BASC

[Dunwaters]

With all due respect.
The question I asked is of far more relevance to ME than any of the other points you raise, although they are valid for many.

With the greatest respect, you’re putting yourself forward for the council of a national organisation, you can’t just pick and choose the battles that are of relevance to YOU.
Shooting and firearms ownership has never been under such sustained attack on multiple fronts.

 

[Smellydog]

Morning, it’s good to know we have so many BASC members on here ,as my post was meant purely for BASC members as they are the only ones that can vote for me.
So with all due respect if you’re not a BASC member your posting on this thread is irrelevant unless you intend to join ?
I would like to thank the members on here that have offered support.
With a membership of 150,000 there is certainly a lot of people that believe in BASC as an organisation.
We need to stand together with as many organisations as we can muster
(Look what happened to the hunting community when they turned on the shooting community)
Now I can see people turning on the shooting community within its self .
It’s a very easy option to sit behind a key board ,moan and bitch about what is happening but ask yourself this question
Am I actually trying to change anything myself ???
We can bury our heads In the sand about lead but like it or not it’s clearly going to change ,so we need to embrace that change and make it work .
I didn’t write my original post to get into a heated argument about lead and all the other points that have been made .
I have decided to stand for council to see if I can make a difference .
I will need every vote I can .
Thanks

Huh!
So if I join tomorrow what are you going to do for me?
A big fat NOTHING!
So if my points are invalid today they will be invalid tomorrow whether I'm a member or not.

You've been bought mate and are looking out for your own personal interests period.
Good luck.

 

[Apthorpe]

Lead is the very least of your problems.
How about the BASC’s stance on mandatory certification for deer stalkers? At the moment they are against the proposal for mandatory qualifications in Scotland, despite the UK currently being the only jurisdiction in the hemisphere without a formal deer hunting qualification requirement.

Which hemisphere? There is no hemisphere containing the UK where every other country requires mandatory certification to shoot deer, or any other legal quarry. I fear you've caught a bugbear which isn't really the case. Mandatory certification is neither necessary nor desirable. It will lead to poor outcomes.

Should shotguns be on an FAC?
Should the policy of automatic FAC revocation after a single incident even where the holder is not charged with an offence or is merely peripherally involved be challenged and pushed to a court of record?
Should revocation appeals be sponsored where appropriate?

What is your position on high volume high bird shoots?

This is a good question and to be fair to BASC, they have been pushing a policy of stocking density in release pens which ought to have moderated numbers.

Why did the 5 year voluntary lead ban whimper into failure?

We all know the reason for that. It failed because the fundamental premise was false - that non-lead ammunition is all of the following: equally good, widely enough available and equivalent prices. BASC's entire policy on non-lead ammunition ought to be as follows: Banning lead ammunition sounds good, but unfortunately the laws of physics make it a bad policy on technical, animal welfare and cost grounds. The laws of physics haven't changed, and nor should the policy. There is no good evidence demonstrating sufficient harm to wildlife.

If your national organisations don’t actively engage and challenge on all the above fronts, there wont be any need for national organisations promoting firearms and shooting within 2 or 3 cert renewal cycles, because there won’t be sufficient firearms users left to represent.

 

[Apthorpe]

Morning, it’s good to know we have so many BASC members on here ,as my post was meant purely for BASC members as they are the only ones that can vote for me.
So with all due respect if you’re not a BASC member your posting on this thread is irrelevant unless you intend to join ?
I would like to thank the members on here that have offered support.
With a membership of 150,000 there is certainly a lot of people that believe in BASC as an organisation.
We need to stand together with as many organisations as we can muster
(Look what happened to the hunting community when they turned on the shooting community)
Now I can see people turning on the shooting community within its self .

So can I.

It’s a very easy option to sit behind a key board ,moan and bitch about what is happening but ask yourself this question
Am I actually trying to change anything myself ???

You could also ask whether you ought to be trying to make mandatory changes.

We can bury our heads In the sand about lead but like it or not it’s clearly going to change ,so we need to embrace that change and make it work .

You cannot make the world flat, no matter how much you wish it to be the case. Fundamental scientific laws do not change.

I didn’t write my original post to get into a heated argument about lead and all the other points that have been made .
I have decided to stand for council to see if I can make a difference .
I will need every vote I can .
Thanks

I am open-minded on who to vote for, but quite frankly you're making it rather difficult to gather support with this sort of nonsense.

If you're standing an a declared opinion that you think getting rid of lead ammunition is a good idea, you're fundamentally opposing the interests of shooters. The best interest of shooters is that they have the freedom to use the most appropriate type of ammunition. BASC has done a tremendous amount of harm over this, not least to the unity of shooters, and it is vital that this is recognised. It is creating division where none was needed. It is those who want change who have buried their heads in the sand and it's high time they recognised that.

 

[palmer_mike]

With the greatest respect, you’re putting yourself forward for the council of a national organisation

No I’m not

 

[Dunwaters]

Which hemisphere? There is no hemisphere containing the UK where every other country requires mandatory certification to shoot deer, or any other legal quarry. I fear you've caught a bugbear which isn't really the case. Mandatory certification is neither necessary nor desirable. It will lead to poor outcomes.

Northern, Australia and New Zealand follow UK tradition

This is a good question and to be fair to BASC, they have been pushing a policy of stocking density in release pens which ought to have moderated numbers.

We all know the reason for that. It failed because the fundamental premise was false - that non-lead ammunition is all of the following: equally good, widely enough available and equivalent prices. BASC's entire policy on non-lead ammunition ought to be as follows: Banning lead ammunition sounds good, but unfortunately the laws of physics make it a bad policy on technical, animal welfare and cost grounds. The laws of physics haven't changed, and nor should the policy. There is no good evidence demonstrating sufficient harm to wildlife.

The voluntary transition failed largely because the game dealers didn’t insist on non lead.
As for the effectiveness of the alternatives, they do work, they do cost more and they do require the user to refrain from taking shots at extreme range.
Before you tell me that the alternatives don’t work, consider that they’ve been in use for close on 40 years now in the US for waterfowl. If there were serious problems, we would have heard by now.
If you take the position that alternatives don’t work in the UK because of local shooting conditions, you need to specify what those conditions are, and maybe consider changing your behaviour.

 

[Apthorpe]

Northern, Australia and New Zealand follow UK tradition

The voluntary transition failed largely because the game dealers didn’t insist on non lead.

There's no good reason why they should have.

As for the effectiveness of the alternatives, they do work, they do cost more and they do require the user to refrain from taking shots at extreme range.

They also require other things which you don't mention, and a healthy belief in magic. None of which is really material given that they are also largely unavailable in practice. We tried a voluntary transition, and the fact is that the alternatives were not put onto the market in sufficient quantity.

Before you tell me that the alternatives don’t work, consider that they’ve been in use for close on 40 years now in the US for waterfowl. If there were serious problems, we would have heard by now.

We have. That is why most shooters aren't using them. It is the pro-lead ban advocates who have put their heads into the sand and closed their eyes to the reality. Let us also consider that most ammunition used in the US is lead ammunition. If it were true that non-lead ammunition had the benefits claimed for it, then that would not be the case.
It is inescapable that if this stuff was as good or better, we would all be using it anyway.

If you take the position that alternatives don’t work in the UK because of local shooting conditions, you need to specify what those conditions are, and maybe consider changing your behaviour.

I don't need to do that. What I need is to not be burdened with mandatory regulation which is scientifically illiterate, dishonest and harmful for all concerned.

 

[sikamalc]

Frankly, if someone has the balls to stand up and put themselves forward to join any shooting organisation to try and make a difference I take my hat off to them. Most of us do not have the time, or the inclination to do so.
Asking someone what they will do for them, if they succeed in taking a position is a rather pointless question, and not in the spirit of what someone is maybe trying to achieve. We all are on the same side at days end.

Op has requested to lock the thread.