Training

compulsay training when


  • Total voters
    0

6pointer

Well-Known Member
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.
 
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
 
I'm not quite sure about your 4th choice? Compulsory testing AFTER you have achieved level 2???:confused:
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!:eek:
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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!:rolleyes:). 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:)
 
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
 
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.

My sentiments exactly. There are enough restrictions on shooting without us asking for more. Almost everyone who's saying compulsory training would be a good thing comes from a time when it wasn't required, and has never had to live with compulsory testing. All it ever serves to do is make an activity more exclusive and expensive.
The mentality of those in favour of compulsory training always reminds me of a 3 year old saying "Oooh, look what I can do daddy".
Antis will always be antis, no matter how many qualifications and certificates we have between us.
I also can't see venison becoming more valuable because of increased demand. Demand for venison has already increased in the last few years and I've not seen any increase in the amount I get for a carcass at the game dealers.
The biggest nail in our coffin will probably be that one of the national organisations we'd probably look to to defend our interests as shooters/stalkers is also a major provider of DSC qualifications.:-|
I agree, it's only a matter of time before we're all compelled to submit to it, but it does'nt make me any more accepting of it.:(
 
Last edited:
In respect to a complete novice then in my view training in the safe handling of high velocity weapons is paramount to being allowed to have and use a firearm of this nature, secondly a novice should be mentored in its use at the same time a novice should undergo training on the different species and life cycles so that he has a basic grounding.

I accept that there are individuals out there who are more than competent ie deer managers or estate managers who can if needed to show competence under the current system.

I am not sure however that training should become compulsary as that word raises hackles in a so call free democratic society or i will re phrase that semi free society. unfortunately since B.A.S.C working alongside DMQ have introduced this training scheme the forest companies have made it the norm or compulsaty standard and the police have jumped onto the band wagon and are now making it a condition of grant or issue with a novice stalker unless he can prove otherwise.
Training and knowledge is a good thing and with the best intention in the world from BASC and DMQ they did not wish for compulsary learning or testing unfortunately the Forestry companies have created this compulsary issue F.C being a Government body and forced it by the back door obviously so are the police and suits their purpose in firearm control.
Unfortunately we have made a rod for our own back here or BASC has inadvertantly but at the end of the day you cant deny that training can only be a good thing and it is the way forward for all concerned, and one things for sure way things are going compulsary training is here to stay so we better get used to it.
In answer to Davids Question Yes Training is a needed in respect to a complete novice should it be compulsary I would say not. Please remember those are my own personal views and may not be shared by others before you jump on me:)

Regards
Stu
 
While i feel that compulsary training is on its way for deer stalkers the reason for this is with out doubt being pushed by the DCS /BASC /BDS. The wild life bill recomends testing and placement on a fit and compitent register. Standard follow best practice and use the DMQ system at the moment. This is so that the public can have confidence in our abulity to shoot deer safely and with the increase of Peri Urban deer. This was fine for the DCS (GOVERNMENT ADVISORS). But now it has changed and they have become SNH incharge of not only deer but all scotlands wildlife will there apraoch change because every single FAC holder knows that there is the same safty issues with rabbits hares foxes boar etc as there is with deer . Infact foxes and rabbits would have a biggers risk value as most of the time they are shot in the dark. (lamping is recognised as the most dangerous form of shooting and needs extreme care). So for me if we are to get compulsery testing it MUST be done before you ever get granted a Firearm. to single out deerstalkers only is in my opinion a form of victimising a minority for no other reason than the Deer sectors personal gain and has no relation ship with safty.:eek:

PS JMHO
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately we have made a rod for our own back here or BASC has inadvertantly.................

:lol: :lol:

How do you spell 'vested interest'?

Firearms Awareness Course (Rifle) - £125

Deer Stalking Pre-DSC Level 1 course - £125

Deer Stalking Certificate- Level 1 - £290

Intermediate Deer Course - £260

Deer Stalking Certificate - Level 2 - £105 (Registration Only)

Carcase Inspection and Butchery - £125

Sporting Rifle Course - 6 courses @ £210 each
 
ok a simple slightly extra question is what do people expect the training to do?

Personally I had years shooting shotguns, then got my FAC with an HMR on it two years later I got a .223 and then on renewal got a .243 added. So what would DSC do for me, bearing in mind 5 years rifle use and centrefire for 3 years moving up to the .243 isn't a big jump and in this time I've not had any form of conditions and haven't shot anyone so far ;)
With the .243 I got a simple stalking when accompanied condition with no issues on using the rifle for any other quarry which I don't have a problem with but it does pose the question of are they asking for DSC for safety or for some other reason. Bearing in mind the police have a job of licensing firearms and the onus is on the user to use them safely and on appropriate quarry then why is it being such an issue. Meat handling, and carcass checking isn't an issue if we shoot any other quarry but suddenly mention Deer and it all becomes a problem, Is it that the BDS, BASC and DMQ are creating it with some misguided approach to keep deer stalking slightly exclusive? or does it have a real benefit. Personally i will do the courses eventually but bearing in mind I use the actual firearm for foxing on a day to day basis they aren't going to teach me much about its use, and going on accompanied stalks should cover me for most other things at the business end of things. So on that basis I reckon it shouldn't be compulsory as the current set up is and would far prefer the training to be linked to the firearms certificate and safe use of the gun if anything.
 
.
Training and knowledge is a good thing and with the best intention in the world from BASC and DMQ they did not wish for compulsary learning or testing
BASC has inadvertantly
Regards
Stu

I really don't think there has ever been an accidental or inadvertant move by any of the vested interests on this subject.
If I'm being charitable I might be persuaded that at best, BASC, BDS, et al recognised where this is all going, so got in first with what they now promote as being "gold standard".
I'd bet a pound to a pinch o' brown though that if the government turned round and said "ok training and testing are now compulsory, but BASC and BDS are not allowed to provide it because of their vested interest" they'd not be half as keen on it.
 
Last edited:
I really don't think there has ever been an accidental or inadvertant move by any of the vested interests on this subject.
If I'm being charitable I might be persuaded that at best that BASC, BDS, et al recognised where this is all going, so got in first with what they now promote as being "gold standard".
I'd bet a pound to a pinch o' brown though that if the government turned round and said "ok training and testing are now compulsory, but BASC and BDS are not allowed to provide it because of their vested interest" they'd not be half as keen on it.

It did cross my mind:D and I have noticed how quick they have come forward in challenging the imposed mentor conditions NOT:D
 
:lol: :lol:

How do you spell 'vested interest'?

Firearms Awareness Course (Rifle) - £125

Deer Stalking Pre-DSC Level 1 course - £125

Deer Stalking Certificate- Level 1 - £290

Intermediate Deer Course - £260

Deer Stalking Certificate - Level 2 - £105 (Registration Only)

Carcase Inspection and Butchery - £125

Sporting Rifle Course - 6 courses @ £210 each

String I think:D
 
It dose say in the WLB that SNH need to show how the traing will be deliverd and who by. Lets see how it gose and they have sat on every one of the board meetings on the subject.
Orion may i say that is the scariest post i have looked at on the subject and in there must be added the estimated £1000 for witnessed stalks. No wounder they want us registerd we are a gold mine to the Associations. Time to get them thinking our way not theres;)
 
Harry mac, AFAIK you're pretty much on the money with that. I was present at a BDS management meeting in the mid '90s when this very subject was being discussed and solutions proposed - and later participated in the very first DSC1/2 Trainers & Assessors Course, (Minsterley '97) which was actually organised by BASC as the DI was, (IIRC), still in the process of being formed - still have the BASC issued coursework book, no mention of DI in it, although the DMQ admin structure is clearly shown.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top