BDS ?

[Ronin]

When I was national Treasurer [nearly 40 years ago] the BDS did give free insurance to all members. That ceased in about 1990 on the instructions of the Charity Commissioners who forbade us to give members a benefit. The BDS then sold an add-on to membership package for insurance. This became more complicated when it was divided into professional and hobby stalking (but with a tolerance for more than merely carcasses and travel monies). The insurance market then changed and it became very hard to find an underwriter willing to take the risk at all never mind at a sensible premium.

The point remains though that BDS is a Research, (Public) Education and Welfare CHARITY, not a members' club or stalking society and it may not legally give members benefits.

The CPD is the Training Department and charges for its courses. As noted above by others the quality of those courses varies, especially amongst the commercial providers and where BDS once had a monopoly first BASC, and then many others, were determined to move into (what was then) a lucrative market. Sharp competition led to a deterioration in quality and ultimately to a dilution of the strictness of the test (assessment as the educationalists insist on calling it). Whilst many years later when Chairman of the Training Committee I fell out with DMQ and the then training Manager over the duration, cost and quality of courses. I then had to resign for entirely unrelated reasons and therefore lost the argument.

Last sentence - a damn shame that happened as the society wouldn’t be in the mire it is today if you had stayed

 

[Ronin]

31000 members of this site

I wonder what proportion are based in the UK

Strong argument for creating a new organisation dedicated to deer management from within ,,is there not

 

[willie_gunn]

Just because there is not one does not mean there is not a need. We have all government departments working for them selves. There has been a need for new party,s that work for the public interest indirection for many many years yet there is not one.

I don't doubt that there is a need, but I do question whether such a need will ever be met.

Perhaps returning the subject of this thread, the BDS, it continues to exist because there are sufficient people who believe enough in its mission ("To educate and inspire everyone about deer in their environment and to advocate for deer welfare") to invest their time, effort and money in an attempt to see it delivered.

Note that there is nothing in that mission statement related specifically to deer stalking. I don't belong to the BDS because I go deer stalking, but because I have an interest in deer. Sure, there may be plenty of deer stalkers as members, but there are also photographers, scientists, veterinarians, naturalists and those who simply love deer. Personally I see that as a strong positive in the Society's favour.

If someone wants to set up an organisation focused exclusively on deer stalking, good luck to them. However I would suggest they think carefully why similar attempts have failed in the past.

 

[Deerkeeper2]

31000 members of this site

I wonder what proportion are based in the UK

Strong argument for creating a new organisation dedicated to deer management from within ,,is there not

Go for it. Take the bull by the horns and set it up. If the cost/benefit/aims/ethos etc all stack up then I will join your organisation as well as well as remaining a member of the BDS, can’t say fairer than that. Keep us updated on progress.

 

[Dickie]

The Association of Professional Deer Managers (UKAPDM) disappeared back in 2009, when it was replaced by the NGO's Deer Branch. The NGO Deer Branch is supposedly "driven by its own informed, grass roots committee", though I've not heard much about that for some years either.

If there was a real need for a deer stalking organisation one would exist.

The reality is that deer stalkers have an inherent distrust of any organisation that claims to act for them. This is because of real or perceived worries over losing stalking ground (DI and BDS ad infinitum), disagreements over what the role of such an organisation should be (political campaigning, training, deer welfare, long range shooting, insurance, social meetings, challenging FEO's/Chief Constables, etc) and a belief that paying any form of subscription is sufficient in and of itself to deliver any and every item on a never-ending wish list!

Sadly I do not believe there is either the goodwill nor the finances to make a dedicated UK deer stalking organisation a realistic possiblity. Deer stalkers are apparently happier with somewhere they can visit anonymously, at zero or minimum cost, where they can moan about how no-one understands them, how everyone is looking to rip them off, and how it could all be done better if they were running things......not that they will ever take any steps to actually doing so.

My post was in agreement if there was a need there would be one, hence why I mentioned all the negatives

 

[Island]

I don't doubt that there is a need, but I do question whether such a need will ever be met.

Perhaps returning the subject of this thread, the BDS, it continues to exist because there are sufficient people who believe enough in its mission ("To educate and inspire everyone about deer in their environment and to advocate for deer welfare") to invest their time, effort and money in an attempt to see it delivered.

Note that there is nothing in that mission statement related specifically to deer stalking. I don't belong to the BDS because I go deer stalking, but because I have an interest in deer. Sure, there may be plenty of deer stalkers as members, but there are also photographers, scientists, veterinarians, naturalists and those who simply love deer. Personally I see that as a strong positive in the Society's favour.

If someone wants to set up an organisation focused exclusively on deer stalking, good luck to them. However I would suggest they think carefully why similar attempts have failed in the past.

This. A million times this...

 

[Ronin]

Go for it. Take the bull by the horns and set it up. If the cost/benefit/aims/ethos etc all stack up then I will join your organisation as well as well as remaining a member of the BDS, can’t say fairer than that. Keep us updated on progress.

Not for me to set up

Trying to provoke and produce discussion

As I’ve said many times the current training formula is broken and not fit for purpose.

The standard of marksmanship for DSC is laughably low and zero drive for development to enhance skills once that low bar is passed

This has been raised many times within my own branch to HQ with demeaning replies from the people to whom it was addressed yet the organisation purports to be for deer welfare

Low standards equals inhumane deer control in simplistic terms

Time for changes to be made

 

[Klenchblaize]

I don't doubt that there is a need, but I do question whether such a need will ever be met.

Perhaps returning the subject of this thread, the BDS, it continues to exist because there are sufficient people who believe enough in its mission ("To educate and inspire everyone about deer in their environment and to advocate for deer welfare") to invest their time, effort and money in an attempt to see it delivered.

Note that there is nothing in that mission statement related specifically to deer stalking. I don't belong to the BDS because I go deer stalking, but because I have an interest in deer. Sure, there may be plenty of deer stalkers as members, but there are also photographers, scientists, veterinarians, naturalists and those who simply love deer. Personally I see that as a strong positive in the Society's favour.

If someone wants to set up an organisation focused exclusively on deer stalking, good luck to them. However I would suggest they think carefully why similar attempts have failed in the past.

I was tempted to hit the send button on an expansive and challenging reply to this but binned it in favour of suggesting the nearest thing to past failures in setting up a deerstalking society club has to be the British Sporting Rifle Club.

Not because they actively offer a defined and assured path to “picking up” access to land that will permit engaging with these antlered critters, but rather one may send down range as much lead or copper as can be afforded in honing a competency at life-size deer targets under duress.

The point being I’m pretty sure that a great deal of the negativity shown towards the BDS stems from an assumption they should be finding deerstalking (hunting with a rifle) for members.

K

 

[Ronin]

The point being I’m pretty sure that a great deal of the negativity shown towards the BDS stems from an assumption they should be finding deerstalking (hunting with a rifle) for members.

K

Far from it

If you want to be part of something like that join the Hubert’s club though be prepared to duck when a negligent discharge goes through the club house wall ,,,

Or maybe BASc with their stalking schemes

 

[User00053]

Even if the sport of deer stalking continues to change or does not exist as we know it there will probably be the bds somewhere in the background as they are not about the money

 

[Overlay]

I was tempted to hit the send button on an expansive and challenging reply to this but binned it in favour of suggesting the nearest thing to past failures in setting up a deerstalking society club has to be the British Sporting Rifle Club.

Not because they actively offer a defined and assured path to “picking up” access to land that will permit engaging with these antlered critters, but rather one may send down range as much lead or copper as can be afforded in honing a competency at life-size deer targets under duress.

The point being I’m pretty sure that a great deal of the negativity shown towards the BDS stems from an assumption they should be finding deerstalking (hunting with a rifle) for members.

K

Hi KB
Agree 100%
These days people install some money and it isn’t a lot compared to say golf into something like the BDS or similar because they shoot or fish or stalk deer and BUT they want something back irrespective of the work the BDS actually clearly state they carry out as a charity for data collection, deer welfare and consultation work behind the scenes they provide data for all concerns to maintain a balance in this ever changing country, BDS unbiased information for all, clearly labelled to ensure everyone ,us, antis, government and other interested parties get a clear accurate reading on our deer species
We need that level playing field from experts to hold straight and true we need the BDS for a no nonsense authority I think they do a grand job for deer in all areas

It’s not what we can get from them it’s what they are doing for us as deer stalkers, for the cost of the membership it’s a pretty good source of true and correct information that contributes to holding off other third parties uneducated in deer management, governing bodies and other interested parties, hopefully preventing even more bad decisions for deer and their welfare

In some quarters whingeing is the norm these days, all take and no give, I've always found my local BDS guy and HQ always helpful they aren’t a same day response unit, they supply good well thought out balanced reviews and advice all you have to do is ask

 

[Dickie]

You can’t point the finger at BDS for marksmanship there are plenty of poorly attended range days in the region mentioned on here before, BDS were gasumped on the training they ran. When level 1 and 2 came in from DMQ and the shooting test from that has now been the industry standard in all its versions.

 

[Ronin]

You can’t point the finger at BDS for marksmanship there are plenty of poorly attended range days in the region mentioned on here before, BDS were gasumped on the training they ran. When level 1 and 2 came in from DMQ and the shooting test from that has now been the industry standard in all its versions.

Yes you can

One of the main aims or purposes it to promote deer welfare, education / training

Something as a committee member of nearly twenty years of my local branch we strived to achieve in range days and assisting with training courses

However the standard of marksmanship for the new DSC is so low it does nothing to achieve or meet those aims

They appear not to have even challenged DMQ and simply rolled over taking the dollar for training at such a low bar it required volunteer helpers to coach folk through shooting tests

Instead of challenging the reduced stabdard ans drawing a line in the sand for deer welfare as an organisation with integrity to uphold its aims and purpose

Endless discussion with hq with regards professional development training just goes round in circles “taking too much time” up of salaried staff

Some replies here from folk need to remove rose tinted glasses and actually see how things actually are

 

[finnbear270]

Far from it

If you want to be part of something like that join the Hubert’s club though be prepared to duck when a negligent discharge goes through the club house wall ,,,

Or maybe BASc with their stalking schemes

I would correct the name to Herberts ..............., Brings back memories of a total cluster~*ck by two of their members on the Arran scheme.

 

[finnbear270]

Marksmanship and Industry standards", I would hope to be sitting down if I were to hear the true number of rifles not even in the correct field when arriving for the "Industry standard" tests.

 

[308rws]

This thread has veered somewhat off original topic.

Regardless, 'marksmanship' is not only about quarry welfare it's primarily about public safety. I think that we would all agree that unsafe shots have no place in our industry, whether recreational or professional.

Playing devils advocate ... unsafe shots should have their FAC/SGC 'suspended' (not revoked) until such time as they are independently accredited as being safe.

This begs the question which independent professional body is competent to 'sign-off' gun owners as safe to discharge firearms in public and accredit firearm safety testing (NRA or equivalent perhaps. But it's not the BASC, NGO, SGA etc. because IMHO shooting organisations ultimately all have a conflict of interest)?

The current myriad of self-appointed/regulated stalking training delivery providers is far from standardised and as a result there is no single standard for firearms marksmanship/safety. The lowering of the DMQ DSC1, DSC2 requirements being a case in point. Chief Constables rely upon DSC1/DSC2 to manage risks around firearms ownership and use, yet DMQ doesn't exist to accredit the safe discharge of firearms in public.

Current 'best practice' reliant measures are fundamentally flawed. No national means to report and suspend unsafe shots, no means to retrain them, no means to suspend/revoke DMQ DSC etc. There is no proactive means to regulate firearms use in this country. Safety regulation is retrospective in the event of a near miss or death requiring HSE/police investigation. At best, an unsafe shot is unloaded and sent packing with a flea in his ear told never to return.

Remember there is no right to bear firearms in this country, licensing is based upon 'good reason' to possess and to my mind, unsafe shooting does not qualify as 'good reason'!

 

[8x57]

This begs the question which independent professional body is competent to 'sign-off' gun owners as safe to discharge firearms in public and accredit firearm safety testing (NRA or equivalent perhaps. But it's not the BASC, NGO, SGA etc. because IMHO shooting organisations ultimately all have a conflict of interest)?

I'm not quite following your train of thought here, could you expand a little on what you have written please.
The way that I'm reading it at the moment suggests that the NRA would be a competent organisation to run accredited firearm safety testing but the other shooting organisations would not be?

 

[308rws]

I'm not quite following your train of thought here, could you expand a little on what you have written please.
The way that I'm reading it at the moment suggests that the NRA would be a competent organisation to run accredited firearm safety testing but the other shooting organisations would not be?

I cited the NRA as they accredit range and reloading qualifications, but not the unsupervised safe use of firearms in public.

What I'm trying to get at is that there is no independent body for accrediting safe firearm use linked to training and licensing e.g. there is no DVLA equivalent for firearms.

You could equally argue that factoring the low accident and death rates from legal firearm misuse that there is no need for such accreditation. Although, this may be by luck as IMHO it's certainly not by design.

 

[NickJ]

Does anyone know who the head of BDS Scotland is ? I certainly don,t and feel that the BDS is only a fraction of clubs at local level. I would love a local branch around Glasgow to call on and ask question like is there any welfare issues in killing male deer year round. Shooting them in the dark with real risk of dependents being left behind. Through shots hitting deer hidden behind other deer. ETC ETC. They were no where to be seen taking the crumbs off the government table.

The Scottish Area Chairman is Alastair Monkman. The Head of Policy (Scotland) is James Scott.

Through them the BDS were vocal in their response to the consultation on the Scottish Deer Strategy outlined here: Response To Scottish Deer Management Changes.

If you email info@bds.org.uk they can put you in touch with one or both of them.

 

[8x57]

I cited the NRA as they accredit range and reloading qualifications, but not the unsupervised safe use of firearms in public.

What I'm trying to get at is that there is no independent body for accrediting safe firearm use linked to training and licensing e.g. there is no DVLA equivalent for firearms.

You could equally argue that factoring the low accident and death rates from legal firearm misuse that there is no need for such accreditation. Although, this may be by luck as IMHO it's certainly not by design.

Don't LANTRA also operate an accreditation scheme for firearms use and reloading?

Having had a fair bit to do with the NRA over very many years, I would hate to see them involved in any compulsory accreditation scheme like you suggest. Self serving is the thought that immediately comes to mind, also strictly controlled range conditions are entirely a different field (pun intended) to use in the field.