BASC welcomes police intent to remove unnecessary FAC conditions

[timbrayford]

I am prepared to stick my head above the parapet on this one.
I do not think that DSC1 prepares you nearly enough for shooting a deer. It is my belief that DSC1 should be the precursor to getting a ticket and that DSC2 should be when you are allowed to go out on your own.
I take people out stalking. I often ask about DSC1 and whether or not it prepared them for what comes after the shot. DSC1 does not address this issue, only DSC2 does.
Do I want to see mandatory DSC1 & 2 before your out on your own..............YES, not necessarily for the sake of the deer, but for knowing what comes afterwards

Irrespective of whether or not DSC 1+2 are a good or bad idea I don't quite see where the prevention of crime comes into this. As I said in different thread shooters can be there own worst enemies when it comes to proposing new firearms legislation.

That said when it comes to choosing your shooting companions then this is perhaps where the DSC qualifications become more relevant. atb Tim

 

[Dalua]

If they are something completely different then why do the Police ask for DSC1 when a simple shooting test is all that should be required from a safety perspective. DSC1 proves very little about safety. On the other hand DSC2 shows in real life situations that you are up to the job

I'm afraid I can't answer your question conclusively, but I'm afraid they might be asking for DSC1 first because they have generally shown themselves in favour of any measure or condition that makes the lawful aquisition of firearms and their subesequent use more awkward; and second because, having the air of a relevant official qualification, their demands for DSC 1 (and eventually, no doubt, 2 and 3) might be not only accepted but even joyously embraced by the self-same folk whose freedoms they are unjustly infringing by their requirements.

I'm not aware that anyone has shown that the safety of the public would be improved by mandatory safety qualifications before grant of FAC/SGC: nor that mandatory deer-stalking qualifications would improve any thing much either.

That aside, though, I believe it is of the utmost importance not to get the arguements concerning qualifications concerning the shooting of live quarry mixed up with the public safety considerations on which in law the grant or otherwise of FAC/SGC are contingent.

 

[CharlieT]

If they are something completely different then why do the Police ask for DSC1 when a simple shooting test is all that should be required from a safety perspective. DSC1 proves very little about safety. On the other hand DSC2 shows in real life situations that you are up to the job

Is this common place or just another hoop drempt up by some licensing managers ?

ACPO's last recorded take on the matter was...........
​
Deer Stalking Certificate (DSC) Level 117.1 Mick Fidgeon’s paper was discussed and members agreed that
that while attainment of DSC Level 1 is not a pre-requirement to
the issue of a certificate, and each application should continue to
be considered on it’s own merit, where an applicant has
successfully completed the course it is appropriate that it is
taken into consideration.
17.2 A FELWG Circulation will be prepared.



This was ACPO view prior to the latest just published by BASC as the starter to this topic.

10.2 DCC Marsh's view was that the current ACPO guidance is still appropriate and should be
used sensibly. Where accompanied conditions are used, it needs to be specific i.e. not
just accompanied by a mentor as this does not provide any control over the qualification
of an individual to act as a mentor. However, it was acknowledged that each case had
to be considered on its own merits and therefore it would not be possible to apply total
consistency. DCC Marsh emphasised that conditions should only be put in place that are
justifiable, proportionate and necessary

 

[cjm1066]

GOOD NEWS WE SHOULD WELCOME THIS

The statement says "recommends that training courses offered by organisations such as BASC would be a better solution if an applicant needs more experience". Note the "if" - lets rejoice while it prudent to be wary lets not get re training

 

[RickoShay]

...... DSC1 proves very little about safety. On the other hand DSC2 shows in real life situations that you are up to the job

DSC2 in that case just proves you are 'up to the job' on that assessment day too; DSC2 is designed to be a step forward from DSC1 not a 'better qualification'; after all you need one in order to apply for the other.
There is safety in DSC1, it is assessed, and it is pass or fail. Agreed, you cannot replace experience and every deer counts, but I'd argue that competence is based on an everyday basis. Both novice and expert stalkers must demonstrate this on stalk one or stalk 500.

 

[David63]

As Jimbo said, its about choice not force.

Many of us were lucky enough to get trained by a more experienced shooter, many of us as we grew up and had safety drummed into us – so being mentored further is pointless.

Similarly, if I have been fox shooting for years, why should I have to be mentored just because I now want to shoot an Munty on the same land with the same rifle?

I am sure we will all be much better off with ALOQ and these mentoring conditions dropped for good!

David

 

[RickoShay]

.

Similarly, if I have been fox shooting for years, why should I have to be mentored just because I now want to shoot an Munty on the same land with the same rifle?

Agreed, DSC1 would help you acquire some essential Deer knowledge though...

 

[CWMMAN3738]

While I welcome this it concerns me that now if this is applied and mentoring scrapped without something put in place & with gun ownership on the increase we MAY have people who have never shot an animal, Shooting deer or other animals, possibly badly, with no idea what to do with it then and this being exposed and used against the shooting community. So while I welcome this I am worried it may blow up in our face MAYBE we should have something before you can go out & shoot live quarry, ( maybe I'm paranoid) even if it's just animal anatomy & grollaching, & how to dispatch wounded animals, etc.
I mentored 1 who had no idea where to shoot a deer but had a .243 conditioned for deer & land to shoot on but absolutely no idea having never shot any animal before, this without a mentor or some training COULD turn into an embarisment to the shooting community at some time in the future, therefore I think we should be/show we are responsible and introduce a solution BEFORE it becomes a problem.(bit off topic I know)

 

[Dalua]

While I welcome this it concerns me that now if this is applied and mentoring scrapped without something put in place & with gun ownership on the increase we MAY have people who have never shot an animal, Shooting deer or other animals, possibly badly, with no idea what to do with it then and this being exposed and used against the shooting community. So while I welcome this I am worried it may blow up in our face MAYBE we should have something before you can go out & shoot live quarry, ( maybe I'm paranoid) even if it's just animal anatomy & grollaching, & how to dispatch wounded animals, etc.

I think this bears repetition: confusing the public safety requirements related to FAC/SGC grant with other matters such as those described above really doesn't help anyone. As for mentoring being scrapped, let us hope not! 'Mentoring conditions' we can certainly do without, but the practice of experienced sportsmen training beginners has kept shooting and stalking men safe and competent for longer than the memories of any living today.

I mentored 1 who had no idea where to shoot a deer but had a .243 conditioned for deer & land to shoot on but absolutely no idea having never shot any animal before, this without a mentor or some training COULD turn into an embarisment to the shooting community at some time in the future, therefore I think we should be/show we are responsible and introduce a solution BEFORE it becomes a problem.(bit off topic I know)

It is possible that you've answered your own point here: the chap had no experience but had the rifle and the land: and you put him on the right path. I don't know whether this was 'conditioned mentoring' or the traditional kind; but any road up, based on the steps he took to gain competence, the Police seem to have made the right decision to grant him the FAC: just, in fact, as they have been doing since 1920 without any apparent high level of novice-related public-safety problems.

If there is no problem, there is no need for a solution.

 

[Yorkie]

I think Credit should be given where it is due and BASC should be congratulated for the progress made. We all know it is like Swimming in Treacle trying to make any headway with Licensing and hopefully this is a significant move.

Yorkie.

 

[teyhan1]

Dalua, I totally agree that issues relating to public safety (the law) and training of individuals to a higher standard should not be confused, but given there is no regulation or qualification requirement (other than having a need) prior to obtaining a FAC/SGC how can we effectively ensure that new hunters (i.e. the future) are sufficiently trained without either 'mentor' or restrictive licenses. Why is it that in most other countries you have to go through rigorous hunter training before you obtain a hunting license?
CWMMAN we already have the pre-shooting qualification, it's DSC1. The problem is that as soon as you have it you are given Carte Blanche to blast away at whatever you like with little thought for what comes after

 

[CWMMAN3738]

I agree but to explain again I think that a condition requiring some training/mentoring BEFORE being let loose on wild animals (unless experience can be shown).
As most people know I am a BASC supporter & welcome this but temper my excitement with caution.
Just to clarify it was conditioned mentoring thankfully, the guy had never fired a gun before.

 

[timbrayford]

I think that there is a general consensus here that appropriate training is desirable before shooting live quarry, however it then becomes a question of whether the shooting community self-regulates by qualifications such as DSC 1 & 2 or whether we ask our legislators to impose some compulsory training on us similar to in Europe, e.g. the sort of restrictive shooting that they have in the Netherlands, is this what we really want?

I would like to suggest a possible slight modification to DSC 1. In addition to the practical assessments a module consisting of a guided stalk and gralloch with an AW with the requirement for the applicant to succesfully shoot a deer with correct shot placement and to gralloch/ inspect afterwards. This would differ from DSC2 in so far as the AW would be free to instruct and advise whilst the applicant would have to do all the practical work. atb Tim

 

[Crosshair243]

All of this is the problem with 'lifestyle' stalking. People are happy to pay for courses, to pay for an hours training here or there and collect Badges And Stupid Certificates like they're going out of fashion, they pay £k's for gear, clothing and equipment, they buy cars and dogs especially for it involving a lifetime of commitment and will pay silly money for stalking rights yet STILL we have a deer explosion.

Get out there and give up some TIME to help the keepers and stalkers who do this for a living. Help take down the rearing field, help by going beating, offer to sit out for rabbits on the cover plots with your .22 and in return you'll get the best mentoring possible.

You might also get a bit of killer-instinct ingrained into you instead of feeling guilty and embarrassed to actually put your fancy gear to use.

 

[David63]

I am sure mentoring will not stop.

What this should stop is the ‘automatic’ setting of training / mentoring conditions on certificates by some forces just because someone wants their certificate varied to include deer, despite having demonstrable experience shooting live quarry.

It should also save shooters, and the licencing teams time and money as AOLQ becomes the norm too.

I am sure that new comers to shooting will, where ever possible, learn the ropes from a more experienced shooter, or go on a course of their choosing to learn more and so on

Self regulation is the key as others have said.

David

 

[teyhan1]

Self regulation does not work. It is contrary to human nature.
Didn't work for the tabloid press, bankers or the hunt just to name a few.

 

[lister]

is there a public safety problem ?
​lister

 

[David63]

I cannot see there is a public safety issue and that shows in my mind how pointless the ‘automatic training / mentoring’ conditions are. There was no problem to fix?!

Shooting already self regulates to a great extent, but I agree, its where self-regulation breaks down that legislators step in…

David

 

[geoshot]

Thanks for proving me right guys, neither the original post nor mine mentioned DSC ever becoming compulsory but you both jump into to say you won't be yield to "force"
Who the feck mentioned anyone being forced but guys like you?
The post which started this thread mentioned removal of conditions but the nay-sayers come out whinging anyway.
Jimbo 30 06, well done for being so highly qualified, but where did you read about force in my original post or Simon's ?
So why a response like yours?

Originally Posted by geoshot
A welcome statement from BASC and out of 6 replies so far only one has been positive, that's becoming a bit too typical....
It would seem some folk are just resolutely negative about BASC and/or DSC1 or 2



I am lev 1 & 2, RCO and have various other shooting related qualifications. I did them because i wanted to not because i was required to do so before FAC was granted.

+1 --- it's about choice --- not force.

 

[Dalua]

Self regulation does not work. It is contrary to human nature.
Didn't work for the tabloid press, bankers or the hunt just to name a few.

Are there problems which you've identified among FAC/SGC-holders, and which you consider analogous to those that have beset banking and the tabloid press?

The thing about FAC/SGC-grant is that grant is generally made when the FEO has established the bona fides of the applicant, which would include an assessment as to whether they realise both how to use their firearms safely, and that they will need to gain knowledge and experience of their chosen sport by some means or other (whether on formal courses or by informally 'being shown the ropes').

To put it another way, the 'self regulation' aspect appears to me to work because the Police issue FAC/SGC to those whom they believe will regulate themselves: so although the new FAC-holder might in a way seem to have 'Carte Blanche to blast away at whatever he likes' (as you so colourfully put it), an FAC will have been granted on the basis that he's sensible and responsible enough not to do so.