T3.1, thank you for what was clearly a passionate and considered post.
The principle of united we stand, divided we fall is, I think, about the only area of common agreement amongst shooters! Putting it into action - even just internally seems to have been the stumbling block.
Completely agree with your call for a united effort. Personally feel that all the shooting organisations are doing things and are making some progress - but in the vein of my school reports - 'could try harder'. Its for them to speak on that, but it seems they are handcuffed on day one - because there doesnt seem to be a consensus about just exactly what it is that shooters do agree on wanting. With no firm objective, any campaign is much harder.
In terms of the approach, I agree utterly that time is ever more against us. I would argue that a huge amount of ground has been lost over many years. But, for me, the answer lies in - 1. changing the playing-field, 2. speaking in the language of the decision makers, 3. taking individual and personal responsibility as well as collective. I believe direct/ 'militant' action at this point - whilst still valid on some issues - would do more harm than good and play to the anti's. In addition, I suspect most in the shooting community are simply just not pre-disposed to that approach.
1. The Playing Field
There have been decades of subtle messaging and societal change at work. As it stands today society as an entity is mostly prejudiced to most of the obvious precepts that apply to fieldsports. This isn't just the anti's, but Joe public who may not really think about it much. Everything and near anything we put forward has to overcome an inertia in that public perception. As with aggressive posts on here, persuasion to a point of view - or even a fact - is more effective when calmly delivered.
The likes of Mike Robinson, Hugh FW etc and the contribution they have made toward swaying opinion seem to be hugely underrated by the shooting community. The TV Chef culture ( please - lets leave the Gordon Ramsays out of the equation ) has done a great job of, if not gaining ground, then slowing the attrition. I believe that some organisations recognise that and have put a lot of work into developing it. I believe it true of BASC and would like to think several others.
We tend to focus on the strident efforts of the Gay Community or Muslim Community in terms of the effectiveness of their efforts to influence public perception. But is it not the constant subtle drip, drip of characters on TV shows, stories etc that is the main force for change?
Fieldsports largely are ignored or get negative portrayal in the same media - as T 3.1 points out, we as individuals - dont do much to help on the whole.
I think that fragmentation within and the current depth of negativity is a vicious cycle. Breaking it is never easy - but we need positive public images of our own - building on the existing public personalities and encouraging others to stand up and be seen.
Perfectly executed it wont change overnight - thats why time is critical. This needs to be happening before the next crisis.
2. I think BASC will admit that part of their client image problem is a perception of 'plumminess'. Shooters are from all walks of life. I take more plumbers out than Baronets.
But there's two elements to this. There's the client market and there's the rest of the world. In terms of the debate over what service is most important from our organisations, I would propose that 'translation' is toward the top of the list.
Its about communication - that is more effective if the audience has at least some empathy with the speaker. I want BASC ( or whoever ) talking to the decision makers, the media and the public in a manner which helps them be receptive. There's a role for a number of personalities and accents - and class - in that. Its a potential strength not a weakness as far as I can see.
To speak and be heard you need to be in the right place. We are getting representation on committees and review boards. Maybe we are not always heard, maybe the outcome is a compromise - thats politics.
Big shiny buildings - I'm trying hard not to keep raising BASC - because this is about everyone and every organisation. Its not a recruitment drive for BASC - I guess I'm seeking a change on many levels and I'll stand behind whoever can deliver it. But BASC scored a huge win with their media centre. I dont believe it is fully utilised yet - but the structure is there. They saw the need, they did it and I thank that decision.
It was a big cost and arguably pretentious - I can see that point of view. But the audience, the media editors - who decide what we hear, the politicians and the opposition - they see it too. Before a word is uttered its sending a message. Thats a huge win.
Thats not to given complete credit to big is better. In a debate one thing trumps every trick of wordplay, all the spin doctor set ups and flim flam - facts, passionately and honestly delivered. Nothing shines like genuine passion and nothing stains like manufactured passion - ask Tony Blair!
Ask any media professional - what works best. There's an equal role for the genuine 'bloke' who can speak as he finds and keeps to fact and personal experience.
Ask Barristers what they hate most in a witness and its the person who feels obliged to make the case. It always comes tumbling down. Making the case is the Barristers job. What they want is someone who speaks plain and honestly from the heart - it shows.
Where do facts come from? Thats a big question. Communication starts with having something to communicate. Valid, thorough research is a good point to start. We need unassailable fact to be the ammunition for communication. Whether it be lead shot, lead free bullets, deer population, tree regeneration, grouse, eco diversity. It swallows up money that cannot readily be justified to memberships. It wont always produce the facts we'd like - but that too can be a strength. Poor research and sloppy science is our worst enemy - because it destroys trust.
3. Responsibility
Each single one of us is an ambassador for fieldsports. Sorry about that, but its quite likely true. As a shooter you bear a social stereotype - what you do, how you act reflects on us all by association. Thats true of every aspect of life - we all move between stereotypes constantly.
Sometimes we act properly but the context or some misunderstanding means that the image portrayed is negative.
As T3.1 says, some posts on SD are at best a bit thoughtless and at worst deliberate ego driven car wrecks for us all. We can call on admin to do this and that - but ultimately it comes down to the individual. If you goof on a post - apologise and change it and learn. If someone repeatedly crosses the line - lets not shy away from those threads/ posts, but lets not argue. Simply post 'this is not acceptable'. May or may not work, open to abuse by the wreckers and I'm completely open to suggestions. But Sd doesnt carry half the weight it should with others simply because of half a dozen or so egotists. That affects us all.
Clean up SD and maybe other organisations will pay more attention? I'm certain T3.1 is correct - more harm than good is done on occasion and those against us lap it up.
So please just think - is the video of a spectacular head shot etc adding or detracting to our image. And be absolutely clear I plucked that as an example. It is not judging any video poster or their contribution. The intent is to illustrate and provoke individual thought.
Off SD - every act you do in the field - treat it as if you were being filmed by Channel 4 news. Would you do anything different?
Back to communication - we are by nature a fairly quiet bunch. I'm not suggesting we change that, but perhaps think of two things you personally can do to support fieldsports.
It could be ditching the 'kill them all and let god sort 'em out' T shirt you wear when rabbiting for a plain one. It could be a simply e mail to your MP just saying why fieldsports are important to you. It maybe complaining to a Newspaper that prints rubbish about fieldsports - correcting them with fact. If they do it again stop buying that paper and encourage your friends to do the same - and tell the paper. Also tell the paper that you will abstaining from making purchases from their main advertisers and are writing to those advertisers to tell them why. None of that takes more than 15 minutes.
Join someone - The Countryman at the start of the year had an article by Simon King - new chair of the Wildlife Trusts. With a membership of 800,000 - EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND! They put ideas forward and get listened to. If you cannot afford to join anyone, send £1 to the organisation of your choice and tell them why.
Instead of moaning on Sd, tell someone that matters ( sorry Admin
) - many of us are members of the RSPB, NT etc - if they do something you dont agree with tell them, write to their magazine.
None of the above is supposed to be a manifesto, nor to tell anyone what to do or think. Just a point of view - possibly right, possibly wrong. Only intent is to have people think about things and post back with their views.
and I say that as an independant trade member.
