I assume that to be a rhetorical question, as it is pretty clear how all members would like their fees spent.
BASC AGM
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
I assume that to be a rhetorical question, as it is pretty clear how all members would like their fees spent.
terrier1
Well-Known Member
Yes fighting for its members. And not paying for game shooting days for PMs who have given nothing back as I see it. Or am I wrong Conor?
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
You would LIKE your money to be spent promoting and preserving our sport I assume ?
But how much control , if any , do you get over that ?
BASC has morphed from a shooting organisation into a multi million £ business off the backs of people like you and I .
But which is more important, the business, or the needs of the members who got it there ?
The legal cover aspect is one such example, but you can take any other legal challenge as one too, 'It will cost too much'...'Its not in the members interests'...
These are the types of questions that have the likes of Conor squirming and totally unable to answer in any meaningful way.
Take NO notice of what they say , just look at what they DO.
BASC is effectively a very big sporting interest club. Like all sporting and other clubs, the members vote council members in on an annual/regular basis. The council's role is to make decisions on behalf of their members, if they do not do a good job of this then the members have the chance to vote them out the following year.
A club the size of BASC, although the same goes for many other smaller clubs, could not possibly ask their members' opinion on every decision they have to make, that is unworkable and defeats the purpose of a Committee/Council. Future technology enhancements could of course chance the whole basis of decision-making if there was a will to spend some money and implement it.
If I don't like what BASC are doing, and they certainly leave a lot to be desired at times, then I have the option to challenge or even stand for council. I also have the option to simply walk like some have done, but that changes nothing, and like Jimmy says, where can he go that is actively doing any better.
You also have to be realistic in what is achievable, and taking on Chief Constables is pretty futile, so you better buckle up if BASC go for the full firearms review because "hunting" does not have much support anywhere these days so the £4k pa spent on looking after the new vice-president will be money very well spent indeed.
Last edited:
gunrunner
Well-Known Member
I was a BASC member up until the police were called to their HQ. I left when my renewal came due as i felt it did not seem correct that a shooting org should behave in this manner.
From having read a lot of feedback on this thread, like others, I do feel BASC has to change if they want to regain the respect they once had. How they achieve this, is open to probably even more debate, however, change starts at the top, so maybe some fresh blood is needed, maybe even a whole new committee, with existing committee members not able to stand.
As for other shooting orgs, i agree, they do not seem to have a voice, and i wish they would make more noise. I would hope that all the shooting orgs have some sort of presence on these shooting forums to gauge and assess the feedback given by their members. It should not be only about taking our money for insurance though, it needs to be a lot more.
I hesitate to suggest that all the various shooting orgs should band together, in some sort of alliance to provide a stronger “voice”.
From having read a lot of feedback on this thread, like others, I do feel BASC has to change if they want to regain the respect they once had. How they achieve this, is open to probably even more debate, however, change starts at the top, so maybe some fresh blood is needed, maybe even a whole new committee, with existing committee members not able to stand.
As for other shooting orgs, i agree, they do not seem to have a voice, and i wish they would make more noise. I would hope that all the shooting orgs have some sort of presence on these shooting forums to gauge and assess the feedback given by their members. It should not be only about taking our money for insurance though, it needs to be a lot more.
I hesitate to suggest that all the various shooting orgs should band together, in some sort of alliance to provide a stronger “voice”.
BASC and other have a long way to go to gain the Trust of members again , I am a BASC member and I have been for a long time, BASC Scotland has been there when I have needed them in the past and for that reason I will stay with the organisation, but, I am not blind to the fact of the problems that need to be addressed. There is a number of issues that you need to look into.
1. Dropping the legal expenses part of the insurance was bad, you have now limited the protection you give your members and that is worrying when the current anti shooting climate problem is increasing daily putting more and more shooters at risk of finding themselves in legal battles they cannot afford.
2. Education is lacking, there is still a perception of a major class divide in the UK between general members of the public and shooters, yes that perception is unwarranted but it is there nonetheless.
3. Mental Health and Firearms , I recently wrote an article on this Firearms and Mental Health | | Field Sports Scotland and there is some questions that need answered and some solutions that need sought, unfortunately our organisations are blinded by other factors."Just because its not seen does not mean its not there" I tell that to my guests and clients over stalking but it is the same with mental health.
4 Protecting the sport, all too often our organisations are not proactive enough, often reacting after a challenge without being read for the challenge. The fiasco over the GL's was a prime example. Every Gamekeeper and Wildlife manager in the industry knew that General License terms were being breached daily by shooters, but noone cared and not even the governing bodies of the legislation cares until Wild Justice brought it up publicly, now every piece of shooting legislation is up for interpretation. ALL the organisations dropped the ball on this and for what? to keep a thriving shotgun market in business, technically a wholesub-industry was built round pigeon shooting.
So there is a lot for our organisations that need to be worked on and BASC always say they are the biggest and the best out the fold so prove it.
1. Dropping the legal expenses part of the insurance was bad, you have now limited the protection you give your members and that is worrying when the current anti shooting climate problem is increasing daily putting more and more shooters at risk of finding themselves in legal battles they cannot afford.
2. Education is lacking, there is still a perception of a major class divide in the UK between general members of the public and shooters, yes that perception is unwarranted but it is there nonetheless.
3. Mental Health and Firearms , I recently wrote an article on this Firearms and Mental Health | | Field Sports Scotland and there is some questions that need answered and some solutions that need sought, unfortunately our organisations are blinded by other factors."Just because its not seen does not mean its not there" I tell that to my guests and clients over stalking but it is the same with mental health.
4 Protecting the sport, all too often our organisations are not proactive enough, often reacting after a challenge without being read for the challenge. The fiasco over the GL's was a prime example. Every Gamekeeper and Wildlife manager in the industry knew that General License terms were being breached daily by shooters, but noone cared and not even the governing bodies of the legislation cares until Wild Justice brought it up publicly, now every piece of shooting legislation is up for interpretation. ALL the organisations dropped the ball on this and for what? to keep a thriving shotgun market in business, technically a wholesub-industry was built round pigeon shooting.
So there is a lot for our organisations that need to be worked on and BASC always say they are the biggest and the best out the fold so prove it.
Last edited:
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Theres plenty in that post I could disagree with you on, but Ill pick this one in particular.
They manage to send out a magazine to all its members, the fact its at least 50 % advertising is irrelevant , they use email extensively, and have a huge website, are you seriously telling me, they couldnt organise some kind of voting system for those that wished to use it ? Even if it was via text message !
Which brings me to the next bit , voting for council members, have YOU ever voted ? I havent , and have never seen any instructions on how to.
THATS how important BASC considers membership participation .
Its not a club , Im not sure its an organisation for shooters anymore, its a business , one that is putting profits first, and service second.
Clubs do not operate that way though do they. Not saying they couldn't but unless they were massively tech-savvy which most are not, then this would be just too much admin. Like I did say, it may well come about.
Yes, I have voted. The voting slip is in the magazine or you can do so online.
And there you have it in a nutshell. Very few members get involved with any of the shooting organisations they belong to. On the one hand you want a say in everything they do and on the other no one can be arsed to even vote. If they did have a referendum on every major decision? How many do you think would actually take part? Not many is my guess. It's not just the shooting organisations that need to be more proactive, it's you and every other hunter, shooter and fisherman that needs to be proactive.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
We could hold a poll to discover how many would vote....oh wait...that's not going to end well...
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
I used to be a strong supporter of basc and defended them on here plenty as well as a member for 35 odd years.
For years it's been the fashion to kick basc, heard all sorts of random reasons over the years.
But now very sad to say basc are actually doing far more harm than good the sooner they implode up there own ar*e the better.
Does any member actually trust a word they say now???
I know I don't and that's a terrible thing to say about an org u've spent most off ur life believing in.
Claimed to have consulted ammo makers over the lead shot fiasco/betreyal.
They should never recover from that crock of sh.....
Do u really think there doing any good??
Let's face it they couldnae organise a p*as up in a brewery
The 2 massive decisions/u turns this year have been handled appallingly, and that's just in my opinion someone who can hardly types sentance yet can pick holes in basc statements. Not good, wot are u paying these experts for???
Wot other things are they also handling so appallingly behind the scenes.
Personally I don't really see the problem with paying for a few days shooting, in grand scheme of things no big deal althou u do have to wonder if these guns do stick up for shooting as we don't seem to get much in return.
As for other orgs I've long claimed the others aren't rally picking up the slack.
The SGA in Scotland do do a lot off good work and try very hard but do struggle with a lack of FT staff. Many are still FT keepers and stalkers
But as Jimmy pointed out in another thread not contributed to the current wj legal challenge as have no remit down south, which is why if I lived down south I would not Jon either SGA or sacs, or for the same reason I wouldn't join NGO or CA as English orgs and have no remit in Scotland.
Personally I still think u need to be in an org off some sort, I also wouldn't put to much into other orgs signing the letter.
I now have such a deep mistrust of basc I can imagine they may well have told a lot off BS to get the other orgs to sign the letter, sacs pretty much acused basc off lying to them over the lack off consultation with the ammo makers.
If u think purely commercial insurance is the way to go just think about the pressure some anti groups put on commercial companies.
Very few cross channel ferry companies will now transport either day old chicks or eggs for game birds purely due to negative PR campaigns by a tiny but vocal minority.
I severely doubt the parent group of 3c's would really stand up to much negative PR if it looked like costing them money.
NGO or CA are pretty much the same cost for similar insurance
For years it's been the fashion to kick basc, heard all sorts of random reasons over the years.
But now very sad to say basc are actually doing far more harm than good the sooner they implode up there own ar*e the better.
Does any member actually trust a word they say now???
I know I don't and that's a terrible thing to say about an org u've spent most off ur life believing in.
Claimed to have consulted ammo makers over the lead shot fiasco/betreyal.
They should never recover from that crock of sh.....
Do u really think there doing any good??
Let's face it they couldnae organise a p*as up in a brewery
The 2 massive decisions/u turns this year have been handled appallingly, and that's just in my opinion someone who can hardly types sentance yet can pick holes in basc statements. Not good, wot are u paying these experts for???
Wot other things are they also handling so appallingly behind the scenes.
Personally I don't really see the problem with paying for a few days shooting, in grand scheme of things no big deal althou u do have to wonder if these guns do stick up for shooting as we don't seem to get much in return.
As for other orgs I've long claimed the others aren't rally picking up the slack.
The SGA in Scotland do do a lot off good work and try very hard but do struggle with a lack of FT staff. Many are still FT keepers and stalkers
But as Jimmy pointed out in another thread not contributed to the current wj legal challenge as have no remit down south, which is why if I lived down south I would not Jon either SGA or sacs, or for the same reason I wouldn't join NGO or CA as English orgs and have no remit in Scotland.
Personally I still think u need to be in an org off some sort, I also wouldn't put to much into other orgs signing the letter.
I now have such a deep mistrust of basc I can imagine they may well have told a lot off BS to get the other orgs to sign the letter, sacs pretty much acused basc off lying to them over the lack off consultation with the ammo makers.
If u think purely commercial insurance is the way to go just think about the pressure some anti groups put on commercial companies.
Very few cross channel ferry companies will now transport either day old chicks or eggs for game birds purely due to negative PR campaigns by a tiny but vocal minority.
I severely doubt the parent group of 3c's would really stand up to much negative PR if it looked like costing them money.
NGO or CA are pretty much the same cost for similar insurance
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
And why do you think that is ?
Because they 'cant be bothered' or A. Because they never get asked..or B. Even if they are , the 'council' ignore it anyway ?
OK , dead simple , when was the last time you were asked by BASC your opinion on a prospective council decision, or the direction of the organisation ?
For that matter ANYTHING at all , about where YOUR money is going ?
Ill wait
It is because they cannot be bothered. It is member apathy, happens in most clubs. I'm a member of a falconry club, exact same issue in that the members really don't want to get actively involved, even if they are quite vocal on social media.And why do you think that is ?
Because they 'cant be bothered' or A. Because they never get asked..or B. Even if they are , the 'council' ignore it anyway ?
Ill wait
And why do you think that is ?
Because they 'cant be bothered' or A. Because they never get asked..or B. Even if they are , the 'council' ignore it anyway ?
OK , dead simple , when was the last time you were asked by BASC your opinion on a prospective council decision, or the direction of the organisation ?
For that matter ANYTHING at all , about where YOUR money is going ?
Ill wait
I think it is because they can't be bothered. It can't be A, because as a member you have every opportunity to make your voice heard at the AGM and the date of this is advertised. So if you don't participate that's not the organisations fault. It can't be B, because if enough people voiced their concerns at regional meetings and the AGM then the council is bound to pay attention. So I'll go with the first option and not a or b
I think the answer to your second question is pretty much the same. If people participated in the AGM then your opinion could be voiced.
Please don't think I am having a go at you Rewulf. You are not alone in not getting involved. I suspect the vast majority of members didn't even notice that there was an AGM or a vote for new council members and most probably didn't care either.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
Please don't think I am having a go at you Rewulf
[/QUOTE]
Not a problem.
So tell me though, at what point were members given an opportunity to vote or consider the removal of the legal cover?
I decided at this point, that the best way BASC would hear MY voice, would be to cancel my DD.
[/QUOTE]
Not a problem.
So tell me though, at what point were members given an opportunity to vote or consider the removal of the legal cover?
I decided at this point, that the best way BASC would hear MY voice, would be to cancel my DD.
countrryboy
Well-Known Member
Are many council members not getting elected with aroumd 1000 botes, some have only been basc members for less than 1 year before going for council
Not a problem.
So tell me though, at what point were members given an opportunity to vote or consider the removal of the legal cover?
I decided at this point, that the best way BASC would hear MY voice, would be to cancel my DD.
[/QUOTE]
I can't answer that but I will say that it seems to have been a wrong move and they should have considered either putting the decision out to their members or keeping it. I said in another thread that I think it's appalling that they have removed this and yet are still keeping the membership fee the same. I think that if your decision to vote with your wallet feels right then that's your prerogative and you should do as you see fit.
All I will say is that all of the shooting organisations are (or should be) there for their members, but if their members are not proactive and don't participate then what they get is decisions made on their behalf without their input. Sadly many members are just members for the insurance and just expect their organisation to carry on without their input.
Out of interest do BASC send out any sort of annual questionaire to their members? If they don't, they should maybe consider it. But again it would only be useful if people actually take part and send it back.
Last edited:
Dear Jimmy Milnes, No other organisation has done the damage or demonstrated the rollover gambit , How long before people like you realise it’s people like you who keep BASC in business?
Basc is supported by BASC members and their subscriptions. If you like;
The police being called to their offices because of a sacking etc.,
The chairman (as was) being corrupt ( by altering an independent report (staffing))
The ex CEO wanting lead banned when no alternative existed.
The new CEO endorsing a policy of withdrawal from lead with other orgs and without consulting ammo manufacturers,
Failing to implement 10 year certs
Allowing abuse of the accepted medicals process etc etc etc etc etc -
Then stay with BASC and be complicit in the demise of shooting.
I do not think they are worth a light, never mind £80+ subs - but I could be wrong and just 'bashing'.
The police being called to their offices because of a sacking etc.,
The chairman (as was) being corrupt ( by altering an independent report (staffing))
The ex CEO wanting lead banned when no alternative existed.
The new CEO endorsing a policy of withdrawal from lead with other orgs and without consulting ammo manufacturers,
Failing to implement 10 year certs
Allowing abuse of the accepted medicals process etc etc etc etc etc -
Then stay with BASC and be complicit in the demise of shooting.
I do not think they are worth a light, never mind £80+ subs - but I could be wrong and just 'bashing'.
Similar threads
