Issues Surrounding The Shooting Organisations as per various recent discussions

[Pine Marten]

In recent years, I’ve been actively involved in a completely different area of political campaigning (successfully too which made a pleasant change), taking a position that had very little traction either with politicians or the electorate to start with. With hindsight, the reason we were successful was that at the HQ were committed people who really knew their stuff, and relentlessly provided the media with clear messages, whilst simultaneously engaging with all levels of government (Westminster, local, councils, etc). They’d brief MPs on the issues, which were complicated, unfamiliar to most, and MPs are more than happy to have things clarified as they have to make choices on a tonne of things that they can’t possibly hope to have a complete grasp of. But what made the difference was that there was a simultaneous grass roots organisation and campaign, with street stalls and volunteers engaging the public. Over the years, the action of thousands or individuals combined with the more professional media and lobbying activity turned the tide.

In the end, BASC, the CA etc can only be really effective campaigning and lobbying organisations with the ACTIVE support of their membership. And that’s in my mind the single most important thing that they do. Insurance is just a financial product. Anyone can provide it.

 

[David63]

A few points if I may.

Insurance
At the moment the rate that organisations pay for insurance cover ranges from about £3 to almost £10 per member. Trying to get all the organisations to take out a single policy with in most cases an increased per capita rate would be difficult to implement I suggest.

Some of the current organisation policies are policies of last resort – in other words they rely to a certain extent on the member having cover somewhere else so when a claim is made another policy, not the organisation policy, responds.

Ok there may be some merit in a policy of last resort, its cheap but you could end up claiming off your home insurance for example. As some have said before why worry at least you are covered.

However, I would personally say that if I am involved in a shooting accident and all the emotional issues that come with that, the last thing I want to do is run around trying to see who will insure me, I want to make one call and have someone else take the problem away – but for that I need to pay a bit more.

Also, what happens if members of organisation X have a couple of ‘disaster claims’ in an insurance year that means the cost of the policy and thus the cost on membership of all the other organisations goes up – you can imagine the fallout and arguments cant you.

So for all practical purposes I think that for the foreseeable future each organisation will have its own separate policy in most cases.

Campaigning and lobbying
Yes I could not agree more, members of the organisations are very much the driving force of that organisation.

So if your organisations ask you to lobby MP’s Assembly members, MeP’s, the police etc, then please do. But I would ask all the organisations to only set the lobbying ball rolling when it genuinely can have an impact and not just to try and raise the profile of that organisation to make it look like they are active on a certain issue .


Customer service
All organisations are capable of making cock ups when it comes to customer service. But we should all remember that no membership organisation sets out to do this or to be dismissive of an individual members demands and needs.

So if you don’t get the service you think you should, then jolly well get onto them and ask them to sort it out for you.

David

 

[Tamus]

In recent years, I’ve been actively involved in a completely different area of political campaigning (successfully too which made a pleasant change), taking a position that had very little traction either with politicians or the electorate to start with. With hindsight, the reason we were successful was that at the HQ were committed people who really knew their stuff, and relentlessly provided the media with clear messages, whilst simultaneously engaging with all levels of government (Westminster, local, councils, etc). They’d brief MPs on the issues, which were complicated, unfamiliar to most, and MPs are more than happy to have things clarified as they have to make choices on a tonne of things that they can’t possibly hope to have a complete grasp of. But what made the difference was that there was a simultaneous grass roots organisation and campaign, with street stalls and volunteers engaging the public. Over the years, the action of thousands or individuals combined with the more professional media and lobbying activity turned the tide.

In the end, BASC, the CA etc can only be really effective campaigning and lobbying organisations with the ACTIVE support of their membership. And that’s in my mind the single most important thing that they do. Insurance is just a financial product. Anyone can provide it.

Here, here... So true!

 

[Moonraker68]

My views in summary:-

Everyone should belong to at least one shooting organisation. If you don't you are jeopardising our sport. The challenges we face will never go away, and will only become greater as our population becomes more urban and less in touch with the countryside.

The larger the organisation, the more effective they should be at representing their members and lobbying on their behalf.

To be effective you need to maintain an open and constructive dialogue with the Government, police etc. This will necessitate making concessions at times.

If you want to change how an organisation conducts its affairs, then it is probably more effective to do so by remaining as a member.

Insurance is only a small (but extremely) important part of the package.

The cost of joining an organisation is cheap in comparison to the cost of the shooting and equipment that we happliy spend our money on (£65 per year = less than 18p per day).

And, finally, please could we have a voluntary close season on BASC-bashing for a while? Several SD members have said that the problems they have experienced are/have been addressed, so lets at least give them a chance.

 

[David63]

I can only agree with those points, and suspect everyone else will too.

David

 

[Pine Marten]

The other important point is that we're a tiny special interest group in the big scheme of things, and we need to be mindful that barring other small groups with diametrically opposed views, no-one else really cares that much about the things that are so important to us, especially politicians. Broadly, hunting in all its' forms is part of a security agenda because of firearms (and we know that the Police don't think this is a core activity, they'd really rather not deal with it) and of matters pertaining to the environment, food, forestry, agriculture etc. I'd even argue that driven shooting, where birds are bred to be shot then sold into the human food chain, is just a form of agriculture from that perspective. So when arguing our case, whether as stalkers, wildfowlers, gameshooters, anglers, and so on, we have to place our activities as a part of an integrated view of the environment involving all users. Ramblers, riders, mountain bikers and dog walkers have just as much right to enjoy the outdoors as we do. When viewed like that, arguments between 'fowlers, gameshooters or stalkers seem unbelievably irrelevant.

There are signs, with planned rationalisation of existing wildlife law, and discussions about reforming firearms licensing, that the Powers That Be are already thinking that way, quite possibly helped along by patient work with BASC, the CA, etc. That's the way to go. I'm wary of purely financial arguments ("Shooting contributes £XXbn to the UK economy") because they don't establish any principle at all, and economic circumstances change. I'm tempted to say that the main contributing factor to us not being pilloried by politicians and the media as before is that there's been an improvement in the general public's understanding of the realities of food production and environmental matters driven to a large extent by people like TV chefs. It's pretty simple to place us squarely within that narrative.

 

[MJ75]

Insurance is only a small (but extremely) important part of the package.

The cost of joining an organisation is cheap in comparison to the cost of the shooting and equipment that we happliy spend our money on (£65 per year = less than 18p per day).

I don't know what percentage of people join an organisation just for the insurance, but I'm sure it's a very large proportion of membership, so I agree that it is extremely important.

The SD forum has a great offer where insurance is only £26 per annum or just 7p per day. Now that is good value. Especially as it has been ranked the best available by a respected independant publication. You also gain membership to a shooting organisation (SACS) with great feedback from the members of this site. Details can be found here :-

http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php/40162-SD-Proposed-insurance-deal

 

[flytie]

One organisation, giving one voice to protect our sport would be a great thing. But if one encounters a problem, which the shooting organisation of your choice cannot or is is not willing to help you with, isn't it a good thing that their are other organisations to turn to who will help? At least I found it so!

Perhaps there ought to be an umbrella organisation for all of them? One which would allow them all to represent us.

But perhaps some organisations have a different agenda? Who knows? Not me!

Simon

 

[MONGOOSE]

I don't know what percentage of people join an organisation just for the insurance, but I'm sure it's a very large proportion of membership, so I agree that it is extremely important.

The SD forum has a great offer where insurance is only £26 per annum or just 7p per day. Now that is good value. Especially as it has been ranked the best available by a respected independant publication. You also gain membership to a shooting organisation (SACS) with great feedback from the members of this site. Details can be found here :-

http://www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk/showthread.php/40162-SD-Proposed-insurance-deal

Well most of the people I no join an organisation to give us a voice for our sport and fight our corner, the insurance comes second in my opinion.....

Also when was the last time you saw many of the other organisations in the press and on the radio tv etc I can't remember but I did hear Basc the other day on radio 4 I think it was, and have many other times so they appear to give us the biggest voice and that's why they get my vote amongst other things as well.....

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Thank you everyone - Ok I posted, so biased, but am I alone in thinking this is proving constructive, inclusive, thought provoking and mostly relevant? Thanks to everyone who has contributed and for the quality of those contributions.

 

[MJ75]

One organisation, giving one voice to protect our sport would be a great thing. But if one encounters a problem, which the shooting organisation of your choice cannot or is is not willing to help you with, isn't it a good thing that their are other organisations to turn to who will help? At least I found it so!

Perhaps there ought to be an umbrella organisation for all of them? One which would allow them all to represent us.

But perhaps some organisations have a different agenda? Who knows? Not me!

Simon

I actually believe you're right. There is no one organisation able to represent the entire shooting community. This was highlighted last nigh by SD forum member David BASC when discussing revoking restrictive firearms law relating to airguns and target shooting.

In an ideal world representation from all shooting organisations would join forces to form a larger more comprehensive organisation.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...

All organisations have their own agenda. Human nature would make it incredibly difficult to be a success.

 

[David63]

To be honest I think a key motivator to join any association is the insurance- and probably rightly so as our society seems to be becoming more litigious. And if it’s just cheap insurance you want you can certainly get it for less than 7p a day!!

But people stay with their chosen association for many different reasons as they learn what their association does for them and for their sport and the importance of the insurance starts to slip down the agenda the longer the person remains a member.

Most of the associations do sit together under the British Shooting Sports Council and /or FACE UK – and in theory the objective is to thus go forward with a common voice and have a common position on key issues. However recently we saw how although several organisations under FACE UK agreed one position on lead shot, one or two almost immediately broke away to follow their own agenda!

I don’t know that organisations have a different agenda per se- but they have different skills and areas of expertise. For example, would the NGO or BDS or SGA set out to say they can deliver for wildfowling? Or the CPSA or NRA say they can do it for stalking? No of course not, and that’s not to their detriment because they can and do deliver services within their specified markets.

BASC and the CA frankly lead the way in terms of media and political skills, not to say some others don’t lobby on some key issues within their remit, the NGO and SGA certainly have, but BASC has a very wide remit across the live quarry shooting disciplines and we have developed the resources to cope.

However, as flytie says, and I agree, its far better to have a selection of alternatives- a bit of competition keeps us al on our toes!

David

 

[MONGOOSE]

To be honest I think a key motivator to join any association is the insurance- and probably rightly so as our society seems to be becoming more litigious. And if it’s just cheap insurance you want you can certainly get it for less than 7p a day!!

But people stay with their chosen association for many different reasons as they learn what their association does for them and for their sport and the importance of the insurance starts to slip down the agenda the longer the person remains a member.

Most of the associations do sit together under the British Shooting Sports Council and /or FACE UK – and in theory the objective is to thus go forward with a common voice and have a common position on key issues. However recently we saw how although several organisations under FACE UK agreed one position on lead shot, one or two almost immediately broke away to follow their own agenda!

I don’t know that organisations have a different agenda per se- but they have different skills and areas of expertise. For example, would the NGO or BDS or SGA set out to say they can deliver for wildfowling? Or the CPSA or NRA say they can do it for stalking? No of course not, and that’s not to their detriment because they can and do deliver services within their specified markets.

BASC and the CA frankly lead the way in terms of media and political skills, not to say some others don’t lobby on some key issues within their remit, the NGO and SGA certainly have, but BASC has a very wide remit across the live quarry shooting disciplines and we have developed the resources to cope.

However, as flytie says, and I agree, its far better to have a selection of alternatives- a bit of competition keeps us al on our toes!

David

Well said!!!

 

[flytie]

To be honest I think a key motivator to join any association is the insurance- and probably rightly so as our society seems to be becoming more litigious. And if it’s just cheap insurance you want you can certainly get it for less than 7p a day!!

But people stay with their chosen association for many different reasons as they learn what their association does for them and for their sport and the importance of the insurance starts to slip down the agenda the longer the person remains a member.

Most of the associations do sit together under the British Shooting Sports Council and /or FACE UK – and in theory the objective is to thus go forward with a common voice and have a common position on key issues. However recently we saw how although several organisations under FACE UK agreed one position on lead shot, one or two almost immediately broke away to follow their own agenda!

I don’t know that organisations have a different agenda per se- but they have different skills and areas of expertise. For example, would the NGO or BDS or SGA set out to say they can deliver for wildfowling? Or the CPSA or NRA say they can do it for stalking? No of course not, and that’s not to their detriment because they can and do deliver services within their specified markets.

BASC and the CA frankly lead the way in terms of media and political skills, not to say some others don’t lobby on some key issues within their remit, the NGO and SGA certainly have, but BASC has a very wide remit across the live quarry shooting disciplines and we have developed the resources to cope.

However, as flytie says, and I agree, its far better to have a selection of alternatives- a bit of competition keeps us al on our toes!

David

As David so rightly points out there is more to be said on the proposed lead ban, with the EU parliament being given a notice of intent by Sweden on this subject.

Simon

 

[David63]

A couple of key points about lead and europe.

Firstly, the process of banning of any substance is a long 15 step process which is based only on scientific analysis of the risks, and importantly it is subject to no input from MeP's.

FACE UK's position and indeed that of FACE is that there should be no further limits or restrictions on lead over and above those agreed under AEWA (1995)

David

 

[flytie]

A couple of key points about lead and europe.

Firstly, the process of banning of any substance is a long 15 step process which is based only on scientific analysis of the risks, and importantly it is subject to no input from MeP's.

FACE UK's position and indeed that of FACE is that there should be no further limits or restrictions on lead over and above those agreed under AEWA (1995)

David

But not peer reviewed science, which is the worrying thing! And we have yet to see how effective FACE will be in defending our sport. Hopefully it will not be another lead shot (wildfowling) fiasco when the leading study on the the "effect of lead in intertidal ecosystem" never saw the light of day.

Simon

 

[David63]

Simon
I think you will find that FACE’s hands are tied if the review of lead goes to the next stages, as lobbying is specifically excluded from the process. But I dont see why the evidence reviwed will not be peer reviewed.

More details here on the BASC web site with a link to the ECHA web site to see all 15 steps:
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/CCB9D91A-9217-4238-9F6BDF36E4525FB7

All the associations that make up FACE UK spent quite a while going through their submission document that went to FACE, which was important so that the final wording was thus agreed by all.

The ball is now in Sweden and the Commissions court to decide if we go to the next stage.
Lead shot is indeed an issue that impacts on all the shooting organisations, target and live quarry, which is why I think its important for us to stand together on the issue. To be honest most did not exist or those that did took little active role in the early days on the 80’s and 90’s when all this was brewing. But now it’s a very different story .

However, its important to remember that at a European level, we are a long way off anything happening but none the less lobbying MeP’s can’t make any difference; although most UK MeP’s are supportive of the ‘leave the UK alone’ position promoted by the CA most recently.

In the UK there are no proposals on the agenda of any of the top political parties to introduce any further restrictions on the manufacture or sale or use of lead shot, and its BASC’s political strategy to make sure it stays that way – just as we have delivered on since the AEWA agreement was signed up to in 1995.

David

 

[Steyer 6.5]

I really like this thread WELL DONE Moray for starting/continuing a good and very relevant debate. On all the points I fully agree and would definitely like all the organisations invited to join SD. As if no one informs them they won't be aware of issues (no matter how small they may seem) that would arise.

On the insurance issue, I use BASC for mine but find that as they cover all aspects of shooting I think it's good to stay with them. Although at times (not bashing them) feel that thy have been slow to react and could fight/influence harder. This can also be said for the others. Also im a member of BDS as its more specific in my main shooting interest.

I also think as a minority communitity (field sports as a hole) that we, our organisations an representatives have to work twice as hard to be heard. IMO this thread can do a good job of helping resolve some of the issues Moray has identified.

 

[flytie]

Simon
I think you will find that FACE’s hands are tied if the review of lead goes to the next stages, as lobbying is specifically excluded from the process. But I dont see why the evidence reviwed will not be peer reviewed.

More details here on the BASC web site with a link to the ECHA web site to see all 15 steps:
http://www.basc.org.uk/en/media/key_issues.cfm/cid/CCB9D91A-9217-4238-9F6BDF36E4525FB7

All the associations that make up FACE UK spent quite a while going through their submission document that went to FACE, which was important so that the final wording was thus agreed by all.

The ball is now in Sweden and the Commissions court to decide if we go to the next stage.
Lead shot is indeed an issue that impacts on all the shooting organisations, target and live quarry, which is why I think its important for us to stand together on the issue. To be honest most did not exist or those that did took little active role in the early days on the 80’s and 90’s when all this was brewing. But now it’s a very different story .

However, its important to remember that at a European level, we are a long way off anything happening but none the less lobbying MeP’s can’t make any difference; although most UK MeP’s are supportive of the ‘leave the UK alone’ position promoted by the CA most recently.

In the UK there are no proposals on the agenda of any of the top political parties to introduce any further restrictions on the manufacture or sale or use of lead shot, and its BASC’s political strategy to make sure it stays that way – just as we have delivered on since the AEWA agreement was signed up to in 1995.

David

David,

I am surprised that you know nothing about the " precautionary principal " used by the EU to utilise any science it sees fit to bring about it's agenda on any matter it so wishes.

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consumer_safety/l32042_en.htm

"The precautionary principle enables rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous."

I would have thought you would have known that you were playing against a stacked deck? I am also surprised that it has not been made public by the people representing us on this issue so we can raise it with our MEP's and MP's. OR perhaps I should not be given what has gone on in the past.

Simon

 

[EssBee]

In situations where the science is inconclusive the EU will apply what is termed the Precautionary Principle "This principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from taking a particular course or making a certain decision when extensive scientific knowledge on the matter is lacking. The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. These protections can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that provide sound evidence that no harm will result.". This has been used many times in the past and I can see how it might be used in this instance. Particularly as the application by Sweden is for a blanket ban on lead. Given the widespread use of lead and the significant task of researching the range of products the precautionary principle would seem a logical approach to apply.
essbee.