BASC, nobs, sacs, that is the question.

[JabaliHunter]

Thanks for replying Folks.
I am aware that BDS has been and is anti shooter in many ways,perhaps prefering dart guns and re introduced wolves etc for deer control. Perhaps I won't phone them to upgrade my membership,sorry Monkey Sp*nker.

Bryan.

? How on earth did you form that perception?

 

[bogtrotter]

I can see why they could become involved if there were a perceived deer welfare issue which is probably the case here. However, the handgun issue was probably more due to the fact that people desperate to retain handguns were attending DSC 1 courses with no intention of anything other than blagging the police that they needed it for humane dispatch!

Agree with this totally.

 

[bogtrotter]

BDS is a charity with deer welfare as their remit, their members have varied interests in deer some are stalkers many are not but all have an interest in deer welfare, a good enough reason for me to be a member(member for 30 years)

As stalkers we should all have an interest in deer welfare, it should be about much more than just squeezing the trigger.

IMO all who stalk should be members, all to often its about what we can get from a society, what about what we can do for one.

 

[JockStalk]

I was in SGA in order to obtain stalking insurance whilst supporting folks working in the business, it's a good organisation and info via magazines etc is good.
Have since joined BASC for shooting and BDS for deer.
Two totally different organisations, but for me they both cover my interests in shooting and deer.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a one stop shop.
Jim

 

[Spix]

Guys.
I am in Basc and have been for 2-3 decades.
I am thinking of jumping ship. However,I feel that we should all be in one or more groups or associations.
I am looking to save a few bob if possible so what would you suggest please.
I'm in BDS also and for the fun of it joined The NRA,the Mirkin one.
I don't intend to rejoin British NRA.
As I understand it other organisations also run legal teams and shooter insurance schemes.

Any thoughts please.

ATB Bryan.

The basic question is what, as a shooter, do you wish to get out of it? For myself if the basic requirement is just insurance & legal then my choice would be SACS and by a country mile.

BASC did virtually nothing for it's members in their 'Eastern Region' for decades. The overlong tenure of William Heal as regional director was an open joke, his toxic legacy painful to all onlookers. There was a brief attempt with a new regional director who seemed completely out of his depth and the last time I looked the 'Eastern Region' office was closed and absorbed else where. I lost interest in BASC years ago, voted with my feet and with the exception an occasional comment as an observer have not looked back. It's just a club for birds of a feather game shooters.

Best of luck with your choices, Bryan.

 

[countrryboy]

Wot is it about SAC's that everyone raves about??

I just don't get it. Even in scotland they do bugger all and have absolutely no say in any issues that matter.

Ur moaning about ur regoinal basc office doing nothing yet u join an org that does nothing in ur whole country??
Just doesnae make any sense.

Our syndicate came out of basc this year to save some money and the sac's syndicate ins made most sense but could not bring myself to join as just such a noneity, ended up with SGA instead.
Hardly any shooters know sacs exists never mind any press, government ministers or general public

If all u care about is cheap insurance, fair enough.
But NGO/SGA both are similar priced to sac's and do far more for shooting and far more at government level for legislation etc and if stuff goes wrong have a public voice and doget tv time.
Even the CA is more worthwhile than sac's, but i do believe in the past they would of sold out on shooting,but to be fair in recent times have done very well esp on lead ammunition/LAG.

Depending on the type of shooting u do, but Basc for all there faults are the biggest (best???) and have the greatest voice/presence.

I'm also a member of SGA as well as i think its important to have 2 strong voices keeping each other on there toes.

2 other really good charities possibly more for game shots is GWCT, almost any decent study in favour of trapping, shooting or predator control is funded by them. The main reason why snaring is not banned.

Also Songbird Survival are a very good charity, does a lot of practical studies into song bird decline and nt PC like most other bunny hugging charities

 

[Neumo]

In my opinion most of these organisations have done little in the past to stop the interests of shooters being degraded further, apart from the BASC & the NRA.

Things are changing at the British NRA, which has changed direction and is getting stuff done now. The people who complain about how bad it was are the people who let it get that bad for decades, for the most part, in my opinion. There will be legions of grumpy old men whose opinion on it will never change, but over the last couple of years since the new Director has been making changes things are beginning to bear fruit. Target rifle is now not the only thing they are interested in anymore and they are open to new ideas which is the main thing. New roads, plans to improve buildings are much needed but is there renewed interest in fighting for the corner of all shooters which will hopefully pay dividends. Their work along with the BASC on questioning the new legislation that the Left are pushing on us to further erode our freedom to pursue our chosen sports is pretty much the only effective voice that will be heard in Westminster. If they fail then shooting won't be a sport that is available to your kids & their kids at all if some get their way.

 

[jimo]

A few years ago I asked the rep of our insurance broker who was a keen shooter about getting shooting insurance as part of our farm package. His reply was that they could do it cheaper but his advice was to stick with BASC as they have a good reputation for paying up without quibbling. Does anyone have any experience of making a claim with anyone else?

 

[ILoveBambi]

Been with BASC for a long time now, never had anything off them or needed them, not complaining that's how insurance goes. Last year I answered a request (along with many others) to assist a farmer local to me with deer & vermin problems. I was short listed and selected as 1 of 6 by Dave Ilsley marketing manager It was then put in the hands of local rep Duncan Thomas. I contacted him on numerous occasions by email and met him face 2 face at an event. Guess what he never got back to me. So as far as I'm concerned BASC won't get another penny or any support from me again.
It's the NGO for me now
That's based on my personal experience and yes I've named those involved who I had dealings with
ILB

 

[Greymaster]

Last I heard NOBS was not a properly constituted membership organisation, with a managing committee subject to re-election, just a private organisation.

I stand to be corrected though...

 

[6pointer]

That is now not really true MS because I have not seen the BDS do anything to improve deer welfare or investigate anything relevant in this country. As a for instance is there a welfare issue with lamping deer and shooting them out of season?. BDS answer lets wait and see what the major departments say and we will follow suit. After all we are part of the deer sector. If you ask me no deer stalker should ever give them money or support in anyway until they stand up and be counted. They are at this moment part of the problem because people look to them for guidance and it might as well come from a shooting organisation.

 

[6pointer]

Wot is it about SAC's that everyone raves about??

I just don't get it. Even in scotland they do bugger all and have absolutely no say in any issues that matter.

Ur moaning about ur regoinal basc office doing nothing yet u join an org that does nothing in ur whole country??
Just doesnae make any sense.

Our syndicate came out of basc this year to save some money and the sac's syndicate ins made most sense but could not bring myself to join as just such a noneity, ended up with SGA instead.
Hardly any shooters know sacs exists never mind any press, government ministers or general public

If all u care about is cheap insurance, fair enough.
But NGO/SGA both are similar priced to sac's and do far more for shooting and far more at government level for legislation etc and if stuff goes wrong have a public voice and doget tv time.
Even the CA is more worthwhile than sac's, but i do believe in the past they would of sold out on shooting,but to be fair in recent times have done very well esp on lead ammunition/LAG.

Depending on the type of shooting u do, but Basc for all there faults are the biggest (best???) and have the greatest voice/presence.

I'm also a member of SGA as well as i think its important to have 2 strong voices keeping each other on there toes.

2 other really good charities possibly more for game shots is GWCT, almost any decent study in favour of trapping, shooting or predator control is funded by them. The main reason why snaring is not banned.

Also Songbird Survival are a very good charity, does a lot of practical studies into song bird decline and nt PC like most other bunny hugging charities

Good post we should work out who is doing most for our money!

 

[enfieldspares]

Good post we should work out who is doing most for our money!

Ok. So who is doing most for your money?

British Deer Society Accounts for years ended 2104 and 2013 were:

2014 Total Incoming Resources £ 670,722
2013 Total Incoming Resources £ 704,351

Staff Salaries

2014 Gross salaries 202,539
2013 Gross salaries 204,266

2014 Employers National Insurance 20,475
2013 Employers national Insurance 17,405

2014 Pension Contributions 8,593
2013 Pension Contributions 7,588

2014 Total Staff Costs and Emoluments £ 231,607
2013 Total Staff Costs and Emoluments £ 229,259

So out of £ 670,00 income in 2014 the amount of £ 230,00 went in staff salaries. On, it appears, the six permanent staff none of whom was paid more than £ 60,000.

Accounts in full are here. One of the things about being a charity is that all this must be in the public domain.

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends63/0001069663_AC_20141231_E_C.pdf

British NRA as below:

2014 Total Incoming Resources £ 5,267,814
2013 Total Incoming Resources £ 5,067,176

2014 Total Staff Costs and Emoluments £ 1,748,926
2013 Total Staff Costs and Emoluments £ 1,514,526

So out of £ 5,250,000 income in 2014 the amount of £ 1,750,00 went in staff salaries. On approximately fifty-nine staff. One of whom was paid over £ 100,000.

Accounts in full here:

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends58/0000219858_AC_20141231_E_C.pdf

BASC isn't a charity, AFAIK, so can someone who has their annual accounts (we get sent them as members) post the equivalent figures please...

 

[Monkey Spanker]

That is now not really true MS because I have not seen the BDS do anything to improve deer welfare or investigate anything relevant in this country.

What, like this:
http://www.bds.org.uk/index.php/documents/research/67-lynxs-reintroduction-to-uk/file
Surely if you believe there is an issue with lamping and deer welfare outside of the law, then you should inform your local wildlife crimes officer?
I don't suppose you get the BDS magazine or frequent their website anymore?
MS

 

[countrryboy]

Good post we should work out who is doing most (GOOD) for our money!

Slight change 6p, but probably wot u meant anyway

They're are some cheap orgs out there with decent insurance that also do a lot of political stuff as well as others stuff not just cheap insurance

Not really sure how relevent wot % pays staff etc, (althou not wanting any fat cats on my money) more relevent wot those staff actually do, and are they in the loop sitting alongside government ministers when legislation/daft ideas are being thought out.
And putting out press releases etc and fighting misinfo put out by the bunny huggers, which all orgs are failing massively on


I'd imagine basc's income and wage bill will be massive , (probably online somewhere on basc pages, minuates of agm if ur really that bothered) althou in fairnes i don't think the top man is getting mega money by comparision to the BDS (top man getting about 10% of income) or NRA (top boss only 2%)


Basc are not perfect by any means but are the best we.ve got.
And it is a member organistion, so up to members to make it better, think only about 10% bother to vote, last election a load of folk got voted on who have only been members of basc for 1 or 2 years

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I'm not really sure how staff wages is entirely relevant? Or do we expect people to work for the BDS for nothing seeing as it is a charity? I would agree that where funds other than wages is used is of interest, but these organisations need to employ the right people to ensure that such funds are spent wisely. If you pay peanuts, you'll only get monkeys to work for you!
MS

 

[Orion]

I think that this does exercise all of us at some time or other. I'd certainly agree that I'd never, never ever, put a penny piece to either the NRA (the British one) or the BDS. Neither have done any any favours to the gun owning sportsman and in fact have both have colluded with or supported legislation that has in fact been harmful to that gun owning sportsman.

The British Deer Society (BDS) is a charity and the principal organisation focusing on deer welfare. Why on earth would you expect them to become involved in gun ownership of sportsmen?
MS

Ah MS. But they do get involved in the gun ownership of sportsmen MS. And as the record shows this has been unfavourable to gun owning sportsmen.

They were behind the banning of the 6.5x54MS and the .300 Sherwood; they wrote a letter to Douglas Hogg against (any exemptions for disabled sportsmen) limited exemptions to the 1988 self-loading and pump action rifle ban; they also, as I understand, were actively against stalkers possessing handguns for humane dispatch.

So the BDS don't just stick to deer issues but have on past and current record supported gun control measures that have been only unfavourable to sportsmen.

I can see why they could become involved if there were a perceived deer welfare issue which is probably the case here.

No, it was nothing to do with deer welfare and all to do with, "we don't favour them so nobody else should have them" - the Chairman of BDS at the time certainly helped those pushing for the semi-auto rifle ban with this letter in support:

"I have taken great trouble to find out the extent to which these rifles"— that is to say, self-loading rifles— are used for deer management. I have spoken to the chairman of the Forestry Commission and the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, both of whom are happy with the British Deer Society position, which is that there is no heavyweight argument for these weapons to be used for deer management. He continues: As far as I can discover, it is simply not true that many roe stalkers throughout the United Kingdom use five shot, self-loading rifles. Even if they do the society would argue that the art of deer management is to stalk into the beast that you wish to kill and place one well-aimed shot to kill that animal immediately."

So thanks a bundle for that BDS!

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1988/may/25/prohibited-weapons-and-ammunition

 

[enfieldspares]

ORION! You are indeed not just a star but, most assuredly, a constellation of them!

I searched long and hard on the internet for that....it references a correspondance between Douglas Hogg (the then Home Office Minister under Douglas Hurd) and Hugh Oliver-Bellasis doesn't it. I used to have the paper copies of all the Committee stages and debates on the 1988 Act. Where Douglas Hurd directly refers to Mr Oliver-Bellasis's correspondance between themselves. Got rid of them in a clearout. But thank you for finding reference to it.

I did find the Lord's reference to Clifford Owen, my late good friend, and his Remington Model 760 Gamemaster in .308.

The man was wounded in Normandy and found that as he gt older that was best for him. His strength in his right wrist becoming such that he couldn't work a bolt so "we" found him a Remington 760.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...ms-amendment-bill#S5LV0499P0_19880718_HOL_150

Self-loading and pump-action rifles have two advantages. They have no manual bolt operation and they have less recoil against the shoulder. Some disabled people, left-handers, lightly built men or women, young people and elderly people, whom I will call the disadvantaged, cannot shoot with bolt-action rifles. Self-loaders may be preferred by some people for deer culling or stalking, but I shall leave that matter for others to go into.

Clifford Owen has held a firearms certificate since 1937. He was wounded in the spine and wrist at Normandy. He shoots roe deer and red deer in this country and red deer and wild boar in Poland. He uses a rifle that can shoot from either shoulder. He chose a Remington pump-action rifle. He spent much time and effort modifying it to meet his special needs. It has a capacity of four rounds only. It will be banned by the Bill.

The attitude of the Government was "tough luck". Aided Clifford believed by that correspondence between Oliver-Bellasis and Douglas Hogg. For if it was "just" a deer welfare organisation exactly what business had it in making comment on self-loading rifles? For surely the only aspect relevant is that of suitability of the bullet it delivers to kill a deer quickly and humanely?

 

[Orion]

Yes, correct - it's a negative response to a slightly pro stance by one of the Lords in the linked Hansard extract. Strangely HOB's flawed logic is not pursued with reference to 'five shot bolt action rifles' as well! By extension we should all be shooting deer with Kipplaufs!

 

[Taff]

I think all the society's have shot themselves in the foot at one time or another , we can all list them, does it help ?