#fieldsportsconcierge

Time for the fieldsports and countryside establishment to come together in a co-ordinated combined approach to communication and public awareness to help secure the future of fieldsports.

Following the publication of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) report in to firearms licensing there were some really bias, unbalanced and to some extent lazy sensationalist headlines in the mainstream media that would give the uninformed reader a dire view of, and concern about people who hold firearms licences.

This struck such a strong feeling with us at Orion Sporting Services that we felt compelled to write to over 30 leading felidsports and countryside publications and agencies with a plea for a combined communication strategy to counter the negative picture that fills the media when it comes to guns and shooting.

One of the publications we contacted picked up the letter and referenced it in their editorial page, so, thank you The Shooting Times for the mention, and thank you for seeing the point we were trying to make.

Source: The Shooting Times - http://www.shootinguk.co.uk

Here is the letter that was sent to the fieldsports community, sent with the title 

“More people on average die putting their trousers on than are killed by legally held firearms”

Dear fieldsports colleagues,

Shooting and Fieldsports Organisations & Media Collective Response

I have felt compelled to write to you all in a plea for a combined and collective response to the threats facing fieldsports in this country that I see gathering momentum, and because not only is my passion in life, but also my livelihood is at threat as a consequence.

Let me also set the context of this email, it is not designed to be the negative ramblings of a moaning Minnie saying nothing is being done to raise awareness and support fieldsports and so on, as I know that is far from the case.  However, it is intended to suggest this might be the time to ramp up the engagement and take on the detractors with a new collective vigor.  And to be extra clear, in that I am prepared to stand up and be counted and support in whatever way I can, but I am only one voice.

I am a passionate fieldpsorts enthusiast, and believe in the value and benefits of shooting sports not just for the individual but for the conservation of the rural environment, and viability of its economy.  So much so, that I left a successful career in the Financial Services sector to establish my own small fieldsports business as I wanted to create a living and enjoy a lifestyle that did more good than bad for my heart, medically and spiritually.  I have no regrets in doing that, but I am genuinely concerned by the threat I see coming from a well organised and orchestrated communication and media strategy coming from those organisations and individuals who would happily see an end to our sport(s).

It appears to me that the combined fieldsports and shooting establishment is losing the media campaign to a more effective, well organised attacking media that is showing itself to be better equipped at executing its strategy and getting its message in front of the general public.  The battle for hearts and minds is slowly being lost.  I am tired of being embarrassed in polite company to express my passion and commitment to fieldsports, and feeling a relentless un-approving stare every time I put on my tweeds and set forth in to the countryside.  There is almost a secret society atmosphere hanging over fieldsports in particular, whereby you have to be sure about who you are with before you dare say anything, I should not have to feel like that when going about my perfectly lawful activities.

The statistics and figures may show an increase in the participation in fieldsports, but it is my opinion that it becoming more difficult to do so.  Yes, licenses granted are on the up, but the ability to obtain shooting permissions, find land holders willing to let you shoot on their land and to navigate around the requirements and restrictions of the law is forcing shooting towards the much end of the market that perpetuates the myths of it being a sport for toffs and Russian oligarchs – a perception I find frustrating to say the least.  At the same time the intense media scrutiny and attacks within the press and television continues, we see too often the opinions and statements from the Mark Avery’s, Chris Packham’s and George Monibot’s of the world, but without the same level of coverage to counter their position, or to match them in their ability to leverage the platforms they have at their disposal. The fieldsports world seems to somehow just chuckle and laugh them off as slightly bonkers extremists who don’t see the full picture.  We can not ignore this influence, and need to have an orchestrated and coordinated response to this.

Frequently I see articles and press releases on various social media feeds raising objections to the latest action or statement coming from a media body or appointed committee, where the tone is one of objecting “most strongly”.  The Lead Ammunition Group (LAG) being a fine example of this.  The fact that both Sir Barney White-Spunner  (former Executive Chairman of the Countryside Alliance) and Mr Alan Jarrett Chairman of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), felt compelled to resign their important positions on this group due to its persistent breaches of its terms of reference; seekingly only to serve a predetermined agenda from the environmental groups (who’s representation is both strong and well organised) is case in point.  The fact that in Sir Barney White-Spunner’s resignation letter from LAG he stated the the published report was “very far from a reflection of the LAG’s discussions and draws incorrect conclusions from evidence on which the LAG has agreed”, and that there was a total disregard for process and protocol surrounding its report publication goes to show how playing it fair, and being balanced, respectful and acting in a decent way has had little or no impact on the potential outcome, and that we are sleep walking in to ban on lead shot.  An extreme viewpoint perhaps, but the point being the shooting establishment has been outflanked and out maneuvered whilst it obeyed the rules of fair play.  

In 2014 there was a perfect opportunity to put the message across to the public about the value and benefits of shooting through the publication of the awaited “Value of Shooting” report from BASC.  I was keen to see this report, and was enthused by its contents, and have done my bit to share the report, raise the benefits and evangelize the messages within.  However, at the very moment it had it’s spotlight on mainstream television BBC Countryfile surrounded it in a piece that was incredibly narrow minded with a complete anti-shooting undertone, and the collective response was to have a bit of a moan and vow not to watch Countryfile again.  Golden opportunity squandered and the BBC allowed to show editorial bias of the likes that a public body should not be allowed to.

The latest piece that has essentially caused me to write is the media response to the publication of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) comments on Gun Licensing.  There has been widespread sensational reporting across the media with inflammatory headlines such as that seen on Express Online  - "WARNING: Britain 'faces new wave of gun massacres amid fears over firearms laws'; with papers such as The Telegraph stating “Easier to get gun licence than drive minibus” and yet again the BBC is guilty, sensationally proclaiming “Flaws in medical checks 'could lead to shootings”.  All of which mask one of the main issues contained within the findings in that the reason these things exist is in large part due to the way the policies and protocols are executed across the country is wholly inconsistent, and it is really that point that needs to be addressed. it is poor execution not license holders that is the issue.  Don’t tighten the laws and controls, just deal with the very effective ones we have properly and you will achieve what you want, instead of using the money that would be spent on drafting new legislation, give it to the firearms teams around the country to get the resources they need to do the job more effectively.  I do not want to be critical of those at the coal face as they have been left in an almost unworkable position of increased demand and constrained resources – never a good combination. Personally, I would be prepared to pay a higher fee if it brought clarity, consistency and precision to the process.  But pushing that position does not sell papers, satisfy an agenda or perpetuate an institutional viewpoint. 

Whilst the comments from BASC on the above are very well balanced, respectful, and thoughtful; the fact that the lazy, misrepresentative and bias reporting in the wider media; facilitated by the instant and pervasive nature of the Internet - where fact and opinion are so easily created but not related – goes unchallenged is ludicrous! The media have zoned in on one element and totally misrepresented it with no attempt to temper it with the facts.  Fieldsports is under siege from a growing urban liberal elite who no more understand the countryside and fieldsports than I do the internal workings of nuclear reactor.  I can't help but think that the down played nature of the response on the BASC website is typical of the problem that fieldsports is facing.  We pay fees to join organisations that are there to represent our interests, and in particular those of us that earn a living in the industry, yet the lobby groups/bodies and professional organisations are constantly out flanked or out manoeuvred by the media in general. 

The argument The Telegraph wishes to promote, that it is harder to obtain a license to drive a mini-bus than obtain a shotgun license misses the point. Correct disclosure at point of application is an individuals responsibility, as is ensuring the correct checks are conducted that of the regulating body granting it.  The headline just highlights that one set of controls are more effectively carried out than the other, not that the criteria are somehow easier and represent a greater threat to society. The tragic failure of individuals to disclose relevant medical information was at the root of the awful Glasgow Bin Lorry incident, the point being, controls where there, individual accountabilities and responsibilities were there but failure to carry these out did not suddenly make the risk of dozens of similar incidents likely, it just highlighted a failure by the parties not the process or the framework. 

 Out of 551 murders last year there were 29 deaths associated with firearms, and of that there were 3 attributed to legally held firearms, that’s 0.5% of gun deaths caused by legally held firearms, the issues and concerns being put forward are therefore unjustified, but the nature of the coverage creates a disproportionately skewed negative perception of the risk profile of legal firearm ownership . Of course, that number should be 0% in an ideal world, but we don't live in the ideal world, but we do live in a  world where we have excellent gun laws that need the right resources to be effective.  That is the fact that really should have been picked up, that and the fact there is inconsistency and ineffective application of the gun and licensing laws across the country.  That is the real threat, not the perceived threat of rampant mass shootings due to weak legislation.   

 Add into this the current political landscape with impending land and taxation reforms at the hands of the SNP set to potentially seriously impact the shooting industry in Scotland, on the grounds of what is essentially an “anti-privilege” socialist agenda, and the fact that the new Labour Shadow Cabinet has appointed a shadow minister for Farming and Rural Affairs who is a self proclaimed anti-hunting, anti-shooting, anti-farming vegan executive member of LAC means there is a legislative threat looming on the horizon.  Whether in power or opposition, the viewpoints of these political bodies, whose support is predominantly in the urban conurbations, will gradually be forced upon the rural community with the full support of the media in a way that previous Labour administrations could only dream of.  It will not stop till the countryside has been turned in to a theme park for the metropolitan many seeking their fresh air fix of a weekend in saccharin sweet Hardyesque rural retreats, whilst the living beating heart, along with the soul, of the countryside was removed. 

In particular the use of online platforms and social media needs to match the intensity and ferocity of those looking to banish the sports we enjoy.  If I look at twitter and Facebook for example, there is a disparity between frequency and nature of content.  There is lots of nice interesting things to appeal to members and like minded individuals, but nothing that I would say is a direct counter of viewpoint designed to challenge, it is often the members or individuals that respond, and sadly, some of that does the cause no favours which is why the communication needs to be different and more in tune with modern channels.  We can’t rely on just shouting down the “antis” in a torrent of ridicule and abuse as a viable online strategy. Organisations such as BASC, Countryside Alliance, CPSA, NGO, GWCT along with the shooting press could benefit from pooling resources and fighting a co-ordinated campaign and really adjusting the communication and engagement strategies, as playing with the proverbial straight bat is placing our sport on the back foot.   I am looking to these organisations to really come together in a collective and very visible show of strength and support to protect our sports and our livelihoods, and not to fall away in polite protest as we get shoved aside. 

I would be more than happy to discuss any of these points further and welcome any comments on actions being undertaken to place the campaigns to support shooting on the same media exposure level as those who wish to detract from it, and offer my support in achieving it. 

Kind regards. 

Mark Rogers

Director 

Orion Sporting Services Limited