300wsm

Leica Amplus 6

jingzy

Well-Known Member
No, I am sure his input is very welcome, but he needs to realise that there are many people on this site with good in-depth knowledge that are here to help others as much as possible. Doubting everyone elses judgement makes only for one outcome (arguements). On the post that was removed he seemed to think he was always correct, and that everyone else did not have a valid opinion, even with first hand experience.

J
 

Duncs

Well-Known Member
Got to be honest, what I love about deer stalking is that everyone tends to listen, but possibly disagree!!!!...But then listen again. It is sad when people have a set way, and no matter what, in there opinion the "set" way is right. I find it even sadder when the argument that is put forward is backed up by qualifications that are basically "pay and pass!"
 

wadashot

Well-Known Member
I think we are all good for debate and to a certain extent disagreement, but some people seem set in their ways and seem to go to any extent to to try and prove people wrong with constantly going on without hard facts. 2 people who have experience with the Forestry Commission have tried to explain that you need min level 2 to shoot on commission ground, (without a ranger or mentor) but 300wsm was adamant that you could shoot commission ground with no DSCs at all.
Now, don`t get me wrong, it would be great if that were the case, but when i worked for them 3/4 years ago, you needed level 2 to shoot unmentored and at least level one and the skills test beforehand to shoot at all. As of this year, and jingzy has proved the fact, you need level 2 min to shoot on there ground or you will be kicked off, simple as that. So to go claiming that you know of at least 4, or was it 3 places where commission ground is being shot with nothing i find impossible to accept. :rolleyes:
One of the ways this "COULD" possibly happen, is if the forestry commission was managing private ground for timber and the owner still had his own guys going in controlling deer. There is a member on this site that manages deer in this type of situation but they are still very strict on the level of qualification that is needed.

wadas
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
wadas,

In two of the instances I am pretty sure that strictly speaking 300wms is correct.

On the St Hubert ground at Thetford, we as club members can stalk without holding a Level 2...The other side of the coin is that to do so Club members have to have gone through the Club training scheme which has been endorsed and supported by the FC over the years, and is now a LANTRA accredited qualification in its own right. FWIW, that training scheme has been recently modified to include the "new" FC requirement of an annual shooting test of the FC's specification. The only difference is we can run this "in house" without the requirement of a Ranger to be present...

The other place I think 300wsm is referring to is the BASC stalking scheme on Arrun which again is FC land..IIRC BASC members are only required to hold a Level 1 and upon arrival shoot a three round group to demonstrate their rifle is zero'd rather than take the full FC shooting test...

Something similar may apply to BASC's other stalking scheme in Scotland, although I have no direct experience with that..

I also suspect that in certain limited places, the FC may also allow stalkers from the old MOD Services branch ( i can't remember what its called these days) to stalk deer, providing they have gone through the Services Branch training scheme...Again I have no direct experience of this so I am not 100% sure...

Having said that, it is my understanding that except for these limited exceptions, the majority of stalkers who are on "ordinary" FC leases are going to be required to hold a Level 2...When I was on an FC lease up on the Borders a couple of years back, that is certainly how the Head FC Ranger positioned it to us...I hope this is incorrect and that they will accept other criteria, but I don't think that is the case..

Regards,

Peter
 

jingzy

Well-Known Member
Pete,

I am afraid for the majority of FC ground, then the DSC 2 is going to be the base requirement. What 300 was saying was incorrect as far as these situations go. In your own instance of the St Huberts, they have been going for years with a good training programme. This is why you will not need to have the DSC 2, you are already proven with their support in your training schedule.

The BASC areas are for BASC members and is "designed to provide practical follow on experience or for those who have completed the Deer Stalking Certificate Level 1."

Thats all the fact that was required for 300 to find. The areas are used for people to gain further experience and also work towards their level 2 as the situation dictates.

So it is not a free run for all unsundry to have a go on. It is a structured element for the development of stalkers.

J
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
Pete E said:
Having said that, it is my understanding that except for these limited exceptions, the majority of stalkers who are on "ordinary" FC leases are going to be required to hold a Level 2...When I was on an FC lease up on the Borders a couple of years back, that is certainly how the Head FC Ranger positioned it to us...I hope this is incorrect and that they will accept other criteria, but I don't think that is the case..

jingzy said:
I am afraid for the majority of FC ground, then the DSC 2 is going to be the base requirement.

Jingzy,

In the quotes above, I think we are both saying the same thing aren't we?

300wsm simply stated that in three or four instances people can stalk on FC land unaccompanied with out holding the Level 2 and in the narrowest sense, I believe what he says is correct..

It may be that he is aware of other exceptions, and if he is, I hope he will enlighten us...

For instance what if somebody holds the Cull Deer Unit (U1023047) of the Gamekeeping Level 2 NVQ?? Will they be required to duplicate it and get the DMQ Level 2?

While as holders of the shooting rights, I believe the FC are within their legal rights to make the rules, and that in the context of H&St they have to be seen acting responsibly and within in the law, a near blanket and rigid requirement for lease stalkers to hold a DMQ Level 2 is not something I agree with..

In particular I don't like the idea that someone who has had a long term FC lease and has been a known quantity to them for a number of years, is suddenly forced to do this..But as I'm not a head honcho in the FC, my view is irrelevant to them!! :lol: :lol:

Regards,

Peter
 

Bandit Country

Well-Known Member
It's been said before and needs reiterating constantly - the FC is a Government Department and supposedly 'civil servants'. How does this constant tightening of the regulatory screw square with other Govt statements about needing to involve 'all stakeholders' in managing deer?

While we indulge in some gentle navel gazing, mutter about differing requirements, qualifications and people getting rich quick (and incidently being a tad sarcastic to others along the way) I wonder how many folk have written to their MP on the subject, how many have responded (personally) to any Home Office consultation, how many have written to the relevant Secretary of State?

If we want more open access to FC land we have a number of options:
1. Keep muttering in our beer and being rude to each other.
2. Lobby hard and fast - personally and via existing organisations.
3. Public demo in Whitehall & elsewhere.
4. Bribe some influential figure to bend the rules on our behalf.
5. Mix up a batch of HME and incinerate the maximum number of innocent bystanders on a London bus.
6. Start a revolution.

4, 5 & 6 are illegal with 5 & 6 being particularly obnoxious. Unless Mohammed Fayed is a site member we probably don't have anyone rich enough to try number 4. 3 probably wont get much attention unless there is about half amillion of us and even then it will get ignored. We would have to let the Met know about 15 years in advance and still get cracked over the head if you lay so much as a hand on a crowd barrier. (I know that is me being sarcastic - but it is about the Met, not an individual, and it's what they exist for!)

2 has some chance of influencing things without blood on the street and people going to jail - otherwise its back to muttering in the beer.
 

300wsm

Well-Known Member
What a good reply

about ways to change things 4 the better
rather than bellyaching about having to prove competance
I deleted my posts as it was obvious that most replies were not concerned about the deer or welfare but exploitation of deer for money or trophies or as long as it didnt affect THEIR deer
 

jingzy

Well-Known Member
300 said
as a services branch man i would have thought you would have not had a problem with tests and levels of competance, and would be all for anything to improve the welfare and management of deer, but then again you may have just joined to slot deer

Here we go yet again, how much out of touch are you 300, there must be a mistake in every one of your posts directed at me so far. It is Defence Deer Management (DDM), lets see if you can hold onto that for a while, if anything you are getting an education for free here. :oops: The area that I manage is probably one of the least shot areas within DDM. In fact if I relied upon that for my stalking I would probably cull less than 10 deer a year. I think you used the term sloting a deer, I know of no managers that use this term, is this the silent assassin within you, and indeed shows YOUR knowledge on deer management. :oops: And on the ground that I do go onto, I tend to train people, not shoot myself....oh, how greedy am I. :eek:

You obviously have not read or are incapable of reading what I have written. I dont believe I have downed the state of the DSC's or their importance. I have stated that they would have to think very carefully before introducing another due to its viability. This is the 3rd time I've written this, lets see if it sticks this time. I should be charging you for my time now as I'm having to repeat myself.

If I sent you my CV, it would possibly surprise you, but there is no sense because unless you wrote it, scribed it or introduced it, you dont believe.

I am at ease with what I do and my qualifications, I m not at ease with some others.
:lol:
 

jingzy

Well-Known Member
Yes there is a small possibility that it could, but the DDM do not have to pay for their ground and for each deer that is culled a small revenue is taken into the coffers. There are also people employed full time that deal with many issues and keeping in contact with various external agencies. For this to be spread throughout the country would need a massive amount of cash unless landowners were to give it away for nothing on the premise that good quality deer management was carried out. Now each landowner could and would have their own objectives. Some would want complete culls, and others to improve the herd and keep it in balance with the environment.
If such a venture was to take place, there would need to be an over-riding national committee. This would have regional areas of interest with their own committees or just an answerable individual. The regional area would then have to be broken down into smaller groups. Each group would then have its own trainers that are there to take people out and educate othes to a standard.

Although this can look interesting and attractive, a lot of money is still required to administer, get committees together etc..

When I take out my trainees, I m training them to the DSC 2 standard, thats because I am an AW. Therefor, they get through the DSC 2 with as little pain and cost as possible, this would also be a wonderful thing for civilian counterparts.

That in essence is what I would like to see nationally, but the costs and demand for it would probably negate it even starting.

J
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
jingzy said:
Therefor, they get through the DSC 2 with as little pain and cost as possible, this would also be a wonderful thing for civilian counterparts.

Not all civvie AW's are money grabbers! ;) :lol: :lol:
 

snowstorm

Well-Known Member
jingzy said:
For this to be spread throughout the country would need a massive amount of cash unless landowners were to give it away for nothing on the premise that good quality deer management was carried out.

I'm not sure I'm getting this correctly - is the idea that this system is compulsory and so there would be a compensation/compulsory purchase of sporting rights from landowners?
 

sikamalc

Administrator
Site Staff
IMHO there have been in the past a few money grabbers who are or were AW (Accredited witness) but I think and it appears that to some extent this has been tightened up.

Now as far as having Level 1 and 2 to stalk FC land, I know that this is a fact. Perhaps not across the whole of the UK, but in Northern Scotland it is definate. I have a friend who I have known and wroked with for over 10 years. He had been leasing a 3000 acre block off the FC. Some two years back he had to release this as they required him to take level 2 and pass it to hold the lease.

As far as I am concerned this is happening, and its not good news.

HOWEVER, CAN WE PLEASE KEEP ANY FUTURE REMARKS OR COMMENTS CIVIL. PLEASE LEAVE THE NAME CALLING AND REMARKS OUT GUYS.

Thank you.
 
New Avon Arms
Top