BASC launches register of competent deer stalkers

[gixer1]

When it comes to deer stalking there is a UK standard course - DSC1 and DSC2 - they are supported by BASC, BDS, NGO, SGA, etc.

I know….so why the need for these other ventures? It’s like a “special BASC” thing…and others have these too…

 

[David Barker]

I know….so why the need for these other ventures? It’s like a “special BASC” thing…and others have these too…

I think that is why there will be opposition to a register for only BASC members. All the other organisations took on the BASC/DMQ format when it was started. I feel there is a place for deer managers who want to be placed on a list to do just that but i feel it should be open to all. That way the land managers/Owners get the best in there local area. Sadly most of the very good deer managers will have more than enough ground to manage and will keep well away from a list.

 

[timbrayford]

I’ve encountered this mindset many times in different scenarios and find it very difficult to understand, even upsetting on occasion. It’s like watching someone score an own goal, or trying to swim upstream, or any similar analogy, for no point whatsoever. It’s painful to see, and the only person that loses out is the person refusing to get with the times.

Or simply being not academically gifted and being intimidated by the whole scenario?

 

[devon deer stalker]

Surely though it's not BASC that select the stalker. It's the landowner, in which case it doesn't have to be transparent. I'm a landowner and I choose who does or doesn't shoot on my land and it's none of yours or anybody elses business who I choose or why.

Basically the way I understand BASC are providing a reference service to landowners that want someone to cull their deer, they aren't choosing the stalkers on the landowners behalf.

I'm not a BASC member, nor do I particularly like BASC but in this instance I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Did I say it was any of my business who you allow to shoot on your land in my post?

So, you raise a good point, but with a list of names supplied to BASC it will be they who decide who to refer, how else could it be done?
They aren't going to break data protection rules by giving you a list of names to chose from.

 

[willie_gunn]

I know….so why the need for these other ventures? It’s like a “special BASC” thing…and others have these too…

This isn't a course though, it's a register of BASC members, compiled by BASC, who can be put forward when they are approached by parties wanting deer management services.

There's nothing to stop other organisations doing the same thing should they wish.

I happen to be a member of BASC, BDS and SACS. It wouldn't bother me if all three ran similar schemes.

 

[gixer1]

This isn't a course though, it's a register of BASC members, compiled by BASC, who can be put forward when they are approached by parties wanting deer management services.

There's nothing to stop other organisations doing the same thing should they wish.

I happen to be a member of BASC, BDS and SACS. It wouldn't bother me if all three ran similar schemes.

My point being - why not have a single register for all so there’s a single accepted standard.

(Kinda like “fit and competent”….)

 

[willie_gunn]

My point being - why not have a single register for all so there’s a single accepted standard.

(Kinda like “fit and competent”….)

There is a single accepted standard. It is DSC2.

A single register would require all the organisations to co-ordinate their efforts, and I am old and/or wise enough to recognise the infeasibility of this.

The alternative would be for a new organisation to be established - DMQ isn't a membership organisation, before anyone suggests them.

 

[willie_gunn]

Or simply being not academically gifted and being intimidated by the whole scenario?

If they haven't done any training whatsoever then I guess that might be the case.

As to what we are specifically talking about here, and the requirement for DSC2, I can understand the "intimidated" part, as having someone looking over your shoulder when stalking certainly makes for a different experience. However I have found that, after the initial shock, Candidates soon settle into going about stalking in their normal way.

I am less sure about the "academically gifted" comment, as other than being somewhat IT literate there is little, if anything, in DSC2 that is - or at least should be - outside the competence of a regular deer stalker. If a stalker is completely IT illiterate then I doubt they'll be signing up to an online register, fielding emails from landowners, etc.

In that respect the only elements that come to mind would be the use of a legal deer larder and the maintenance of suitable records, as stalkers who typically hand their carcasses over to an AGHE may find these to be unfamiliar. However presuming they had already passed their DSC1, which they must have done to register for DSC2, then even the study of the theory of these should not prove overly difficult.

 

[Dickie]

The alternative would be for a new organisation to be established - DMQ isn't a membership organisation, before anyone suggests them.

Let’s face it DMQ and BASC are the same and only in the office next door.

Why couldn’t DMQ put everyone on a register when they pass lvl2 unless you choose to opt out.

 

[gixer1]

There is a single accepted standard. It is DSC2.

A single register would require all the organisations to co-ordinate their efforts, and I am old and/or wise enough to recognise the infeasibility of this.

The alternative would be for a new organisation to be established - DMQ isn't a membership organisation, before anyone suggests them.

Again, I understand the accepted standard is DSC 1 & 2.

A register (especially in today’s digital world) should not be infeasible between the organisations.

 

[gixer1]

The alternative would be for a new organisation to be established - DMQ isn't a membership organisation, before anyone suggests them.

Let’s face it DMQ and BASC are the same and only in the office next door.

Why couldn’t DMQ put everyone on a register when they pass lvl2 unless you choose to opt out.

Whoa there with those radical logical suggestions!

 

[willie_gunn]

The alternative would be for a new organisation to be established - DMQ isn't a membership organisation, before anyone suggests them.

Let’s face it DMQ and BASC are the same and only in the office next door.

Why couldn’t DMQ put everyone on a register when they pass lvl2 unless you choose to opt out.

Because I doubt any landowners call DMQ to ask them to recommend deer management services.

 

[Dickie]

Because I doubt any landowners call DMQ to ask them to recommend deer management services.

How many landowners not shooters know to contact BASC.

Googling register of deer managers would be the way.

 

[devon deer stalker]

I Sadly most of the very good deer managers will have more than enough ground to manage and will keep well away from a list.

I'm not saying I'm very good, but I do have more than enough land to manage, and even if I had paid the extortionate BASC membership fee (compared to say NGO) I wouldn't need or want to register with them or any others.

But, I am in a fortunate position, and I accept that, my concern is how an individual who registers will be proposed to the landowner over an equally qualified deer stalker on the same list in the same area?
It's a simple question, too be honest I'm not sure why I'm showing interest in this topic, but based on my own previous experiences with similar organisations, and deer stalker selection, I would be very wary.

 

[willie_gunn]

How many landowners not shooters know to contact BASC.

Googling register of deer managers would be the way.

If they have a shoot I would think all of them.

If they don't have a shoot then Googling "UK Shooting Organisation" or "UK Deer Manager" brings BASC back at #1 on the results.

Not every deer manager has done DSC1/DSC2, as has been described above, so if the desire is now to have a central register of deer managers it would need to happen independently of DMQ.

 

[.222roebuck]

Because I doubt any landowners call DMQ to ask them to recommend deer management services.

They probably should though , rather than basc , as suggested I see no reason if someone had completed level 1+2 for them not to be on said register , basc members or not

 

[willie_gunn]

They probably should though , rather than basc , as suggested I see no reason if some had completed level 1+2 for them not to be on said register , basc members or not

As I mentioned in another post, we are also told that there are also plenty of deer managers who have not done either DSC1 or DSC2. Why should they be discriminated against?

If people want a genuinely indepedent and centralised register then it needs to be open to all. However to do this effectively would also require every potential candidate to be independently verified before inclusion. To do that would require a set of criteria to be agreed and administered, a set of assessors to be appointed, etc, etc.

Suddenly it all becomes complex and expensive.

 

[.222roebuck]

As I mentioned in another post, we are also told that there are also plenty of deer managers who have not done either DSC1 or DSC2. Why should they be discriminated against?

If people want a genuinely indepedent and centralised register then it needs to be open to all. However to do this effectively would also require every potential candidate to be independently verified before inclusion. To do that would require a set of criteria to be agreed and administered, a set of assessors to be appointed, etc, etc.

Suddenly it all becomes complex and expensive.

I fully agree I’ve met and stalked alongside some fantastic stalkers who’ve shot thousands of deer without a single bit of paper to their name , however as were being told that the level 1+2 is an “ industry standard” you would think that’s a requirement for said register not membership of any particular org , I personally think this is basc creating a bit of a “ jobs for the boys situation for their members …….

 

[Apthorpe]

In which case I would say the current lease holder isn’t doing a good enough job, because if they were, why would owners refer to Basc to find someone else.
In my experience, you only look to replace someone if your not happy with them, or they are leaving.

In that basis, I bet a pound to a penny every man who has his own stalking has taken that ground from someone else in the past at some point

I'll claim the pound. The land I stalk never previously held deer.

We’re more likely to be made subject to hoops if we don’t voluntarily jump through them. “Self-regulate or be regulated” isn’t unique to any particular industry and deer management isn’t immune to it. I would, personally, rather be prepared

This is a spurious argument. There are valid objections to the idea that what you call the "deer management industry" is any more than one of many stakeholders in the subject. And further valid objections to the concept of industrialising the countryside in this way. They ought to be given due consideration and consultation, and they haven't been.

 

[Dickie]

If they have a shoot I would think all of them.

If they don't have a shoot then Googling "UK Shooting Organisation" or "UK Deer Manager" brings BASC back at #1 on the results.

Not every deer manager has done DSC1/DSC2, as has been described above, so if the desire is now to have a central register of deer managers it would need to happen independently of DMQ.

Because in the beginning of this it was quoted as minimum qualification of Lvl 2 so that was what my answer was based on.