Agreed. I'm thinking of something that is substantial enough to be informative and interesting -an entertaining 20 minutes or so using a phone app to quiz friends in the pub or to while away a wait at at the dentist's, say- but not substantial enough to be mistaken for a qualification. It should aim to promote further learning/training though.
BASC welcomes police intent to remove unnecessary FAC conditions
- Thread starter Simon Clarke
- Start date
Agreed. I'm thinking of something that is substantial enough to be informative and interesting -an entertaining 20 minutes or so using a phone app to quiz friends in the pub or to while away a wait at at the dentist's, say- but not substantial enough to be mistaken for a qualification. It should aim to promote further learning/training though.
If anyone gets AOLQ from Notts then please let me know, I asked a couple of months ago as I have 308 and fancied a session on boar. I was informed that they will not give AOLQ unless I can prove a booking has been made. Once I could show that I had made a booking for boar, they would maybe grant it on the 308 and my other rifles? If they may grant it on my other rifles, why should I have to make a confirmed booking on boar using the 308.
Notts are using it but not in all circumstances. Likewise let us know of refusals
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
David Basc
'Trust me, with our new CEO at the helm he will be making sure BASC drives forward and fights on the front foot!'
Nice mixed metaphor!
Frank
'Trust me, with our new CEO at the helm he will be making sure BASC drives forward and fights on the front foot!'
Nice mixed metaphor!
Frank
sikamalc
Administrator
Lets face it the whole FA system is so unpredictable, from constabulary to constabulary it is a joke.
I am not a member of BASC, but I do commend them for at least putting a sensible case forward to get some over all consistency into the FA system. We hear of those that pass their Level 1 being given an open ticket, whilst others have a mentoring condition (west sussex being particularly bad on this issue) whilst I understand Cambridge do not believe in it (so I was told by a recent SD member and client)
Then we have this ridiculous situation where upon you can have a 243 to shoot Fox at night, but the local police will not allow you to use it for deer stalking. Or you have it on your ticket but to shoot a goat or wild boar you have to apply for it again.
Its a waste of police time, money, resources and is unworkable.
I am all for gun safety and to stop weapons falling into the wrong hands. Also we have a huge amount of people taking up deer stalking, many with little or no experience of handling firearms, some not so. Do we really need a bench mark qualification that is in line with other EU countries (don't forget in many EU countries you cannot hunt unless you have Level 1)...................YES WE DO.
I would not want to see it made compulsory to take Level 1, and many on here are against it being so. In most cases these people are long established FA owners and are in the system, but what about all the newbies joining the sport?
Level 1 and 2 are here to stay, and quite frankly I decided to get on with it many years back as it was not going away and it is here to stay......END OFF. So why do we get the same old issues again about Level 1 and 2?
Lets hope that these new proposals are taken on board by the police, at least it will cut down their work load and save the tax payer money. Well done BASC
ATB
Sikamalc
I am not a member of BASC, but I do commend them for at least putting a sensible case forward to get some over all consistency into the FA system. We hear of those that pass their Level 1 being given an open ticket, whilst others have a mentoring condition (west sussex being particularly bad on this issue) whilst I understand Cambridge do not believe in it (so I was told by a recent SD member and client)
Then we have this ridiculous situation where upon you can have a 243 to shoot Fox at night, but the local police will not allow you to use it for deer stalking. Or you have it on your ticket but to shoot a goat or wild boar you have to apply for it again.
Its a waste of police time, money, resources and is unworkable.
I am all for gun safety and to stop weapons falling into the wrong hands. Also we have a huge amount of people taking up deer stalking, many with little or no experience of handling firearms, some not so. Do we really need a bench mark qualification that is in line with other EU countries (don't forget in many EU countries you cannot hunt unless you have Level 1)...................YES WE DO.
I would not want to see it made compulsory to take Level 1, and many on here are against it being so. In most cases these people are long established FA owners and are in the system, but what about all the newbies joining the sport?
Level 1 and 2 are here to stay, and quite frankly I decided to get on with it many years back as it was not going away and it is here to stay......END OFF. So why do we get the same old issues again about Level 1 and 2?
Lets hope that these new proposals are taken on board by the police, at least it will cut down their work load and save the tax payer money. Well done BASC
ATB
Sikamalc
Last edited:
RickoShay
Well-Known Member
Malc - A fair perspective. By example ALL target shooters now have to secure an annual 'certificate of competence' from their chosen club around firearm and ammunition safety and understanding of range protocols; this helps a great deal as it happens for RCOs; interestingly it is the 'old and bold' who are the biggest safety offenders in my experience.
Would be much more difficult to implement these type of measure with stalkers as we don't go out with an RCO, but a foundation level of safety 'at all levels' can only be a good thing.
If a re-think is required, rather than sleep walk into compulsory training (which is what we are talking about) we should ask what we want as stalkers. One hunting level entry exam could be mandatory (like EU), but we should be wary of incremental exams/tests/assessmenst creeping in thereafter, which rarely serve the sportsman. Also, am very wary that we have a wide range of stalkers from novices, to hobbyists, to professionals, wildlife wardens and straightfoirward sports businesses; so each will have a perspective (many of the professionals will already require formal qualification) on what they want. From my perspective, we should support the sporting shooter as a base; a sport becomes a lot less joyful if we have to jump through hoops to do it.
If BASC wants to represent stalking shooters it could do more to anticipate these policies and interdict them with a sensible plan (after consulting the membership) before one is imposed upon us by HO/ACPO/EU.
Would be much more difficult to implement these type of measure with stalkers as we don't go out with an RCO, but a foundation level of safety 'at all levels' can only be a good thing.
If a re-think is required, rather than sleep walk into compulsory training (which is what we are talking about) we should ask what we want as stalkers. One hunting level entry exam could be mandatory (like EU), but we should be wary of incremental exams/tests/assessmenst creeping in thereafter, which rarely serve the sportsman. Also, am very wary that we have a wide range of stalkers from novices, to hobbyists, to professionals, wildlife wardens and straightfoirward sports businesses; so each will have a perspective (many of the professionals will already require formal qualification) on what they want. From my perspective, we should support the sporting shooter as a base; a sport becomes a lot less joyful if we have to jump through hoops to do it.
If BASC wants to represent stalking shooters it could do more to anticipate these policies and interdict them with a sensible plan (after consulting the membership) before one is imposed upon us by HO/ACPO/EU.
waterford103
Well-Known Member
I shall re-iterate my original idea ,everyone who applies for a FAC for target shooting must join a suitable club and make attendances for 6 months ,during which time they are knowingly and unknowing ly monitored and mentored by experienced ,safe ,shooters .Only at the end of this time will a decision be made on the grant on grounds of suitability and safety.Most clubs that I am aware of have number of stalkers / vermin hunters in thier membership or know of such people.During and after grant anyone wanting to take up stalking would make their interest known and be directed into the world of stalking where safety is always first principle and moral practise and hygene can be taught .DSC 1 / 2 could then be an option ,if you like , more knowledge is always a good thing ,but NOT a legal /quasi-legal requirement . We want less red tape and more responsible stalkers .Certainly DSC 1 / 2 is a way to achieve this but let's not kid ourselves ,there are always going to be little "Hitlers " wanting to impose their wishes on the rest of us and none more than groups or committees with self interest at heart.
OK, but where is the extra capacity in shooting clubs going to come from? They are currently thinly spread and have limited resources -most have waiting lists- and I suspect the obstacles to getting planning permission for a new civilian rifle range/shooting club would be significant. I don't know if this pessimistic or realistic, but I think it's a reasonable question to raise.
waterford103
Well-Known Member
Good point Mr Gain ! There are many military ranges relatively unused around the country ,Lots of shooting clubs don't have a range of their own but rent "use" of the local range .Surely NRA / BASC et al could work together with local clubs to extend the use of these ranges and therefore open more capacity to clubs to train /mentor / monitor new applicants ,The NRA has a running deer range at Bisley ,what level of training do they provide? BASC run courses already, would it not be in their interest to open up these ex-mod ranges ? Even easier now the ranges are operated by Landmark ,a supposedly private concern, to increase the useage of the ranges .
We are far from an ideal situation with left-wing tree hugging politicians working against us , would it not be better to ask our official shooting bodies to get their respective fingers from their arses and work with us instead of for themselves . I fear that despite platitudes and denials from BASC that the cosy talks with ACPO ,the political branch of the police , and others will end up with being part of new home office "guidance" which is , after all , only advice ,not law.
We are far from an ideal situation with left-wing tree hugging politicians working against us , would it not be better to ask our official shooting bodies to get their respective fingers from their arses and work with us instead of for themselves . I fear that despite platitudes and denials from BASC that the cosy talks with ACPO ,the political branch of the police , and others will end up with being part of new home office "guidance" which is , after all , only advice ,not law.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Is the "good reason" requirement that necessary if you are to be required to be DSC qualified?
If you are a recreational stalker who buys stalking on a per outing basis and also use your rifle for target shooting at a club then this "good reason" requirement can create a problem.
I bought a P.M. Roebuck stalk in the BDS auction some years ago and duly applied for my FAC to be conditioned for this. Many months later and but a few days from the end of the season and indeed after a great deal of prompting the revised certificate arrived together with a most officious letter informing me that once I had been on my stalk I would no longer have "good reason" .
It further informed me that if I had not arranged another stalk within 6 months Hampshire Police would consider partially revoking my certificate although my possession of the c/f rifle and use at the club would be unaffected.
I appreciate that since then they have several changes of personnel at Hampshire Police both within FLD and right at the top, but I fail to understand quite where the fit to be entrusted, public safety and crime prevention considerations come into this.
I can quite see the value of the DSC 1 & 2 qualifications on a voluntary basis, however if they were to be made mandatory it would be nice to see the "good reason" requirement dispensed with, surely if the police believe that possession of DSC qualifications make you an experienced stalker then they do not need any further information about your shooting, apart from the usual fit to be entrusted and criminal activity background checks that is. atb Tim
If you are a recreational stalker who buys stalking on a per outing basis and also use your rifle for target shooting at a club then this "good reason" requirement can create a problem.
I bought a P.M. Roebuck stalk in the BDS auction some years ago and duly applied for my FAC to be conditioned for this. Many months later and but a few days from the end of the season and indeed after a great deal of prompting the revised certificate arrived together with a most officious letter informing me that once I had been on my stalk I would no longer have "good reason" .
It further informed me that if I had not arranged another stalk within 6 months Hampshire Police would consider partially revoking my certificate although my possession of the c/f rifle and use at the club would be unaffected.
I appreciate that since then they have several changes of personnel at Hampshire Police both within FLD and right at the top, but I fail to understand quite where the fit to be entrusted, public safety and crime prevention considerations come into this.
I can quite see the value of the DSC 1 & 2 qualifications on a voluntary basis, however if they were to be made mandatory it would be nice to see the "good reason" requirement dispensed with, surely if the police believe that possession of DSC qualifications make you an experienced stalker then they do not need any further information about your shooting, apart from the usual fit to be entrusted and criminal activity background checks that is. atb Tim
Then you have the more idiotic conditioning, such as a long time cf user has another calibre added to his cert, but with effectively a closed condition for the new rifle , on an otherwise open cert,........??????
I fear this may be a chicken/egg situation. Unless and until a period of club membership is required, consent, use and resources for this will be hard to come by. I suspect too that most of these ranges are not currently fit for civilian use, and will require substantial investment before they are. Aside from the fact that shooters have a notoriously patchy record when it comes to opening our wallets, especially for services, the added expense involved rather mitigates against the "shooting for all" rationale behind the idea.
After all, if universal instruction in safe weapon handling is the objective, this can be taught without firearms -even Mil/LE training is being undertaken with airsoft guns these days- not to mention that many of us who learned to shoot in uniform acquired the basics with air rifles and then .22LRs. The missing element here is club organisation as part of a larger network that can maintain standards.
This puts me in mind of the diver training I did with BSAC (not to be confused with BASC!), which ran a network of local branches from a central HQ and produced accessible and authoritative training materials and qualification programmes. You could dive without being qualified, but getting insured without qualifications was virtually impossible. (Somehow shooters manage to hurt/kill themselves in far smaller numbers than divers* -and pretty much everyone else, for that matter-, however, which brings us back to the odd notion that maybe there isn't a need for safety training after all).
*Just imagine if every weekend for 6 months of the year helicopters and ambulances were being called out to rescue moribund shooters!
Last edited:
StalkerRPG
New Member
Removing un-needed conditions!!!
Great idea - would've saved me loads of hassle over the past year.
1st application for FAC went in for deer control as the reason.
Told by police to do DSC1, and they wouldn't put condition on FAC.
Agreed with them (sounded reasonable to me), did DSC1.
FAC came back with "accompanied condition"!!! - WTF
Only through complaints, letters from my accompanier and help from BASC the police finally removed condition.
Grrrr....
Great idea - would've saved me loads of hassle over the past year.
1st application for FAC went in for deer control as the reason.
Told by police to do DSC1, and they wouldn't put condition on FAC.
Agreed with them (sounded reasonable to me), did DSC1.
FAC came back with "accompanied condition"!!! - WTF
Only through complaints, letters from my accompanier and help from BASC the police finally removed condition.
Grrrr....
Last edited:
Similar threads
