BASC, nobs, sacs, that is the question.

BRYAN

Well-Known Member
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.
 
I think it costs another £16, but you can have a combined BDS membership and Stalking Insurance package. That should be all you need and save a few quid!
MS
 
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.

I've been with BASC for many years but I really have no experience of the others, NOBS, SACS. I'd also certainly never support the Countryside Alliance which, IMHO, is nothing but the BFSS and would sell out shooting and snaring of foxes at the drop of a hat if they thought it would gain any leverage to have hound sports reinstated.

I remember a conversation that I had at my local shooting club in 1996/1997

"Hello", said the braying voice, "I'm XXX of the British Fieldsports Society now the Countryside Alliance. We're hoping that your members can come and support the march against the hound sports ban next week".

"Certainly", says I, "We'll probably be able to bring as many of our members as did you your BFSS/Countryside Alliance on the handgun ban march".

"Oh marvellous", it brayed, "How many will that be"?

"F**k All". Says I.

As to the others I fear that although BASC has it faults it is, nevertheless, the biggest. This is a numbers game and the reality is, numbers mean clout. So for that reason, numbers, I subscribe to BASC and also its legal team and ability to interact with local police force licensing regimes in a positive manner.
 
Last edited:
Thanks White Hart.
I had a quick squint at the link. I am not a Keeper but seemingly can join as a supporter.
I will check my renewal time with Basc and join NGO to start the month befor.

Bryan.
 
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 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?:confused:
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.

Now, I've never had a pistol for human dispatch. Never had, never will. Can't see the point. However I did pre-1996 have a .357 Magnum revolver for shooting feral goats but never for humane dispatch and never asked for that authority either.

But be that as it it may I know an organisation that is and has been far from not gun owning sportsman positive when the question is asked. And repeatedly so.

But I'd expect nothing less from a fanboy! :rofl: There! I got one in! My first fanboy of 2016!

Happy New Year MS! But, in good faith, that's why I have a dim view of the BDS and wish that gun owning sportsmen would not support it.
 
Last edited:
Please also consider the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. Maybe a step too far for an East Anglian resident.
 
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, 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 and 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.

Now, I've never had a pistol for human dispatch. Never had, never will. Can't see the point. However I did pre-1996 have a .357 Magnum revolver for shooting feral goats but never for humane dispatch and never asked for that authority either.

But be that as it it may I know an organisation that is and has been far from not gun owning sportsman positive when the question is asked. And repeatedly so.

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!
 
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!

In that opinion I am very much agreed.

One does query how many that did have hand guns prior to the 1998 Firearms Act and that DID NOT have them conditioned for "humane dispatch" after 1998 suddenly discovered a need for them for "humane dispatch" after 1998.

Or am I just a cynic?
 
In that opinion I am very much agreed.

One does query how many that did have hand guns prior to the 1998 Firearms Act and that DID NOT have them conditioned for "humane dispatch" after 1998 suddenly discovered a need for them for "humane dispatch" after 1998.

Or am I just a cynic?

I don't know whether 'cynical' is the right adjective: but it certainly isn't helpful to the those who have good reason to possess a pistol for humane dispatch if folk who don't have good reason cast generalised doubts on the use of pistols in this role because they suspect wicked motivation behind the whole idea in general.

Those who try to blag the police will doubtless be refused a pistol, as the police are bound to decline a variation if good reason is not demonstrated: that's the law.

I find it helpful to keep in mind that even in Germany, qualified 'hunters' are allowed to own pistols as a matter of course for humane dispatch and other lawful purposes. It seems curious that stalking folk in the UK should make such an issue of it.
 
The need for a body encompassing all fieldsports interests has been wanting for some time now. I think the likes of BASC, Countryside Alliance and all the rest are too ingrained in their individual thinking. So along come another piece of proposed legislation and one or the other supports it.

It's a good point about going for the one that has the most clout and that's one of the reasons I'm with BASC. But if they won't merge, which I think is as likely as a lottery win, then why don't they agree to have a body, made up from representatives from all those organisations that decides on their stance towards government policies, so they can really bring influence to bear with a united voice? Or is that too a lottery win chance?
 
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.
 
In that opinion I am very much agreed.

One does query how many that did have hand guns prior to the 1998 Firearms Act and that DID NOT have them conditioned for "humane dispatch" after 1998 suddenly discovered a need for them for "humane dispatch" after 1998.

Or am I just a cynic?
Most of them people I know took out rifles in pistol calibre, not sure about the myth about humane dispatch, you would have needed to have the guns converted to two shot and already have a interest in stalking, which a lot of target shooters didn't,
These myths are like the old, don,t mention your a stalker in exmoor, the CA are against shooting foxes and snaring, BASC are against fox hunting, shooters and hunters are there own worst enemy, it's why we get nowhere, we don,t need anti,s, we hurt ourselves enough.
 
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.

Eh??:confused:
BDS run deer stalking courses and have nothing to do with Dart Guns? You may also find this report interesting from them regarding the re-introduction of lynx:
http://www.bds.org.uk/index.php/documents/research/67-lynxs-reintroduction-to-uk/file
I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick there Bryan?
MS
 
Myth? CA against snaring? See this link to their OWN website:

Times comment: - Countryside Alliance

On Saturday 16th August 2014 The Times published a comment piece by Ross Clark entitled: “Hunting foxes is better than snaring or poisoning them.” Mr Clark opened with: “Cameron is looking weak. He has promised a free vote before” and then detailed measures he felt Cameron had got right for the “landed interest”, including Single Farm Payment and the Marine and Coastal Access Act. He wrote “As you may have gathered from the above I am not a huge fan of the landed interest……But the issue of hunting is different. There never has been convincing evidence that foxes suffer abnormally from being hunted, at least no more than do the animals they themselves hunt. The ban did nothing to alleviate the real forms of cruelty towards foxes: the snaring, the poisoning and the trapping. What it did do is show up its own absurdity: does it really make the slightest difference to a fox whether he is pursued by two dogs or three?”
 
Not a CA statement, but a article written by a free lance journalists, in the times, read the whole article and you will see the he has no love for any country sports, it's about getting votes, the fact is the journalists believes snaring, trapping and poisoning are more cruel, like statements often written on this forum that hunting is cruel.
Is snaring cruel ? If not carried out properly yes
Is trapping cruel ? If not carried out properly yes
Is poisoning cruel ? If not carried out properly yes
is shooting cruel ? If not carried out properly yes
i have carried out all of the above on many occasions, as well as hunted foxes, pigs and deer with hounds,owned running dogs, ferrets and terriers, I also hunt with a bow and go fishing, I also believe we need a group that represents all sports, it why I support the CA.
 
The need for a body encompassing all fieldsports interests has been wanting for some time now.

Fair point but don't see it happening as will people always something that they think fits their own needs - a bit like saying TESCO, Sainsburys, Morrions etc etc should all be one.

People would be surprised at how well the various organisations work together behind the scenes on big issues. Many complain that this or that organisation are doing nothing about a particular issue - but again would be surprised - Just because its not headline news doesn't mean its not happening
 
If you are looking to save a few quid then I believe that you can get the SD group discount if you give SACS a call
 
Back
Top