Burying our heads in the sand.

[jimbo1984]

On balence I don't think it's a bad thing as such but you get a lot of newbie stalkers who tend to lecture the more experianced stalker about how the Dsc is great and everybody should do it and that really riles me , I'm all for training however I don't think it should be mandatory nor should anybody be browbeat into it , we have enough red tape and bits of paper in this world without adding more

 

[Klenchblaize]

So who's offering FSC L1 & L2 so I may "retain my FAC" for Fox Management in the years ahead??

K

 

[LuckyEddie]

Cheers. Bit of a bonus all things considered lol

regarding pensioners I was mearly making a point that experience does not always make you safe/good at what you are doing. Like wise just because someone is trained neither does that. However if someone is trained but doesn't operate to those levels then action could be taken against said person

What action can be taken against someone who does have a DSC1 that cannot be taken against some one who doesn't?
Do something daft and the result is the same loss of FAC. Or am I being simplistic?????

Ed

 

[teyhan1]

This is nothing to do with your liability. It is all about the FC and others showing a duty of care so as they don't get their ass sued off if (heaven forbid) somrthing ever goes wrong. If they did everything they could and it still went wrong then the blame for any mishap falls squarely at your door

 

[jimbo1984]

What action can be taken against someone who does have a DSC1 that cannot be taken against some one who doesn't?
Do something daft and the result is the same loss of FAC. Or am I being simplistic?????

Ed

No sir you are not being simplistic at all your only crime is talking sense

 

[1066kieran]

What action can be taken against someone who does have a DSC1 that cannot be taken against some one who doesn't?
Do something daft and the result is the same loss of FAC. Or am I being simplistic?????

Ed

The point I was trying to make was in all walks of life both at work and at leisure we are now trained be that at the gym ( heaven forbid lol) or work PASMA or whatever other training scheme. When everyone is trained to a given standard if someone transgresses they either have their ticket removed or are sent for additonal training at their expense. As it stands their are no minimum standard of training across the board. Yes their are various safety schemes but take up is low. As for if you do something stupid you lose your ticket I know one bloke in the next village that is still shooting even after shooting a pair of eyes belonging to a horse when he was foxing.

Cheers sikamalc. And I'm sorry about this awful condition and consider myself very lucky

 

[1066kieran]

Its duty of care and liability lies with the idiot that made the mistake.

 

[jimbo1984]

Its duty of care and liability lies with the idiot that made the mistake.

So how does having a dsc or not make any difference with liability?

 

[1066kieran]

For example till hill or whoever might or might not provide their own training and assertained what training you have undertaken if you have attained whatever level they see fit your free to go however if it goes smell your head is on the block. Same as my IPaf ticket I produce that on site and I'm ok to drive machines but if I were to have an accident the ball stops with me. The main contractor has shown duty of care and short of holding my had can do nothing else. Now whoever your working stalking for will/could still be liable but the perpetrator will carry the weight of blame providing the above sort of procedures are followed.

 

[jimbo1984]

For example till hill or whoever might or might not provide their own training and assertained what training you have undertaken if you have attained whatever level they see fit your free to go however if it goes smell your head is on the block. Same as my IPaf ticket I produce that on site and I'm ok to drive machines but if I were to have an accident the ball stops with me. The main contractor has shown duty of care and short of holding my had can do nothing else. Now whoever your working stalking for will/could still be liable but the perpetrator will carry the weight of blame providing the above sort of procedures are followed.

I see your point but as I say I see the dsc as no garuntee of competence , I certainly hope it never becomes mandatory I think there's too many courses and money making schemes as it is

 

[LuckyEddie]

The point I was trying to make was in all walks of life both at work and at leisure we are now trained be that at the gym ( heaven forbid lol) or work PASMA or whatever other training scheme. When everyone is trained to a given standard if someone transgresses they either have their ticket removed or are sent for additonal training at their expense. As it stands their are no minimum standard of training across the board. Yes their are various safety schemes but take up is low. As for if you do something stupid you lose your ticket I know one bloke in the next village that is still shooting even after shooting a pair of eyes belonging to a horse when he was foxing.

Aye right to the first part - how many numpty drivers are there out and about that have a licence?

As for the seciond part if you consider this person to be an unsafe shot should you not be questioning the FLO in allowing him to continue shooting?
Is this not guilty knowledge and if he has another incident are you not complicit in that incident?

Ed

 

[Labrat]

So who's offering FSC L1 & L2 so I may "retain my FAC" for Fox Management in the years ahead??K

Funnily enough, I was reading almost exactly this suggestion from a certain organisation in their response on the northern Ireland firearms consultation. I'll dig it out later when I'm not on the mobile.

 

[Dalua]

This sort of thing always seems to bring up problems of confusion between
training and mandatory training,
the ability lawfully to stalk deer and the ability to hold a FAC, and
training neccessary because of self-regulation of the 'stalking industry' and training neccessary because of legislation
among other things.

Anyhow:
I don't think any legislation should restrict anything unless there is some demonstrable and proportionate reason for such a restriction. That's just my standard view of how things should work in a free-ish country.

We have very clear firearms legislation in this country. This is adequate to stop those who are not fit to hold them from having lawful access to firearms.

If the 'stalking industry' or owners of sporting rights wish to stop, where they have the power to do so, people from stalking unless they have particular qualifications then that is in my view regretable, from their point of view understandable and in the last analysis entirely up to them.

 

[palmer_mike]

So who's offering FSC L1 & L2 so I may "retain my FAC" for Fox Management in the years ahead??

K

Seem to remember reading somewhere that there is a lantra course?

 

[Klenchblaize]

Funnily enough, I was reading almost exactly this suggestion from a certain organisation in their response on the northern Ireland firearms consultation. I'll dig it out later when I'm not on the mobile.

Bring it on!

 

[Klenchblaize]

Seem to remember reading somewhere that there is a lantra course?

Is there a badge to be had upon qualifying??

 

[LuckyEddie]

Bring it on!

Careful - you'll get fat on all them crsips!

 

[Cyres]

It will be inevitable that in the future we will all need some sort of paper qualification.

In my area of work I have to be state registered, be able to demonstrate competence and continual professional developement just to stay on a register, if not registered then I cannot work. Also work is highly monitored and progression to higher grades is by exam, so its a way of life for me. I have to pass 6 monthly assessments on top of this and my annual stats have to fall within agreed national figures.

When I applied for my first C/F A@S insisted (rightly/wrongly) that I needed to undertake an approved course, which I did. This facillitated my .223 application.

It was then logical to take my DSC L1 to do the same for my .243.

They are just pieces of paper, but on the day you achieved a measurable standard. Thats all it is about.

I am suprised that to be insured you don't currently have to provide some for of certificate of competence.

Sadly its the way of the world and best to take the exam at your own discretion rather than it to be forced on you.

Nobody knows everything and we all get into bad habits so a regular update post qualification is just sensible.

If certifiesd then it might be a good way of getting over rediculous regulations about land checks and open certificates, which would save a great deal of hassle and waste of money. AOLQ should be standard and the onus placed on the shooter.

I must say its a big jump from a .22LR to a C/F and there does seem to be a need for training.

So in a nutshell yes, but we must drive it rather than the goverment.

D

 

[1066kieran]

Aye right to the first part - how many numpty drivers are there out and about that have a licence?

As for the seciond part if you consider this person to be an unsafe shot should you not be questioning the FLO in allowing him to continue shooting?
Is this not guilty knowledge and if he has another incident are you not complicit in that incident?

Ed

It was investigated at the time and the farmer helped conseal?! Evidence by speading slurry on the field where the incident happened. I might of pointed out to the flo this chap is a liability

 

[LuckyEddie]

It was investigated at the time and the farmer helped conseal?! Evidence by speading slurry on the field where the incident happened. I might of pointed out to the flo this chap is a liability

Blinkin' frustratin when you know it's happened but can't prove it.

Ed