What would you want in priority order from a shooting organisation - assuming one only would meet all your needs

[kes]

Somebody posted the idea that perhaps we are confused about what we want from a shooting organisation so I'll put down my 5.

1. A strong, unified and respected voice for all shooting disciplines, prepared to take legal action to protect shootinge.g. Judicial review
2. Provision or facilitation of shooting insurance for all shooting activities from beating to legal protection when unjustly/unlawfully treated by landowners/Police etc. the law needs to be available to all not those with the biggest available resources
3. A lean, open, inclusive and reasonably priced organisation, benefitting from amalgamation of the current many groups all doing much the same thing.
4. Broadening the subscription base by doing more 'Conservation' e.g. buying land to study and protect/preserve the grey partridge/red squirrel/ watervole etc. Species which will encourage people to support sensible controlled shooting e.g. culling deer - to retain habitat.
5. A new organisation with a Ruling Council of 50 part time unpaid members with no overall interest in a majority by Standing Orders - clear accounts, funds obvious in terms of whereabouts and spending, to all members.

That would do me for a start, other things like advocating shoot insurance for all, with sliding scale to help people into shooting sports could follow a vote - voting would be a condition of membership. Is that 6 ?

 

[mn87]

An Interesting addition would also be how much you a willing to pay for such an organisation that you see best meeting these needs?

 

[vizslamad]

FREE DEER STALKING

 

[Mike L]

Ah I miss Triton..........oh wait

 

[paul o']

Insurance , That inc Back up without be forced to start paying out more due to a weak insurance fluffy policy .
Dont need glossy mags or guys turning up in full tweed and a new Range Rover talking like they smell rotten eggs ?

 

[Jgray]

What it would cost.

 

[Tim.243]

Ah I miss Triton..........oh wait

Did he manage to get on the council...?

 

[Tim.243]

 

[308tikka]

Insurance. Its a requirement for any quango.
Youth program, and an education program to visit schools and universities enabling/advising how to run clubs and get people involved but NOT for profit.
A decent PR dept or contracted out. Stories get in the news by PR people hounding news desks-dont kid yourselves journos actually go out and find things out for themselves.
Scientific research grants to demonstrate the benefit of shooting and conservation, back up legal arguments and political lobbying.

If the CA wasnt really only interested in hunting with hounds, and merged with NGO and BASC we would be better off and not just financially.

As BDS and GWCT are charities, with some research capability, Id like to see a larger umbrella organisation enable more of this by grants and their findings presented robustly.

But there are too many snouts in the trough, getting paid quite well for doing comparitively little.

 

[kes]

An Interesting addition would also be how much you a willing to pay for such an organisation that you see best meeting these needs?

If such an organisation provided all of the above, £100 a year - because 1 million shooters would join and that would make a starting pot of £100,000,000 I reckon that would rival RSPB and outbid them for wildfowling. It would fund litigation, it would make people realise there are other powers at work rather than cancel culture and dodgy BBC wildlife presenters. It would fund a great deal of relevant studies e.g. which habitat to buy and manage for red squirrels etc. and so on.

 

[Rasputin]

Insurance, aggressive social media content to make people appreciate wild food and lobby effectively and a council under average age 40 would be nice so the world doesn’t think we’re all old white men from country piles.

 

[WH308]

I agree with most of the original post, I would like to see a little more aggression. it’s one thing to present an articulate and balanced argument to educated and intelligent people, but that’s not the modern world. The modern world demands short, snappy and “monochromatic” responses. When we talk about general licences people don’t understand, they need to see the image of the crow pecking the lambs eyes, when we talk of deer control, they need to see the thin hind that won’t see out the winter. When we talk about fox control, they need to see the dead hens.

This is the new world, they don’t sugar coat their bullsh1t, we shouldn’t try and sanitise our truths. Nature is red in tooth and claw and we are both part of and custodians of it.

 

[finnbear270]

Robust defence.

 

[Basil H]

These discussions are always interesting, but I would disagree with the inevitable comments about folk from BASC turning up in Range Rovers etc. As a wildfowling club official I have had a lot to do with WAGBI/BASC over the years. Most of the many staff I have met are not "posh" and drive modest vehicles. e.g. even the little-lamented CEO Richard Ali had an Audi A4 diesel estate. Some staff are limited to pool cars. Let's keep this relevant and productive.

 

[terrier1]

I would like an organisation that looks into any threat to shooting sports and country life and CONSULTS ITS MEMBERS on issues that may affect their livelihood or shooting. It is simple in today's technology a simple email to the members telling them a ballot is taking place on the organisations Web site.

 

[NullMac]

An Interesting addition would also be how much you a willing to pay for such an organisation that you see best meeting these needs?

I think what "they" should do is crowdfund when a major issue comes up and get hire the resources they really need. Then we would see how many of the moaners are really prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

 

[finnbear270]

I think what "they" should do is crowdfund when a major issue comes up and get hire the resources they really need. Then we would see how many of the moaners are really prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

I think you would be surprised how many WOULD put up.

 

[mn87]

I think you would be surprised how many WOULD put up.

I was thinking the opposite. Having had experience in something very similar in the salmon fishing world, plenty of vocal people who are passionate but when it comes to putting hands in pockets it’s a different story. Combined with the talk across the forum of people looking for, in general, cheaper insurance and going with groups are not very vocal would suggest lower interest in spending money.

However, if an exercise was possible, it would be genuinely interesting how much a crowd finder for something would generate! Indeed something like this maybe the way forward for many projects in the future if it was successful

 

[bottletopbill]

As kes stated all the five for £100. per year year yes please if only

 

[kes]

I was thinking the opposite. Having had experience in something very similar in the salmon fishing world, plenty of vocal people who are passionate but when it comes to putting hands in pockets it’s a different story. Combined with the talk across the forum of people looking for, in general, cheaper insurance and going with groups are not very vocal would suggest lower interest in spending money.

However, if an exercise was possible, it would be genuinely interesting how much a crowd finder for something would generate! Indeed something like this maybe the way forward for many projects in the future if it was successful

If you take that part of an org that people want if the subs are high, its insurance, I agree. You need to sell what else you do effectively and be visible and (I accept) modern in your response (also aggressive). I wouldn't advocate telling absolute lies like Packham but almost any means to get your truth across, including relevant study results. Its as well to remember that fewer people in less organisations which make a difference play into the hands of those with their minds around the throat of the Countryside.
A single org should also argue that membership (with examples) is needed to maintain a collective defence (Studies, scientific papers etc)- that and uncompromising legal action e.g. against Packham when he says we can shoot puffins, or golden plovers, killing tagged eagles which turn up later etc. I feel sure there is a responsibility to tell the truth when in the press and its reported - just like on social media !!!


I would go as far as to say, if a specific request for funds came from all of the Orgs (combined) to mount a legal challenge, I would pay the £100 for no membership - if there was a reasonable prospect of tagging the issue to our collective advantage.