althou thinking about it there probably has been a rise since the 60's but only as vast areas of open hill have been planted creating far more habitat for them where there was none before. I'd say by and large they are fairly well managed in most of this area and i doubt the cull returns have really increased that much since the 80's or so when woods were established. I'd imagine could be similar all over scotland and could explain the rise in Roe all the new plantings from 60's onwards
Just because there is a rise des not neccesarily a bad thing it just depends on the context
 
Last edited:
Completely off topic but that is rubbish peddled by some conservation groups who see deer as vermin. (No offence intended)

There will be many reasons for deafforrestion over the years but most of it was long long ago, plus any ground over 3-400m will almost be above the timber line anyway (possibly even lower if 100% natural growth) and most off the northern 'flow' country will never have grown trees either.
Some of the soil/peat core pollen analysis from Rannoch moor and quite a few other moors show trees tended to die out about the same time around 15/16th century all over scotland and thought to be a shift in climate and then no doubt some man made issues after that, a lot would be cleared for sheep too if not already cleared then.
Honestly doubt deer had any real impact in the great caledonian forest disappearing

Deer numbers are now affecting regen no doubt but u could well argue that unfenced regen is a bit of a pipe dream anyway as deer numbers need to be soo low for it to happen over the whole of there range.
Also wot happens to all this regen if it ever grows? It does not provide any jobs or revinue for the landowner or locals, its conservation value could be dubious as well without some form of management and esp nowadayss with the ammount of vermin that would thrive in it.


I know slider know's his stuff and the deer population numbers will be fairly accurate but is a rise always a bad thing, I would dispute there has been any real rise in Roe in this area (sw scot) which is heavily forrested, well since the 80's anyway
Althou thinking about it there probably has been a rise since the 60's but only as vast areas of open hill have been planted creating far more habitat for them where there was none before. I'd say by and large they are fairly well managed in most of this area and i doubt the cull returns have really increased that much since the 80's or so when woods were established. I'd imagine could be similar all over scotland and could explain the rise in Roe all the new plantings from 60's onwards
Just because there is a rise des not neccesarily a bad thing it just depends on the context

I think I am in general agreement with most of the content of this - and will add that hill sheep numbers falling off a cliff due to economics as created space for other large herbivores - namely deer>

Whether increased numbers are good or bad depends on you view point - good for stalkers, good for tourism, bad for foresters (FC's restock costs due to due to browsing damage runs to seven figures a year), bad if your a motorist, bad if your an ecologist with an interest in munchable plant species!
 
Back
Top