stalkinginengland
Well-Known Member
Thanks Adrian I may just do that.
Pre DSC
- Thread starter 6pointer
- Start date
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
6P
I think you highlight a crucial element - DSC1 and its forebears was always intended to be an introductory/theory level device. Something got lost in translation and it is being considered as something higher - and through that I think a lot of the angst and confusion over it creeps in.
Its arguable whether the hands on shooting test has a place in such a foundation level theory based package. But - as hopefully a number involved in the process will confirm - we tend to find complete novice shooters much easier to coach up than those who have had chance to pick up bad habits! As much as it pains me, I suspect such results are more a function of moderated rifles as much as any 'super powers' ( power band excepted ) on my part. That only applies through revision/ practise session on the range - which many revision courses include. I'd be less confident in a complete novice being able to just attend the assessment and make it and believe this is what PeterM alluded too?.
That's the other element of the debate - what do courses cover? Part of why I think the current situation works ( could be better and should always look to make it so etc ) is that the various providers all do things a little bit different. It can be simply down to personality or the depth of actual training or specific areas covered.
From a standing start with a complete novice even a 4/5 day course is not going to impart much more than sufficient theory to get through set question banks and create a short term confidence to safely handle a firearm - a foundation on which to build. Because of the perception the scheme is pitched at a higher level, it is understandable that some people begin to believe some kind of fudge is going on. It's not, but I can understand how that view crops up.
We started out offering all kinds of course options - these were trimmed and adapted by simple demand and results. The most popular - by far more than a mile - is our 2 day course. Can someone learn the syllabus in that time and take the assessment - maybe, but I have yet to meet them!
That course works because the required materials are provided in advance and candidates work through them at their own pace and with support as required. The actual course then concentrates on areas that experience shows cause problems and issues for specific individuals. Its both simpler and far more complex than that - but that's a precis. Others are similar, others quite different.
The will and ability to provide additional days and alternative approaches is there and offered by us - but attracts very little interest.
Its a broad range of people that take this. We get all sorts - some breeze it with little effort, some know it backwards but have to fight nerves and some struggle. Pre DSC1 courses serve a purpose and if they help some one and they want to do it - even if just as a confidence thing - more power to them. But it's getting the information out there and experienced opinion that counts - so people can judge for themselves.
This is why I keep asking guys on here taking DSC1 to let us know how it went. Not seeking a whipping post etc - but believe it would be incredibly useful to people to hear not so much how a course was in general, but how the individual found it and what they'd do different, what they loved etc.
Absolutely, categorically & unequivocally no one should be led to believe XYZ course is the only way to go or that ultimately at DSC1 you will be taking a different 'grade' of assessment from anyone else with any other centre taking their DSC1 on that day. And an impression otherwise has been created on occasion.
Price - and links to your point about 'public'. Quite aside from any business interest, I think the DSC1 scheme works well and has had a generally good take up. OK, there's 4 years worth of argument, debate, challenge and outright civil war in that previous sentence - but not ramming it down anyone's throat, simply an opinion in context to what follows. It isnt perfect, it could be so much better but it could equally be very much worse.
Meeting stalkers from many countries and hearing/ reading about assorted hunter testing worldwide, I believe we have a very good and effective system and one with much easier and wider access ( including price/cost ) than very very many others - including state run ones. This is not to enter the debate regards whether hunter testing required at all.
I dont not believe there is any political will to create a Department of Game etc. The cost would be large and that cost would follow defined policy - the users pay. Look at Government projects over the last decade, is it likely that cost - in anything other than the very short term - would be lower than in a quasi-free market? I believe the current system works better than a state run one could - and the scope is there to be flexible/ make change.
Ultimately for many this revolves around a hobby - it may well be a driving passion, but a hobby. There seems to be this idea that everyone is part of that recreation. At some level that may be ( I hope it actually is ) true, but for a number of people stalking is a business. Whilst there are certain mercenary elements in various aspects that cause most of us disquiet, I am not using the word business in the perjorative sense. Its simply how a number of us make our living.
It is perhaps a declining element - and if I read 6P correctly one that is causing him grave concern ( which I share ) that stalkers care greatly for deer. This makes the attribution of a commercial element distasteful to many at an almost subconscious level. The views on SD tend to be skewed a bit - whilst we are a large community, the heated posts and occasional silly season keep away a very large number of people in the deer community that I personally respect highly. Through that we lose some of the balancing view points and become as a whole just that little bit introspective. There are a great many people out there dealing with deer on a commercial basis because of their passion for deer not money. The opposite is also true - I like to think to a lesser extent.
DMQ fees are quite reasonable for what the system supports. Course fees are generally quite reasonable - if they are not people dont go and they dont last. Where you see courses discounted by 50% etc you can but wonder about the fairness of the original price. Equally if under priced the provider sooner or later goes bump - often taking smaller guys with them along the way. But the last few years have generally seen DSC1 pricing find its own level - compare BDS training stance and prices three years ago to now ( purely by way of example ).
So that's all fine then? Not really. Commercialism isnt as bad in some respects as we fear, but in others worse! Look at the debates on here as people fall out over ground, leases, taking trophies etc. The greedy few hold too much and the envious few want too much - there's a good few of us in the middle but that doesn't make the extremes right. Deer ultimately suffer and our passion suffers too. ( for the deer that is - not heading off into Viagra territory here! )
Is there scope for volunteer training provided at the lowest possible cost? I would say absolutely. Is there anything actually stopping that happening? Only the will.
I think you highlight a crucial element - DSC1 and its forebears was always intended to be an introductory/theory level device. Something got lost in translation and it is being considered as something higher - and through that I think a lot of the angst and confusion over it creeps in.
Its arguable whether the hands on shooting test has a place in such a foundation level theory based package. But - as hopefully a number involved in the process will confirm - we tend to find complete novice shooters much easier to coach up than those who have had chance to pick up bad habits! As much as it pains me, I suspect such results are more a function of moderated rifles as much as any 'super powers' ( power band excepted ) on my part. That only applies through revision/ practise session on the range - which many revision courses include. I'd be less confident in a complete novice being able to just attend the assessment and make it and believe this is what PeterM alluded too?.
That's the other element of the debate - what do courses cover? Part of why I think the current situation works ( could be better and should always look to make it so etc ) is that the various providers all do things a little bit different. It can be simply down to personality or the depth of actual training or specific areas covered.
From a standing start with a complete novice even a 4/5 day course is not going to impart much more than sufficient theory to get through set question banks and create a short term confidence to safely handle a firearm - a foundation on which to build. Because of the perception the scheme is pitched at a higher level, it is understandable that some people begin to believe some kind of fudge is going on. It's not, but I can understand how that view crops up.
We started out offering all kinds of course options - these were trimmed and adapted by simple demand and results. The most popular - by far more than a mile - is our 2 day course. Can someone learn the syllabus in that time and take the assessment - maybe, but I have yet to meet them!
That course works because the required materials are provided in advance and candidates work through them at their own pace and with support as required. The actual course then concentrates on areas that experience shows cause problems and issues for specific individuals. Its both simpler and far more complex than that - but that's a precis. Others are similar, others quite different.The will and ability to provide additional days and alternative approaches is there and offered by us - but attracts very little interest.
Its a broad range of people that take this. We get all sorts - some breeze it with little effort, some know it backwards but have to fight nerves and some struggle. Pre DSC1 courses serve a purpose and if they help some one and they want to do it - even if just as a confidence thing - more power to them. But it's getting the information out there and experienced opinion that counts - so people can judge for themselves.
This is why I keep asking guys on here taking DSC1 to let us know how it went. Not seeking a whipping post etc - but believe it would be incredibly useful to people to hear not so much how a course was in general, but how the individual found it and what they'd do different, what they loved etc.
Absolutely, categorically & unequivocally no one should be led to believe XYZ course is the only way to go or that ultimately at DSC1 you will be taking a different 'grade' of assessment from anyone else with any other centre taking their DSC1 on that day. And an impression otherwise has been created on occasion.
Price - and links to your point about 'public'. Quite aside from any business interest, I think the DSC1 scheme works well and has had a generally good take up. OK, there's 4 years worth of argument, debate, challenge and outright civil war in that previous sentence - but not ramming it down anyone's throat, simply an opinion in context to what follows. It isnt perfect, it could be so much better but it could equally be very much worse.
Meeting stalkers from many countries and hearing/ reading about assorted hunter testing worldwide, I believe we have a very good and effective system and one with much easier and wider access ( including price/cost ) than very very many others - including state run ones. This is not to enter the debate regards whether hunter testing required at all.
I dont not believe there is any political will to create a Department of Game etc. The cost would be large and that cost would follow defined policy - the users pay. Look at Government projects over the last decade, is it likely that cost - in anything other than the very short term - would be lower than in a quasi-free market? I believe the current system works better than a state run one could - and the scope is there to be flexible/ make change.
Ultimately for many this revolves around a hobby - it may well be a driving passion, but a hobby. There seems to be this idea that everyone is part of that recreation. At some level that may be ( I hope it actually is ) true, but for a number of people stalking is a business. Whilst there are certain mercenary elements in various aspects that cause most of us disquiet, I am not using the word business in the perjorative sense. Its simply how a number of us make our living.
It is perhaps a declining element - and if I read 6P correctly one that is causing him grave concern ( which I share ) that stalkers care greatly for deer. This makes the attribution of a commercial element distasteful to many at an almost subconscious level. The views on SD tend to be skewed a bit - whilst we are a large community, the heated posts and occasional silly season keep away a very large number of people in the deer community that I personally respect highly. Through that we lose some of the balancing view points and become as a whole just that little bit introspective. There are a great many people out there dealing with deer on a commercial basis because of their passion for deer not money. The opposite is also true - I like to think to a lesser extent.
DMQ fees are quite reasonable for what the system supports. Course fees are generally quite reasonable - if they are not people dont go and they dont last. Where you see courses discounted by 50% etc you can but wonder about the fairness of the original price. Equally if under priced the provider sooner or later goes bump - often taking smaller guys with them along the way. But the last few years have generally seen DSC1 pricing find its own level - compare BDS training stance and prices three years ago to now ( purely by way of example ).
So that's all fine then? Not really. Commercialism isnt as bad in some respects as we fear, but in others worse! Look at the debates on here as people fall out over ground, leases, taking trophies etc. The greedy few hold too much and the envious few want too much - there's a good few of us in the middle but that doesn't make the extremes right. Deer ultimately suffer and our passion suffers too. ( for the deer that is - not heading off into Viagra territory here! )
Is there scope for volunteer training provided at the lowest possible cost? I would say absolutely. Is there anything actually stopping that happening? Only the will.
I am very sorry but I havn't read all the posts above, but I will do and come back to some of the points later. First off - to the best of my knowledge the current (As of the AGM in May 2012) Board members are
Richard MacNicol (RM) – North Highland College
George McDonald (GM) – Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association
Bruce Sewell – Forestry Commission
Dominic Griffith (DG) - British Deer Society
Mike Dickinson (MD) – National Gamekeepers’ Organisation
Peter Marshall (PM) - British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Des Purdy (DP) – Sparsholt College
Judith Webb (JW) – Chairman
Peter Watson – Deer Initiative
David Taylor – Countryside Alliance
Alex Butler – Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
No organisation has more than one board member. Any organisation may approach DMQ to become a board member. I'm fairly sure than up until 2 years ago Barony College had a representative on the board.
Many thanks, Peter
Richard MacNicol (RM) – North Highland College
George McDonald (GM) – Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association
Bruce Sewell – Forestry Commission
Dominic Griffith (DG) - British Deer Society
Mike Dickinson (MD) – National Gamekeepers’ Organisation
Peter Marshall (PM) - British Association for Shooting and Conservation
Des Purdy (DP) – Sparsholt College
Judith Webb (JW) – Chairman
Peter Watson – Deer Initiative
David Taylor – Countryside Alliance
Alex Butler – Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust
No organisation has more than one board member. Any organisation may approach DMQ to become a board member. I'm fairly sure than up until 2 years ago Barony College had a representative on the board.
Many thanks, Peter
6pointer
Well-Known Member
I think there is a place at the botom of the pile for a provider to keep costs as low as possible. But at the moment the stop is being put on by BASC and BDS. (Its my ball and you can only play with it if i say so ) This needs to stop if we are to get the Scottish stalkers to a level and a number that the Scottish government seek.?? (IF ANY ONE KNOW WHAT THAT IS PLEASE LET US KNOW INFACT PLEASE LET THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT KNOW).
Peter you told me a cheap way to train people and i think you for that but it is not with out its problems and as you are aware behind the schemes there are those that oppose the cheaper more voluntary led ways of training.
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS NOT A VOLUNTARY QUALIFICATION ANY MORE IT IS A MANDATORY ONE RUN BY THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR (BASC and BDS)
PS peter can i get free advertising on the DMQ web site for my deer group training please or should i ask the totally independent DMQ.
Most will pass the DMQ Qualification with minimal training no need for a rip off pre coarse before we no it that will become mandatory as well but only in Scotland.
Peter you told me a cheap way to train people and i think you for that but it is not with out its problems and as you are aware behind the schemes there are those that oppose the cheaper more voluntary led ways of training.
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS NOT A VOLUNTARY QUALIFICATION ANY MORE IT IS A MANDATORY ONE RUN BY THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR (BASC and BDS)
PS peter can i get free advertising on the DMQ web site for my deer group training please or should i ask the totally independent DMQ.
Most will pass the DMQ Qualification with minimal training no need for a rip off pre coarse before we no it that will become mandatory as well but only in Scotland.
The problem with having the cheaper option is that the failure rates tend to rise. You can buy the online self assessment packages which are good, and you can book on an assessment only day and get the qualification at half the cost.
DMQ is responsible for the standards, how you get to that standard is down to the individual and there are many ways of achieving it. Some will prefer to read the manual, others will prefer the online learning systems, some will prefer a mentor, adhoc training course or an all singing all dancing DSC 1 course. Its down to the individual and what suits one will not suit another. We also have to bear in mind that for many this will be the first 'Exam' (Assessment) that they will have taken for many years, so nerves play a part.
DMQ does not advertise courses, it points people in the direction of Assessment centres and supporting bodies. If you would like to become a supporting body or an assessment centre then contact Andrew Hoon at DMQ to discus the options.
DMQ is responsible for the standards, how you get to that standard is down to the individual and there are many ways of achieving it. Some will prefer to read the manual, others will prefer the online learning systems, some will prefer a mentor, adhoc training course or an all singing all dancing DSC 1 course. Its down to the individual and what suits one will not suit another. We also have to bear in mind that for many this will be the first 'Exam' (Assessment) that they will have taken for many years, so nerves play a part.
DMQ does not advertise courses, it points people in the direction of Assessment centres and supporting bodies. If you would like to become a supporting body or an assessment centre then contact Andrew Hoon at DMQ to discus the options.
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
6P
As we've discussed, you've some good and valid points to bring out - keep that 'in your sights'.
The voluntary/ mandatory bit is debatable. Strictly it is voluntary. Its only if it truly becomes mandatory that we'll see in hindsight how voluntary it was!
Putting that aside, you raise this theme of other training opportunities?
I appreciate its semantics, but only disagree with your comment about it being 'bottom of the pile' - all valid training is really on a par - it's position in the 'heap' ( if that's what we want to term it ) is in the eye of the beholder. The only beholder that matters is the person taking that training. Its a broad church and what suits some wont suit others - so diversity is important.
So far as I understand it, anyone can commence a training scheme for the DSC1 syllabus. The only control is the retention of copyright on the question banks etc by BDS - but I believe if you purchase one of the several approved manuals you have those questions. Health, safety, insurance etc aside - they apply to all. The next hurdle is assessment - people trained elsewhere can sign up for assessment only somewhere else or a training provider can approach an Assessor to come and administer it.
Assessors may be BASC, BDS or any one of several other DMQ allied centres.
So ( and to be clear its an open not loaded question ) how exactly are BASC/BDS putting a stop on things?
As we've discussed, you've some good and valid points to bring out - keep that 'in your sights'.
The voluntary/ mandatory bit is debatable. Strictly it is voluntary. Its only if it truly becomes mandatory that we'll see in hindsight how voluntary it was!
Putting that aside, you raise this theme of other training opportunities?I appreciate its semantics, but only disagree with your comment about it being 'bottom of the pile' - all valid training is really on a par - it's position in the 'heap' ( if that's what we want to term it ) is in the eye of the beholder. The only beholder that matters is the person taking that training. Its a broad church and what suits some wont suit others - so diversity is important.
So far as I understand it, anyone can commence a training scheme for the DSC1 syllabus. The only control is the retention of copyright on the question banks etc by BDS - but I believe if you purchase one of the several approved manuals you have those questions. Health, safety, insurance etc aside - they apply to all. The next hurdle is assessment - people trained elsewhere can sign up for assessment only somewhere else or a training provider can approach an Assessor to come and administer it.
Assessors may be BASC, BDS or any one of several other DMQ allied centres.
So ( and to be clear its an open not loaded question ) how exactly are BASC/BDS putting a stop on things?
.243Ady
Well-Known Member
Is that a 90% + first time pass rate. As you know you can take any part of the DSC 1 course you fail as many times as you like till you pass (or run out of money)
. So if this is the case the pass rate figure will be high. A range shooter booked himself on the DSC 1 course the other day, he payed the full price I think, but just came to see what it was all about. He passed the shooting part (but not straight through), but was not confident about the rest. Maybe in his case an introduction to deer stalking course would have been the way to go, plus cheaper. If the DSC 1 course was designed to be an introductory/theory level device why do some people that have been stalking for years fail it.
Last edited:
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
243Ady in terms of your last line - lots of reasons!
Nerves do play a big part of it. So far as I am aware stress/nerves isn't part of the Assessment, so a good Assessor and their assistants work hard to keep things as relaxed as possible.
Brain fade - its as common to get the obvious bits wrong as the harder bit we all have our moments ( generally half way through reading one of my War n Peace posts
)
Right way, wrong way and DSC way - the answers to some questions are debatable and the correct answer per DMQ may not accord with what some experienced people would normally put. This improves with time and each issue of the bank gets better. Some of it simply reflects the fact that any four stalkers will have 8 opinions!
The questions are UK wide - albeit with bias in Highland/ Lowland versions etc. You could stalk Reds for 40 years on Harris and have an understandable view of not being all that fussed about dentition in Fallow or the sex life of Muntjac.
And so on.
Nerves do play a big part of it. So far as I am aware stress/nerves isn't part of the Assessment, so a good Assessor and their assistants work hard to keep things as relaxed as possible.
Brain fade - its as common to get the obvious bits wrong as the harder bit we all have our moments ( generally half way through reading one of my War n Peace posts
)Right way, wrong way and DSC way - the answers to some questions are debatable and the correct answer per DMQ may not accord with what some experienced people would normally put. This improves with time and each issue of the bank gets better. Some of it simply reflects the fact that any four stalkers will have 8 opinions!
The questions are UK wide - albeit with bias in Highland/ Lowland versions etc. You could stalk Reds for 40 years on Harris and have an understandable view of not being all that fussed about dentition in Fallow or the sex life of Muntjac.
And so on.
.243Ady
Well-Known Member
The BASC Assessor the other day was brilliant, I believe he played a big part in all the candidates success, along with the training module of course. Did read all your long post honestly, had slight fade towards end243Ady in terms of your last line - lots of reasons!
Nerves do play a big part of it. So far as I am aware stress/nerves isn't part of the Assessment, so a good Assessor and their assistants work hard to keep things as relaxed as possible.
Brain fade - its as common to get the obvious bits wrong as the harder bit we all have our moments ( generally half way through reading one of my War n Peace posts
Right way, wrong way and DSC way - the answers to some questions are debatable and the correct answer per DMQ may not accord with what some experienced people would normally put. This improves with time and each issue of the bank gets better. Some of it simply reflects the fact that any four stalkers will have 8 opinions!
The questions are UK wide - albeit with bias in Highland/ Lowland versions etc. You could stalk Reds for 40 years on Harris and have an understandable view of not being all that fussed about dentition in Fallow or the sex life of Muntjac.
And so on.
Last edited:
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
Ady - regards your last line - me too! 
6pointer
Well-Known Member
ADY The pass rate i quoted was on the day and i think the English lads might feel a wee bit different about this subject if there rights to shoot deer were being threatened by a qualification invented by an organisation thats purpose was to look after its members. In scotland come 2014 big dissions will be taken and those dissions will be made on what we the stalkers have done since 2009 regards improved training and deer welfare. Even a chap who gose out and shoots two deer a year on his own land with 50 experience will be asked to get to the competency level.The winner in this is the organisers BASC and BDS. The stalkers will not benefit because the playing field is not a level one.
Maybe we might even complicate this abit and if the current Scottish government get there way we will need to get rid of BASC and the BDS completely. Then there will be an outcry. We could have the SABC and the SDS with a Scottish assessment that is fit for purpose and is run by people from Scotland who will be directly effected by the results. Not some that are out of harms way in England wales and Ireland.
Maybe we might even complicate this abit and if the current Scottish government get there way we will need to get rid of BASC and the BDS completely. Then there will be an outcry. We could have the SABC and the SDS with a Scottish assessment that is fit for purpose and is run by people from Scotland who will be directly effected by the results. Not some that are out of harms way in England wales and Ireland.
fraserd
Well-Known Member
I can only speak personally.
I wanted to 'get a flavour 'of the whole shooting/stalking scene and I did a preDSC1 which I found to be valuable for me personally.
It got me to realise that I really did want to get going and I passed the DSC1 at the next course.
Also having the both made getting the FAC easier and without problems (except fo the delays!)
As has been said already, IF you're a regular stalker with FAC and a regular shooter then its pointless. If not then whilst it'll cost you the course fee it may well help to get through other aspects of the DSC1
Fraser
Similar threads
Available:
DSC Lev 1 Course - Central Scotalnd
