View Poll Results: compulsay training when

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • NEVER

    43 63.24%
  • BEFORE YOU GET A DEER CALIBRE

    20 29.41%
  • WHEN YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR THEORY LEV 1

    4 5.88%
  • WHEN YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR PRACTICAL LEV 2

    1 1.47%
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Training

  1. #1

    Training

    If we are going to have compulsary testing eg Lev2 DMQ for deer stalking because it will keep the give the people and government safe in the knowllage we are certificated personel when do you think it should enter system.

  2. #2
    Distinguished Member tartinjock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nairn, Inverness-shire
    Posts
    2,610
    Difficult one, again it's only the law abiding citizen who would suffer, what about all those who have firearms at the moment who refuse to be tested or those who have been a keeper for 30+ years, will they loose their ticket? Loose their job? Poachers will still poach with either the qualification or not.......................

    If you compair it to a driving licence or indeed the MOT or insurance.....How many people on the roads today have NOT got a licence,MOT or insurance. yet their has been a driving test for years and insurance and MOT have been compulsary on those vehicles. You could say the same about Sporting Insurance. We have to produce a licence to buy a firearm but no insurance......

    I feel that to introduce a compulsary test, L2 or what ever would already tie up resourses within the public sector jobs trying to police it.

    It would be better if when ever you had to buy ammo, parts of ammo or indeed restricted items rifle/moderator that you had show your ticket and your valid insurance, this would ensure that you as an individual and the seller either private or trade had done everything in your/their power to be responsable to 3rd parties.

    I am currently going through my L2 for 2 reasons,

    1. To prove I am at the required standard
    2. I feel it will be mandatory in the not to distant future so getting it in before the price hike which, if it becomes mandatory will I'm sure happen........

    TJ
    Position and hold must be firm enough to support the firearm
    The firearm must point naturally at the target without any undue physical effort
    Sight alignment (aiming) must be correct
    The shot must be released and followed through without disturbing the position

  3. #3
    I'm not quite sure about your 4th choice? Compulsory testing AFTER you have achieved level 2???
    I don't think they could enforce level 2 overnight as it would mean there would be very few people left shooting deer legally!
    It has already been compared to the driving licence, which itself was phased in so that existing drivers had 'grandfathers rights', and they would have to do similar with DSC. However, DSC 1 isn't even compulsory yet, so there is a way to go yet eh?
    As an AW, I obviously support the DSC system, but feel it would be wrong to impose it on ALL stalkers both old and new overnight.
    However, if you open your eyes and look closely, it is already happening!
    Because of todays culture of litigation, many agencies are viewing it as a necessary 'umbrella' to put up to cover their asses just in case anything goes wrong.
    FC demand that the lease holder has it, and you can rest assured that many others will follow their lead on this one as they tend to plagerise contracts and agreements from the bigger players.
    DDM (Services Branch BDS) have made the decision that ALL their managers will have DSC 2 (both old AND new)!
    I've just taken on some wildlife trust woodlands where you now have to have DSC 2 to manage them.
    You can winge about it and create polls till the cows come home, but I'll wager you will have little effect as it is already upon us in many ways.
    There are also those in power that will view it as another effective means of minimising firearm ownership for sure!
    Just to play 'Devils Advocate' for a minute - would it be such a bad thing?
    1. The general public are more likely to accept what we do if it has proper legislation.
    2. The general public are more likely to accept firearm ownership for similar reasons.
    3. The general public are more likely to accept venison as a regular food source if they can be assured it was brought to the table by the most humane and hygienic means.
    4. This would in turn increase demand against the supply and venison prices would increase.

    Food for thought?

    The best way to secure your own future as a stalker is to accept that it is happening and get on with it soonest!
    MS

    (I haven't voted either, as I can't really get my head around the choices to agree with any of them!)
    Last edited by Monkey Spanker; 25-01-2011 at 09:47.

  4. #4
    I have been shooting for the best part of 40 years. Mostly shotgun but took up stalking about 10 years ago. I have always known and took cognisance of the fact that out the end of any firearm I have ever owned comes pellets or a bullet which can and will kill or injure what it strikes. After all that is the purpose of a firearm. I do not wish to or have any intention of injuring or killing a person so with that in mind I used common sense - don't point a firearm at or near anybody, keep gun unloaded until you intend to use it, finger off trigger till you intend to fire etc
    Did I need a certificate to teach me this - no. In the first 35 years of shooting have I shot or injured anybody - no.
    After taking up stalking I have had the bug ever since. As your interest grows in the sport and all aspects of it, I recognised that having a qualification to support your experience assisted in opening doors and offers a certain standing. Five years ago I sat and passed level 1 & 2 and now have a sense of pride in having achieving this. Did not do it cause I needed to, but just because perhaps I wanted to prove that I am not just a stalker - I am a level 2 qualified stalker. Am I any safer in my firearms procedures - no. Is level 1 any proof of actual firearm safety - no. Could you pass level 1 without having ever been out in the field with a rifle - yes.
    IMO there should be some sort of mandatory practical test before you are issued with a firearms certificate. There should be a mentor system (we have probably all had some sort of mentor in our time whether it be our father's, the local keeper, a more experienced shooting mate or whatever) and in the name of our quarry and it's welfare you should have to attain level 2 within say 3 years.

  5. #5
    Coming from a country when you have to pass official exam to go out shooting and get firearms certificate I am totally convinced the UK stalking world is not worse off because of lack of such compulsory training and on avarege there is NO difference between avarage British stalker and a guy from the continent who has been trained and passed exam. So, opose compulory training as long as you can.


  6. #6
    I am sure this has been said before but as an old bloke I find it hard to understand why the focus on testing has been levelled at deer stalkers. Shooting is shooting be it fox, rabbit pheasant etc: all these weapons can kill. I suspect that the financial angle comes in to this as there has been a tremendous upsurge in stalking with many newcomers joining the shooting ranks.
    The DSC qualifications were always intended the be volountary but in a very short space of time they are going , I suspect, to be compulsory. Why is stalking singled out? Perish the thought, but if venison became worthless would certification still be needed, and if so, how many would cough up their hard earned cash? Will we ever see a FSC required for Charlie?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazza View Post
    I have been shooting for the best part of 40 years. Mostly shotgun but took up stalking about 10 years ago. I have always known and took cognisance of the fact that out the end of any firearm I have ever owned comes pellets or a bullet which can and will kill or injure what it strikes. After all that is the purpose of a firearm. I do not wish to or have any intention of injuring or killing a person so with that in mind I used common sense - don't point a firearm at or near anybody, keep gun unloaded until you intend to use it, finger off trigger till you intend to fire etc
    Did I need a certificate to teach me this - no. In the first 35 years of shooting have I shot or injured anybody - no.
    After taking up stalking I have had the bug ever since. As your interest grows in the sport and all aspects of it, I recognised that having a qualification to support your experience assisted in opening doors and offers a certain standing. Five years ago I sat and passed level 1 & 2 and now have a sense of pride in having achieving this. Did not do it cause I needed to, but just because perhaps I wanted to prove that I am not just a stalker - I am a level 2 qualified stalker. Am I any safer in my firearms procedures - no. Is level 1 any proof of actual firearm safety - no. Could you pass level 1 without having ever been out in the field with a rifle - yes.
    IMO there should be some sort of mandatory practical test before you are issued with a firearms certificate. There should be a mentor system (we have probably all had some sort of mentor in our time whether it be our father's, the local keeper, a more experienced shooting mate or whatever) and in the name of our quarry and it's welfare you should have to attain level 2 within say 3 years.
    As MS said I believe that most of this is already happening, Im currently in 'discussions' with FLO over my firearms. They want to put me under a mentor condition, even tho I have been mentored for a few years, I have been using the estate rifle function on a friends shoot helping out with his cull whenever I could. He declared this on the reference and we are digging out cull records to prove it to them. The stupid thing, as I understand it, the mentor condition lasts until such a time as the mentor thinks it would be safe for it to be removed (I could be wrong). My friend who they want to mentor me has spoken to them and said he would remove it straight away, so why bother putting it on? The FLO said the mentor condition is only required for large callibers <.243, so if I wanted a .22 or 22-250 I would be fine, are they any less dangerous? You could argue that they are more so as they are percieved to be 'safer' and more likely to ricochet. Sorry to rant but they have dragged this on for the best part of three months.

  8. #8
    Having been a shooting fanatic for over 40 years I have never been mentored officially, but looking back there has almost always been some control when shooting.
    By control I mean MENTAL.
    There has been, in my mind, a wish to improve and excel at what I do, particularly when out shooting with someone else.
    The wish to be seen as a safe shooting companion, the wish to make a clean instant kill, to respect the quarry.
    These things, to me, are all part of the mental process of going out with a gun for a day of pleasure.
    As for being told that you can only go out with a certain person for a certain time before you can go solo, to me, is nonsense.
    This system is wide open to abuse and unenforcable in reality.

    What I would like to see is compulsary insurance. As things are now, if you do not buy stalking and have to show BASC/NGO
    type cover you can go to your own areas without telling anyone you have no cover. A recipe for trouble.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by old keeper View Post
    I am sure this has been said before but as an old bloke I find it hard to understand why the focus on testing has been levelled at deer stalkers. Shooting is shooting be it fox, rabbit pheasant etc: all these weapons can kill. I suspect that the financial angle comes in to this as there has been a tremendous upsurge in stalking with many newcomers joining the shooting ranks.
    The DSC qualifications were always intended the be volountary but in a very short space of time they are going , I suspect, to be compulsory. Why is stalking singled out? Perish the thought, but if venison became worthless would certification still be needed, and if so, how many would cough up their hard earned cash? Will we ever see a FSC required for Charlie?
    I'm sure that you are right to some degree, but the original post was more about DSC 2 which is aimed at food hygiene as well as safety. Yes, weapons used to kill small game can kill, but not as effectively as those used for large game. Let's not forget that small game hygiene regulations are now becoming part of small game shoots too! (or at least should be!). Bigger animals means bigger chunks of meat in the food chain which means bigger regulations I suspect!
    There is undoubtedly a financial aspect too!
    MS

  10. #10
    I voted "Never" because that's what I think, but I'm almost certainly being naive - it's happening. I think things like DSC 1 and 2, even the (old?) BASC PAS award, should be voluntary, but I also think we should all want to take them if only to prove to ourselves that we are doing things in a proper manner. That's certainly why I did DSC 1, and why I aspire, one day, to do level 2. As others have said, not sure why stalking gets singled out for attention here; the concept should apply to all live quarry shooting (in a voluntary way...)

    Andrew

Similar Threads

  1. Mandatory Training
    By howa243 in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 26-11-2009, 00:42
  2. Training Video
    By JAYB in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-11-2009, 19:00
  3. Eskdale training
    By ezzy6.5 in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 31-08-2009, 17:46
  4. hpr training
    By hunterscabin in forum Deer Dogs & Tracking
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 28-08-2009, 14:16
  5. Survival training
    By Kent in forum Jokes & Funnies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-11-2007, 19:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •