BASC launches register of competent deer stalkers

[willie_gunn]

@Conor O'Gorman is someone able to retrospectively update their qualification? I.e. I've not done dsc2 yet but have dsc1 and dmq so have put that but when I get dsc2 I'd like to add that also

From what I could see, there is nothing to stop you completing the application form more than once. So, for example, you could re-submit your details if they change. There was no need to log in to a website, for example, to complete the application.

Also when I pressed "Submit" after entering my data it did mention something about the possibility to edit my application form. However, and like all good IT professionals, I simply ignored the pop-up and closed the browser page, so I am none the wiser as to how long this might remain an option.

To test things out I have filled out the application form 38 times, on the basis that improves my chances (this is a joke...I only did it once)

 

[VSS]

So if you have early dsc1 with trained hunter status, do you appear on the register?

That's exactly what I would like to know.
I haven't done DSC2 simply because there's no need to do it if you've done the "old" DSC1 that included the LGMH element and provided "trained hunter" status. That's the only bit that you legally require if you're planning on putting carcasses into the food chain.

 

[HonestJohn]

Sa

That's exactly what I would like to know.
I haven't done DSC2 simply because there no need to do it if you've done the "old" DSC1 that included the LGMH element and provided "trained hunter" status. That's the only bit that you legally require if you're planning on putting carcasses into the food chain.

Same here. When I did dsc1, dsc2 didn’t even exist

 

[willie_gunn]

That's exactly what I would like to know.
I haven't done DSC2 simply because there no need to do it if you've done the "old" DSC1 that included the LGMH element and provided "trained hunter" status. That's the only bit that you legally require if you're planning on putting carcasses into the food chain.

I'm not sure I understand.

The old DSC1 with LGMH was never equivalent to DSC2. Why would it be so now?

 

[Free range rob]

Particularly if that already paid up member happens to be the current lease holder for the bit of land that they've just recommended someone else for

In which case I would say the current lease holder isn’t doing a good enough job, because if they were, why would owners refer to Basc to find someone else.
In my experience, you only look to replace someone if your not happy with them, or they are leaving.

In that basis, I bet a pound to a penny every man who has his own stalking has taken that ground from someone else in the past at some point

 

[VSS]

I'm not sure I understand.

The old DSC1 with LGMH was never equivalent to DSC2. Why would it be now?

The "old" DSC2 was an unnecessary addition. There was nothing to be gained by it. The important qualification was included in DSC1. There was no reason to do DSC2, other than personal satisfaction at having another certificate.
Given that the application form for the new BASC register of competent stalkers is asking for trained hunter number / LGMH certificate, and that the information states that the register is "primarily", not "exclusively", for DSC2 holders, it would be reasonable to assume that the old DSC1 would tick the necessary box for inclusion in the register, but if you've done the new DSC1 then you would also need DSC2 (or a standalone LGMH qualification).
But I would like clarification on that. Perhaps @Conor O'Gorman could help?

 

[Cris]

Sa

Same here. When I did dsc1, dsc2 didn’t even exist

You didn't have to and still don't need to do DSC 1or 2 to get a trained hunter number. Just do the one day NGO LGHC.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Thanks all for the comments and questions, I will relate these and any others to the BASC deer team, I think many of these will be useful for a Q&A as the project develops.

 

[User00047]

Thanks all for the comments and questions, I will relate these and any others to the BASC deer team, I think many of these will be useful for a Q&A as the project develops.

Ok, I don’t have any qualifications and I’m not a BASC member but can I still be on the scheme?
I’ll let you be on my scheme if I can be in yours?

 

[willie_gunn]

The "old" DSC2 was an unnecessary addition. There was nothing to be gained by it. The important qualification was included in DSC1. There was no reason to do DSC2, other than personal satisfaction at having another certificate.
Given that the application form for the new BASC register of competent stalkers is asking for trained hunter number / LGMH certificate, and that the information states that the register is "primarily", not "exclusively", for DSC2 holders, it would be reasonable to assume that the old DSC1 would tick the necessary box for inclusion in the register, but if you've done the new DSC1 then you would also need DSC2 (or a standalone LGMH qualification).
But I would like clarification on that. Perhaps @Conor O'Gorman could help?

I hope BASC do clarify this, but I also think it's important to distinguish between the requirement to put deer into the food chain, and being able to demonstrate competency in terms of actually stalking deer.

DSC1+LGMH was never equivalent to DSC2. I can see that it may well have been an unnecessary addition given your personal circumstances, but when it comes to the practicalities of stalking deer there remains a world of difference between the two.

The fact that the LGMH certificate was included in DSC1 was viewed by many as an anomaly, since it didn't require the DSC1 holder to have ever stalked, let alone shot, a deer and put it into the food chain. This has been discussed many times on here, and highlighted as a flaw in the old DSC1. However it did reflect the fact that the DSC1 is "a largely knowledge based qualification which enables candidates to demonstrate their understanding of basic deer management principles and meat hygiene, and to show competence in safety and shooting at simulated targets."

These days, of course, the LGMH certificate is now awarded on completion of DSC2. That doesn't detract from the fact, however, that many holders of the old DSC1+LGMH had never in fact stalked or shot a deer.

Take a look at what the register actually talks about. It speaks of "landowners, government agencies or institutional bodies looking for individuals to carry out deer management on their land."

Consider this in terms of DSC2, which requires the holder to perform at least 3 witnessed stalks, and meet the standard in terms of demonstrating "their knowledge and competence in legally, safely and humanely culling deer and dealing with carcasses hygienically."

If a landowner were to approach BASC - or indeed any other organisation - and say that their deer to be managed, which of DSC1 and DSC2 would you expect to give them most confidence? The entirely theoretical one, where they may never have actually shot a deer, or the practical one, where they demonstrably have?

 

[Kalahari]

I hope BASC do clarify this, but I also think it's important to distinguish between the requirement to put deer into the food chain, and being able to demonstrate competency in terms of actually stalking deer.

DSC1+LGMH was never equivalent to DSC2. I can see that it may well have been an unnecessary addition given your personal circumstances, but when it comes to the practicalities of stalking deer there remains a world of difference between the two.

The fact that the LGMH certificate was included in DSC1 was viewed by many as an anomaly, since it didn't require the DSC1 holder to have ever stalked, let alone shot, a deer and put it into the food chain. This has been discussed many times on here, and highlighted as a flaw in the old DSC1. However it did reflect the fact that the DSC1 is "a largely knowledge based qualification which enables candidates to demonstrate their understanding of basic deer management principles and meat hygiene, and to show competence in safety and shooting at simulated targets."

These days, of course, the LGMH certificate is now awarded on completion of DSC2. That doesn't detract from the fact, however, that many holders of the old DSC1+LGMH had never in fact stalked or shot a deer.

Take a look at what the register actually talks about. It speaks of "landowners, government agencies or institutional bodies looking for individuals to carry out deer management on their land."

Consider this in terms of DSC2, which requires the holder to perform at least 3 witnessed stalks, and meet the standard in terms of demonstrating "their knowledge and competence in legally, safely and humanely culling deer and dealing with carcasses hygienically."

If a landowner were to approach BASC - or indeed any other organisation - and say that their deer to be managed, which of DSC1 and DSC2 would you expect to give them most confidence? The entirely theoretical one, where they may never have actually shot a deer, or the practical one, where they demonstrably have?

Not any more if I understand it correctly.

David.

 

[willie_gunn]

Not any more if I understand it correctly.

David.

Indeed, these days just the one.

 

[VSS]

If a landowner were to approach BASC - or indeed any other organisation - and say that their deer to be managed, which of DSC1 and DSC2 would you expect to give them most confidence? The entirely theoretical one, where they may never have actually shot a deer, or the practical one, where they demonstrably have?

That's not really answerable, as the one with DSC2 will also have DSC1 anyway.
However, I don't think DSC2 really adds anything, so if (hypothetically speaking) there was a choice between someone with the "old" DSC1 only, and someone with the "new" DSC2 only, then I would choose the DSC1 candidate over and above the DSC2 candidate.

Personally, I think that the DSC2 should be scrapped, the LGMH section should be put back into DSC1, the shooting test should be given a revamp and a practical element should be introduced. And then we'd have just one stalking certificate that really meant something.

 

[gixer1]

We’re fairly pushing the training and course thing on the SD this week eh?

Not long now until we tie our own sports noose…

 

[willie_gunn]

That's not really answerable, as the one with DSC2 will also have DSC1 anyway.
However, I don't think DSC2 really adds anything, so if (hypothetically speaking) there was a choice between someone with the "old" DSC1 only, and someone with the "new" DSC2 only, then I would choose the DSC1 candidate over and above the DSC2 candidate.

Personally, I think that the DSC2 should be scrapped, the LGMH section should be put back into DSC1, the shooting test should be given a revamp and a practical element should be introduced. And then we'd have just one stalking certificate that really meant something.

Interesting.

So if you called a taxi, would you be happy if the driver had only passed the theoretical part of the driving test, or would you feel them passing the practical part might be beneficial too?

Or does being able to drive the car from a practical perspective not really add anything either?

 

[HonestJohn]

Interesting.

So if you called a taxi, would you be happy if the driver had only passed the theoretical part of the driving test, or would you feel them passing the practical part might be beneficial too?

Or does being able to drive the car from a practical perspective not really add anything either?

It’s like taking an Uber really

 

[devon deer stalker]

Could this simply be just a rebranding of the now defunct scheme that was introduced by the Deer Initiative some seven or eight years ago?
After all some of the people involved with the DI (Steve Griffiths for one) have since moved back to BASC.


P.S. With the D.I. scheme there was also a requirement to use factory copper ammunition and to have access to a trained deer dog.
Also note that on a couple of occasions in the past where the NGO have been approached by landowners to assist with the management of deer they have put out a flyer to members of their deer group.

Some ex DI employees found other employment i.e with Forestry, this is an interesting question and reply, read into it as you wish 41:31 into the video, it makes no difference to me but for those registering to this BASC scheme I would insist on it being completely transparent how they select one equally qualified member over another.
Just for clarification, I have DSC2, and in over 30 years I have never been asked (although I have voluntarily supplied) to provide proof of qualification, insurance (don't get me started on that one!) yes, qualifications, no.

 

[Pete6.5]

Nothing will beat doing the leg work to be known by the farmers and land managers in your area but if people believe that paying for qualifications and being on some dodge register will solve their problems let them crack on.

 

[Steve29]

We’re fairly pushing the training and course thing on the SD this week eh?

Not long now until we tie our own sports noose…

It’s just a sign that more of us realise that we might benefit from having attended some courses and having some tickets to prove to Joe Public/landowner that we should be trusted to carry high powered rifles, use knives, drive quads, etc, on their land, likely then feeding folk with what we produce

 

[Bowland blades]

It’s just a sign that more of us realise that we might benefit from having attended some courses and having some tickets to prove to Joe Public/landowner that we should be trusted to carry high powered rifles, use knives, drive quads, etc, on their land, likely then feeding folk with what we produce

I thought that once over , starting very much to see it as a cash cow now . So many folks selling training . if we where really serious about upping our game it would go back to how it was ( one guy helping out others as he was himself, for the betterment of all and our sport / lifestyle ) .
I have yet to have a landowner really be much interested in my quals, though i do have them . I think the motive at present is power , control and cash ( oops i think that last statement is better read backwards seeing what is happening now ) Cash , control and power is more fitting