BASC and Mandatory Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
David BASC, like many shooters my insurance is through my membership of BASC.

Purely out of interest does the claims history with your underwriters show any significant difference between qualified and unqualified stalkers?

atb Tim
 
Obviously we are a training provider, but making that clear in this opening line for avoidance of doubt. Equally there is a link to BASC.

I'd like to think I write here as a stalker, but acknowledge we often dont realise the influences upon what we say, do and think. Its for a reader to draw their own conclusion. Accept or not that my intention is to write in good faith what I feel.

Whilst it has just about avoided declining into a vitriolic bun fight, this thread as a whole makes for quite sad and tortuous reading. I've mentioned passion previously in posts and still believe that is a root of many things written, but what is appearing time after time, after time - crosses the line from passionate debate to apparent obsession - and not in a good way!

There have been a number of comments I can accept on here - pro and against; and accept them whether I agree fully or not. But outwith that there is a great tide of simply vitriol. One is left feeling its not so much about the topic ( whatever that may now be ) but deep rooted personal animosity. That may be founded in fact, personal dealings or whatever, but the ire thus created has grown to the extent that - it seems - the original cause is almost lost and the ire alone is self sustaining. Thats how it seems. 12 pages on and what has this thread resolved?

I know its an open forum and fully support the right for people to express views. But I feel this thread merely highlights how divided, and seemingly irreconcilably so, this community is. If the only answer is - as 6pointer has suggested ( not direct quote, but what I understood him to mean ) compulsory mandatory testing delivered by a government department - anything so long as BASC are out of it' then lets throw it all in now. Because if individuals are hell bent on that line, none of us will recognise 'stalking' in ten years time.

Yet the same thread throws up comments from Greymaster and Bogtrotter about the image we portray - and implicit in that the way that some people think about deer. Without wanting to sound pompous, I cannot thank them enough for the reminder that deer still mean something and we have a privilege and duty to uphold.

BASC cop for a lot because a. they are here, b. you can never please everyone and c. they have well and truly dropped clangers. So has most everyone else.

Its for them to speak, but seems to me that they are here in acknowledgement that SD can provide a useful reflection on the feelings of the stalking community. Got an issue? - then rather than a slanging match put forward cogent, constructive ideas and lets all move forward.
 
Tim,
There is no difference in claims record at all between trained and untrained shooters. What we tend to see is the vast majority of claims coming from people who have been shootingfor 10 years or more.
David
 
David,

Can you come to one of your test areas and simply take the DSC1 exam? if so what is the cost please?
 
MO I am not for compulsory testing at all so i will try and make my self clear.

If things were to stay as they are i would be quite happy and i also see no reason why this should not happen.

If things are to change and it looks like they are in scotland , Then a mandatory test of compitnece throws up a few problems.

The ones i can see are that BASC/BDS Govern DMQ. This leads us to a conflict of interest we have the same organisations running and implementing standard,s implementing training and also finally examining.

This is OK while we have a choice but when that choice is removed we are forced to be monopolised with one or two organisations. I believe this to be unfair at best.

I feel that a test mandatory competency should be judged independently like all other tests.

I am not against BASCor BDS at all and if it were NGO SGA or SACS in the same situation i would be just as out spoken.

With regards the links between BASC and the people who will ultimately decide if we need a mandatory qualification (SNH ) I stand firm.

David
 
Tim,
There is no difference in claims record at all between trained and untrained shooters. What we tend to see is the vast majority of claims coming from people who have been shootingfor 10 years or more.
David
Thanks David, that certainly is food for thought. atb Tim
 
Obviously we are a training provider, but making that clear in this opening line for avoidance of doubt. Equally there is a link to BASC.

I'd like to think I write here as a stalker, but acknowledge we often dont realise the influences upon what we say, do and think. Its for a reader to draw their own conclusion. Accept or not that my intention is to write in good faith what I feel.

Whilst it has just about avoided declining into a vitriolic bun fight, this thread as a whole makes for quite sad and tortuous reading. I've mentioned passion previously in posts and still believe that is a root of many things written, but what is appearing time after time, after time - crosses the line from passionate debate to apparent obsession - and not in a good way!

There have been a number of comments I can accept on here - pro and against; and accept them whether I agree fully or not. But outwith that there is a great tide of simply vitriol. One is left feeling its not so much about the topic ( whatever that may now be ) but deep rooted personal animosity. That may be founded in fact, personal dealings or whatever, but the ire thus created has grown to the extent that - it seems - the original cause is almost lost and the ire alone is self sustaining. Thats how it seems. 12 pages on and what has this thread resolved?

I know its an open forum and fully support the right for people to express views. But I feel this thread merely highlights how divided, and seemingly irreconcilably so, this community is. If the only answer is - as 6pointer has suggested ( not direct quote, but what I understood him to mean ) compulsory mandatory testing delivered by a government department - anything so long as BASC are out of it' then lets throw it all in now. Because if individuals are hell bent on that line, none of us will recognise 'stalking' in ten years time.

Yet the same thread throws up comments from Greymaster and Bogtrotter about the image we portray - and implicit in that the way that some people think about deer. Without wanting to sound pompous, I cannot thank them enough for the reminder that deer still mean something and we have a privilege and duty to uphold.

BASC cop for a lot because a. they are here, b. you can never please everyone and c. they have well and truly dropped clangers. So has most everyone else.

Its for them to speak, but seems to me that they are here in acknowledgement that SD can provide a useful reflection on the feelings of the stalking community. Got an issue? - then rather than a slanging match put forward cogent, constructive ideas and lets all move forward.

MO, very well put as usual and I agree with all you have said.
 
Roestalker - many thanks.

6 Pointer - thank you for your post above - does make things a lot clearer in terms of your position ( for my part at least! ). I think also brings out some useful debating points that gives SD members a chance to really show the worth of this forum. :tiphat:

Believe your comments apply to us all as what happens in Scotland could set the tone for the whole country.
 
Morgy,
Yes you can do 'assessment only' ,its £140

Six Pointer,
You evidently have no idea how DMQ operates in the contest of setting standards, DMQ is run by a board of independents and industry representatives. If an organisation has an interest in becoming involved in DMQ they can apply for a position on the board.

At a higher level the LANTRA game & wildlife industry group, set the national occupations standards for wildlife management, and any party involved in wildlife management etc can be a member…

David
 
I have two observations.

1: Historical claim records are just that...historical. They may not indicate what the future holds. When we consider the relatively new phenomena of shooters without any firearms background, either formal or informal, the next ten years will be interesting.

2: Trainers being examiners should not be a problem. In aviation (professional) we have pilots that are both, and in-house to boot. The standards set and maintained are arguably the best in the World.

ATB
 
From a trainer / examiner perspective, the only part of the exam that the trainer marks is the shooting assessment. Whether the candidate has passed this or not is simply a matter of objective observation.

The safety assessment is taken by someone else and the written assessments are all sent off to be marked by the exam board. I therefore do not see any difference from taking a A-level etc in the way the examination is run.
 
Morgy,
Yes you can do 'assessment only' ,its £140

Six Pointer,
You evidently have no idea how DMQ operates in the contest of setting standards, DMQ is run by a board of independents and industry representatives. If an organisation has an interest in becoming involved in DMQ they can apply for a position on the board.

At a higher level the LANTRA game & wildlife industry group, set the national occupations standards for wildlife management, and any party involved in wildlife management etc can be a member…

David

To add to Davids post, I would also like to point out that the 'Game and Wildlife Industry group' is very keen for employers and technical specialists to be a part of it. If you want to be part of the group contact Lantra

Lantra Head Office
Lantra House
Stoneleigh Park
Coventry
Warwickshire
CV8 2LG
Telephone: 02476 696996
 
Guys, what's the fuss about ?
IF, and that's a big IF, BASC were the ONLY organisation that provided the DSC courses then I could understand the stressing, but you DO have a choice as to who you go to for it.

MOT stations can 'test and inspect', or, you have a choice to get the work done somewhere else.

Would it be better having BASC on our side fighting against compulsary dsc's, at least they know the system, the training etc, I'd much rather them than the BDS.

Just my tuppence worth

Pete
 
I have two observations.

1: Historical claim records are just that...historical. They may not indicate what the future holds. When we consider the relatively new phenomena of shooters without any firearms background, either formal or informal, the next ten years will be interesting
ATB

Go back ten years, and the same can be said, jump forward ten years, and you could still say the same thing. Historical is FACT, foresight is just 'guessing' what 'might' happen.

Pete
 
David you are correct i do find it hard to work out how DMQ works. I did contact them a couple of months ago regards becoming an assessor. I was then sent an email from BASC I also took a phone call from some one representing BASC. I did ask why i got a chap from BASC when i phone DMQ. The chap did apologise and said he had for got to change his email over. You can have a copy of the mails if you wish as i have kept them.
Can i ask again David or Peter dose BASC and BDS Govern DMQ. Or am i likely to get a response from NHC if i contact DMQ i don't think so.
I sent a PM to Peter i will leave it at that ps David you did not answer clearly one single question i wrote down.Time to move on.
 
The Tramp that would be ok if BASC/BDS were not also the issuing authority of the certificate DMQ1 n 2
You quote MOT, and you are correct you have a choice but a MOT station cannot independently issue a MOT cert the certs come from a separate government department. Well thats the way i see it.
 
Nick Lane is an External Verifier for DMQ, which he conducts outside of his usual working hours with BASC. The other External verifiers also work for other assessment centers. They of course cannot externally verify their own assessment center, this goes without saying. Our Head of Deer management is also part of the Quality Assurance Group, as are members of other organisations. These are voluntary positions with no pay.

And I shall re-iterate again - BASC does not govern DMQ, this is done by the Board, of which BASC has one board member - Me
 
Gentlemen,

I am getting quite dizzy from going around and around in circles with this one. As far as I can see all sides of this discussion seem to have valid points, and that is a good thing as it keeps each honest. However every now and again in this thread detractors seem to highlight the fact that the stalking/shooting community is very good at taking lumps out of each other, therefore as nothing new seems to be forthcoming and it seems to have run it's course I am going to close this thread.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top