The PR chap at the Countryside Alliance tweeted earlier today that a “little bird” had told him that the League had only 4,700 members. We tweeted back to ask if he’d shot the bird, but he didn’t reply. Once again, the CA resort to anything rather than talking about the real issues, such as the wanton cruelty to wildlife that they seek to reintroduce. But then, backing a loser’s never something to shout about.
Perhaps he should’ve shot the “little bird”, not least for giving him such incorrect information. We certainly have more than 4,700 members, and whilst we don’t have the 300,000 as reported in The Independent recently, we do have almost 60,000 regular campaign supporters who very actively support our work.
The only 4,700 figure of relevance is the number of people who’ve so far watched the Celebrity Shock film via our YouTube channel. That doesn’t include all those who’ve watched it on our website, or the dozens of other websites and blogs where it’s embedded.
PS: If you’re not following us on Twitter yet, you can do so here.
League Against Cruel Sports 
gilesbradshaw said,
March 3, 2010 @ 9:23 am
How many members do you have then?
4,711? 4,765? Why don’t you tell us the exact figure?
It’s perfectly obvious what you are doing here. You have approximatly 4,700 members give or take a hundred or so.
That’s what enables you to make the claim “We certainly have more than 4,700 members”
As for your 60,000 supporters would you be kind enough to say where you get that figure from?
claireharrissmith said,
March 10, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
What does it matter to the countryside alliance or you for any matter? I have donated to LACS, I follow their progress etc, but have not actually joined, as I prefer to donate to lots of different charities when I have the money, rather than joining them all and paying a fixed fee once a year. I’m sure there are many who do the same thing . The countryside alliance offers insurance for hunting and most hunts insist that their members join before they are allowed to hunt so crowing about membership numbers is meaningless.
League Against Cruel Sports said,
March 3, 2010 @ 10:26 am
It’s perfectly clear that the CA are recycling an old story from 2007 – Tim Bonner tweeted that this morning. They have no idea of our actual member numbers.
The 60,000 supporters are registered on our databases including our key campaigning tool E-Activist and our supporter database Raiser’s Edge.
gilesbradshaw said,
March 3, 2010 @ 11:16 am
So you have a database with 60,000 names on it.
How many actual members did you say you had again?
You say it is more than 4,700 how much more? Roughly?
50? 60?
Has your membership gone up or down since 2007? By how much?
Accounts say membership income is £44,000
League Against Cruel Sports said,
March 3, 2010 @ 11:20 am
It’s rather more than a database, Giles. These are active campaigning supporters, and their numbers increase daily through people signing up on our website and through the Keep Cruelty History campaign.
Our membership numbers? Why don’t you ask the little bird at the Countryside Alliance? They claim to know!
After all, don’t forget that the membership income in our accounts doesn’t factor in honorary members or life members, for a start.
Keep guessing … unless you’ve got something better to be doing.
gilesbradshaw said,
March 3, 2010 @ 11:35 am
haha plenty ta, took my dogs down to the woods this morning. I have been giving any flushed out deer a break from being chased for a few weeks over the worst of the winter however looks like we are in for a sunny spell so I am going to start chasing them again.
My young collie chased a fine young buck about a month and a half ago, it jumped right over the stream, must have been about twelve foot 😀 😀
Also had a great day out following a hunt recently.
Oh and by the way if you remember I said I would prevent the hunt from shooting or chasing any flushed out deer on my land if you agreed not to prosecute me or them for refusing to kill any deer that were flushed out? Well they came and shot one.
The offer is still open. If you agree in writing not to prosecute me or the Hunt for refusing to kill animals on my land I will prevent them from chasing or shooting any flushed out animals and insist they allow them to escape without harm.
Over the years this agreement could save quite a few deer being shot.
It’s blatantly obvious that your figures are 4,700 or thereabouts and very funny.
PS passed a hunt on my bike yesterday – good to see them out in full force 😀
League Against Cruel Sports said,
March 3, 2010 @ 11:57 am
How predictable.
Plus ça change.
gilesbradshaw said,
March 3, 2010 @ 12:01 pm
Do you actually object to me breaking the Hunting act?
Surely it’s better all round for me not to shoot the deer?
It seems to me it is obvious that you know the law is flawed.
gilesbradshaw said,
March 3, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
I mean not being funny but basically it’s fine for people just to carry on breaking the law isn’t it?
You know it goes on and you allow it to as do the police and quite rightly.
You don;t actually have any argument against me breaking the law.
dersmart said,
March 3, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
The intention of the Hunting Act is to prevent the cruel use of dogs to chased down and tear apart wild animals for fun. If this isn’t what you are doing then you quite rightly will not be prosecuted. The reason for the shooting condition is to prevent the deer being killed by the dogs. It is quite clear that in your case there is no point in the deer being shot because there is no possibility of the dogs killing them. LACS and the police quite rightly concentrate on the hunts and not on other people who are only guilty of technical breaches of the law.
gilesbradshaw said,
March 3, 2010 @ 12:27 pm
@dersmart that’s exactly my point. The law shopud not make what I do illegal, it is badly drafted. That is why LACS and the police let me carry on.
I’ve asked the RSPCA and they see nothing wrong with me flushing deer with dogs.
claireharrissmith said,
March 10, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
So there you go then. Why do you keep bloody banging on about it?????