Stu you are right of coarse with your stats not very clear just like every thig else at this moment in the FC .Now lets suppose you are correct the FC have not shot them selves in the foot as you discribe but infact gave them selves a garanteed position in the forseable future.With 12,000 hes to be planted every year for the next 10 years under the CSGN scheme and others.
The governemt wil need to pay commision rangers contractors millions of pounds to take up the short fall of none trained deer stalkers and the bosses will be running it all in a transparant manner. The only people shooting there self in the foot is the MSP,s who keep signing bits of new legislation so that it makes it harder for a standard hard working tax payer to stalk on public ground.
PLEASE REMEBER ONLY 17% OF THE NATIONAL FOREST IS GIVEN OUT TO LEASES.
That comment is mere supposition David and you may well be correct in what you say.
In my view The F.C are failing in both forestry protection as well as there duties to the tax payer of which we as deer managers foresee whats happening.
I understand why they are imposing such restrictions on those controlling deer, its because we are living in a suing society ,If you fart and someone turns the nose up you get sued today thats fact, and as a government body the jobsworth boys are out in force to show to the tax payer that they have taken all the steps possible to protect them by engaging trained hunters out in the forest.
The general idea of training is a good one, but has major flaws in it.
At one time forest rangers would take out novice stalkers for a fee and the more these novices went out the more they became competent.
As we all know Defra have reduced funding to the likes of the F.C and others and you cant blame the F.C for having to re deploy those rangers to other duties, and financial restraints on employing labour means more has to come from the private sector.
To do the job that rangers used to do they cant let any Tom Dick or Harry wander round with a High Velocity Rifle can they? so a standard needs to be acceptable , which is now accepted and known as the DSC2.
Now this is were they system fails in that insufficient holders are available to fill those places on a lease as part of the conditions, so what needs to be looked at is an Exception to those who havent got the DSC2 over a period of time In my view the set period isnt long enough a period as I have personally found this a stumbling block in the past.
The way Forward (In my View)
Those who only are DSC1 registered but are on the lease should also be on a register with the F.C who can keep an up todate record of progression of those individuals and were a DSC2 candidate is lacking through whatever reason further assistance should be made available to complete.
It may be that the DSC2 candidate is involved in a syndicate that not a lot of deer are present on the ground ,and a further assistance from the F.C would be to place them with other syndicate members elseware so that the portfolio can be completed .
There are numerous reasons as to why candidates arnt completing the portfolio in time, it may be that there mentor or mentors have commitments that clash with possible arrangements, but the emphasis needs to be in more involvement in further training by the F.C afterall we are doing thierjob for them for nowt I might add ,Something they cant afford not for us to do it would as you say cost them millions to control the deer and protect the trees from damage thats fact.
Just my take on how things should progress by imposing conditions and restrictions on the leases as they stand they could not pay me enough money never mind me paying them.
Kind regards
Stuart