A recent change in field trialling practice has highlighted the most dangerous of situations, one which the Kennel Club refuses to acknowledge or address. Field trials can only be run under the Kennel Club rules and the judges of field trials must operate within the regulations published by the Kennel Club at all times. In the not too distant past, competitors were placed some distance back from the Guns during a drive. Recently, it has become the practice to place competitors and their dogs alongside or close to the Guns. The reason is that should a bird be wounded, fall behind the Guns and then run, a dog can be sent to retrieve it without fear of the dog interfering with the line of Guns. This practice does not take account of the fact that at least 12 competitors are put within potential killing distance of the shotguns. In this position they must rely on safe gun handling by those shooting.

I trial my Labradors throughout every shooting season, across the country, whenever my name is drawn out of the hat. I have witnessed and stood in line competing in many drives at field trials alongside many Guns from all walks of life. Most of the folk shooting at field trials are expert gun handlers and beautiful Shots — countrymen regular and true. To them, safety is a habit and they make everyone around them feel safe.

Unfortunately, not all field trials are blessed with such experts. Increasingly, the field trial Gun team includes a beginner — an occasional clayshooter or simply a shotgun owner who is making up the numbers. On more than one occasion I have found myself looking down the business end of a shotgun. I have often seen a gun levelled at a competitor through the incompetence of a gun handler. I understand from a conversation with one A-panel judge that he has witnessed two competitors shot in separate field trials.

It has often been my experience that when judges are aware of dangerous gun handling during a drive at a field trial their decision is to do nothing. They must hope that an accident will not happen on their watch. I have several times asked judges to address dangerous gun handling — they have refused. One judge advised me that I could disqualify myself by moving out of the line to a safe position. In private, judges have often said to me that safety is the responsibility of the host, shoot captain, landowner or the gamekeeper: in fact, anyone except the judges.

Yet who is watching the Guns, where the birds fall and the competitors throughout each drive? The judges. It is only the judges who are close enough to the Guns to instruct immediately a Gun to hold their shotgun in the correct and safe manner. Where safety is concerned, time could be of the essence. The question of safety cannot be sidestepped. There may be judges who on their own initiative will address this situation if it occurs, but there is no clear and unequivocal guidance from the Kennel Club.

The responsibility for safety does not rest with one particular person. It must be the top priority for everyone involved in field trials, particularly for the judges who are on the spot when breaches of safety are committed. Only the judge can deal with the situation immediately. Judging takes courage and authority — it must be used in these situations. The Kennel Club regulations must reflect this and offer clear guidance to deal effectively with this potential danger.

I recently wrote to the Kennel Club to suggest that its Judges’ Regulations should be amended to include the following prior to the start of the next field trial season: If competitors are placed within dangerous distance of a shotgun, every judge attending must, without fail, make themselves aware of the safe gun handling of every person shooting.

In the event that they are unsure or not confident in the safe handling of any gun they must immediately and without further consultation to any party move all competitors to a safe distance. In the event of a competitor complaining to a judge of unsafe gun handling during the course of a drive, the judge must immediately and without further consultation to any party move that competitor to a safe distance. Such a competitor must not be disadvantaged in any way as a result of their request to be moved to what, in their opinion, is a safe distance. The judge should use his/her discretion to move the entire line to a safe distance.

In the case of a walk-up situation, should the judge be made aware of unsafe gun handling, the judge must without further consultation immediately advise the Gun of the safe and proper way to handle the weapon.

Any subsequent complaint regarding that person’s safe handling of the gun should result in that person’s involvement in the trial being terminated immediately.

I received a reply, dated 19 May 2009, which stated: The issue of safety largely rests with the host, but judges would be expected to have a regard for this at all times. The letter goes on to say that the Kennel Club feels this adequately covers the situation.

Come on Kennel Club. This is sidestepping the issue. It is in every field trial competitor’s interest and safety that it addresses this through the Judges’ Regulations in a detailed and proper manner.

Ken Byron competes in field trials with his Copperwheat Labradors. For more information, visit www.copperwheat.net.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is a very moderate organisation, which has long been pliant to spurious complaints from animal rights groups. A couple of years ago, an anti-shooting group complained about a Countryside Alliance (CA) document outlining our shooting campaign, entitled On the front foot, which we sent to people who contacted us for further information and which was available on our website. It referred to a shooting ground raising £1million for charity. Rather than telling the anti-shooting group to find something better to do with their lives, the ASA took up the complaint. We pointed out that it was a document we produced for our supporters so the ASA had no authority over it, but since we are very reasonable, we also sent the ASA a copy of the full-page advertisement placed by said shooting ground in The Field, stating that it had raised £1million for charity. That would have been case closed in any normal world, but not in the parallel universe inhabited by the ASA. It then wanted us to access the accounts of the shooting ground to prove that the advertisement it had placed, and that we had referenced, was correct.

There is only one thing to do at times like this, so we did it and told the ASA to get stuffed. Despite all its airs and graces, the ASA is a self-regulatory body with no statutory role and when it allows itself to be used by animal rights groups we reserve the right to ignore it. The reason that this is relevant to Shooting Times readers now is that the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), which creates the code on broadcast advertising that the ASA administers, has issued a review consultation. The committee apparently comprises “representatives of broadcasters licensed by Ofcom, advertisers, agencies, direct marketers and interactive marketers”, though who they actually are is a mystery. One thing is certain, however: they don’t like shooting.

There are very few things that the current code bans from being advertised completely. I can find just four: prostitution, pyramid selling, tobacco and guns, and when the code says the advertising of weaponry is banned it goes on to say: “This includes manufacturers, distributors” and that “references to clay pigeon shoots are permitted only as part of a wider range of outdoor pursuits”.

So let’s get this straight. You can advertise a pole dancing club, but not a gun club; you can advertise pornography, but not licensed firearms, and you can advertise online gambling, but not a charity clay shoot. Then there was the strange case of the Privilege Insurance television advertisement that caused such excitement last year with its extraordinary representation of shooting. Apparently it is all right to have people blasting away with guns in an irresponsible way if you are selling car insurance, but using the same or more responsible images to sell guns or shooting is banned.

You might have thought that a review of such a depressing code would have been a good thing. Yet the BCAP does not propose to lift the ridiculous restrictions it has placed on advertising guns or clay shoots. If it has its way, the words will change slightly but the ban will stay in place. It is still vital that you respond to this consultation because the right response to questions 55 and 56 can make things better and you can still call for all restrictions to be lifted. A large response could force a rethink, but a poor one will certainly not.

The BCAP’s justification for the current prohibition is a clause in the 2003 Communications Act: that material likely to encourage or to incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder is not included in television and radio services, combined with a misunderstanding of, and prejudice against, legal gun use. The BCAP also misrepresents firearms legislation and, perhaps most tellingly, when discussing replica guns, says that, unlike “real guns”, they are not intended to “murder or maim”. There is simply no understanding or consideration of the legal use of licensed firearms carried out by hundreds and thousands of law-abiding individuals in every part of the country. Regulators have reduced a proud Olympic sport to peddling its wares below the broadcasting radar like prostitutes.

The British Shooting Sports Council and its individual members, such as the CA, has prepared detailed responses to the consultation but, as individuals, we should not leave it there. If you run a clay shoot, gun club, shooting event or any shooting-related business you must respond. If you think that it is wrong that someone cannot advertise a clay shoot on local radio because this is deemed as offensive as advertising a brothel then you should respond. Don’t miss this chance to put right a genuine wrong.

To respond to the consultation, visit www.asa.org.uk/cap and go to the consultations section to find the BCAP Code Review Consultations. Answer questions 55 and 56. Send your response to BCAPcodereview@cap.org.uk no later than 19 June. Visit www.countrysidealliance.org to read the CA’s response.

Tim Bonner is head of media at the Countryside Alliance.

The newly launched scheme from Leicestershire Police, which urges shooters to notify voluntarily the police every time they go out shooting (Shooters dismiss police plan, News, 30 April) has divided opinion and angered many law-abiding shooters. BASC members have voiced their concerns via email and by phone, and we’ve represented those views to the police and the media. So is this voluntary notification scheme a good idea? Does BASC support it? To answer these questions and set the record straight, we must first consider the issue regarding lamping.

Lamping as we all know is a safe and effective method of controlling pest species. Because shooting at night can be more dangerous than in daylight, BASC advises shooters to take extra precautions. These include a recommendation for shooters to inform their local police when, where and at what time they’re going lamping. The reason we do this is that strange lights and gunshots at night can lead to calls to police stations. We believe that letting the police know where you’re shooting at night can save considerable aggravation and inconvenience on all sides. However, BASC has never supported a blanket shooting notification scheme. It therefore came as quite a shock to me when I was told by a member of Leicestershire Police’s press relations team that they thought BASC was backing such an idea.

I’d phoned Leicestershire Police after hearing from Shooting Times that the force was on the verge of launching a scheme. I wondered why, as Britain’s largest shooting organisation, BASC had not been formally invited to take part. I was also concerned that it had not been consulted prior to the public launch despite the fact that it represents thousands of shooters in the Midlands.

The police press officer told me that BASC had been invited to the launch via email. The email address used was out of date, however. The officer also said BASC staff members had attended various meetings where the scheme had been discussed. BASC staff told me that they had attended meetings, but that a fully formed scheme had never been discussed and they were not notified that one was about to be launched.

Given the nature of what was being proposed, BASC asked Leicestershire Police if it would delay the launch to allow detailed discussion. A 45-minute phone conversation took place between BASC chief executive John Swift and a senior Leicestershire police officer. The police inspector was unable to satisfy BASC that the scheme had been properly worked out. John Swift made it clear that BASC would be expected to offer its members guidance.

The police refused further consultation and insisted on going ahead with the launch. BASC was left with no option but to criticise an ill-thought-out and poorly resourced scheme, which will deliver no perceivable gain to our members.

BASC and Leicestershire Police have had an excellent working relationship for many years, so what went wrong? The short answer is a breakdown in communications.

Leicestershire Police say it has a duty of care to investigate all sightings of people with guns and that it has to send armed officers to investigate all such incidents. The police claims that if it had widespread voluntary notification it would reduce the need to deploy armed response units, but it was unable to offer a guarantee that it would be able to cope with the likely volume of calls. Moreover, it could not guarantee that even after a shooter called in his lawful activity would not be disturbed by an armed response unit.

BASC was also concerned that agreeing to this level of police control of lawful shooting could lead to a voluntary scheme becoming a compulsory one, not only in one county but across the UK. Why should the shooting community be treated like criminals? The launch of the Leicestershire scheme, inserted into a routine meeting with local shooters, was something of a damp squib. There was no local media coverage and no shooting press present. The 50 shooters who attended were asked to put up their hands to demonstrate support. The police then claimed that this represented the general approval
of the 10,000-plus Leicestershire shooters.

The good news is that a meeting has been arranged between BASC and Leicestershire Police. It is our hope that by starting again, where the police should have begun, a constructive solution can be found.

Dave Harper is BASC’s head of press relations.