Anti-Shooting Statement from Countryside Alliance

enfieldspares

Well-Known Member
Please, if you can, give the CA a call on 0207 840 9200 regarding their "spokesman" on today's Wednesday 8 April "Alan Titchmarsh Show" on ITV. A discussion on proposals to reverse Labour's Hunting Act took place.

During this the CA "representative" - Jim Barrington - used words in regard to the shooting of foxes such as a "leg blown off", a "jaw blown off", "wounded", and going off "to die in a hole".

It is quite unacceptable for this to go unchallenged and the more of us telephone the better.

A CWD or a muntjac isn't much bigger then some foxes and how long before other organisations start quoting the CA and such public statements on a "leg" or a a "jaw being "blown off" to use it against shooting of deer?

On the lines of "a CA representative was on television recently saying that shooting fox sized animals with rifles was cruel and could lead to wounding with legs and jaws being blown off".

After you call the number, please, stay on the line until you get to actually speak to a member of staff and make your comments known.
 
I want to find out more, my insurance is with the CA this year. Strangely enough, i was warned they were not completely pro shooting.
basil.
 
The CA is strongly pro-hunting (nothing wrong with that, a lot of us are), however, one of their spurious arguments for the lifting of the hunting ban (an iniquitous piece of legislation) is that the alternatives ESPECIALLY SHOOTING are inherently cruel.
If you support shooting sports, maybe you ought to reconsider your contribution to the CA?
The politicians love divide and conquer, the CA are playing into their hands, as Enfieldspares points out it is only a matter of time before our oponents quote them on this to build the case for outlawing deerstalking.
Geo
 
Steady boys ... my understanding is that the CA line (based upon evidence published in the Burns Enquiry?) differentiates between the legal control of fox using a rifle and a shotgun. With the rifle being the preferred, and more humane, weapon for dispatch over a shotgun.

Best the CA speak up for themselves and clarify their position.
 
308rws said:
Steady boys ... my understanding is that the CA line (based upon evidence published in the Burns Enquiry?) differentiates between the legal control of fox using a rifle and a shotgun. With the rifle being the preferred, and more humane, weapon for dispatch over a shotgun.

Best the CA speak up for themselves and clarify their position.

Very true. Unfortunately as we all know too well, Joe Public and the media simply don't differentiate between shotguns (legally held or otherwise), rifles (ditto) and handguns (ditto). The herd mentality and received wisdom says any person with a 'gun' = dangerous nutter, ergo everyone with a gun should be legislated out of existence.

The CA, and folk like the Middle Way Group - all of whom claim to be "media savvy" - really do need to watch their mouths. They really should avoid such emotive language and concentrate on getting a balanced view across. Anyone with half a brain is going to know the media will utlise editorial control to sex up the piece, so it behoves anyone in front of a microphone to choose their words very carefully.
 
I really cannot see the problem with what was said it was the truth and it does happen with both deer and foxes so why lie and pretend it does not.

Anyone who says it has not happened to them is either a liar on has not shot many deer or foxes.
 
I haven’t seen the program it’s self but if they did use those words then it would be inappropriate. When you go on a national Television programme you don’t damage the image of another field sport for the gain of your own.

Standbuck I would have to disagree with you, it is true we have all wounded animals and had to follow up with a second shot, but you don’t go on national TV and claim that rifle shooting is very inhumane as it leads to wounding and series injury. You can’t say that sort of thing to the general public as they will jump to assumptions believing that it happens all of the time. There’s a fine line between telling the truth

As far as insurance goes BASC or BDS is far better than the CA.
 
From the CAs own web site -

Divide and rule will never work - Countryside Alliance Chief Executive Simon Hart explains why the animal rights lobby's "divide and rule" strategy has not worked

We knew that it was not possible to attack hunting and at the same time leave shooting and the rest of the countryside untouched. We know now that a victory for hunting and the repeal of the Hunting Act would be the greatest protection that shooting could ever have. We have an opportunity in the next 18 months to protect shooting, on the foreshore and inland, in November and in February, under the sun and under the moon, for a generation. Whether ‘fowler, pheasant shooter or fox hunter this is not an opportunity we can afford to miss..


It would appear that neither Simon Hart nor Jim Barrington is aware of what the other is saying. Seems to me the CA are doing a pretty good job at the dividing side of things themselves without any help from the antis. It has been said elsewhwere on this forum that, in truth, the CA are a single issue group whose only real agenda is the repeal of the hunting act. If the CA are so solidly in favour of shooting sports will they also seek to repeal the ban on SLRs and pistols? Somehow I doubt it. For all its alledged shortcomings it is BASC that remains the only truly representative association for the recreational shooting sportsman.
 
Dear All,

This is me, David, talking, and not an ‘official response’ from BASC.

This is not the first time the hunting brigade have turned on shooting, claiming that shooting is cruel and hunting is not. Indeed, this attitude towards shooting, to me, seemed rife during the long years of debate, marches and meetings running up to the ban.

I am sure that the hunters would not welcome shooters making similar claims against hunting would they? In my opinion no one field sport should put down another in an attempt to justify itself - that is wrong and frankly drags us all down.

I can see more of this coming up over the next year or so as we head to an election. The Tories have clearly said if they win they will bring hunting back to Parliament, and may even repeal or amend the Act which is what I am sure the CA and the hunters want. But at what price to shooting I wonder?

David
 
There is obviuosly a serious error here made on the part of the CA in terms of being "Media Savvy", however, the cause of the problem is with their choice of "Representative" as Jim Barrington is actually a LACS defector. He used to be the Chief Executive of LACS before defecting to the CA after the hunting ban.

I do agree that the CA should do more to promote shooting sports (and fishing for that matter) . However, in its defence, it should also be noted that the CA also do also act as a politcal lobbying groupr on wider rural issues such as post offices/ fly tipping etc. and promote rural businesses.
 
Quercus said:
however, the cause of the problem is with their choice of "Representative" as Jim Barrington is actually a LACS defector. He used to be the Chief Executive of LACS before defecting to the CA after the hunting ban.

Looks like the CA didn't erase the tape then. Jimbo gets put up in front of the mic and like the well trained monkey, immediately starts gushing all the old, trite LACS vocabulary...... ooops! :oops: He needs taking aside and being properly reprogrammed before being let out again.
 
hunting

The CA will need the backing of all sporting and country folk even if the tory's get into power as it will be up to Parliament to repeal or amend this act, they asked for our backing before and got it and as i have told them they may not get it this time.
But could all of this have blown up because of comments made by
an EX ?? LACS member taking on the role of a double agent ???
JJ
 
CA

I fired an e mail straight off to the CA demanding an explanation. To their credit I got one straight back from Rob Gray, ex Gazette and ST man.

The letter was top drawer and gave their agenda/manifesto for shooting. I am happy with the explanation and it seems that a lack of joined up thinking is at fault. (or at least mouth before brain). I for 1 would rather support them and have influence that abandon them and have none. They do have clout.
 
Re: CA

shootingduckdog said:
I fired an e mail straight off to the CA demanding an explanation. To their credit I got one straight back from Rob Gray, ex Gazette and ST man.

The letter was top drawer and gave their agenda/manifesto for shooting. I am happy with the explanation and it seems that a lack of joined up thinking is at fault. (or at least mouth before brain). I for 1 would rather support them and have influence that abandon them and have none. They do have clout.
Would it be possible to post their reply please?
basil.
 
I did the same as Basil and this is the reply I got.

"Many thanks for your email re Jim Barrington on the Alan Titchmarsh show. I understand your concerns and that you might have been led to believe that shooting was being talked down in favour of hunting. However, Jim's point was that inappropriate use of firearms in amateur hands can lead to badly wounded animals - something that neither you or I as shooting men would want either.

More than half the Countryside Alliance membership comes from the shooting community, so it is not in our interests to annoy shooters. It is certainly not in my interests to annoy shooters having held the jobs of Editor of Shooting Times and before that Editor of Shooting Gazette. It is worth remembering (and many forget in the rush to criticise) that no organisation has promoted shooting to as many people (public, not shooters) in the last 12 months as the Countryside Alliance. The points attached at the bottom of this email justify my statement.

The Countryside Alliance (though some hunting members might) has no problem with the shooting of foxes or any legal quarry, providing it is done by people using best practice, all their experience and the right firearm for the job. I'm afraid certain shotguns and rifles are not right for the quarry they are sometimes pointing at - and this was the message that Jim, until severe pressure from an ex-editor of the Sun, was trying to put across. The shooting community must also recognise that hunting in its truest form is at least as humane as other methods of control.

I'm sorry you have felt the need to complain but I can assure you that the Alliance as all country sports interests at heart. May I take this opportunity to thank you for your support in the past and hopefully your continued support in the future.

With my very best wishes.

ROBERT GRAY
Campaigns Director
Countryside Alliance
"
 
Lets hope that there's some in house cleaning with the CA..

Who the hell gave an ex LACS employee a job within an organisation such as the CA...
Once a LACS always a LACS..


regards
griff
 
paul k said:
I did the same as Basil and this is the reply I got.

"Many thanks for your email re Jim Barrington on the Alan Titchmarsh show. I understand your concerns and that you might have been led to believe that shooting was being talked down in favour of hunting. However, Jim's point was that inappropriate use of firearms in amateur hands can lead to badly wounded animals - something that neither you or I as shooting men would want either.

More than half the Countryside Alliance membership comes from the shooting community, so it is not in our interests to annoy shooters. It is certainly not in my interests to annoy shooters having held the jobs of Editor of Shooting Times and before that Editor of Shooting Gazette. It is worth remembering (and many forget in the rush to criticise) that no organisation has promoted shooting to as many people (public, not shooters) in the last 12 months as the Countryside Alliance. The points attached at the bottom of this email justify my statement.

The Countryside Alliance (though some hunting members might) has no problem with the shooting of foxes or any legal quarry, providing it is done by people using best practice, all their experience and the right firearm for the job. I'm afraid certain shotguns and rifles are not right for the quarry they are sometimes pointing at - and this was the message that Jim, until severe pressure from an ex-editor of the Sun, was trying to put across. The shooting community must also recognise that hunting in its truest form is at least as humane as other methods of control.

I'm sorry you have felt the need to complain but I can assure you that the Alliance as all country sports interests at heart. May I take this opportunity to thank you for your support in the past and hopefully your continued support in the future.

With my very best wishes.

ROBERT GRAY
Campaigns Director
Countryside Alliance
"

Gray is just putting spin on what Barrington said. And this is far from the first time Hunt Supporters have appeared on TV defending fox hunting at the expense of shooters.

Perhaps its time shooters started saying we *like* the ban as it means more oppotunities for us? Think that would cause the CA to take notice?
 
Gray is just putting spin on what Barrington said.

Correct. I heard the interview. One of the other contributors asked about whether alternative control could be used. Then Barrington replied.

I don't recall any qualification about "inappropriate use" or "amateur hands" or indeed hearing those words used.

Maybe you could follow up asking for a transcript of the transmission?
 
Back
Top