Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Hello everyone.
Because I'm of a generally optimistic disposition, I'm allowing myself to imagine that the recent joint announcement of the intention to phase out lead shot could be, deliberately or not, the start of a joint strategy to reshape fieldsports for the future. Viewed in that context, proactively showing that the shooting community takes its claim to be some of the most active grassroots conservation-minded people in the UK seriously would make sense. But alone, it's far from enough. What else would be in the pipeline? It strikes me that much as I'm famously no fan of Brexit, this could afford us an opportunity given that there can be no more hiding behind the scapegoat of EU directives for anything pertaining to agriculture, potential lead bans, firearms legislation, wildlife legislation, anything really. SO OK, let's imagine that this is a chance to [grit teeth and do the sign to ward off the Evil Eye] "take back control".
I think a key starting point here is that this can't just mean defending things as they are, or trying to make them back into what they used to be (i.e. return to buying an SGC from the Post Office and put all the waders back on the quarry list): it won't wash. And remember, this has to work for us as well as government and civil society at large (barring extremists on all sides who won't budge on anything).
I'm going to start with a sort of improvised SWOT analysis of fieldsports to get the discussion going, from the point of view of all stakeholders. See if that works (non-exhaustive, I'm improvising, please pile in).
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
There, that's just a starter. The key thing is that we don't have numbers, we don't have much of a voice, we're not a vote winner. So everything needs to be done gradually, step by step, through persuasion, collaboration, showing by doing, and like any minority, we will be held to higher standards than the majority. Because people assume whatever the RSPB for instance says is good, and also assume that what we say isn't.
Right. Let's see what happens.
Because I'm of a generally optimistic disposition, I'm allowing myself to imagine that the recent joint announcement of the intention to phase out lead shot could be, deliberately or not, the start of a joint strategy to reshape fieldsports for the future. Viewed in that context, proactively showing that the shooting community takes its claim to be some of the most active grassroots conservation-minded people in the UK seriously would make sense. But alone, it's far from enough. What else would be in the pipeline? It strikes me that much as I'm famously no fan of Brexit, this could afford us an opportunity given that there can be no more hiding behind the scapegoat of EU directives for anything pertaining to agriculture, potential lead bans, firearms legislation, wildlife legislation, anything really. SO OK, let's imagine that this is a chance to [grit teeth and do the sign to ward off the Evil Eye] "take back control".
I think a key starting point here is that this can't just mean defending things as they are, or trying to make them back into what they used to be (i.e. return to buying an SGC from the Post Office and put all the waders back on the quarry list): it won't wash. And remember, this has to work for us as well as government and civil society at large (barring extremists on all sides who won't budge on anything).
I'm going to start with a sort of improvised SWOT analysis of fieldsports to get the discussion going, from the point of view of all stakeholders. See if that works (non-exhaustive, I'm improvising, please pile in).
STRENGTHS
- Large number of actively engaged, practical conservationists on the ground.
- Biodiversity gains in areas managed/used for fieldsports.
- Pest control.
- Population control to protect crops/forestry, prevent RTA, overpopulation leading to starvation/disease/animal welfare issues.
- Healthy source of low-carbon food, short circuit distribution, right on trend.
- Economic benefits (employment, services around fieldsports, shops, pubs, hotels, kit, vehicles, etc)
- Many organisations, some well-funded (BASC, CA, etc)
WEAKNESSES
- Elitist image - only large-scale, commercial shooting visible to most of the general public. What is often called the "Shooting industry" (bleurgh!).
- Invisibility of most Strengths - General public knows very little of the overall picture, just arguably the worst parts (raptor persecution, excessive breeding of game birds, very exclusive, elitist upper-end of the "industry").
- Unsustainability of large scale shooting of bred gamebirds potentially unsustainable and damaging to rest of fieldsports.
- Link between land ownership/occupancy and fieldsports/possession of shooting rights and game is feudal in nature and alienating to non-participants (especially in Scotland).
- The general public don't eat game much.
- Some shooters don't eat game much!
- Economic argument has been focused on too much and on its own is very weak.
- Completely alien world to the vast majority of the population.
- Organisations don't work together, given to internal bickering, individually lack scale, prone to division and staying defensive/reactive.
- Not an issue that wins any votes
OPPORTUNITIES
- Take advantage of Glorious New Era to proactively shape fieldsports for the future in a way that ultimately is acceptable and beneficial to all.
- Promote Strengths above to general public, work to eradicate Weaknesses (seems simplistic, I know)
- Build on Lead issue example to develop ongoing collaboration between organisations
- Work with angling/forestry/agriculture/wildlife/food/water bodies systematically, showing fieldsports are an integral part of managing the environment
- Promote food angle more: ultimately, that's the product!
THREATS
- Vocal, well organised and funded opponents
- Internal tendency to defensiveness, self-effacement ("Why should I have to justify myself to anyone? Better just keep my head down and carry on quietly.")
- Fragmented and generally inaudible voice.
- Fractious organisations.
- Some internal practices can harm us all.
There, that's just a starter. The key thing is that we don't have numbers, we don't have much of a voice, we're not a vote winner. So everything needs to be done gradually, step by step, through persuasion, collaboration, showing by doing, and like any minority, we will be held to higher standards than the majority. Because people assume whatever the RSPB for instance says is good, and also assume that what we say isn't.
Right. Let's see what happens.
).
