Ronin
Distinguished Member
It would, but the “standard “ is set at DSC1 - 100 yard max otherwise the test would be at another distance shooting prone ,,,
Ethics ….
- Thread starter Ronin
- Start date
It would, but the “standard “ is set at DSC1 - 100 yard max otherwise the test would be at another distance shooting prone ,,,
Ronin
Distinguished Member
Scenario 1 - been present during tests where there has been one to one coaching during the three distances shot
Ethical to put a person forwards for the test with zero experience of live fire
I wonder
DSC1 used to be four days
Three pretty full on classroom days including firearms safety and ballistics
One day safety test and shooting test
If you had a decent instructor there would be the opportunity to practice the Friday afternoon before the final weekend
Very rarely we’re there ever non fac holders / rifle owners
Ethical to put a person forwards for the test with zero experience of live fire
I wonder
DSC1 used to be four days
Three pretty full on classroom days including firearms safety and ballistics
One day safety test and shooting test
If you had a decent instructor there would be the opportunity to practice the Friday afternoon before the final weekend
Very rarely we’re there ever non fac holders / rifle owners
Last edited:
Ronin
Distinguished Member
DMQ1, coaching during pactice, no coaching during the test, as per DMQ2 if you have to instruct the assessment stops.
Range day, practice and stretching your ability, a long shot is occasionally required for a injured deer, or should be leave it to suffer if we can't get with X yards
There lies the question
Without stretching abilities and learning to take longer shots - Whixh is frowned upon by one’s “betters” the answer would be let the animal go suffering the pain of a non lethal or no incapacitating shot and follow up several hours later with a dog -then dispatch if you can locate it
This is the presumption one reads into the assertion you should not train for longer shots
I question why people want to by-pass the for want of a word "apprenticeship " and go straight into stalking with little or none background of time spent in the field.
The general rule of thumb with learning is time taken to add each piece of information together.
It has been like that since the start of time and people now want and do by-pass it.
Then there is the "well why should they not crowd"
Why not because it takes a long time to understand what is safe and the long ****ing list that goes with shooting.
Shooting is the easy bit having the depth/background to deal with or prevent something going wrong is the hard part.
trickie
Well-Known Member
The problem with a survey is:
People who enter do so with their agenda, not the agenda of the survey setting org.
This means that unless you ask for an FAC number and confirm it (data protection issue). The anti’s can and will submit votes as well as votes from the whole range of shooters, not just stalkers.
How many replies were received from non shooters to the recent request for comments on the future of shooting. People always try to push their agenda.
Nothing is simple, as 10 blokes, what’s the best beer and why
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
When I did my DSC1 20 odd years ago the majority of candidates had had some Stalking experience, many quite considerable. It was a properly good educational experience with really good instructors who acted as tutors and really out good discussion on all the topics.
We all came feeling that our understanding of all aspects of deer stalking had been considerably improved.
From what I gather, many DSC1 courses are teaching you the answers to the questions so you pass the tests.
As a hunting / fieldsports community I really do think we need to move into the 21st century. Long gone are the days when fieldsports knowledge was handed down from parents and the wider community. Most of the British population do not make a living from the land, are not trained in agriculture or the biological sciences and few have the practical expertise.
And very few no have had basic field skills, weapons skills etc from basic military training on cadets, ccf or military service. When I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s most grown ups had had very real life experience of firearms- WW2, Korea, Malaya, Rhodesia, The Troubles were all close at hand.
I really do think that there needs to be a proper hunter education programme that is there for all fieldsports giving all new entrants, and existing participants are really good understanding of the law, the ethics and traditions, the different species, their behaviour, requirements and management etc. and you need to be competent with the firearms and other tools that are being used.
It pretty much any other walk of life or recreation there are schools, training etc with recognised levels of proficiency etc.
Do we need it? Absolutely in my view. You only need to watch the types of questions that are repeatedly asked on this forum. Pretty much all would be covered in basic hunter education.
And I mean education, not just passing a tick box test.
kenbro
Well-Known Member
What are these Meters you speak of, gas meters electric meters or measurement metres?
Ken.
I think that this thread raises some interesting and important points. With regard to question 1, I genuinely feel that annual skills testing is the way forwards for two reasons. Firstly it focuses the mind for everyone, but particularly the stalkers who only use their rifle to shoot deer and only shoot a target once every blue moon when they inexplicably miss or place a shot badly. Secondly it shows that there is a culture of responsibility in the deer management world. Imagine your landowner being sued for an injury caused by a stalker. The barrister asks the question “so when was Mr Stalker last assessed for his ability to use a firearm safely and accurately?” I suspect if the answer is more than two years ago they would be on a sticky wicket and certainly if the answer was “well he passed his DSC1 test in 1998” the prosecution would be rubbing their hands together with glee!
One large landowner that I stalk for has done just this and instituted mandatory skills testing which has gone down poorly with some. If we accept the comments so far that the DSC1 test sets a low bar then if you fail then quite simply you shouldn’t be shooting deer until you can pass each and every time.
Scenario 2 boils down to the level of experience of the person to a large extent. If you take an experienced stalker who works in a professional manner and has to adhere to cull targets then the longer range practice seems very sensible to be able to mop up the mistakes that can happen from time to time. I suspect less experienced observers see it as encouraging the coconut shy mentality of having a go and worrying about consequences later. My personal opinion is that all practice is useful and particularly so if the shooter is taken from their comfort zone, whether by range, shooting position, climatic conditions or time pressure.
Perhaps a voluntary skills test and CPD record should be developed and encouraged?
One large landowner that I stalk for has done just this and instituted mandatory skills testing which has gone down poorly with some. If we accept the comments so far that the DSC1 test sets a low bar then if you fail then quite simply you shouldn’t be shooting deer until you can pass each and every time.
Scenario 2 boils down to the level of experience of the person to a large extent. If you take an experienced stalker who works in a professional manner and has to adhere to cull targets then the longer range practice seems very sensible to be able to mop up the mistakes that can happen from time to time. I suspect less experienced observers see it as encouraging the coconut shy mentality of having a go and worrying about consequences later. My personal opinion is that all practice is useful and particularly so if the shooter is taken from their comfort zone, whether by range, shooting position, climatic conditions or time pressure.
Perhaps a voluntary skills test and CPD record should be developed and encouraged?
Rubbish, as for the first part based on what you say would you include the thousands of people doing free pest control work for farms who account for far more quarry than all the stalkers put together.
Farms would grind to a halt with some one like yourself in charge running around with a H-Vis jacket clip board and blowing your whistle.
I could see it now....Er Mr Digweed could you take a test before you shoot our pigeons please...
The clip board hi viz gang is why most projects run behind over budget and generally cause misery to all involved.
On my DSC1 shooting test the guy with the FC H-viz jacket failed to see people who had turned left off a foot path instead of right and was walking towards the target area... I clocked them and was shooting to all people stop shooting...****ing hopeless.
Yes, in absolutely I would if they are using a centrefire rifle... If you are a competent and safe shot then you will pass the DSC 1 shooting test easily, and I'm pretty confident Mr Digweed would somehow scrape through. If you dont pass and/or if you show inadequately safe firearms handling during the test then you have no business shooting regardless of whether or not you are shooting for free. Bear in mind there has been a consistently high failure rate of the DSC1 shooting test where the FC or Woodland Trust have undertaken skills testing for deer leases, often failures happen due to unsafe firearms handling and /or inconsistent marksmanship. If you cant pass the DSC1 test on demand, what chance have you got of making consistently humane shots in the field?
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
In many countries there is a regular mandatory shooting test and if you don’t pass, no hunting license. They are not difficult - you are not expected to be an olympic standard shot. You are expected to be able to put bullets through the killzone at 100m.
When I did my DSC1 there were 3 or 4 professional full time deer stalkers / game keepers who failed the shooting and safety test.
What colour of Hi-Vis do you have....
Agree with much of the sentiment/ comment expressed above.
I’m of a mind that availability/ opportunity plays a part?
A lot of folk can, relatively easily, book onto a dsc1 and get walked/ coached through it without experience of pulling the trigger on live quarry.
A lot less folk can, relatively easily, access ranges over 200m for practise on those longer shots that we all hope not to need to take but experience sadly teaches us we need to be able to if necessary.
So, I don’t think 1 is particularly ethical but it’s going to happen. I also think we need to improve access to longer range practice opportunities. Especially in the ****ing wet windy conditions we love to do so well here. Because at some point, for the sake of the animal, you might need to take such a shot with some degree of confidence.
With the best of endeavours, we can all cock up a relatively straight shot.
I’m of a mind that availability/ opportunity plays a part?
A lot of folk can, relatively easily, book onto a dsc1 and get walked/ coached through it without experience of pulling the trigger on live quarry.
A lot less folk can, relatively easily, access ranges over 200m for practise on those longer shots that we all hope not to need to take but experience sadly teaches us we need to be able to if necessary.
So, I don’t think 1 is particularly ethical but it’s going to happen. I also think we need to improve access to longer range practice opportunities. Especially in the ****ing wet windy conditions we love to do so well here. Because at some point, for the sake of the animal, you might need to take such a shot with some degree of confidence.
With the best of endeavours, we can all cock up a relatively straight shot.
Glos will not condition for deer until you can evidence a minimum of at least six (poss 5 I can’t remember) large animal kills.
Whilst not in legislation or guidance possibly not a bad criteria to at least go some way to ensuring the person they are conditioning has some degree of experience.
Whilst not in legislation or guidance possibly not a bad criteria to at least go some way to ensuring the person they are conditioning has some degree of experience.
I suspect it's convenience, 100m being not to bad to arrange on a field with a good backstop and not too far to walk to get the targets. Or it's the 1mo at 100. There used to be a Highland DSC1 prune at 150. As it's now dropped to only 6 shots it's value as a test is potentially diminished, although the humane dispatch is a good inclusion.
Ronin
Distinguished Member
Thabk you for the comments and discussion
Is it ethical that an organisation allows DSC1 to be conducted “outside the guidelines” - ie No coaching during the test yet refuses to encourage or endorse professional development of skills base for longer shots should there be a necessity Following a wounding and still mobile animal
Poor initial training followed by poor due diligence training (or none in this instance)
Pass the test - Pat on the head and certificate and off you go
Yet nothing in place countrywide for further development (outside of the framework of professional deer manager course) which really is only suited to “professionals”
Is it ethical that an organisation allows DSC1 to be conducted “outside the guidelines” - ie No coaching during the test yet refuses to encourage or endorse professional development of skills base for longer shots should there be a necessity Following a wounding and still mobile animal
Poor initial training followed by poor due diligence training (or none in this instance)
Pass the test - Pat on the head and certificate and off you go
Yet nothing in place countrywide for further development (outside of the framework of professional deer manager course) which really is only suited to “professionals”
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Indeed so.
My motorbike test was postponed because the examiner told a candidate to do just that and when he arrived back he (the examiner) would test his emergency braking (I think they used to call it coming to a halt with the use of brakes and gears or some such nonsense) by stepping onto the roadside which in due course he did.
Only it was another biker, who ran over said examiner.
Absolutely true story.
You got me thinking about the clipboard wielding folk so looked at some figures. If you look at the attached graph of workplace deaths there is a pretty obvious trend since the “good old days”. Perhaps the health and safety does slow things down but it does appear to have made the world safer which has got to be a good thing….. hasn’t it ??
Attachments
Similar threads
