Burying our heads in the sand.

[Dalua]

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

It certainly will be if, as you suggest, 'we drive it rather than the government'.

The advantage of leaving it to the government is that, since there seems to be no evidence that making such qualification mandatory is a proportionate response to any perceived risk to the Queen's Peace, they might not be able to justify the infringement of liberty that would result and that therefore it might be rather less inevitable.

 

[Jagare]

Well I'm over 60 been stalking for 40 tears and i like going on courses. Strange how when you think you know it all you learn something new. When i moved here i did the hunting exam. I had no choice if i wanted to keep my weapons. I enjoyed the studie very much and even learnt quite a bit .Now i have my weapon license for life
I've done tracking courses and wildboar courses and i'm sure i will do more in the future.
I was down the range last weekend and was shooting with a former Swedish champion running moose target shooter. I'm a pretty fair shot on the running moose range but listening to him i picked up some very good tips. Your never to old to learn
Haveing done the Dsc1 i can see no reason why its not compulsory in the UK.

 

[Labrat]

Bring it on!

​
Northern Ireland Deer Society:

t is our understanding that in respect of rifles used for deer shooting that theindividual has to have an accredited deer stalking certificate and that the authoritydoes not carry out land inspections in relation to an application from such anindividual. We are led to believe that the onus is put onto the trained hunter toassess the ground and its safety for use of the particular firearm he or she is using.How does this fit with the proposals under consideration.

Legislation already and exclusively exists for a minimum calibre, bullet weight,muzzle velocity and Muzzle energy for shooting deer. Our society believes thatsimilar legislation should apply to wild and feral goats.

With regard to any further safety considerations we believe that the use of centrefire rifles for foxes which involves shooting at night is potentially dangerous to thepublic and livestock. This activity needs to be very closely controlled and thosewho carry out such operations should be required to demonstrate the need to shootat night and obtain authorisation to do so and to give local police 24 hours notice ofcarrying out a night shooting operation. They should also be required todemonstrate that they operate safe working practises including risk assessmentsthat eliminate risk to human life and property.

http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/public-consultations/archive-consultations/annex-a-4-consultation-responses-banded-system.pdf

 

[1066kieran]

It certainly will be if, as you suggest, 'we drive it rather than the government'.

The advantage of leaving it to the government is that, since there seems to be no evidence that making such qualification mandatory is a proportionate response to any perceived risk to the Queen's Peace, they might not be able to justify the infringement of liberty that would result and that therefore it might be rather less inevitable.

Like the "evidence" to stop the use of lead shot on wildfowl?
Or removing the Curlew from the quarry list due to its plaintive call.
Banning legally head hand guns to reduce gun crime? oh yes that's right that's continued to rise too

 

[Klenchblaize]

​
Northern Ireland Deer Society:









http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/publi...-a-4-consultation-responses-banded-system.pdf

I'm feeling very queasy.

 

[wivenhoe65]

Like the "evidence" to stop the use of lead shot on wildfowl?
Or removing the Curlew from the quarry list due to its plaintive call.
Banning legally head hand guns to reduce gun crime? oh yes that's right that's continued to rise too

You are now arguing against yourself ..... ?
If its mandatory it will come from a gov't initiative , they are not fit to run a chimps tea party let alone produce legislation governing mandatory training .

 

[caorach]

So come on guys pull your heads out of their respective holes and get with the programme.
As someone else once said "those that are not with us are against us"

I might argue that it is you who is in the hole. You've been won over by the emotional argument that shooting is dangerous and so requires training, control, little men in charge etc. Now you are in that hole you can't see past the tabloid "sound bites" to the actual facts.

The only reason to have training is to address a need. Recently I did a FoI request to the SNH (old DC) asking about the number of deaths due to eating venison, due to firearms being used by a stalker and the number of reported animal welfare problems caused by legal deer stalkers.

In all cases the reply was that they were unaware of any instance, ever, where someone died from eating dodgy venison, where someone died in a firearm related incident whilst stalking legally or where there had been a report of an animal welfare issue relating to a legal stalker or legal stalking.

So, if there are no quantifiable problems exactly what problem is your training going to address? Exactly how will you measure the success of this training in terms of any reduction on zero problems? Exactly what will the training teach people? Statistics indicate that about 141 people die each year in accidents involving their trousers so perhaps these courses that you think we must all do will focus on how to safely put on our trousers before going stalking? That is the only area where I believe you could achieve a quantifiable and measurable improvement in performance through forcing stalkers to undertake training.

Despite saying this I'm not opposed to training at all, I have DSC1 myself for example, but I suspect that the deer stalking world is wonderfully self regulating in the sense that those who need training are getting it of their own accord while those with lots of experience feel no need to get it. This is supported by the figures - zero deaths and zero animal welfare incidents relating to legal stalking use of firearms or venison handling.

There is simply no basis for any argument that shooting or stalking are dangerous, in any way, to the stalker or the general public. Not only is there no evidence of risk and danger but in truth the evidence indicates the opposite - when I go into the forest or onto the hill with my rifle I am many times safer than when I'm putting on my trousers.

 

[terrier1]

There is a certain percentage of the shooting community that appear to want to bury their heads in the sand and are totally opposed to training believing that experience is everything and training means nothing. Which is all well and good if the experience has been gained while operating in a safe manner but experience proves "nothing" as the countless pensioners prove that drive the wrong way down motorways and other major routes.
It is inevitable that in the near future proof of training will be required not only to obtain leases but also to obtain your FAC.
FC have already moved the date twice making it a requirement to be DSC2 registered to stalk on their land once this is in force everyone else will follow suit.
Its a simple matter of litigation and having a paper trail to follow if things go smelly.
Not only that surely its better that we regulate ourselves and bring ourselves into the 21century rather than be dragged kicking and screaming by legislation.
So come on guys pull your heads out of their respective holes and get with the programme.
As someone else once said "those that are not with us are against us"

It is only a matter time before the landowner/land agent contacts you and tells you that you will no longer be able to shoot a rifle on this land/estate for deer or fox without some form of qualification. This will be for insurance purposes and it will not matter if you have been shooting their for 30 years it will be out of his hands. and as we all know that special buck you have been leaving to be come a medal will be no longer yours.

 

[timbrayford]

I don't know about inevitability, but I'd say that if there is going to be mandatory training, then that should become a necessary and sufficient condition for an FAC. SO you do your training, and then you can buy whatever rifle you see fit with no further conditions. The terms of the discussion need to change from the current Heath Robinson setup to something integrated and coherent.

+1 That makes sense to me, IMO the S1 provisions of Firearms Act which are now nearly 100 years old are looking to be past their sell by date. atb Tim

 

[jimbo1984]

Like the "evidence" to stop the use of lead shot on wildfowl?
Or removing the Curlew from the quarry list due to its plaintive call.
Banning legally head hand guns to reduce gun crime? oh yes that's right that's continued to rise too

As stated you are arguing against yourself ??? can I hazard a guess you have recently been granted a fac and done your dsc?

 

[Pine Marten]

+1 That makes sense to me, IMO the S1 provisions of Firearms Act which are now nearly 100 years old are looking to be past their sell by date. atb Tim

Thanks Tim! Notice that I'm not advocating additional regulation and restrictions, but just changing them to something that makes sense and that everyone buys into. Then I'd move onto consolidating wildlife and environmental legislation into such a way that laws relating to shooting and related activities form an official and legitimate part of environmental policy. At which point we cease having to justify our existence.

 

[1066kieran]

You are now arguing against yourself ..... ?
If its mandatory it will come from a gov't initiative , they are not fit to run a chimps tea party let alone produce legislation governing mandatory training .

How am I arguing against myself?
I'm making the point that the government will bring in legislation even without evidence.

 

[patjack]

I might argue that it is you who is in the hole. You've been won over by the emotional argument that shooting is dangerous and so requires training, control, little men in charge etc. Now you are in that hole you can't see past the tabloid "sound bites" to the actual facts.

The only reason to have training is to address a need. Recently I did a FoI request to the SNH (old DC) asking about the number of deaths due to eating venison, due to firearms being used by a stalker and the number of reported animal welfare problems caused by legal deer stalkers.

In all cases the reply was that they were unaware of any instance, ever, where someone died from eating dodgy venison, where someone died in a firearm related incident whilst stalking legally or where there had been a report of an animal welfare issue relating to a legal stalker or legal stalking.

So, if there are no quantifiable problems exactly what problem is your training going to address? Exactly how will you measure the success of this training in terms of any reduction on zero problems? Exactly what will the training teach people? Statistics indicate that about 141 people die each year in accidents involving their trousers so perhaps these courses that you think we must all do will focus on how to safely put on our trousers before going stalking? That is the only area where I believe you could achieve a quantifiable and measurable improvement in performance through forcing stalkers to undertake training.

Despite saying this I'm not opposed to training at all, I have DSC1 myself for example, but I suspect that the deer stalking world is wonderfully self regulating in the sense that those who need training are getting it of their own accord while those with lots of experience feel no need to get it. This is supported by the figures - zero deaths and zero animal welfare incidents relating to legal stalking use of firearms or venison handling.

There is simply no basis for any argument that shooting or stalking are dangerous, in any way, to the stalker or the general public. Not only is there no evidence of risk and danger but in truth the evidence indicates the opposite - when I go into the forest or onto the hill with my rifle I am many times safer than when I'm putting on my trousers.

Bravo very well said.

There also seems to be an agenda with some "stalkers" wanting compulsory training in that it might make permissions available and the older FAC holders having to give up their shooting unless they undertake Compulsory training, As you stated there is no evidence for the need based on any Safety Issues and nearly 20k have done the DSC1 since march 1998 so clearly we have self regulation and the best safety record and long may that continue dispite the internet rumour mill that this and that occured funny thing with all the Anti Shooting Media and Orgs you would think that we would hear about dangerous shooting practice if and when it happened but there never seems to be.

 

[1066kieran]

I might argue that it is you who is in the hole. You've been won over by the emotional argument that shooting is dangerous and so requires training, control, little men in charge etc. Now you are in that hole you can't see past the tabloid "sound bites" to the actual facts.

The only reason to have training is to address a need. Recently I did a FoI request to the SNH (old DC) asking about the number of deaths due to eating venison, due to firearms being used by a stalker and the number of reported animal welfare problems caused by legal deer stalkers.

In all cases the reply was that they were unaware of any instance, ever, where someone died from eating dodgy venison, where someone died in a firearm related incident whilst stalking legally or where there had been a report of an animal welfare issue relating to a legal stalker or legal stalking.

So, if there are no quantifiable problems exactly what problem is your training going to address? Exactly how will you measure the success of this training in terms of any reduction on zero problems? Exactly what will the training teach people? Statistics indicate that about 141 people die each year in accidents involving their trousers so perhaps these courses that you think we must all do will focus on how to safely put on our trousers before going stalking? That is the only area where I believe you could achieve a quantifiable and measurable improvement in performance through forcing stalkers to undertake training.

Despite saying this I'm not opposed to training at all, I have DSC1 myself for example, but I suspect that the deer stalking world is wonderfully self regulating in the sense that those who need training are getting it of their own accord while those with lots of experience feel no need to get it. This is supported by the figures - zero deaths and zero animal welfare incidents relating to legal stalking use of firearms or venison handling.

There is simply no basis for any argument that shooting or stalking are dangerous, in any way, to the stalker or the general public. Not only is there no evidence of risk and danger but in truth the evidence indicates the opposite - when I go into the forest or onto the hill with my rifle I am many times safer than when I'm putting on my trousers.

I have been won over by nobody.
Yes its all hypothetical but carry out a risk assessment for a stalking trip and without the control measures it is theoretically very dangerous.
Our fowling club has to have one in place as part of its lease,also some marshes are out of bounds till you've been in the club for two seasons.not that hard to change marsh lease for woodland lease.
As has been said before training shows that someone has attained a minimum standard of understanding.

 

[wivenhoe65]

How am I arguing against myself?
I'm making the point that the government will bring in legislation even without evidence.

Come to think of it your original post is somewhat contradictory.
"It is inevitable that in the near future proof of training will be required not only to obtain leases but also to obtain your FAC.
FC have already moved the date twice making it a requirement to be DSC2 registered to stalk on their land once this is in force everyone else will follow suit.
Its a simple matter of litigation and having a paper trail to follow if things go smelly.
Not only that surely its better that we regulate ourselves and bring ourselves into the 21century rather than be dragged kicking and screaming by legislation."
If training is a prerequisite for obtaining an FAC we would not be regulating ourselves ('regulating ourselves' seems to be something i think we might agree on as being the best way forward) ,the training becomes mandatory and would no doubt be regulated itself to ensure a certain standard / level of competency .
Non- mandatory training / self regulation without gov't interference is our best way forward , and if you have to rely on the FC or other organisation / company that insists on training / proof of competency for stalking 'training' is obviously what you will have to do - pretty much what exists at the moment .

 

[wivenhoe65]

I have been won over by nobody.
Yes its all hypothetical but carry out a risk assessment for a stalking trip and without the control measures it is theoretically very dangerous.
Our fowling club has to have one in place as part of its lease,also some marshes are out of bounds till you've been in the club for two seasons.not that hard to change marsh lease for woodland lease.
As has been said before training shows that someone has attained a minimum standard of understanding.

Now that really is laughable ,it merely shows someone managed to remember the answers - not necessarily understanding anything .

 

[vizslamad]

Bravo very well said.

There also seems to be an agenda with some "stalkers" wanting compulsory training in that it might make permissions available and the older FAC holders having to give up their shooting unless they undertake Compulsory training, As you stated there is no evidence for the need based on any Safety Issues and nearly 20k have done the DSC1 since march 1998 so clearly we have self regulation and the best safety record and long may that continue dispite the internet rumour mill that this and that occured funny thing with all the Anti Shooting Media and Orgs you would think that we would hear about dangerous shooting practice if and when it happened but there never seems to be.

Not to mention the amount of people now facilitating this training also benefiting big time from any move to compulsary. They certainly will not disagree with it.

 

[1066kieran]

Come to think of it your original post is somewhat contradictory.
"It is inevitable that in the near future proof of training will be required not only to obtain leases but also to obtain your FAC.
FC have already moved the date twice making it a requirement to be DSC2 registered to stalk on their land once this is in force everyone else will follow suit.
Its a simple matter of litigation and having a paper trail to follow if things go smelly.
Not only that surely its better that we regulate ourselves and bring ourselves into the 21century rather than be dragged kicking and screaming by legislation."
If training is a prerequisite for obtaining an FAC we would not be regulating ourselves ('regulating ourselves' seems to be something i think we might agree on as being the best way forward) ,the training becomes mandatory and would no doubt be regulated itself to ensure a certain standard / level of competency .
Non- mandatory training / self regulation without gov't interference is our best way forward , and if you have to rely on the FC or other organisation / company that insists on training / proof of competency for stalking 'training' is obviously what you will have to do - pretty much what exists at the moment .

Where is the contradiction please enlighten me.

 

[1066kieran]

It shows someone has been trained to a recognised standard. Now if they pass by fair means or foul that's a different matter and up to them. But when/if they sign their slip to say a deer is suitable for human consumption and its not it's their head on the block

 

[wivenhoe65]

Where is the contradiction please enlighten me.

"It is inevitable that in the near future proof of training will be required not only to obtain leases but also to obtain your FAC.FC have already moved the date twice making it a requirement to be DSC2 registered to stalk on their land once this is in force everyone else will follow suit.
Its a simple matter of litigation and having a paper trail to follow if things go smelly.
Not only that surely its better that we regulate ourselves and bring ourselves into the 21century rather than be dragged kicking and screaming by legislation."
If training is mandatory to obtain an fac you have just lost self regulation ............