quote:

Originally posted by galloway:
Alf, well said, thats exactly what I, and sldg have been saying, some members of this forum seem to think that we have a problem with recreational stalkers and basc

How do you come to that conclusion? I can see no evidence in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by galloway:
a level playing field is all its about

Oh please!

quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:unless Arran were the only area that FCS had to lease to anybody, then i really do not understand why anybody would mention them in an attempt to get a lease themself's.

Envy, greed, ignorance and sour grapes make people do the stupidest of things.

quote:

Originally posted by peterdk:This really seems to me as the idiot kindergarden child that gets everybody thrown away from the playground, by their loud and annoying acting up, by screaming "why cant i when they are allowed"
I do hope that, this is not the case at all.

I think you're going to be disappointed

quote:

Well you are not going to benefit from any more cosy little deals are you because the playing field is now level. SIMPLE!
Dear galloway, the only thing simple here would be your mind, as by now, the level playing field means NO playing field.

Do you think that particular penny might have dropped yet? I have my doubts.

quote:

Originally posted by galloway:
Fallow Buck, is it not concievable that when sldg asked FCS for land for training, he was told that it was not possible to have preferential treatment and they would have to tender like everyone else, then when FCS were reminded that basc were given preferential terms for arran, FCS had to think again.
If one organisation gets a "deal" why cant another? the title of the topic says it all I think "level playing field"

Galloway,

Yes you are correct and indeed you have a valid point but you seem to be missing the point I'm trying to make.

The facts here are that most would agree with you that your aims are commendable on paper, ie; to provide training for stalkers who require it in order to comply with new laws. There is already a framework for this in DSC 1&2, many times at a reasonable cost, but I still think that an "in-house" approach such as your has its merits. Secondly as I understand it you are currently the South Lanarkshire DMG who as a group do not currently cohesively manage any deer apart from as individuals, but you aim to do so. So when you approach the FCS you have no track record as an organisation for doing the thing you wish to be doing, (training for and carrying out the management of deer). To the FCS, you are only a bunch of "amateurs" [I don't mean this with any barbs] who in the eyes of the FCS are looking for stalking opportunities. SLDG himself stated that the 300 members/potential members could not get enough cohesive direction as a group to use their own land as a starting point for this common venture. How do you think this reflects to an organisation like the FCS?? Their priority is to get a vital job done, (control deer damage) while taking into account PR, health and safety and the ultimate hassle factor. All this when the actions of reducing/culling/killing/murdering the nations largest land mammal depending on your politics, can give them unwanted press coverage and idiots saving the trees etc. You must have a professional face if you are to succeed.

This is the real world of Forestry. The fact that your group aspires to a level playing field is about as good as Marx's theories... Great on paper but hey, we see where they end up in the real world. You are not BASC. Simple. I am not Sir Alan Sugar, so every day I have to fight to get doors opened in business that someone else is already on the other side of. It is the way of the world and if I sat and complained to anyone that would listen I'd get nowhere. What I'm saying is that you played the politics of this game very badly. Publicity & letters to MEP's were a bad move, because biting the only hand that can feed you will never result in success. The only person that won was a half bit hack that got a story handed to him on a plate for his local rag. Even thinking that you could, and dare I say should, have a level playing field with as huge an organisation as BASC (that advises government, campaigns for all shooting sports and already carries out training) is idealistic folly of the first order. You can call it what you want but ultimately you tried the old playground trick of nicking someone else's ball because you didn't have one, and they came back and thumped you on the nose...

So as far as I can see it, there are probably internal politics inside your own DMG. There always is in such things because some have more control than others and more to gain. Some (probably many) of the 300 will get their required accreditation (ironically many from BASC) and thus will continue to stalk deer on their own land. The rest will have to give it up due to financial constraints. Sad but true.

So, to round this off I'm not arguing with your ideals just how your group went about achieving them. In doing what you did you ruined any chance you ever had of getting what you want and need from the FCS an some of your members may benefit but not the group. Perhaps some apples have fallen off of the FCS and BASC cart but Arran will go ahead again and possibly at a higher cost to your fellow stalkers, (I believe some of you have been on the scheme yourselves) which may or may not be your concern.

To let you know where I stand personally on some of the issues in the name of openness & fairness. I'm not a big fan of BASC, I'm not involved with them and I no longer renew my subscription. This is simply because of how I feel they have dealt with some major topics starting with the national pigeon shooting day and continuing with the lead Ammo debate at present. However some of the best guys I know in and outside of stalking are involved in BASC or the Herberts and they still try to do the right thing. As such I consider them my friends. Secondly I am against compulsory training because the worst stalkers I have ever encountered have had all the certs and left me a pile of steaming crap to clear up when they finished. Unfortunately there is a contingent in this world who are unable to be told or taught.... Finally I have a decent amount of my own stalking and I have more invites than you can shake a stick at, however I rarely take them up. I prefer to give people the chance to get out with me and learn the way we do things for no financial gain. Were I to take money every time someone sat in one of my high seats I'd earn a decent chunk of cash each year but this is not my way. I've also got very happy and cooperative landowners.

I'm not preaching here, just trying to articulate what I think many feel about your posts but probably don't care enough to write down.

Rgds,
FB

quote:

Originally posted by Fallow Buck:
Secondly as I understand it you are currently the South Lanarkshire DMG who as a group do not currently cohesively manage any deer apart from as individuals, but you aim to do so. So when you approach the FCS you have no track record as an organisation for doing the thing you wish to be doing, (training for and carrying out the management of deer). To the FCS, you are only a bunch of "amateurs" [I don't mean this with any barbs] who in the eyes of the FCS are looking for stalking opportunities. SLDG himself stated that the 300 members/potential members could not get enough cohesive direction as a group to use their own land as a starting point for this common venture. How do you think this reflects to an organisation like the FCS?? Their priority is to get a vital job done, (control deer damage) while taking into account PR, health and safety and the ultimate hassle factor. All this when the actions of reducing/culling/killing/murdering the nations largest land mammal depending on your politics, can give them unwanted press coverage and idiots saving the trees etc. You must have a professional face if you are to succeed.

This is the real world of Forestry. The fact that your group aspires to a level playing field is about as good as Marx's theories... Great on paper but hey, we see where they end up in the real world. You are not BASC. Simple.

Kiri

You have raised some very salient points. BASC, BDS, St Huberts all have long track records of public accountability, large memberships, and long standing programmes of training that are well regarded by the shooting sector and well received by the large number of participants that have accessed the various training programmes over the last 30 odd years. What did the SLDG bring to the table,in those areas. Nowt!. They can't even provide a cohesive core group on which to run a limited and restricted to the memebership training programme, due to the distrust and discontent within their numbers. let alone one accessible to non members.

BASC, BDS, and St Huberts all have well established logistical support in depth. They aren't run off the dining room table or some cramped back bedroom some where that doubles up as a family store room. They also have long standing credentials and legitimacy, something that any supporting partner organisation would consider a prerequisite when considering whether to support any public training and facilitation programme they might care to propose.

I would be interested in exactly how many signed up and dues paid members the SLDG actually has right now. As they had their first public meeting recently. I have a suspicion that the actual number is minute when compared to the potential 300 quoted. Perhaps Longshot or Galloway might like to address that particular question in their next post.

You are 100% correct when you state "This is the real world of Forestry". Something that many seem so conveniently to forget or try to brush aside when it doesn't fit with their demands. Its also blatantly obvious to many that the SLDM are most definitely not a BASC, a BDS, or a St Huberts.

Tophand,

This is a very common issue in all walks of this world. There are people out there that have many great ideas, be they for non profit, profit, humanitarian or just plain social fun. Often however when you are tied to an idea and emotionally involved you lose your perspective, and so much of what I call my work these days is spent directing people about their business plans or altering their strategies in order to fit in with the bigger picture.

SLDG were probably too focused on the destination they wished to arrive at and failed to consider the best route to get there. It is a shame because I'm sure many would have benefited, but that is life.

The irony is that I rarely manage to achieve the same perspective with my own activities but I make sure I ask lots of opinions and take comments on board before deciding a strategy.

FB

K

You and I both know that what some people consider to be a great idea is in reality an out and out non starter. We also know that there is no such thing as a non profit making business. Despite what those running those business might like other to think. It is simply a matter of creative accounting, be they CIC, PPL or PLP companies. Unrealistic asperations, and lack of perspective are always the major failings of any new venture along with inadequate or inappropriate planning. I suspect that the FC identified very early on these deficiencies in this particular case. They are after all no bodies fool when it comes to running a real world forestry operation.

I agree the best way to determine a particular strategy is to canvas opinions and comments from those in the know. However you have to be willing to accept those criticism both positive and negative. Pig headedness, arrogance, and childish petulance when your or the groups short comings and failings are pointed out seldom makes for success.

A great idea and a second/third rate team simply means you have a disaster waiting to happen. Unfortunately when the inevitable happens and the wheels fall off the wagon. It is those who have brought into the idea without taking time to look at the team behind it that end up paying the price.

My advise. Keep it real, take nothing at face value and always look at those behind the idea. They will almost inevitably come up short on a variety of issues and aspects. If those short coming can not be addressed or those responsible are unwilling to address them, simply say, thanks, but no thanks!

Sometimes its better to simply ......................................... run away!