RISE nominated fror PR award

TippFan77

Sparks wrote: »

Grizzly, when 10,000 people write letters to your newspaper, they get published. Policy doesn't outweigh Advertising. So saying there's an anti-shooting bias is a cop-out; the problem is that we don't write in in the kind of numbers ICABS do. They have maybe 20 members; we have 200,000 or so.
Kindof speaks for itself, that...

Yoiu are right re anti-shooting policy. I doubt if even one newspaper in Ireland has an anti-shooting policy or bias, though maybe an anti-coursing or foxhunting (with hounds) bias.

Your figure of "maybe 20 members" in ICABS is way off the mark, though I'm sure what you deem to constitute a "member". ICABS is a limited company and what used to be called members are now officially paid-up "supporters", in the region of 4,500. You may be right in a sense, as the directors are deemed members of the company and they would number less than 20. But you see my point? Furthermore, some of the individual "anti" campaigners, as you call them, have Facebook friends of thousands.

That figure of 200,000...I'm sure that many, and more, support shooting, but not necessarily all "fieldsports".

TippFan77

Sparks wrote: »

No, you're missing the idea completely. You don't reply to people like ICABS, you talk to the vast undecided majority instead.

You don't engage with ICABS or you legitimise them. Instead you write in about your stuff. You never mention ICABS, you only give them free advertising when you do that, and in the same go, you elevate their crackpot whinging from "crackpot looney-tune fringe group whinging" to "stuff that the shooting community takes so seriously that they engage in debate in the national media about".


Instead you write in:

• asking why the ISC isn't funding target shooting more despite our great record in international competition;
• asking why the FCP is being wound down despite a long successful track record in bringing the DoJ, AGS, NGBs and others to the one table;
• talking about the great match you just had this weekend
• encouraging others to try your sport;
• talking about your upcoming club events or the results from when club members win national matches (local papers eat this up);

and in doing so, you raise awareness about our sports without giving the ICABS looneys any traction or advertising.


Bullcrap. Specifically, the PR bullcrap that Ahern fed anyone who'd listen. The man cared about votes and nothing more. If he'd been on a personal anti-gun crusade, then banning guns would have been on his campaign promises and part of his programme for government, and he'd have started the axe swinging on day one.

The truth is that he didn't give a fiddler's about guns, at all. It wasn't until Deasy and his ilk thought they could get some PR out of scaremongering that the whole thing kicked off; and we could have stopped that, if we'd been doing what we've been saying we should be doing since 1999 - ie. more PR and more pushing the sport in the media. We didn't and we lost out as a result.

And then to add salt to the wound, when the only branch of our sports that did push the PR boat out were mentioned by the PTB in meetings, we turned on each other in a heartbeat like a true Irish begrudgery stereotype.

The vast undecided majority...I suggest you study the findings of opinion polls on fieldsports conducted by IMS and MRBI re attitudes to these. The majority isn't undecided, just complacent!

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=TippFan77;72620813]Yoiu are right re anti-shooting policy. I doubt if even one newspaper in Ireland has an anti-shooting policy or bias, though maybe an anti-coursing or foxhunting (with hounds) bias.

Righhhttt..:rolleyes:Maybe a browse of editorials and letters in the last decade or when there was a massacre or two,what the editorial comment was..It certainly wasnt pro gun.

Your figure of "maybe 20 members" in ICABS is way off the mark, though I'm sure what you deem to constitute a "member". ICABS is a limited company and what used to be called members are now officially paid-up "supporters", in the region of 4,500. You may be right in a sense, as the directors are deemed members of the company and they would number less than 20. But you see my point? Furthermore, some of the individual "anti" campaigners, as you call them, have Facebook friends of thousands

.

Its actually six directors.Proably about fifty hardcore members,and whatever other supporters.
If that is the case,how come they can only get about at most 50 people at any counter dem.[Who they all line up in a straight line and take a panoramic picture of to make it look that they have hundreds at the demo?]Proof is in the pudding.Either they have these overall majorities
of the Irish pouplation or they dont..And if they have more than they claim,wTF are they so few at their demos??? Doing the math here say 15 euros per indicvidual membership by your figure of4,500 equals 67,500Euros gross..A simple companies house online search will give you their annual returns which they have to file as they are a limited company,and I doubt it is anywhere near that figure. What does the shooting community alone pros]duce in revenue PA,not to mind membership??Not to mind the same people have multi membership of various different anti groups so it is a very flexible count on how many people there actually are..
Facebook friends of thousands,
..Point being??You can have lots of online friends,but do they do anything useful??

That figure of 200,000...I'm sure that many, and more, support shooting, but not necessarily all "fieldsports".

Better get supporting all fieldsports then ,as divide and conqueor,and constant water dripping wears away a stone,which is another anti tactic.They look long term gain,we dont .:(

Tell me Tippfan..Are you an anti or do you just like playing Devils advocate??:)

Grizzly 45

TippFan77 wrote: »

The vast undecided majority...I suggest you study the findings of opinion polls on fieldsports conducted by IMS and MRBI re attitudes to these. The majority isn't undecided, just complacent!

Tell me..Has anyone here EVER been contacted in these polls conducted by these two organisations??I've yet to meet anyone who has...Wonder where they do get the money to hire expensive opinion poll researchers as well to back this up all the time??
Intresting too that ICABS NEVER mentions that their polls were conducted too in 1987!!!:D.

Sparks

TippFan77 wrote: »

Your figure of "maybe 20 members" in ICABS is way off the mark

Not judging by the names on the letters in the national and regional press, I think.

ICABS is a limited company and what used to be called members are now officially paid-up "supporters", in the region of 4,500.

Are you claiming that ICABS has 4,500 shareholders?
Or a list of 4,500 names of people who gave a fiver ten years ago to PAWS or some such related body?

Furthermore, some of the individual "anti" campaigners, as you call them, have Facebook friends of thousands.

I think perhaps that the number of Facebook 'friends' or 'likes' an organisation has might be considered a rather 'soft' statistic...

That figure of 200,000...I'm sure that many, and more, support shooting, but not necessarily all "fieldsports".

That figure of 200,000 is the number of people with licenced firearms in the state. Which, as it requires a rather onerous procedure to be counted in, could be considered a rather 'hard' statistic.

TippFan77 wrote: »

I don't think it works quite that way Sparks. Editors will publish what the deem the best or most relevant letters, from either pro or anti fieldsports.

If by 'best' you refer to the quality of writing, brevity, spelling and grammar, adherence to the newspaper's rules and so on, then yes.

If you mean something more ideological, I would refer you to the accounts department of any newspaper to ask how much money they make from advertising, in order to disabuse you of the notion that newspapers are altruistic organisations.

A lot of the NARGC ones are good, but you have to give credit to "antis" for letter-wrting prowess too!

Frankly, I credit them for quantity and endurance; but not for logic, quality, or intellectual honesty. As I've said above, if the newspapers merely had an alternative, I don't believe ICABS would get a look-in; I believe they merely get published because they send in material continually.

TippFan77

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

[

Righhhttt..:rolleyes:Maybe a browse of editorials and letters in the last decade or when there was a massacre or two,what the editorial comment was..It certainly wasnt pro gun.


.

Its actually six directors.Proably about fifty hardcore members,and whatever other supporters.
If that is the case,how come they can only get about at most 50 people at any counter dem.[Who they all line up in a straight line and take a panoramic picture of to make it look that they have hundreds at the demo?]Proof is in the pudding.Either they have these overall majorities
of the Irish pouplation or they dont..And if they have more than they claim,wTF are they so few at their demos??? Doing the math here say 15 euros per indicvidual membership by your figure of4,500 equals 67,500Euros gross..A simple companies house online search will give you their annual returns which they have to file as they are a limited company,and I doubt it is anywhere near that figure. What does the shooting community alone pros]duce in revenue PA,not to mind membership??Not to mind the same people have multi membership of various different anti groups so it is a very flexible count on how many people there actually are..
Facebook friends of thousands,
..Point being??You can have lots of online friends,but do they do anything useful??



Better get supporting all fieldsports then ,as divide and conqueor,and constant water dripping wears away a stone,which is another anti tactic.They look long term gain,we dont .:(

Tell me Tippfan..Are you an anti or do you just like playing Devils advocate??:)

Dream on Grizzly. The Facebook "friends" who follow various animal welfare causes are obviously active as witness the vast numbers of emnails TDs say they're getting from opponents of fieldsports (coursing and foxhunting), excluding shooting. The internet has changed the whole ballgame.

Re ICABS and its structure. I understand it has those official members, directors, paid-up "subscribers" or supporter...and then a greater number of unpaying regular supporters who keep track of things on the organisation's website and write in response to various appeals. If these latter people are included ICABS could be deemed to have in excess of 15,000 supporters, and that's not allowing for members of the public who happen to hold an anti-bloodsports view.

The pro-fieldsports supporters are another matter. Many people who back one fieldsport won't always support another, sometimes from lack of interest bit also, in other cases, from concern about cruelty. It's a matter of personal preference.

Sparks

TippFan77 wrote: »

Dream on Grizzly. The Facebook "friends" who follow various animal welfare causes are obviously active as witness the vast numbers of emnails TDs say they're getting from opponents of fieldsports (coursing and foxhunting), excluding shooting. The internet has changed the whole ballgame.

While I agree that the internet has been a game-changer, I have to say I disagree with pretty much everything else you're saying there. Firstly, ICABS hides its statistics on Facebook, but similar groups such as "Ban all Blood Sports in Ireland" and "Ban the Ward Union hunt" have 436 and 354 'friends' respectively (for comparison "Shooting" has 2114 'friends', "Shooting stuff" has 2509 and so on (edit: You might note that "Hunting" has well over a million...).

Based on this, I think I would question your initial claimed statistics until they are openly published without requiring someone to add themselves to the list of ICABS supporters to read those same statistics.

Secondly, you cannot claim high activity levels from those 'friends' without some more direct means of measurement. And even with that proviso, I do not accept a politician's statement that he is receiving "vast numbers" of emails as a quantitative statement, let alone a verified one. After all, we had many statements from politicians that told us that the IMF wasn't going to be bailing out the economy...

Re ICABS and its structure. I understand it has those official members, directors, paid-up "subscribers" or supporter...and then a greater number of unpaying regular supporters who keep track of things on the organisation's website and write in response to various appeals. If these latter people are included ICABS could be deemed to have in excess of 15,000 supporters, and that's not allowing for members of the public who happen to hold an anti-bloodsports view.

You are spreading the net rather wide there without much in the way of justification.
Official members and directors, that's perfectly acceptable. Paid-up subscribers are also obviously supporters. I would question only those political appointments to honorary positions like "President" as such appointments typically do not demonstrate a great affinity for the organisation or its goals (for example, despite the Queen being the patron of the NSRA, she did not visit any shooting ranges in Ireland on her recent visit, nor has she been to Bisley Camp in quite some time).

Your unpaid "regular supporters" however, I question strongly. Unless you have some means to verify them, you have no way to differentiate between real supporters (of whom I have no doubt, you have quite a few); non-supporters who come across your website by chance or design but in either case do not support your goals; and automated searchbots (who would account on my relatively insignificant sites for several hundred hits per day). More detailed statistics would be required, therefore, before anyone could accept your claim of 15,000 or any figure remotely close to it.

The pro-fieldsports supporters are another matter. Many people who back one fieldsport won't always support another, sometimes from lack of interest bit also, in other cases, from concern about cruelty. It's a matter of personal preference.

While it's indeed a true point, it's also true of the anti-fieldsports campaigners. Some wish only to see fox hunting with hounds banned and strongly support fox hunting with firearms. Some oppose hunting rabbits with firearms (mostly from a less grounded basis, I personally believe, but that's my own belief). Some oppose all hunting of all animals. And as your ex-President Alan Shatter has recently demonstrated by supporting a ban on hare coursing but refusing to break the party whip on overturning the ban on the ward union hunt, this division runs all the way to the top of the organisation.

And all in both camps are averse to cruelty, it should be noted. The camps are divided, not on the basis of whether or not cruelty is acceptable - both agree it is not - but on what is and is not cruel.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=TippFan77;72625286]Dream on Grizzly. The Facebook "friends" who follow various animal welfare causes are obviously active as witness the vast numbers of emnails TDs say they're getting from opponents of fieldsports (coursing and foxhunting), excluding shooting. The internet has changed the whole ballgame.

I think Sparks answerd that more succiently than I would.

Re ICABS and its structure. I understand it has those official members, directors, paid-up "subscribers" or supporter...and then a greater number of unpaying regular supporters who keep track of things on the organisation's website and write in response to various appeals.

Six directors,there is NO offical members as ICABS doesnt issue a membership card.You become a member by giving them 15 quid!!
And appx two dozen hard core letter writers..As going by the same faces that pop up on the website pics,and of other groups too bTW.

If these latter people are included ICABS could be deemed to have in excess of 15,000 supporters, and that's not allowing for members of the public who happen to hold an anti-bloodsports view.

You accuse ME of dreaming ????:D:D Where are these 15,000 supporters at these demos??They cant put between ICABS,AFAR,ARAN,HSAI[and various organisations founded by BWrigt],CACS 70 people at the biggest event of coursing Clonmel for the last year.Year before was cancelled because ICABS couldnt get down because of snow.17 Thousand attended Clonmel despite snow!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Even in the Uk,where they claimed to have an overall majority,how many showed up at the million march demos?? Or here in Waterford,10 BO hairies from ARAN skulking under their banner when a camera was pointed at them??
Your math is still faulty.. to qualify as supporters they would have to have paid their dues.. 15,000 X15 euros = 225,000 euros.Doing a Pss Poor job then on runing any sort of viable opposition with that coming in:)

As for the public views,I'm sure now the majority couldnt give two figs about this,as they dont seem to be too bothered about showing up to protest about "cruelty".But more about getting a job and work.Demoing about foxhunting doesnt pay the bills.Maybe ICABS needs to invest in some new opinion polls in the 21st century,not the last one??:pac:


BTW here is their company registration office details from www.cro.ie
A nice public service that anyone can check.If anyone wants their latest returns it costs 3.50 euros online:) You can back order their previous filings too.I doubt that you will find they have 225 k or anything like it in the locker..
Details

TypeCompanyNumber114126NameIRISH COUNCIL AGAINST BLOOD SPORTSAddress244 GREENPARK MEADOWS
MULLINGAR
CO. WESTMEATH
Registered15/05/1986StatusNormal

Effective date: 15/05/1986Last AR Date31/03/2010</SPAN>Next AR Date31/03/2011

The pro-fieldsports supporters are another matter. Many people who back one fieldsport won't always support another, sometimes from lack of interest bit also, in other cases, from concern about cruelty. It's a matter of personal preference.

Indeed ,however I bet that the pro fieldsports lobby are now copping on to the fact that it is ALL our fight,not just foxhunting,coursing,or whatever.The anti lobby has attacked everything to do with fieldsports and animals.so it is no great feat to see their Utopian Luddite views of what they want wether you hunt or keep a gold fish.

Fact is ICABS&Co are a overblown bubble.They dont have the manpower,political pull,money or public opinion,despite Xthousands on Facebook.you dont change things by just likeing each others facebook,you need feet on the streets.FFS even the Sub Saharaian Middle East found that out.Facebook is a tool ,not a actual movement.
And public opinion is fickle,we hold the moral high ground too.We dont need a fascist terrorist grouping who baseball bat,burn down,deal in drugs and vandalise private property to make our points.Considering that two main heads in Ireland have already had brushes with the law in their past.

They do have more media savvy,and better contacts,but we are on a learning curve.;)

pedroeibar1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

BTW here is their company registration office details from www.cro.ie
A nice public service that anyone can check.If anyone wants their latest returns it costs 3.50 euros online:) You can back order their previous filings too.I doubt that you will find they have 225 k or anything like it in the locker..
Details

TypeCompanyNumber114126NameIRISH COUNCIL AGAINST BLOOD SPORTSAddress244 GREENPARK MEADOWS
MULLINGAR
CO. WESTMEATH
Registered15/05/1986StatusNormal

Effective date: 15/05/1986Last AR Date31/03/2010</SPAN>Next AR Date31/03/2011

The last accounts on file are to June 2008, so the figures would be three years out of date. Also, they are late in filing their annual return, and as a result are incurring a Euro3 per day fine, plus the €100 late filing fee. Already the cost has increased by about 250 quid! What would ICABS caring members think about how their subscriptions are being wasted on fines imposed due to inefficiency?:D:D:D

(Just to cheer you up, Grizz )
Rs
P.

Sparks

So far that's six letters to three papers (with slight variations on each) over the last three weeks, and seven published, mostly in the Examiner. That's almost 50% (and I'm guessing it will get to 50% in the next day or two) from just one or three people's efforts.

I think the point's made that we can get published not just as much as ICABS, but even more than them; we just need to write in...

Sparks

And we're going to get a nice bit of PR in the Examiner now, off one of those letters. Which shows that the interest is there, we just need to ask...


...so how about we ask?