Voluntary Annual Assessment - Poll

[Crowstalker]

In theory it's a reasonable idea but how long would it be till these become mandatory and then drift into other areas of shooting?

 

[RJD]

While I do agree that is what should occur, perhaps attending a few range days might open your eyes. The number of time 'ah it'd be a dead deer' are uttered after a stalker approaches a shotgun esque target is astounding.

Many do not self limit and would not pass a DSC One test if made to do one again.

I used to be a member of the local military range but the politics, waffle about reloading, terrifying lack of awareness and safety and worst of all the fact that the carpark blocked you in so you were stuck listening to claptrap until you could get out was awful.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

Yeh I don’t believe that I’m afraid.

Well I don't know what to tell you then - I am only reporting what I've seen helping on/organising range days for stalkers!

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

And many who could would wobble at a nice roe buck or red stag….. no amount of paper punching prepares you for that. While you’re adding things to the necessary qualifications list, how about filed craft (I bet many would fail this), safe use of knives, suspended gralloch protocol, shooting a target doesn’t prepare you to effectively manage deer or any other living quarry, getting out stalking/rabbit shooting whatever it is, does though.
Mistakes are what we learn by, I’m not too proud to acknowledge that over my nearly 20 years of stalking there have been things I’ve done wrong and learned from, the least of that learning has been target shooting.

I do agree - no artificial training will be a replacement for the real thing, but failure to do it at an artificial level will almost certainly be replicated in real terms, there's no avoiding that.

And yes the above are good skills to practice and be good at, but none of those have an effect on deer welfare, unlike the marksmanship element?

 

[Rake Aboot]

I do agree - no artificial training will be a replacement for the real thing, but failure to do it at an artificial level will almost certainly be replicated in real terms, there's no avoiding that.

And yes the above are good skills to practice and be good at, but none of those have an effect on deer welfare, unlike the marksmanship element?

Absolutely untrue.
Total rubbish actually.
Sorry for pointing that out but you know , just before you grab a bigger shovel.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

In theory it's a reasonable idea but how long would it be till these become mandatory and then drift into other areas of shooting?

Would we have not seen that with DSC Two if that was a likely outcome though?

After all only 17.188% of those who have done DSC One have completed DSC Two (Source: DMQ, data correct as per 13/01/24)?

 

[enfieldspares]

Nobody should be allowed to do what I don't myself do. And then only under the strictest of controls. Blah, blah, blah. And so become laid the foundation stones of self-created empires.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

Absolutely untrue.
Total rubbish actually.
Sorry for pointing that out but you know , just before you grab a bigger shovel.

So you're saying someone who cannot consistently hit a target under range conditions (which others highlight correctly are easier than field conditions) will miraculously be able to do so in worse conditions with added pressure if the target is a deer?

I can't say I see the logic in that personally so please can you expand on that?

 

[Rake Aboot]

You stated that failure to practice on targets would lead to bad shooting on live animals

I said , rubbish.

 

[Dickie]

There are plenty of people out there who can put bullet on bullet at a paper target and successfully cull deer on there own, but when out with a guide looking over their shoulder and having put a chunk of their own cash feel the pressure.
I expect there are plenty who would feel the pressure when trying this assessment yet have probably put plenty in the larder when away from the added pressure and good clean carcasses at that.

 

[deerstalker.308]

So you're saying someone who cannot consistently hit a target under range conditions (which others highlight correctly are easier than field conditions) will miraculously be able to do so in worse conditions with added pressure if the target is a deer?

I can't say I see the logic in that personally so please can you expand on that?

The two are poles apart, I’ve known plenty who can shoot a deer but put them on paper and they overthink things. The two do not always compute.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

Nobody should be allowed to do what I don't myself do. And then only under the strictest of controls. Blah, blah, blah. And so become laid the foundation stones of self-created empires.

Uhhhh not really - that was why it was suggested as a voluntary assessment, as far as I am concerned do what you like, this would in no way influence what you can or can't do while stalking, but I would hope as a stalking community we would be concerned enough with deer welfare to self reflect and see competency checks as a helpful way of ensuring we can make clean kills when in that situation stalking?

 

[Klenchblaize]

Best put this thread on fast spin and be done with this madness that is laundering dirty linen-like propositions in public on the internet.

K

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

The two are poles apart, I’ve known plenty who can shoot a deer but put them on paper and they overthink things. The two do not always compute.

But is this not about the ones that go wrong, rather than those that go right, I appreciate even with a 10" group you will put deer in the larder, but you'll also wound or miss a disproportionate number?

If I change the context somewhat, would you want a pilot landing a plane you were on who goes to pieces in the simulator? Or would you want a pilot who can land it repeatably in the sim? I know which I would choose!

 

[enfieldspares]

Uhhhh not really - that was why it was suggested as a voluntary assessment, as far as I am concerned do what you like, this would in no way influence what you can or can't do while stalking, but I would hope as a stalking community we would be concerned enough with deer welfare to self reflect and see competency checks as a helpful way of ensuring we can make clean kills when in that situation stalking?

But isn't this the road that DSC 1 has led down? And now some police forces insist either formally or less formally on such in regard to an FAC? I see all these and similar such as "empire building". No more and no less.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

Best put this thread on fast spin and be done with this madness that is laundering dirty linen-like propositions in public on the internet.

K

How so, would having CPD not display a mature and responsible attitude among deer managers, rather than burying our head in the sand and believing we're good enough to make it work on deer?

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

But isn't this the road that DSC 1 has led down? And now some police forces insist either formally or less formally on such in regard to an FAC? I see all these and similar such as "empire building". No more and no less.

They ask for DSC One due to the safety test element, nothing to do with if you can hit anything or not.

I would refer you post #26 where I addressed a similar comment regarding a voluntary assessment becoming mandatory:

Would we have not seen that with DSC Two if that was a likely outcome though?

After all only 17.188% of those who have done DSC One have completed DSC Two (Source: DMQ, data correct as per 13/01/24)?

 

[enfieldspares]

There's some of course would want to see such as the .300 Winchester Magnum, the .300 Weatherby Magnum and the .308 Norma Magnum "discouraged" from being owned from being allowed for deer.

Or even these sorts of things...adjustable cheek risers, quasi military "tactical" type 'scopes with massively un-needed magnification, detachable ten shot high capacity magazines, a "cammo" stock schemes, folding bipods, bull barrels, muzzle suppressors, using calibres delivering over 3,500 ft/lbs or greater muzzle energy and...etc. etc..



So be very careful on what you think is a good idea. As other people may also wish to promote their good idea of "discouraging" for shooting deer at 100 to 200 yards the use of weapons appearing to have been designed to be capable of killing a man with a single aimed shot at 1,000 yards. Things that wouldn't look out of place in a military theatre of operations?

I hope the OP sees the point that I am trying to make?

 

[deerstalker.308]

But is this not about the ones that go wrong, rather than those that go right, I appreciate even with a 10" group you will put deer in the larder, but you'll also wound or miss a disproportionate number?

If I change the context somewhat, would you want a pilot landing a plane you were on who goes to pieces in the simulator? Or would you want a pilot who can land it repeatably in the sim? I know which I would choose!

If he can fly a plane that’s what I’m interested in, not playing computer games.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

If he can fly a plane that’s what I’m interested in, not playing computer games.

Please never run an airline!