Why Not Qualifications to shoot other species?

Tamus

Well-Known Member
I mentioned this on another thread and got no takers. It would perhaps have been "off topic" to answer me or maybe my question was implied rather than asked specifally. So I ask again here.

Why do we in the UK not require a "Certificate" of competence to kill all the other game?

I realise it is not even mandatory for deer and will not become mandatory anytime soon, no matter what rumours there are. However, many seem to believe that the day is not far off when DSC1 will be a minimum statutory requirement before shooting deer would be lawfully permitted.

There is already a tendancy among some official bodies to require Deer Stalking Certificates (of competency) to be held e.g. various forestry groups require it prior to considering a candidate for a stalking tenancy and even the Police appear to be cottoning on to the idea of DSC as a desired/required qualification before granting a Firearms Certificate, for the possesion of a firearm to be used for taking deer..... and it always puzzles my why should only deer stalkers need the qualification?
 
Tamus

Are you wanting another "Certificate". This is how these things start. Too much hot air
 
Tamus

Are you wanting another "Certificate". This is how these things start. Too much hot air

That's a very telling response.

So, do we have an Elephant in the room and everyone wants to ignore it?

Do we really not actually approve of Qualification?... but will suffer what is imposed.

So, for goodness sake "shush" about any more of "bits of paper" because we've got away with it so far and maybe "they'll" not notice.

Come off it, "they" already notice. So what are the answers to my questions?
 
Tamus

I'm not saying it's right, but my guess is that within 10 years there will be something more like a generic "Hunter's Certificate" that will cover "any lawful quarry", much the same as the condition on the FAC. Whether this will be in place of, or in addition to, the current DSC1/DSC2 is the question. What I believe will bring us to this point will be the steady drip, drip, drip of accidents/injuries involving air rifles, foxing, etc.

As to why deer stalker's specifically need the qualification, it's more about the fact that what we shoot is, or could be, put into the food chain. The issue is that the connection between the DSC1, deer, food supply and FAC conditions has become muddled, at least in the eyes of some.

As I say, I'm not advocating this or saying it's right, it's just what I think will come to pass.

willie_gunn
 
Perhaps they should add boar a module to DSC1
They could do it for foxes, rabbits and crows, but I can see the badger module being a bit controversial! ;)
Next would be a DPPGSC1 - Driven Pheasant, Partridge and Grouse Shooting Certificate level 1.....
PWSC1 - Pigeon & Wildfowl Shooting Certificate level 1.....
 
Tamus

I'm not saying it's right, but my guess is that within 10 years there will be something more like a generic "Hunter's Certificate" that will cover "any lawful quarry", much the same as the condition on the FAC. Whether this will be in place of, or in addition to, the current DSC1/DSC2 is the question. What I believe will bring us to this point will be the steady drip, drip, drip of accidents/injuries involving air rifles, foxing, etc.

As to why deer stalker's specifically need the qualification, it's more about the fact that what we shoot is, or could be, put into the food chain. The issue is that the connection between the DSC1, deer, food supply and FAC conditions has become muddled, at least in the eyes of some.

As I say, I'm not advocating this or saying it's right, it's just what I think will come to pass.

willie_gunn

I could tell from your posts what a sensible man you are. I agree with you totally :D

By the way, much/most of what I shoot goes into the food chain. I usually kill several times a week but only shoot deer about once a month. So why deer get singled out for special treatment still puzzles me.

What you foresee is what our continental neighbours do already. One test, one Permit to Hunt, all species covered and it is a prerequite to gaining firearms ownership permission in many countries too and actually fast-tracks the process.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather cut straight to it than spend the next 20 years fannying around bolting on one bit at a time.
 
Last edited:
I think that of all the creatures/birds that are shot by sportsmen/vermin controllers deer hold a perhaps iconic position. They are a natural asset that requires to be managed. Bodies such as the Deer Commission Scotland (now covered by SNH) and British Deer Society developed/were appointed by Government to look after this asset. In respect to the animal and it's position within the countryside I would think it a natural step to be developed by these bodies that if culling is required it should be carried out by qualified deer managers who would ensure deer welfare and proper handling of the carcass. Specific legislation be passed to further safe guard this asset.
I do not think that DSC1 or 2 should be used as a level of competence to grant a firearm certificate even although a certain amount of firearm safety is included in obtaining these qualifications. After all somebody could apply for a "deer calibre" rifle but only intend to shoot boar/goats which are obviously not covered by DSC1 or 2. Should they be refused on the basis that they do not have DSC1.
I have been involved in many pheasant shoots where the birds are intended for the food chain. Although some shoots do take great care over carcass handling (one I know of returns birds to a chiller after each drive) I have also witnessed some horrendous practices both in carcass handling and gun safety.
IMO all grants of firearm certificates and shotgun certificates should be subject to obtaining a "qualification" in firearm handling and safety. Whether you thereafter wish to obtain qualifications specific to your intended quarry would be voluntary but could still be asked for by FC etc.
 
I think - and thats the operative word; not claiming fact - it comes down to a combination of things.

If I understand correctly BDS started up courses simply as a way of promoting good management and introducing new stalkers. At the time no intent of it evolving into DSC scheme or being particularly used as a national certifcation scheme. I attended the 5 day course run by Dieter Dent back in 1984. I think St Hubert club had things going well before this.

So part one answer is we have a deer certificate because interested bodies started the ball rolling. There wasnt a fox, rabbit etc body to do it.

Course evolved via NSCC to DSC1 etc and when subsequent EU regulation affected Food Chain side there was a ready made scheme for it to bolt on.

Not into pheasant side - but isnt there an equivalent Hygiene cert for feathered game?

My feeling is the DSC1/2 could be better - but it isnt all that bad as it stands and is providing a very useful service in thwarting a politically driven mandatory alternative. The absence of a similiar thing in other areas does potentially leave the door open.

Part 2 answer - its an imperfect world, housing imperfect people and managed by an imperfect system. Hence we get less than perfect/ seemingly incongruous results.
 
Although I would agree with the above from Willie, in that it is partly about large game entering the food chain, I suspect that the main driving force behind DSC training lies elsewhere!
Sadly, the insistance of many police forces advocating DSC training has nothing to do with food hygiene, or indeed, deer welfare.
It is purely the safety aspect! The police have a 'duty of care' towards the public when issuing firearms. So what is the difference betwen deer and other species? Absolutely nothing when it comes to welfare or the food chain!
So why the disparity?:confused:
I believe it is mainly due to the tools of our trade!
Shotguns, rimfires and air rifles, although potentially lethal, don't have the same 'aura' to them as a large high powered centrefire rifle with scope, bipod, moderator, expanding ammunition, etc......
We now live in a society where risk assessments are required for almost every activity we do, and everyone that is responsible for completing them is well aware of the consequences of litigation that may follow any incident.
We are at the top of the pile and the obvious place to begin with application of restrictions. You can also be sure that it won't stop there though!
MS:)
 
Last edited:
I think that of all the creatures/birds that are shot by sportsmen/vermin controllers deer hold a perhaps iconic position. They are a natural asset that requires to be managed. Bodies such as the Deer Commission Scotland (now covered by SNH) and British Deer Society developed/were appointed by Government to look after this asset. .

Aye! Thanks to the pioneering development of The Ecological Survey by Frank Fraser Darling, a sheep farmer.

As a consequence of his work the RED Deer Commission was formed in 1959, at a time when home produced food and timber were still deemed of paramount importance and Red deer had to be "managed" in the hills. I know. We can go all "Monarch of the Glen" if you like and I think deer are glorious animals myself but it was really about managing the environment to man's benefit, at first. The raison d'etre has perhaps escaped most folks attention, but not SNH's who'll still send in the "managers" given the excuse.

Slightly off topic... sorry
 
Shotguns, rimfires and air rifles, although potentially lethal, don't have the same 'aura' to them as a large high powered centrefire rifle with scope, bipod, moderator, expanding ammunition, etc......

I would agree but for the fact that every public incident, regardless of whether it's an air rifle, rimfire or centerfire involved, sees the media slinging out the collective term "sniper rifle". :rolleyes:

willie_gunn
 
I think - and thats the operative word; not claiming fact - it comes down to a combination of things.

If I understand correctly BDS started up courses simply as a way of promoting good management and introducing new stalkers. At the time no intent of it evolving into DSC scheme or being particularly used as a national certifcation scheme. I attended the 5 day course run by Dieter Dent back in 1984. I think St Hubert club had things going well before this.

So part one answer is we have a deer certificate because interested bodies started the ball rolling. There wasnt a fox, rabbit etc body to do it.

Course evolved via NSCC to DSC1 etc and when subsequent EU regulation affected Food Chain side there was a ready made scheme for it to bolt on.

Not into pheasant side - but isnt there an equivalent Hygiene cert for feathered game?

My feeling is the DSC1/2 could be better - but it isnt all that bad as it stands and is providing a very useful service in thwarting a politically driven mandatory alternative. The absence of a similiar thing in other areas does potentially leave the door open.

Part 2 answer - its an imperfect world, housing imperfect people and managed by an imperfect system. Hence we get less than perfect/ seemingly incongruous results.

Moray Outfitting is correct, Dieter Dent and Co. didn't want mandatory training they just wanted to try and imporve what we did and to try and share some experiance. Then DMQ came along and along with some of the organisations saw this as a good way of turning a shilling which is why Dent and others left and stopped running the courses.

I dont agree with any mandatory training, the British countryside is probably the best managed in Europe as a whole because private land owners (and those employed by them, or rent shooting / stalking / vermin) have traditionally done the job that is required locally. It would be interesting to see how many trainers who shout for this sort of thing would be willing to put people throught DSC1 / 2 for free, they usually say they care about the deer and want best practise but most (not all) are really just on the £ trail! That is why the WDSQ was split into DSC1 / 2.

The NGO have a Food Standard Agency game meat course that covers both large and small game and I think is the only one that does. The other thing to remember with the police and DSC training is that deer are covered under the Deer Act so they must be sure of saftey and that people understand the legislation that covers deer. However I think that could easily be done during the initial interview with the applicant.
 
Last edited:
Certification is the way forward, anything involving subjective judgement (initial interview with FEO for instance) is open to interpretation of an applicants ability. We read enough on here about firearms departments interpretation of home office guidance without giving yet another reason for 'testing' the applicant.
DSC1 currently gives the equivalent of a small game handling certificate and is sufficient to establish a persons ability to hold an FAC/SGC in my opinion. DSC2 goes that step further to establish a persons competence in handling a deer carcass to safely put it into the human food chain and in my opinion, will become the minimum standard for selling carcasses to game dealers in the future.
 
Tamus

They don't. What about small game and the need for a trained person, viz the Wild Game Meat Hygiene Level 2: http://www.lantra-awards.co.uk/training/wildgamemeathygiene.aspx

willie_gunn

Och Willie! :D

Of course you are right but you know what I mean too.

My deer stalking leases required DSC but they let me shoot every other lawful quarry without caring whether or not I have any qualification for them.


Monkey Spanker







Although I would agree with the above from

Willie, in that it is partly about large game entering the food chain, I
suspect
that the main driving force behind DSC training lies
elsewhere!
Sadly, the
insistance of many police forces advocating DSC
training has nothing to do with
food hygiene, or indeed, deer welfare.
It
is purely the safety aspect! The
police have a 'duty of care' towards the
public when issuing firearms. So what
is the difference betwen deer and
other species? Absolutely nothing when it
comes to welfare or the food
chain!
So why the disparity?:confused:
I

believe it is mainly due to the tools of our trade!
Shotguns, rimfires
and
air rifles, although potentially lethal, don't have the same 'aura' to
them as a
large high powered centrefire rifle with scope, bipod, moderator,
expanding
ammunition, etc......
We now live in a society where risk
assessments are
required for almost every activity we do, and everyone that
is responsible for
completing them is well aware of the consequences of
litigation that may follow
any incident.
We are at the top of the pile
and the obvious place to begin
with application of restrictions. You can
also be sure that it won't stop there
though!

There you are MS... we do tend to agree. Except....I'm not sure it is really is just about "the tools of our trade" although I've no doubt that is a factor. I mean, as above.... how come the Firearms licensing office never even mention qualification to use rifle on fox, other vermin or for the humane killing of livestock and other animals? Only deer get "The Treatment".

Yours, still puzzled~Tom
 
Klumk

ESC1 - along with Leopard, tiger, cape buff etc - are all self monitoring systems. Anyone failing the shooting test has no opportunity to resit:D
 
how qualified does a person have to be to shoot a rabbit?

Have to be? Or should be?

I'd say, for should be, about the same as for any other animal you want to shoot safely and humanely and then eat.

Of course, that could be anywhere from no actual qualification at all to being educated to university degree standard, depending on who's judging you and why.
 
Have to be? Or should be?

I'd say, for should be, about the same as for any other animal you want to shoot safely and humanely and then eat.

Of course, that could be anywhere from no actual qualification at all to being educated to university degree standard, depending on who's judging you and why.

well in that case I suggest that no qualification is necessary.
 
Back
Top