Do we sing as a choir — or several soloists?

Though the idea has always met with resistance, the merging of our organisations could have mutual benefits, suggests Alasdair Mitchell

- Alasdair Mitchell

We are always complaining about shooting organisations. Shooters bemoan a lack of effective representation, saying our various bodies seem to settle for managing the decline of our sport. Over a pint, many agree the cause of shooting would be better served if all the existing organisations were merged into a single, bigger, united body.

Many have mooted this possibility over the years, but it has never come to anything. The failed attempt to merge the old British Field Sports Society and BASC in 1995 left a bitter aftertaste. However, the question has been given new impetus by escalating regulatory threats and the COVID-19 crisis. Don’t we deserve more than an alphabet soup of rival organisations?

Full disclosure: I am an elected member of BASC’s governing council. I am also a long-standing member of the GWCT, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO) and the British Deer Society (BDS). I am not a member of the Countryside Alliance (CA), but I support it in many ways. I am not writing to anybody’s brief except the Editor’s — and I am doing so from a personal perspective. I don’t claim to have definitive solutions; I am merely exploring the issues.

A commonly stated motive for amalgamation is that a wealthier and more powerful organisation would result. More resources could be devoted to fighting the real enemy, instead of being wasted on internecine squabbling and duplication.