Should DMQ 1 be law?

Should training be law?


  • Total voters
    0

RED-DOT

Well-Known Member
I have a mate that shoots at eyes and usually wounds, he doesn't observe seasons as the farmers says to shoot the roe on a newly planted Xmas tree buisness that has paying stalkers visit. He shoots at night and knows nothing of deer welfare or mangement. He pays £500 a year into a syndicate that hasn't a gun in it worth of owning a shotgun. He uses a Finnlght .222 that kicks like a mule and spits bullets all over the paper, i can't zero it!! He is a perfect case for imposing some sort of training before being allowed a firearm. I have been called out my bed on a few occasions to humanely despatch roe that has run on...
 
Last edited:
This has got to be a wind up - nobody has mates like that. After all we are all judged by the company that we keep.
DMQ has no bearing on it, someone like that just shouldn't have a certificate , no arguement about it.
 
Every Tom, Dick and Harry have gots rifles down here. Subsequently a lot of poaching goes on and people are ruining everyone elses management of deer. An ongoing thing round here, where we are lucky to have probably the worlds 2nd best popualtion of Jap Sika, is people shooting all the big stags. Someone gets a good farm and shoots the hell out of the stags purely for the wonga. A recent thing last rut was a chap had 3 people out on a Saturday/Sunday and they managed 21 decent stags between them from 6 am till 7pm! Left alone it would take a few good years to recover but as he still has the ground it is sad to say it never will.
 
Last edited:
I am with BASC on this. It should not be compulsory. If your "mate" is night shooting without a license, he should lose his FAC. If he is perpetually wounding deer, you should have a quiet word in his shell like orifice and teach him the error of his ways. If he won't listen I bet his FEO would.

ft

Edit; "He uses a Finnlght .222 that kicks like a mule and spits bullets all over the paper"? A triple 2 that kicks??????? You jest, surely.............................................
 
Last edited:
I have a mate that shoots at eyes and usually wounds, he doesn't observe seasons as the farmers says to shoot the roe on a newly planted Xmas tree buisness that has paying stalkers visit. He shoots at night and knows nothing of deer welfare or mangement. He pays £500 a year into a syndicate that hasn't a gun in it worth of owning a shotgun. He uses a Finnlght .222 that kicks like a mule and spits bullets all over the paper, i can't zero it!! He is a perfect case for imposing some sort of training before being allowed a firearm. I have been called out my bed on a few occasions to humanely despatch roe that has run on...

What difference is a DMQ going to make to your mate and others like him/her? A DMQ will not stop that, the rifle could be acquired for fox shooting for example. Therefore bypassing the deer issue. They could then contimue with their illegal shootings.


It's a shame when the good majority are hindered by the wreckless few and all the paper work that ensues in attempting to control them.

I fear for the future where too many people are pushed down the DMQ route. I do not have a formal certificate and have not needed one. The only reason I'm looking into getting a certificate is to get my name down on a stalking lease in the future.

DMQ/DSC are excellent, from what I can see. But I do not believe that they should be compulsory.
 
I have a mate that shoots at eyes and usually wounds, he doesn't observe seasons as the farmers says to shoot the roe on a newly planted Xmas tree buisness that has paying stalkers visit. He shoots at night and knows nothing of deer welfare or mangement. He pays £500 a year into a syndicate that hasn't a gun in it worth of owning a shotgun. He uses a Finnlght .222 that kicks like a mule and spits bullets all over the paper, i can't zero it!! He is a perfect case for imposing some sort of training before being allowed a firearm. I have been called out my bed on a few occasions to humanely despatch roe that has run on...

i sympathise with you, i live 20 miles south of you and have experienced a similar standard by experienced local guns.
i did my level one and now starting level two.
it wont make a difference to make anything law as if your bad your bad and thats it.

i voted yes...

f.
 
i sympathise with you, i live 20 miles south of you and have experienced a similar standard by experienced local guns.
i did my level one and now starting level two.
it wont make a difference to make anything law as if your bad your bad and thats it.

i voted yes...

f.

centralbeltstalker,

Definaltely not a dig... however... why yes if you agree that if you're bad you're bad? Would there be a tanjible benefit?

Thanks,

DC
 
centralbeltstalker,

Definaltely not a dig... however... why yes if you agree that if you're bad you're bad? Would there be a tanjible benefit?

Thanks,

DC


DC

no dig taken,

answer i dont know, i dont want to see it harder for us to get either a licence or stalking rights.
i voted yes because i would like to think we can change some attitudes and some bad practices

no matter how big a task that is
 
DC

no dig taken,

answer i dont know, i dont want to see it harder for us to get either a licence or stalking rights.
i voted yes because i would like to think we can change some attitudes and some bad practices

no matter how big a task that is

Centralbeltstalker,

Although I may not agree with your vote, I certainly agree with your logic. Thanks.

DC
 
i have just checked the polling on this topic and i think that there should be more training before anybody gets a firearm as i come across more people than most with fac`s etc and i am not just saying this but a 1/3 should not have them.
may be take a leaf out of the germans book because it takes time to do the revalent courses and does sort out the serious ones out. it is our sport/liveryhood at stake and as we all know it does not take much for the antis to jump on the band wagon.

chrisc
 
If it is to be law then it should not in any way be connected with DMQ at all. It should be a government set test, administered by the police, with a small modest fee. With no input from DMQ.

Indeed if there are to be tests then maybe they should test only on what is relevant to England for English FAC holders and relevant only to Scotland for Scottish FAC holders. With a "visitor's hunting licence" required (and no test) if you wish to shoot across the border in the other country?

It despairs me to see so many seeking to use one example of bad behaviour to seek to build their own little empires. They should be ashamed.

The whole stinking attitude of "nobody should be allowed to do anything that I don't do...and then only in the way that I say they should do it".

The right to enjoy sporting shooting in this country is not the gift of any self-appointed coterie or clique seeking to aggrandise itself.
 
Your Poll asks 'should training be law' so I have voted Yes. I believe some training is necessary as this is not an art you can just learn, but not necessarily DSC 1. I believe a period of mentoring by an approved competant person is often worth more than DSC 1. Level 1 is purely theory with a basic shooting test. I personally wouldn't have a 'mate' like that. He would very quickly be an 'Ex Mate'. You could easily become a victim of guilt by association if not carefull.
I'm also curious as to why this is in the Equipment and Accessories threads?????:confused:
 
DMQ was never intended to be a compulsory test, by my interpritation anyhoo. What i noticed when i did my level 1 was that 50% of the guys on it were doing it to satisfy the police for having a full bore rifle. I dont agree with the police insisting that this is a MUST do in order to get your FAC or full bore granted. I dont know where i stand on pre cursory training for FAC grant, in my case it would have been frustrating, being around firearms all my life and then made to do a test before im allowed one. although this is an individual view, i do think that too many people with no fieldcraft or countryside awareness are getting rifles. i think a mentor scheme may be better. anyone can learn the DSC1 questions and hit a target.. only my 2ps worth...
 
we now have training for everything,angle grinders,chain saws,JCB,etc,etc. why not a rifle!! ime not a person thats thinking,ime trained so you have to be!! ect,ect. ime thinking in the future of our sport and to protect it!! having said that would it stop nutters getting rifles/guns (there are plenty on youtube that show us in a bad light!!) i just don't know what would be best really!:-|
 
Speaking as someone coming from a target shooting background into stalking there is already a requirement for training prior to an FAC being granted. I had to join a club (in fact I joined 4!) and do a set period of probation. The least the probationary period can be for a non FAC holder is three months with some clubs using six months as the bar. During this time it is the clubs responsibility to train you and monitor your progress and at the end of the probationary period decide if you are a fit and safe person to use a firearm. At this point full membership is granted and only then can you apply for an FAC using the club's name.

I know it is different for those of us lucky enough to already have access to land and I would support some sort of compulsory training across the board but thought it was worth pointing out that training was already compulsory for paper punchers.
 
btw. I voted yes for training to be law - not regarding dsc1 but across the board. Regardless of how experienced any of us are with firearms they are lethal weapons and there should, I think, be some sort of measure of ability.
 
Back
Top