Has a DSC1/2 ever been used in court as example of competance?
- Thread starter Wills
- Start date
I would seriously doubt it as DMQ are not recognised as providers of anything other than informal training unlike LANTRA. I have met plenty of incompetent Level 2 stalkers.
HME
HME
photopro
Well-Known Member
I suspect it is only a matter of time before it is. There are some serious "heavy weights" backing the credibility and integrity of the DSC 1 & DSC2 qualifications such that a holder would I am sure be regarded as achieving a proven level of competence.
I can remember many, sometimes heated debates several years ago with people adamant that the DSC's would never be held in any esteem and never be required for any syndicate or leased stalking, they were certainly wrong there. Then the argument switched to "well the DCS will never acknowledge them" and of course they did.
It is going to happen sooner or later Wills despite what some people think.
As per the OP, a legal emphasis has been put on these qualifications and as yet there has been none as per my original post. DMQ are not a legally recognised body.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
OP = Original Poster (top of thread)
DMQ = Deer Management Qualifications (DMQ) exists to promote high standards in the humane management of wild deer. This objective is supported by the deer industry and is achieved by providing candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and competence through Deer Stalking Certificates: DSC1 and DSC2. (see DMQ Setting the standard for wild deer management) atb Tim
Does a driving licence prove you are a good driver? No.
I have a guy on a permission next to one of mine who has DSC1 who, in my opinion, is incompetent and also bloody dangerous. It is only end March and already this year I have shot two wounded munties and earlier this week one farmer said he had seen another in a copse - which I haven't caught up with yet.
I haven't got DSC1 (although it is on my list when money and time allow) but I know many competent stalkers who haven't either.
FrenchieBoy
Well-Known Member
Just a quick question on this one without wanting to "hijack" this thread - Would the situation and the legal standing of the DSC 1 and 2 change if the police have their way in something I have heard from several forums?
I have heard several "rumours" that at some time in the future the police will require DSC level 1 before authorising a "Deer Shooting Rifle" on a FAC. If this does come to pass then surely the police will be giving some legal weight to the DSC by recognising it as a !qualification"!
I have to say that I think this is unlikely to happen and if it does it will be a sad day for shooters, but if it were ever to happen what would your thoughts be on it?
I have heard several "rumours" that at some time in the future the police will require DSC level 1 before authorising a "Deer Shooting Rifle" on a FAC. If this does come to pass then surely the police will be giving some legal weight to the DSC by recognising it as a !qualification"!
I have to say that I think this is unlikely to happen and if it does it will be a sad day for shooters, but if it were ever to happen what would your thoughts be on it?
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Neither the Deer or Firearms Acts apparently require you have any qualifications to shoot deer. IMO any such requirement dictated by a Chief of Police would be unduly restrictive contrary to Home Office Guidance. If the law is to be amended the proper place for this is via Parliamentary debate and vote in the conventional manner, not by the undemocratic dictate of the police. atb Tim
DMQ 1-2 is a second teir cop-out not a first teir proof of compitence. Police and Forestry companies would use it as a proof of due diligence in assessing a situation for H&S or granting a FAC. It is used without proof of compitence to have your name inserted of SNH fit and comp register without further evidence. It is used by FSA as compitence in meat hygeine.
Those groups now have a legal cop out if you go wrong. It is not a paper to pass the buck as much as a paper to make sure the buck stops with you. The only way that piece of paper will be used is to hang you. Jim
Those groups now have a legal cop out if you go wrong. It is not a paper to pass the buck as much as a paper to make sure the buck stops with you. The only way that piece of paper will be used is to hang you. Jim
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
DSC 1 & 2 are endorsed, assessed and verified under the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) umbrella so surely it is fair to assume that they are as recognisable as any other NVQ award? The authorities (police) also recognise DSC 1 as a basic level of safety awareness when issuing FAC's.
MS
MS
Taff, is correct, that simply having a qualification, regardless of to what extent is ‘legally recognised’ does not mitigate your liability if you are negligent.
Under UK law the onus of proof in a liability case rests with the third party. In other words you do not have to prove you were not negligent, it’s down to the injured party to prove you were.
One of the points the OP made was in relation to Occupier’s Liability. Occupiers would be expected to take reasonable precautions that people they allow onto their land to take part in an activity will maintain a duty of care to others on the land.
If an Occupier of land allows someone to stalk over their land, that occupier may well feel that ensuring that stalker has some form of qualification, or who can demonstrate competence in another way would work in their favour in the event of a claim for damages.
Whether it would or not would depend of course on all the circumstances in the event of a claim and subsequent legal case.
With regard to training courses, I am all in favour of them, not just because of who I work for, but I support the concept of putting in place protocols to ensure someone who wants to take up a sport or activity can have access to training to develop their skills, whether that training is though classrooms, mentors or a mix.
But as my old Dad used to say to me… ‘First of all pass your driving test David, then you can learn how to drive’…very true!
David
Under UK law the onus of proof in a liability case rests with the third party. In other words you do not have to prove you were not negligent, it’s down to the injured party to prove you were.
One of the points the OP made was in relation to Occupier’s Liability. Occupiers would be expected to take reasonable precautions that people they allow onto their land to take part in an activity will maintain a duty of care to others on the land.
If an Occupier of land allows someone to stalk over their land, that occupier may well feel that ensuring that stalker has some form of qualification, or who can demonstrate competence in another way would work in their favour in the event of a claim for damages.
Whether it would or not would depend of course on all the circumstances in the event of a claim and subsequent legal case.
With regard to training courses, I am all in favour of them, not just because of who I work for, but I support the concept of putting in place protocols to ensure someone who wants to take up a sport or activity can have access to training to develop their skills, whether that training is though classrooms, mentors or a mix.
But as my old Dad used to say to me… ‘First of all pass your driving test David, then you can learn how to drive’…very true!
David
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
3 of the people on my DSC1 course had only ever shot a rifle once before and only at a target.
on passing they were pronounced "trained hunters".....
I have used my DSC1 and Range Certificate as demonstrable proof of competency not of stalking but of rifle safety. Which in my case was the going to be the issue due to urban proximity.
that said "3 stalks a stalker doth not make"
I would imagine any court case involving the use of DSC1/2 will be on safety grounds rather than ability to recognise a male CWD in winter coat!
on passing they were pronounced "trained hunters".....
I have used my DSC1 and Range Certificate as demonstrable proof of competency not of stalking but of rifle safety. Which in my case was the going to be the issue due to urban proximity.
that said "3 stalks a stalker doth not make"
I would imagine any court case involving the use of DSC1/2 will be on safety grounds rather than ability to recognise a male CWD in winter coat!
Gazza
Well-Known Member
IMO the insistance of some landowers to require stalkers on their ground to have level 1 or 2 is to cover themselves in the eventuallity of the stalker doing something untoward. The landowner can wash their hands of all responsibilty in claiming that they did all possible to ensure that the person stalking deer on their land was competent and properly insured. Same if you sell a carcass into the food chain. To a certain extent the venison dealer is relying on your certification to give qualified evidence of the animals health prior to shot and the examination of gralloch. Being classed as a trained hunter having only passed level 1 is IMO not right. Anybody could sit and pass level 1 without having even seen a deer far less shot one.
JabaliHunter
Well-Known Member
Being a 'trained hunter' is of relevance only to the game meat hygiene regulations, nothing more.
Gazza
I sympathise with what you say but are you really suggesting that the benchmark for Trained Hunter should be put at DSC L2? Can you imagine the outcry if that was the situation?
Currently there are 16,698 individuals who have completed their DSC1 but only 3,687 who have completed DSC2, so just over a fifth. If DSC L2 was made the standard for putting venison into the food chain then my guess is that there'd be a lot of stalking suddenly available.
willie_gunn
I sympathise with what you say but are you really suggesting that the benchmark for Trained Hunter should be put at DSC L2? Can you imagine the outcry if that was the situation?
Currently there are 16,698 individuals who have completed their DSC1 but only 3,687 who have completed DSC2, so just over a fifth. If DSC L2 was made the standard for putting venison into the food chain then my guess is that there'd be a lot of stalking suddenly available.
willie_gunn
bewsher500
Well-Known Member
Gazza
I sympathise with what you say but are you really suggesting that the benchmark for Trained Hunter should be put at DSC L2? Can you imagine the outcry if that was the situation?
Currently there are 16,698 individuals who have completed their DSC1 but only 3,687 who have completed DSC2, so just over a fifth. If DSC L2 was made the standard for putting venison into the food chain then my guess is that there'd be a lot of stalking suddenly available.
willie_gunn
bring it on!!
Gazza
Well-Known Member
Gazza
I sympathise with what you say but are you really suggesting that the benchmark for Trained Hunter should be put at DSC L2? Can you imagine the outcry if that was the situation?
Currently there are 16,698 individuals who have completed their DSC1 but only 3,687 who have completed DSC2, so just over a fifth. If DSC L2 was made the standard for putting venison into the food chain then my guess is that there'd be a lot of stalking suddenly available.
willie_gunn
Not suggesting anything but the fact is that in theory (simply because I don't know why somebody would sit level 1 without having an interest in deer stalking) a person could sit and pass level 1, thereafter be classed as a trained hunter in terms of large game handling, be in a position to submit deer carcasses into the food chain without ever having seen a deer. Quoting from one of my carcass labels "Declaration: I declare that I observed no abnormal behaviour before being culled and there is no suspicion of environmental contamination. I inspected the head, pluck and viscera and observed no abnormalities"
IMO for anybody to be able to sign that declaration I would be asking for more than a theory test. Mentoring after obtaining level 1 ??? A novice can learn a lot from an experienced mentor but if connected officially to large game handling does it then put responsibilty onto the mentor. Having said that there must be a whole lot of carcasses put into the food chain from guys with level 1 and I have never heard of a "trained hunter" to be held to account in signing that type of declaration. Would not really want to be the first though.
Last edited:
Similar threads
