Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

Thread: Minimum training standard??

  1. #1

    Minimum training standard??

    I've read and heard a lot about dsc1 being the minimum standard to shoot deer in Scotland some time in the future. I don't see it as happening, but wondered what others thought? Is it workable? Should it be dsc1? Could it be enforced? Will it create a rise in 'poaching'?

    I personally don't like the idea and think its unnecessary.

  2. #2
    SNH want stalkers to be qualified to a recognised standard. While it might not be tomorrow it will happen because realistically it's better for the deer management community. Appart from that there is the Welfare, Ethical, Safety, Hygiene and Legal elements that those with deer management responsibilities be it recreational or professional must have understanding of.

    While that might seem pro qualifications I will say this, doing DSC1 and DSC2 made me a more informed and competent stalker who became more aware of my resposibilities in the 'bigger' picture of wildlife management. I learned a lot more than I expected and consider the costs for doing it as a sound investment.

  3. #3
    Yeah Paul, I have no issue with the qualifications themselves, I'd consider them to be very valuable to the deer industry but I'd take issue with forced training by legislation particularly if dsc1 was decided on as a minimum. That brings up all sorts of monopoly issues.
    There's no need to legislate to make any training compulsory. It's already the law that carcasses need to be handled and inspected correctly before they go into the food chain. Why not an extension of this that would go along the lines of "any landowner may not lease stalking rights to any person not qualified in deer management"? This would protect the woodland owner/farmer who wants to shoot his own deer for his own consumption and force training through the back door. Plus it would mean that BASC and DMQ wouldn't be the only ones that profitted from it.

  4. #4
    When people mention such things I always ask the same questions:

    Show me the science which demonstrates that stalkers at present are a threat to public safety or to animal welfare? Show me the science which demonstrates that DSC1 (in this instance) solves any scientifically measured performance deficit on the part of stalkers and is the only possible route to resolve these issues?

    I've never seen any evidence that the British stalker presents a threat to animal welfare or the public and, therefore, there is no reason for increased regulation except for the desire of some to interfere in the lives of others.
    For self catering accommodation on the Isle of Lewis please visit:
    http://www.7south.co.uk/




  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by caorach View Post
    When people mention such things I always ask the same questions:

    Show me the science which demonstrates that stalkers at present are a threat to public safety or to animal welfare? Show me the science which demonstrates that DSC1 (in this instance) solves any scientifically measured performance deficit on the part of stalkers and is the only possible route to resolve these issues?

    I've never seen any evidence that the British stalker presents a threat to animal welfare or the public and, therefore, there is no reason for increased regulation except for the desire of some to interfere in the lives of others.
    +1 but you forgot to mention the making money side of things.

  6. #6
    it may be coming, but having endured 20 odd years of compulsory training and testing/retraining and retesting in the gas/construction industry please forgive me for being somewhat jaded in my views... I have not seen a massive improvement in competence, I have seen a lot of otherwise competent gas fitters pay out a lot of money for training in how to pass an exam, and then when their retest came due after 5 years, pay a lot more money to learn how to pass the new test! at the same time I watched a generation of incompetent "chancers" fumble through the exams, helped by the training companies, to achieve a qualification that did not actually see them fit to work in what I would consider a competent way! these tests do not prove anything! other than the person can retain some knowledge long enough to fill in the question paper, yet they are then considered more competent than someone without the qualification who has learnt the old way via the mentorship of experienced people ? I agree their should be some measure of competence, especially as the landowners (or their insurance companies) become more risk averse, however I feel the whole subject is led more by the training providers than the industry, once the qualification becomes a "must" I suspect that the level of training will go down in the general rush to get people through so as to provide more income, the good providers will go on doing a good job, but there will be others who will take advantage, I have seen this in action in my industry, and I fully expect it will happen in deer management as well.

    edit note to self....type faster!
    "Politicians must be allowed to panic. They need activity. It is their substitute for achievement"
    "'The matter is under consideration' means we have lost the file. 'The matter is under active consideration' means we are trying to find the file."

  7. #7
    Caorach, I think we've had a similar debate before about "that which seems like a good idea" as opposed to "that which there is evidence to support the benefit of" (I think it was about the registration of shotguns and whether there was a positive effect on public safety, though I could be mistaken)

    If there is evidence that training in the form of DSC 1 and 2 has any benefit to public safety (in terms of firearms use or food safety) or animal welfare then I am not aware of it.

    If there is nothing to support the imposition of expensive training then it begins to look like there are vested interests at play.

    Whether that's the shooting organisations, who would seem to have a huge conflict of interests in this by the way, or certain rich and influential shooters who see it as a method of maintaining the exclusivity of their sport, or the anti's, who see it as a back door method of reducing participation and softening the hunting population up for further regulation and eventual banning.

    Shabz, I can't agree with you.

    Firstly it is NOT the law that

    carcasses need to be handled and inspected correctly before they go into the food chain.
    Firstly, the hunters exemption, which allows you to supply a certain amount of game in fur/feather without any qualifications. Of course having just passed DSC1 you already know that!

    In terms of legislating, how would something that imposes a training need "by the back door" ever be a good idea?

    Why not an extension of this that would go along the lines of "any landowner may not lease stalking rights to any person not qualified in deer management"
    And that wording is horribly loose and open to interpretation (generally makes for bad legislation).

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by caorach View Post
    When people mention such things I always ask the same questions:

    Show me the science which demonstrates that stalkers at present are a threat to public safety or to animal welfare? Show me the science which demonstrates that DSC1 (in this instance) solves any scientifically measured performance deficit on the part of stalkers and is the only possible route to resolve these issues?

    I've never seen any evidence that the British stalker presents a threat to animal welfare or the public and, therefore, there is no reason for increased regulation except for the desire of some to interfere in the lives of others.
    Same was probably said of compulsory driving licences or MOTs.
    I too learnt an awful lot on my DSC1, and I could see some type of minimum competency becoming compulsory. Whether the DSC1/2 will be the vehicle for that, time will tell.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by matt_hooks View Post
    Caorach, I think we've had a similar debate before about "that which seems like a good idea" as opposed to "that which there is evidence to support the benefit of" (I think it was about the registration of shotguns and whether there was a positive effect on public safety, though I could be mistaken)

    If there is evidence that training in the form of DSC 1 and 2 has any benefit to public safety (in terms of firearms use or food safety) or animal welfare then I am not aware of it.

    If there is nothing to support the imposition of expensive training then it begins to look like there are vested interests at play.

    Whether that's the shooting organisations, who would seem to have a huge conflict of interests in this by the way, or certain rich and influential shooters who see it as a method of maintaining the exclusivity of their sport, or the anti's, who see it as a back door method of reducing participation and softening the hunting population up for further regulation and eventual banning.

    Shabz, I can't agree with you.

    Firstly it is NOT the law that



    Firstly, the hunters exemption, which allows you to supply a certain amount of game in fur/feather without any qualifications. Of course having just passed DSC1 you already know that!

    In terms of legislating, how would something that imposes a training need "by the back door" ever be a good idea?



    And that wording is horribly loose and open to interpretation (generally makes for bad legislation).
    I realise that the wording would need to be watertight matt I'm not a lawyer but my point is that something could be done so that the onus is on the landowner to make sure that the holder of the lease has received training. Whether it is by making them liable for what happens on their land or through the deer laws. Make it about the land owner and not the stalker. It's pretty much given now that if you want to stalk, then you need DSC1. I hated filling in the form that had 'BASC' written all over it at the weekend. I don't want every person in Scotland to have to fill in the same form in order to shoot deer.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Virbius View Post
    Same was probably said of compulsory driving licences or MOTs.
    I too learnt an awful lot on my DSC1, and I could see some type of minimum competency becoming compulsory. Whether the DSC1/2 will be the vehicle for that, time will tell.
    With something like driving tests the situation is quite simple - you establish that people are being killed by bad drivers, and dead people are especially easy to count, and then you devise a programme to address the particular problems that are seen. After introducing the test you then measure the number of dead people each year and if you can show an improvement then you prove the need for a test and you prove that the test is "teaching" people the right stuff. Before testing and other road safety measures and despite there only being a very few cars on the road covering a very few miles per year deaths per year were higher than at present.

    So, if we are going to need enforced testing for stalking the first thing it is necessary to do is to prove that stalkers pose a risk to animal welfare and the public. You have to make this information well known to the public so that there is sufficient pressure to allow the introduction of an expensive testing scheme as such a scheme will require political support.

    Do you really want to be a stalker when there is a government "stalking testing agency" who must first, to ensure their monthly wage, produce stats to prove that stalkers are dangerous and inhumane? To call for enforced testing producing such stats is the first thing such an agency must do.

    By all means we should be free to do things like the DSC1 for our own reasons, I have DSC1 and am contemplating the level 2 now just for my own enjoyment. However, the simple fact is that there is no evidence that stalkers currently present any form of risk and so there can be absolutely no reason for increased enforced regulation or testing.
    For self catering accommodation on the Isle of Lewis please visit:
    http://www.7south.co.uk/




Similar Threads

  1. Redding Standard vs Deluxe vs RCBS Standard vs Competition
    By maffs in forum Ammunition, Reloading & Ballistics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-05-2012, 16:59
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14-03-2012, 09:34
  3. Minimum Calibre
    By u32dw in forum Big Game Hunting
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-05-2011, 16:33
  4. Minimum Calibre ???
    By Bestman in forum Wild Boar
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 21-03-2010, 18:53
  5. Minimum Calibres
    By Oly in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 18-03-2010, 12:53

Posting Permissions

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