Minimum training standard??

[Shabz]

I've read and heard a lot about dsc1 being the minimum standard to shoot deer in Scotland some time in the future. I don't see it as happening, but wondered what others thought? Is it workable? Should it be dsc1? Could it be enforced? Will it create a rise in 'poaching'?

I personally don't like the idea and think its unnecessary.

 

[Paul at Fechan]

SNH want stalkers to be qualified to a recognised standard. While it might not be tomorrow it will happen because realistically it's better for the deer management community. Appart from that there is the Welfare, Ethical, Safety, Hygiene and Legal elements that those with deer management responsibilities be it recreational or professional must have understanding of.

While that might seem pro qualifications I will say this, doing DSC1 and DSC2 made me a more informed and competent stalker who became more aware of my resposibilities in the 'bigger' picture of wildlife management. I learned a lot more than I expected and consider the costs for doing it as a sound investment.

 

[Shabz]

Yeah Paul, I have no issue with the qualifications themselves, I'd consider them to be very valuable to the deer industry but I'd take issue with forced training by legislation particularly if dsc1 was decided on as a minimum. That brings up all sorts of monopoly issues.
There's no need to legislate to make any training compulsory. It's already the law that carcasses need to be handled and inspected correctly before they go into the food chain. Why not an extension of this that would go along the lines of "any landowner may not lease stalking rights to any person not qualified in deer management"? This would protect the woodland owner/farmer who wants to shoot his own deer for his own consumption and force training through the back door. Plus it would mean that BASC and DMQ wouldn't be the only ones that profitted from it.

 

[caorach]

When people mention such things I always ask the same questions:

Show me the science which demonstrates that stalkers at present are a threat to public safety or to animal welfare? Show me the science which demonstrates that DSC1 (in this instance) solves any scientifically measured performance deficit on the part of stalkers and is the only possible route to resolve these issues?

I've never seen any evidence that the British stalker presents a threat to animal welfare or the public and, therefore, there is no reason for increased regulation except for the desire of some to interfere in the lives of others.

 

[snowy]

When people mention such things I always ask the same questions:

Show me the science which demonstrates that stalkers at present are a threat to public safety or to animal welfare? Show me the science which demonstrates that DSC1 (in this instance) solves any scientifically measured performance deficit on the part of stalkers and is the only possible route to resolve these issues?

I've never seen any evidence that the British stalker presents a threat to animal welfare or the public and, therefore, there is no reason for increased regulation except for the desire of some to interfere in the lives of others.

+1 but you forgot to mention the making money side of things.

 

[kennyc]

it may be coming, but having endured 20 odd years of compulsory training and testing/retraining and retesting in the gas/construction industry please forgive me for being somewhat jaded in my views... I have not seen a massive improvement in competence, I have seen a lot of otherwise competent gas fitters pay out a lot of money for training in how to pass an exam, and then when their retest came due after 5 years, pay a lot more money to learn how to pass the new test! at the same time I watched a generation of incompetent "chancers" fumble through the exams, helped by the training companies, to achieve a qualification that did not actually see them fit to work in what I would consider a competent way! these tests do not prove anything! other than the person can retain some knowledge long enough to fill in the question paper, yet they are then considered more competent than someone without the qualification who has learnt the old way via the mentorship of experienced people ? I agree their should be some measure of competence, especially as the landowners (or their insurance companies) become more risk averse, however I feel the whole subject is led more by the training providers than the industry, once the qualification becomes a "must" I suspect that the level of training will go down in the general rush to get people through so as to provide more income, the good providers will go on doing a good job, but there will be others who will take advantage, I have seen this in action in my industry, and I fully expect it will happen in deer management as well.

edit note to self....type faster!

 

[matt_hooks]

Caorach, I think we've had a similar debate before about "that which seems like a good idea" as opposed to "that which there is evidence to support the benefit of" (I think it was about the registration of shotguns and whether there was a positive effect on public safety, though I could be mistaken)

If there is evidence that training in the form of DSC 1 and 2 has any benefit to public safety (in terms of firearms use or food safety) or animal welfare then I am not aware of it.

If there is nothing to support the imposition of expensive training then it begins to look like there are vested interests at play.

Whether that's the shooting organisations, who would seem to have a huge conflict of interests in this by the way, or certain rich and influential shooters who see it as a method of maintaining the exclusivity of their sport, or the anti's, who see it as a back door method of reducing participation and softening the hunting population up for further regulation and eventual banning.

Shabz, I can't agree with you.

Firstly it is NOT the law that

carcasses need to be handled and inspected correctly before they go into the food chain.

Firstly, the hunters exemption, which allows you to supply a certain amount of game in fur/feather without any qualifications. Of course having just passed DSC1 you already know that!

In terms of legislating, how would something that imposes a training need "by the back door" ever be a good idea?

Why not an extension of this that would go along the lines of "any landowner may not lease stalking rights to any person not qualified in deer management"

And that wording is horribly loose and open to interpretation (generally makes for bad legislation).

 

[Virbius]

When people mention such things I always ask the same questions:

Show me the science which demonstrates that stalkers at present are a threat to public safety or to animal welfare? Show me the science which demonstrates that DSC1 (in this instance) solves any scientifically measured performance deficit on the part of stalkers and is the only possible route to resolve these issues?

I've never seen any evidence that the British stalker presents a threat to animal welfare or the public and, therefore, there is no reason for increased regulation except for the desire of some to interfere in the lives of others.

Same was probably said of compulsory driving licences or MOTs.
I too learnt an awful lot on my DSC1, and I could see some type of minimum competency becoming compulsory. Whether the DSC1/2 will be the vehicle for that, time will tell.

 

[Shabz]

Caorach, I think we've had a similar debate before about "that which seems like a good idea" as opposed to "that which there is evidence to support the benefit of" (I think it was about the registration of shotguns and whether there was a positive effect on public safety, though I could be mistaken)

If there is evidence that training in the form of DSC 1 and 2 has any benefit to public safety (in terms of firearms use or food safety) or animal welfare then I am not aware of it.

If there is nothing to support the imposition of expensive training then it begins to look like there are vested interests at play.

Whether that's the shooting organisations, who would seem to have a huge conflict of interests in this by the way, or certain rich and influential shooters who see it as a method of maintaining the exclusivity of their sport, or the anti's, who see it as a back door method of reducing participation and softening the hunting population up for further regulation and eventual banning.

Shabz, I can't agree with you.

Firstly it is NOT the law that



Firstly, the hunters exemption, which allows you to supply a certain amount of game in fur/feather without any qualifications. Of course having just passed DSC1 you already know that!

In terms of legislating, how would something that imposes a training need "by the back door" ever be a good idea?



And that wording is horribly loose and open to interpretation (generally makes for bad legislation).

I realise that the wording would need to be watertight matt I'm not a lawyer but my point is that something could be done so that the onus is on the landowner to make sure that the holder of the lease has received training. Whether it is by making them liable for what happens on their land or through the deer laws. Make it about the land owner and not the stalker. It's pretty much given now that if you want to stalk, then you need DSC1. I hated filling in the form that had 'BASC' written all over it at the weekend. I don't want every person in Scotland to have to fill in the same form in order to shoot deer.

 

[caorach]

Same was probably said of compulsory driving licences or MOTs.
I too learnt an awful lot on my DSC1, and I could see some type of minimum competency becoming compulsory. Whether the DSC1/2 will be the vehicle for that, time will tell.

With something like driving tests the situation is quite simple - you establish that people are being killed by bad drivers, and dead people are especially easy to count, and then you devise a programme to address the particular problems that are seen. After introducing the test you then measure the number of dead people each year and if you can show an improvement then you prove the need for a test and you prove that the test is "teaching" people the right stuff. Before testing and other road safety measures and despite there only being a very few cars on the road covering a very few miles per year deaths per year were higher than at present.

So, if we are going to need enforced testing for stalking the first thing it is necessary to do is to prove that stalkers pose a risk to animal welfare and the public. You have to make this information well known to the public so that there is sufficient pressure to allow the introduction of an expensive testing scheme as such a scheme will require political support.

Do you really want to be a stalker when there is a government "stalking testing agency" who must first, to ensure their monthly wage, produce stats to prove that stalkers are dangerous and inhumane? To call for enforced testing producing such stats is the first thing such an agency must do.

By all means we should be free to do things like the DSC1 for our own reasons, I have DSC1 and am contemplating the level 2 now just for my own enjoyment. However, the simple fact is that there is no evidence that stalkers currently present any form of risk and so there can be absolutely no reason for increased enforced regulation or testing.

 

[Virbius]

Training and competency does not exist for the sole purpose of removing or reducing risks associated with animal welfare and the public, it teaches rules and best practice for people new to the sport. We were all novices once, and for the new stalkers coming into the sport, why not have an approved competency scheme?

My analogy with the motor industry was a good one - originally you didn't need a licence then it was deemed safer to do so. With deer stalking being the growth area in countrysports, the land will be full of stalkers, some very inepxerienced. How many animal welfare issues or public risks will have to be committed before a scheme has to be enforced?

 

[caorach]

why not have an approved competency scheme?

That is what DSC1/2 is at the minute I guess and those who feel the need can elect to take them, or not, as they wish.

 

[bogtrotter]

To be honest, I personally think its more about control than competency, in Scotland SNH want to control who can stalk
it looks like DMQ level 1 will be the minimum requirement as of 2014, you already need level 2 to get on the fit and competent register or two referees who are AW or similar standard.


Fit and competent only lasts five years five years so for example if you gained level 2 four four years ago you will only be accepted on the fit and competent register for 1 year, you will then need to find two referee's

Ideally SNH would have liked for everyone to be tested by them every five years , they are on record as saying that they don't believe level 2 is a high enough standard to be allowed to stalk unaccompanied.

Some of their requests were rejected by government, however IMO they will continue to try and get more control
over all things deer, and in the future it could come down to who is sitting in the Scottish Parliament how much control they achieve.

 

[Glen Cadwallader]

Here's the mention it got at our last DMG meeting:

Competence
Colin McClean said that the competence element in the WANE Act will challenge the industry to significantly increase the number of those who hold competence certificates.

The Government will review the voluntary system in 2014 and, if it determines that the voluntary approach has not been to its satisfaction may impose a compulsory system on the industry.

The debate in the Working Group has been whether DMQ Level 1 is sufficient to prove competence or if a test with a practical element is required. The key message is that this part of the WANE Act will affect everyone who shoots deer unsupervised in Scotland. It will be up to the industry to ensure that all those that shoot deer undertake a form of competence test and it may be challenging to increase the uptake among the crofters and farmers if the bar is set too high.

George Macdonald agreed that that the main sticking point is getting enough uptake among crofters and farmers as they currently see a general licence as an exemption from the need to do a competence test.

Robbie Kernahan said that the challenge for ADMG is to promote the fact that proof of competence is a requirement of the WANE Act. Though there is no legal requirement at the moment the Scottish Government could go down this avenue if they are not satisfied that the voluntary approach has worked.

Jean Balfour asked what provision can be made for those who live long distances away from the areas offering the courses.

Colin McClean confirmed that training organisations have said they are willing to travel to remote areas to run courses.

Doug McAdam asked if we know what a sufficient level of uptake will be. Colin McClean responded saying that the Government has not yet set any targets.

Michael Bruce said that ADMG needs to be aware that a range of qualifications could comply with the standards required, not just DSC 1. Colin McClean confirmed that DMQ Level 1 or equivalent certificate is valid as proof of competence.

.... Like it or not, we are going to have no choice soon chaps, and I advise everyone to sit DSC1 so that the Scottish Government can see sufficient self regulation is taking place within the deer community in the hope that they don't try and dream up some new qualification.

My own thoughts... Well I do nothing different now to what I did day in day out 20 years ago, stalking, culling & lardering deer every day into the food chain. Haven't seen any badly lardered venison related deaths in that time!

 

[Virbius]

That is what DSC1/2 is at the minute I guess and those who feel the need can elect to take them, or not, as they wish.

Yes agreed Caorach - what I should have said was whether it should be a mandatory scheme.

 

[Sharpie]

I've read and heard a lot about dsc1 being the minimum standard to shoot deer in Scotland some time in the future. I don't see it as happening

See here for the Deer Sector Competence Working Group's position, as reported by SGA four days ago:

WARNING: DEERSTALKERS SHOULD TAKE COURSES OF FACE TESTS | Scottish Gamekeepers

I'm sure they won't mind me quoting it in full:

The Deer Sector Competence Working Group, of which the Scottish Gamekeepers Association is a member, is urging deer stalkers in Scotland to undertake one of the available Deer Stalking Certificate 1 (DSC1) or equivalent courses to head off the threat of compulsory testing of deer stalkers in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has challenged the deer sector to increase significantly the voluntary uptake of deer qualifications prior to a review in 2014. The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 introduced a requirement that Scottish Natural Heritage must, in 2014, carry out a review of competence among those who shoot deer in Scotland and the effect of such levels of competence on deer welfare.

Should voluntary uptake of training and assessment be deemed inadequate, the Scottish Government has the powers to introduce a mandatory competence scheme and a register of all who stalk in Scotland.

A spokesperson for the Deer Sector Competence Working Group said: “We would strongly urge those within the deerstalking community to undertake one of the available courses and acquire the relevant qualifications to demonstrate competency as a priority. The best way to avoid further red tape and regulation being imposed on the industry is for deerstalkers to go through the voluntary system as soon as possible and certainly in time for the 2014 review.
“We would encourage all stalkers regardless of their experience to undertake a DSC 1 or equivalent course. They provide a valuable legislative update, include the sharing of best practice as well as testing deer identification, shot placement and food hygiene amongst other skills.”

...

The Deer Sector Competence Working Group was set up to look at the issue of competence in light of the requirements in the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011. The group’s membership consists of the Association of Deer Management Groups, Scottish Countryside Alliance, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, British Deer Society, Scottish Land & Estates, ConFor, LANTRA, British Association for Shooting and Conservation Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and North Highland College.

Anybody who says that e.g. "DSC1 will be the requirement, its a done deal" is not I think in any position to know. It will not be decided until the review is completed in 2014.

Thats my understanding, and I discussed this with a couple of SNH people last year at the Best Practice event at Balmoral Castle.

Should it be decided to introduce a mandatory competence scheme, I suspect that it will, in the long term, be something different than DSC1 or DSC2.

 

[Bandit Country]

My analogy with the motor industry was a good one - originally you didn't need a licence then it was deemed safer to do so.

But it's never that simple, is it? I still have a driving licence that lasts until I'm 70. My children, by contrast, have to shell out every 10 years to renew theirs. No check of continued competence, no confirmed need - simply "Gives us your money!". In the old days you had to have a mask, flintlock and big, black horse to do that - now you are a policymaker for HM Government ........... or possibly a training provider

 

[Shabz]

The whole thing is just wrong. We give away our civil liberties at every turn. I plan on getting dsc2 before 2014 but if they make it so that I MUST have a qualification to shoot deer in Scotland, even if it's dsc1, then I'll never shoot another one (in scotland) from that day on. Scotland would fail if it weren't for the income it makes from sporting pursuits. If they bring that in, it'll alienate a hell of a lot of income. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Glen Cadwallader]

The thing is Shabz, most of the £80 million pounds deer stalking generates for the Scottish economy comes from guided shooting of deer.. Those people will not require to be qualified as they will be accompanied by someone who is.

It would be impossible to enforce anyway.. Imagine you own a remote Scottish farm. Who's going to come on to you're land and check you have you're dsc1 as you merrily load up the Landy with hinds!!

 

[Virbius]

But it's never that simple, is it?

You're absolutely right, it certainly isn't simple.

An earlier post had suggested that driving licences had been introduced because of increases in road accidents and deaths. If compulsory deer stalking competency had to be brought in because of an increase in animal welfare issues or public safety, it would be too late as rifles would likely be banned before any mandatory scheme were put in place.