BGA thoughts ?

Robs

Well-Known Member
In my business we have CEFAS, EA and Environmental Health and Trading Standards.

British Game Assurance is urging us all to be early adopters of its revolutionary 50p levy to be added to every bird shot this season so that the not-for-profit organisation can build a much-needed self-regulatory shield around game shooting.

The thought that CEFAS would push me towards an organization that asks me to pay a 50p levy per fish so that I can comply with the same set of standards that I already have to abide by seems a bum deal. Is the "voluntary levy" actually more than the profit derived from each bird?
 

dpaterson

Well-Known Member
In my business we have CEFAS, EA and Environmental Health and Trading Standards.

British Game Assurance is urging us all to be early adopters of its revolutionary 50p levy to be added to every bird shot this season so that the not-for-profit organisation can build a much-needed self-regulatory shield around game shooting.

The thought that CEFAS would push me towards an organization that asks me to pay a 50p levy per fish so that I can comply with the same set of standards that I already have to abide by seems a bum deal. Is the "voluntary levy" actually more than the profit derived from each bird?

I think the (optional) 50p per bird levy is to be paid by the end user, as opposed to the producer. With this in mind and in fishing terms, even if you caught 100 trout or salmon in a season it would only equate to £50 - seems a small price to pay to help keep it going.
 

Robs

Well-Known Member
For commercial shoots a 200+ day is small. Forgive the patronising tone, but maybe you need to look at the numbers a little more closely. There are commercial shoots releasing many 000's of birds and some 0,000's. At the smaller scale, 1000 shot is £500. At the smallest scale it is not necessary as the bag is shared out. The levy is not small beer and the money would be much better spent gearing up, preparing and selling locally in whatever ways customers want. And there lies the achilles heal of the BGA, if you can afford to raise the money yourself then spend it directly to increase sales. I can see the national marketing strategy now. Aping the campaign for beef and lamb - "Slam in the partridge" not. A better strategy maybe, for the shoots to put the word out that for those on low incomes to get in touch and get a brace of pheasants that will feed four for pennies. Good PR if nothing else.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
But is the problem the over production of pheasants? Does the BGA do anything for any other game meat ? Can you get BGA assured for venison/rabbits?
Yes you can. I was looking into it. A supermarket stocks BGA approved venison ("wild" ...or was it?) and the consumer reviews of it are bloody awful. A very high level of complaint that the meat was poorly processed.
The scheme appears to have a well organised method of collecting money from the member, but it is very unclear that they do anything to provide any benefit, they certainly don't seem to be ensuring/ assuring the quality of what is presented to the public.
 

Apthorpe

Well-Known Member
I think the (optional) 50p per bird levy is to be paid by the end user, as opposed to the producer. With this in mind and in fishing terms, even if you caught 100 trout or salmon in a season it would only equate to £50 - seems a small price to pay to help keep it going.
I don't understand it that way. The 50p levy is to be paid at the shoot level. The shoot is also invited to pay more to be assessed against a raft of "good practice" bureaucracy. The game farm is also tapped for more money. I doodled it up and I'm some cases it could add more than a quid to the cost per bird, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that it provides any benefit in sale price, to the size of the game market, nor in food quality to the consumer.
I'm somewhat disappointed.
 

JH83

Well-Known Member
There’s nothing wrong with good self regulation- that’s a good idea.

The risk with this is that is won’t be self regulation for long as DEFRA look to want to make it compulsory.

If that’s the case, we will just be serving ourselves up on a platter to a future government that really doesn’t like game shooting.

The obvious development of compulsory membership is some sort of disqualification from involvement in game shooting if you are deemed non-compliant. Wild Justice et al will all say that we can’t be trusted to weed out our wronguns and so this must be coupled with licensing and push for just that.

This will lead to government controlled licensing. All an anti government would then need to do is start refusing to issue licences, or revoke them on the say so of any vegan agitator who cares to utter the words “raptor persecution” as we all know that’s too difficult to prove so best to assume guilt.

Unlike some on here, I don’t think the orgs are actively looking to shaft us. They think this sort of thing will draw the sting from those who want to go further. Unfortunately what it will also do is place game shooting at the mercy of whoever administers the system.

Furthermore, in saying that this is needed, the orgs will be tacitly accepting that game shooting requires some regulation. Thereafter, it will only be a question of what regulation. Whoever gets to decide those regulations will be king.

You only need to look at how the last attempt to “draw the sting” worked out to see how these things work out.

Bang on

Look at the dilemma the Wildfowlers are in currently with regard to the bag returns that various shooting organisations advised them to submit, NE then pull the licence on various species, with all sorts of arbitrary justification.

Seems like a fight on all fronts sometimes.
 

shortshot

Well-Known Member
Back door ban of our way of life. As said I would echo Red tractor and farm assurance and food processors cartel all relying on loss of individual choice.
Do the public care about the type of cartridge that killed that bird?
No it’s just quangos and commercialism seeking control.
 

mudman

Well-Known Member
Bang on

Look at the dilemma the Wildfowlers are in currently with regard to the bag returns that various shooting organisations advised them to submit, NE then pull the licence on various species, with all sorts of arbitrary justification.

Seems like a fight on all fronts sometimes.

Could not agree more, we coastal wildfowlers were advised to diligently complete our annual bag returns for submission to our landlords and Natural England, fair enough, no secrets to hide.

Then all fine and dandy for some years until Natural England use our own data against us to restrict our shooting via the consenting process. Not necessarily big numbers, five or six Pintail a season would have them removing that species from our next five year consent, as it was above their own self defined 1% acceptable (of local) population harvest rate. The other thing they do is take your average bag over the consenting period and make that the maximum allowable bag over the next consenting period, so its a down ward spiral, they do exactly the same with the number of allowable flights.

Wildfowlers are getting hammered.
 

Basil H

Well-Known Member
You are so right mudman. There is a club in North Lincs where you can not shoot a pinkfoot based on this grotesque "local" argument. For those who do not know, the pinkfooted goose population is around half a million, having gone up at least tenfold in my lifetime. They can also fly from place although this point may not be obvious to inexperienced biology graduates working for NE. I joke, but it's crazy and can only be interpreted as active malice.
 

mudman

Well-Known Member
There is a club in North Lincs where you can not shoot a pinkfoot based on this grotesque "local" argument.
that club can have many thousands over their ground on a flight, the local roost held 30,000 at one point. But because historically the club shot very very few Pinks, NE will not allow them to shoot more than their past average, 1! I really do hope some at NE get their long overdue comeuppence.
 
Top