Tne justification for enforced "qualification" of Scottish stalkers (SNH FOI request)

[Si]

Excellent thread, we can all sit here moaning but not many of us actually take the time do something about it.

Nice one caorach

The training uptake will be the sweetner for the politicians so they can feel that something is being done. The simple truth is that nothing needs done.

This is my opinion also.

 

[Paul at Fechan]

yeh as in being part of europe, this whole issue is wrapped up as Safety, Welfare and Hygiene but actually is about coming in line with our near neighbours so we don't look backward in terms on hunting and standards of government parenting.

Here, hunters don't have to be qualified, do cull returns and be part of hunting organisations or clubs, we say how we are greatly focussed on safety, animal welfare and hygiene. But with no requirement for formal training, hunters do not have to demostrate competence to shoot at live quarry so how is there consistency across the community in term of those key elements of Safety, Welfare, Hygiene. Our hunting community largely hides in the corner and politically guns are flaunted as the tools of criminals so how do you think another nations hunters might see this like from Germany, Sweden or even Denmark?

 

[LuckyEddie]

Anyone who wants to complain to their respective MSP/MP should use the attached link

http://www.writetothem.com/

I for one will be contacting ellected persons, that are relevant to me, that I can.

Ed

 

[JabaliHunter]

Just curious as to why only data on fatalities were requested, as this implies that only fatalities would be sufficient justification for legislative changes? I doubt whether SNH has these data either, but:
in q1, injuries relating to firearms while used for stalking would be useful info; and
in q2 and q3, serious non-fatal food poisoning incidents inked to venison are of interest from a public health perspective.

 

[caorach]

Just curious as to why only data on fatalities were requested, as this implies that only fatalities would be sufficient justification for legislative changes? I doubt whether SNH has these data either, but:
in q1, injuries relating to firearms while used for stalking would be useful info; and
in q2 and q3, serious non-fatal food poisoning incidents inked to venison are of interest from a public health perspective.

This is simple, I have some experience of similar matters over the years. Dead bodies are easy to count and difficult to fudge. Once you start taking injured and the like into account it is no time before you find yourself in the midst of a paperwork fudge-fest and before you know it some kid who fell of his bike and cut his knee while cycling past a game dealers in Devon becomes a reason for forcing something upon some poor stalker in Scotland.

The other big advantage of the KSI scam (Killed and Seriously Injured) for those wishing to enforce their will upon others is that you can change how you measure the seriously injured each year to ensure that the figures keep going up, most of the public get their information in soundbites from people with an IQ figure around room temperature so the fact that how the figures are calculated has changed will never reach their ears. To our political masters this gives the impression that not only is something dangerous happening but it is getting worse each year and the general public figure that if they hear a term like "Killed and Seriously Injured" then a fair proportion of those involved must be dead. In truth, no one might be dead and "seriously injured" might count someone who burnt their tongue on their tea while watching a programme about stalking on the TV.

So, in all matters where there is no evidence of danger or threat but where a lot of people would like there to appear to be evidence of danger or threat it is important to stick to killed at all times so that the playing field is level and the true extent of the problem is understood. Otherwise the do-gooders just make stuff up and present it in soundbite form to a public who have become used, especially under the New Labour regime, to calling for a ban on anything that looks slightly dodgy, un-PC or whatever.

 

[JabaliHunter]

That sounds fair enough! On the other hand, if the local take-away kept giving people food poisoning, I'd still want to avoid it even if they hadn't actually killed anyone!

 

[caorach]

That sounds fair enough! On the other hand, if the local take-away kept giving people food poisoning, I'd still want to avoid it even if they hadn't actually killed anyone!

I can understand that. But there is not a well funded set of organisations spending a lot of time and money to undermine your local take-away whereas that is the challenge we face in shooting and stalking.

It is also the case that if someone turns up at the local take-away and reports that he drank 14 pints last Saturday night and then had a take-away and was sick all day Sunday then most people would conclude that just maybe the take-away was not at fault. However, if there was a massive political organisation working against your local take-away then you might expect such a story to turn into a sound bite and before long for the person involved to appear in the KSI stats for the take-away and there would be some member of the "massive political organisation" appearing on TV calling for the take-away to be closed. That is the situation we find ourselves in and that is why we should count only those killed as that requires a PM and proper investigation and is difficult to fudge for political ends. We don't want to find that the KSI stats for venison suddenly takes into account anyone who is sick within 3 months of eating venison, for example, as in the long run that would put every stalking estate in the country out of business in one way or another and would seriously damage our sport. You might laugh, but I've seen stranger things happen when it comes to proving that something which isn't dangerous is suddenly a major threat to public safety.

 

[Glen Cadwallader]

Thanks for the update caorach, atleast they responded.

All things considered I feel L1 is an acceptable minimum requirement to stalk deer unaccompanied in Scotland.

Currently for those wishing to carry out specialised Deer Control SNH hold and maintain the register of fit&competent persons.

I see no reason for any further requirements.

 

[matt_hooks]

All things considered I feel L1 is an acceptable minimum requirement to stalk deer unaccompanied in Scotland.


I see no reason for any further requirements.

Why that though? Allow level one, and soon it'll be level two, and then.... You get the drift. What is called "the thin end of the wedge"

I can see no reason to impose any particular training standard. We don't have a problem now with people getting shot. Nor do we have huge numbers getting food poisoning from poorly handled venison, so where is the public health argument (or indeed any argument at all) to impose costly regulation?

 

[Paul at Fechan]

your right there is no need to impose conditions but the wedge you mention is being driven in from europe with snh holding it nice and steady for a big hit.

 

[BunnyDoom]

I think enforcing qualification for a lot of you guys would be silly, but I do believe that there should be a formal way of at least trying to ensure competence. How about if in order to continue hunting deer you had to satisfy one of the following conditions:
1. Have 3 or more years stalking experience, or;
2. Posses an approved Deer Management Qualification, or;
3. Have a named mentor who fits one or both of the above criteria

In fact I'm pretty sure Sussex already do something along these lines...

Stats might be zero in terms of fatalities etc but maybe thats just because we're getting the right balance (with flo's implementing things similar to the above)?

Thoughts?

 

[Shabz]

I think enforcing qualification for a lot of you guys would be silly, but I do believe that there should be a formal way of at least trying to ensure competence. How about if in order to continue hunting deer you had to satisfy one of the following conditions:
1. Have 3 or more years stalking experience, or;
2. Posses an approved Deer Management Qualification, or;
3. Have a named mentor who fits one or both of the above criteria

In fact I'm pretty sure Sussex already do something along these lines...

Stats might be zero in terms of fatalities etc but maybe thats just because we're getting the right balance (with flo's implementing things similar to the above)?

Thoughts?

My thought is that the licensing system should be/is adequate enough to ensure that safety shouldnt be an issue, so that surely negates that argument. That leaves deer welfare issues?

 

[BunnyDoom]

My thought is that the licensing system should be/is adequate enough to ensure that safety shouldnt be an issue, so that surely negates that argument. That leaves deer welfare issues?

Agree but that's part of my point - any of the three measures above should help toward deer welfare as well as safety...?

 

[caorach]

All things considered I feel L1 is an acceptable minimum requirement to stalk deer unaccompanied in Scotland.

The flaw with this is that the people tasked with determining competency can provide no evidence that any stalker in Scotland, whether with or without their DSC, shows any evidence of a lack of competence. What is DSC1 going to fix when nothing is broken?

There is no evidence that having a DSC1 provides any benefit. I'm not aware of any study which compared those with, and without, the DSC1 and determined that the DSC1 did indeed improve welfare, safety or other issues which may be of concern.

I've never seen a detailed breakdown of the areas where stalkers are expected to show competence and how these would be measured - I've heard about safety and hygiene and so on but apart from the metrics I made up in order to frame my FOI request I've never seen a formal definition of a "competent stalker." This is a fatal weakness in all the arguments I've made in this thread - my metrics seems reasonable and logical but the metrics used by the Scottish Government might relate to the colour of stalkers footwear. If they aren't going to like the answer - that we are all competent by any reasonable metric, they may decide to ask a different set of questions.

I fully understand that the first reaction to hearing that stalkers can, potentially, go on the hill with no training is that there must be something wrong, that something needs done about it, that more government interference is required and that things will need to be banned. However, the evidence we have seen so far would strongly point to this being self regulating - i.e. stalkers are not going on the hill unprepared but actually gain experience and "build up" to a solo stalk by watching others and also undertaking formal training such as DSC1 where they feel it fulfils a specific training need. This is supported by the reply I received from SNH which indicates that, despite the many thousands of stalking days and deer culled each year, there is not a single event which can be held up as evidence for a lack of competence on the part of the stalker.

To be honest, instead of bickering about various training courses, Scottish stalkers should be proud that they are taking responsibility for their own actions as a group and that not one single person has gone on the hill and let the side down by providing evidence of incompetence. They should be making this point at every opportunity instead of calling for the government to fix something that isn't broken - that is the job of those opposed to stalking.

 

[Glen Cadwallader]

Youre preaching to a man who doesnt believe in bits of paper fella!

I served my time as a keeper/stalker. In my opinion that is the only way to obtain competency to stalk unguided.

I think on the whole Scottish stalkers are highly professional and those wishing to enter the sport do go about it in the correct fashion.

Forgive the brevity.. On route stalking.. Again

 

[barry thom]

The flaw with this is that the people tasked with determining competency can provide no evidence that any stalker in Scotland, whether with or without their DSC, shows any evidence of a lack of competence. What is DSC1 going to fix when nothing is broken?

There is no evidence that having a DSC1 provides any benefit. I'm not aware of any study which compared those with, and without, the DSC1 and determined that the DSC1 did indeed improve welfare, safety or other issues which may be of concern.

I've never seen a detailed breakdown of the areas where stalkers are expected to show competence and how these would be measured - I've heard about safety and hygiene and so on but apart from the metrics I made up in order to frame my FOI request I've never seen a formal definition of a "competent stalker." This is a fatal weakness in all the arguments I've made in this thread - my metrics seems reasonable and logical but the metrics used by the Scottish Government might relate to the colour of stalkers footwear. If they aren't going to like the answer - that we are all competent by any reasonable metric, they may decide to ask a different set of questions.

I fully understand that the first reaction to hearing that stalkers can, potentially, go on the hill with no training is that there must be something wrong, that something needs done about it, that more government interference is required and that things will need to be banned. However, the evidence we have seen so far would strongly point to this being self regulating - i.e. stalkers are not going on the hill unprepared but actually gain experience and "build up" to a solo stalk by watching others and also undertaking formal training such as DSC1 where they feel it fulfils a specific training need. This is supported by the reply I received from SNH which indicates that, despite the many thousands of stalking days and deer culled each year, there is not a single event which can be held up as evidence for a lack of competence on the part of the stalker.

To be honest, instead of bickering about various training courses, Scottish stalkers should be proud that they are taking responsibility for their own actions as a group and that not one single person has gone on the hill and let the side down by providing evidence of incompetence. They should be making this point at every opportunity instead of calling for the government to fix something that isn't broken - that is the job of those opposed to stalking.

Spot on Coarach! If it aint broke why fix it?

ATB Barry