BDS ?

[Selous]

Totally in agreement with @Ronin in that the shooting test has been so watered down as to be pointless. The kill zone is so huge that there is no test of the candidates marksmanship beyond did they point the rifle at the chest of the deer and “get lucky” twice. We all know that two shots proves nothing which is where the zero target comes in. Three shots on target within a 4 inch group from a rested position is not difficult at all yet it at least shows if a candidate is capable of shooting a group or not. The target area has been increased in area by a massive 50% by my calculations based on a 125mm kill zone on the new deer target compared to the 4 inch grouping target having a diameter of 101mm ( 122cm2 vs 81cm2 target areas). Furthermore because the aiming point on the deer target is deliberately obscured there is no test of accuracy and an abysmal test of precision!
As an example of how poor the test is I shot the test for fun with a heavy recoiling rifle (.375 H&H) off my elbows- no bipod- that was zeroed with different ammo using factory ammunition I had never shot before and passed the test. When I subsequently checked zero the ammunition was grouping 4 inches high and two right yet still fell within the kill zone with my two shots. Quite simply I should not have passed the test that day but because I held or pulled my shots a little low by chance I passed.

 

[Dickie]

DMQ shooting test has changed significantly

It used to be

Three shots on a zero target at 100 yards prone (all shots must be within 4” target area)

Three shots prone at 100 on deer target in kill area
Three shots kneeling or seated at 70 yds in kill area of deer target

Three shots standing at 40 yards again at deer target and all shots must be within kill zone

The kill zone was designated by a removable portion of the target and had designated bands for the bullets to fall within to pass

The significantly watered down test is now just six shots

Two at 100 on deer target prone or seated from lock high seat

Two at 70 on deer target standing , kneeling seated

Two at 10-20 mtrs at deer target head standing

DSC1 – Deer Management Qualification

There is no provision for shooting a zero group

So effectively the test number of shots has reduced by 50%


The reduced time period for training does not allow any practical practice on the range - it used to

Candidates with zero experience of firearms are going through the test and being coached through

There have been analogies comparing the use of firearms with driving vehicles whoxh I believe is really a non starter

Learning to drive a vehicle one has many hours of lessons and eventually a lengthy pass or fail test

The DSC shooting element now has zero practical training and candidates are coached through the test - in my own experience I’ve seen at least three people with zero firearms experience going through the test which does not address basic weapons handling, safe and competent use of firearms and is pure luck when passing the shooting test (or decent coaching skills)

All the above has degraded Level one into a farce

As I’ve said before the BDS could have stepped up to the plate to object to the changes made or refused to accept : implement the changes on the basis of welfare grounds as the changes made are retrograde and against the ethos of the Society

Yet the current officials did not

There were promises of pre DSC courses to be implemented on local level to address the pitiful standards now being used as a base level - this never materialised

Repeated requests for allowance for CPD training to raise standards of marksmanship of existing members towards longer range familiarisation in the event of a wounded animal requiring follow up were met with derisive comments when discussed at length - again a welfare issue which is at the core of the societies ethos

I can’t speak for other organisations adopting the new “standards” I can only speak from experience of BDS who should be leading from the front in matters for deer and deer welfare

My apologies I didn’t realise the initial 3 shot at 4” was gone. However not just the BDS but other organisations have adopted it so you can’t say it’s all BDS fault they could’ve jumped up and down all they wanted but if nobody was/is willing to go with them then it is what it is.
I suspect it was possibly driven by getting a course through in a short time due to course duration and possibly range costs.
so you could say there is a dear welfare issue but we have all heard stories from stalking guide/pro stalkers of the clients, guests and friends they have taken out who put bullets touching on the range then go out and shoot a deer in the arse so would it make any difference if the range element used 10, 20 or 100 shots?

 

[Ronin]

My apologies I didn’t realise the initial 3 shot at 4” was gone. However not just the BDS but other organisations have adopted it so you can’t say it’s all BDS fault they could’ve jumped up and down all they wanted but if nobody was/is willing to go with them then it is what it is.
I suspect it was possibly driven by getting a course through in a short time due to course duration and possibly range costs.
so you could say there is a dear welfare issue but we have all heard stories from stalking guide/pro stalkers of the clients, guests and friends they have taken out who put bullets touching on the range then go out and shoot a deer in the arse so would it make any difference if the range element used 10, 20 or 100 shots?

Having worked hard as a volunteer on behalf of BDS for two decades helping to arrange shoots, visits, courses - I am soley concerned with the state of this Society and have no real interest in any other

Their core ethos is deer welfare and as I said in my earlier post, should be seen to be leading from the front

When I think of previous members of the training team and leaders at HQ level I’m positive they would have challenged this farcical change in DSc testing and done their danmdest to change / reverse it

As an aside the teams that make decisions weighing BDS, Basc and DMQ all speak to one another so I for one see no rational reason why a discussion on the matter hasn’t taken place

Unless of course it was agreed for financial gain to get more folk through training with a lower standard ,,,,,

 

[willie_gunn]

Furthermore because the aiming point on the deer target is deliberately obscured there is no test of accuracy and an abysmal test of precision!

How many deer have aiming points on them?

 

[Dickie]

Having worked hard as a volunteer on behalf of BDS for two decades helping to arrange shoots, visits, courses - I am soley concerned with the state of this Society and have no real interest in any other

Their core ethos is deer welfare and as I said in my earlier post, should be seen to be leading from the front

When I think of previous members of the training team and leaders at HQ level I’m positive they would have challenged this farcical change in DSc testing and done their danmdest to change / reverse it

As an aside the teams that make decisions weighing BDS, Basc and DMQ all speak to one another so I for one see no rational reason why a discussion on the matter hasn’t taken place

Unless of course it was agreed for financial gain to get more folk through training with a lower standard ,,,,,

I totally agree, I’m a member and due to work life not as active in my region as I would like and take my hat off to those who put in a lot of time and effort for others in their region.

We don’t know who collectively made decisions to change it or indeed if BDS opposed it and were overruled.

I suspect the £££ with regards to course/range time lesser content/course time same cost?

 

[Ronin]

How many deer have aiming points on them?

The point is the target area defines the kill zone for people who have no idea and provides a target to visualise in the future

As I’m sure you know

 

[Ratel]

They were from the higher echelon of that club, on the week and also unofficially observing, that is from memory as it was a long time past. ( Caused a few visible arteries on necks of scheme staff )

As the Arran scheme is (in my terms) relatively new it probably wouldn't be anyone I knew from early days. Still no matter there are Tossers in every organisation and It would be easy for me to name some from BDS and BASC in times past.

 

[willie_gunn]

What is behind this fixation with DSC1 being primarily a test of shooting competence?

DSC1, if we recall, 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.”

I kind of understand why some members argue for DSC1 covered long range shooting, since its always a matter of debate when you get two or three stalkers together, but less so the idea that the shooting test should be segregated by stalker competence (novice vs professional).

However the other complaint I read is that the recent changes were made primarily for financial gain.

What do you think would happen if your proposals were implemented? DSC1 would cost more, take longer, and have a higher failure rate. It would be viewed as a significant barrier to getting new entrants into deerstalking. Is that really what you want?

There is nothing to stop you running courses on long range and/or precision shooting, if you feel it’s really that critical. When I did it, the shooting assessment on the BDS Deer Manager’s Course covered shots from 150m - yet not everyone bothered to take it. Alternatively perhaps advocate for a shooting competence test to become a formal condition of gaining a FAC?

More objectively, I’ve just checked our statistics and, of the 2,300 deer shot for which we have range information, the average range was 53.7 metres. Only 12 deer (0.52%) were shot at ranges of 200m or more, whilst 61 (2.65%) were shot at a range of 150m or more. That’s over a period of nearly 27 years, and covers what I would call classic Southern woodland deer stalking.

The numbers might vary if the majority of your stalking is on the open Hill, or after fallow on large fields, but I would doubt the average range at which most deer are shot in the UK is significantly different from that above.

Think of it that way, and the relevance of long range shooting to basic deer management diminishes somewhat.

 

[willie_gunn]

The point is the target area defines the kill zone for people who have no idea and provides a target to visualise in the future

As I’m sure you know

The problem with the old targets was that they didn’t teach you where to shoot a deer - they taught you where to shoot a target.

 

[Ronin]

The old targets gave the location of kill xone of a broadside shot

The theory teach on shooting (if it still exists in the course format) should give aspects of bullet travel through target kill zone when target (deer) is presented quartering, facing etc

There should be no barrier for anyone wanting to enter the sport or work arena of killing deer

But the tests shouldn’t be watered down in any way

The aim is to deliver a single, precise killing shot that incapacitates the quarry providing a quick and humane death

There should be no excuses or allowance for candidates given - a test is a test and until candidates are ready and have the necessary skill, they should not be put through it

Rifle shooting, like many other sports is a perishable skill and should be practiced by anyone who is going out to kill their quarry

DSC1 is a base level to build skills from and develop but it should not be set at a fundamentally low level,,,

There is definitely an argument in favour of regular testing - for all firearms holder having witnessed some dismal down range performance at range days, accompanied stalks from so called “experienced riflemen”

Which will be another controversial and unpopular view no doubt

 

[finnbear270]

As the Arran scheme is (in my terms) relatively new it probably wouldn't be anyone I knew from early days. Still no matter there are Tossers in every organisation and It would be easy for me to name some from BDS and BASC in times past.

From your replies to the posts, it seems to me that you are in fact defensive of the club in question.

 

[willie_gunn]

The old targets gave the location of kill xone of a broadside shot

“Run the crosshairs up the back of the front leg, and aim somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 way up the body”

Simple instructions, easy to follow, that have worked well for decades - even before DSC1 was a “thing” and telescopic sights became commonplace.

Let’s be honest, the kill zone on most deer is big enough that a clover-leaf grouping, whilst certainly to be admired, is to all intents and purposed meaningless from a practical deer-stalking perspective, particularly if the goal is to “deliver a single, precise killing shot that incapacitates the quarry providing a quick and humane death”. If that is indeed the objective, then logically a better shooting test would be just one shot, from a cold, clean, barrel - pass, or fail, end of. After all, that’s what probably 99.9% of stalking outings actually entail. Anything more than a single shot and we are moving into the realms of target shooting, rather than deer stalking.

Of course I am playing Devil’s advocate, and I am not suggesting that the DSC1 test is limited to just the one shot, as it is about showing “competence in safety and shooting at simulated targets” rather than with live deer. Also a grouping serves a useful purpose, in terms of understanding both the accuracy of the rifle and the competence of shooter, which is why we do it before taking out paying guests. But why is “three shots good, two shots bad”, particularly when all the shots taken have to end up in the chest killing area, other than recognising that we’ve traditionally completed three-shot groups when doing a check-zero?

Please don’t get me wrong; I agree with a lot of the sentiment in your posts. However the inevitable by-product of the measures you suggest is that entry into deer stalking would be further restricted, whether financially, opportunistically, or otherwise. That is quite a different proposition, more closely linked to your suggestion that regular testing of firearms holders should be required. Again, I sympathise with the sentiment, but basically it is saying that no-one should be granted (and presumably also retain) a FAC, or allowed to go deer stalking, if they can’t show competence on a pre-defined accuracy test. An admirable objective, perhaps, but just imagine the outcry over both the administrative burden and the cost associated with implementing it, not to mention how it could potentially impact both new and existing stalkers, whether DSC1 holders or not.

And for what end? Do we have a demonstrable problem at the moment with injured deer walking around as a result of poorly placed shots? I am certainly not suggesting it isn’t possible, but neither am I aware of it. Admittedly, 99% of my stalking is on the ground we lease, so I don’t perhaps see the wider picture. There are occasional reports of it on here, and of course we now have the excellent UKDTR, so injuries certainly do happen, but it hardly seems to be endemic.

Again, none of what I say should be read as an excuse for deer stalkers not to always strive to do better, but is there any actual, tangible, evidence of the new test creating a problem where one didn’t exist before?

 

[Ratel]

From your replies to the posts, it seems to me that you are in fact defensive of the club in question.

Not at all, just playing fair, they were an excellent club once and did start "Stalker training", with a little more emphasis on the "Training" than those who copied them. That's not defensive, just fact. I was an "A" member and enjoyed it, but chose to leave when the "New wave" commenced.

 

[User00053]

All getting not unlike passing the old driving test vastly different now to say fifty years ago, lessons teaches you how to pass a test then you learn to drive I was told.
Learnt to drive on fields and farm tracks way before old enough to drive on public roads, world probably a better place for having the bds obviously. Art for arts sake, mirror, indicate, then manoeuvre but make sure have insurance
For a lot of folks starting to stalk deer for recreation is a great adventure and to be enjoyed following the magic taught foot steps before adopting their own style if fortunate to be left to their own devices eventually and spent the money needed.
Unless having disabilities or not cut out for the task teaching someone to shoot holes in paper not rocket science nor difficult or hard to achieve with correct tools and some practice if relates to killing deer and getting the badge.

 

[Oldstalker]

Going back 20 and 30 years in time it was remarkable how many failed the shooting test on DSC 1 courses on the Zeroing target by repeatedly failing to put 3 shots into a 4 inch circle [3 attempts allowed]. I do believe that it is 1) not an unachievable thing, 2) important to prove consistency and 3) good discipline. Reducing the number of subsequent shots [in different shooting positions] is probably less important and I do not think that a head shot at close range proves anything useful.
The crucial matters are the integrity of the testing regime and the willingness of instructors to fail people. Maybe there should be more verification of application of the rules in order that there is more trust in the system and some of the more cavalier commercial operators are brought to book even if it means decreasing their pass percentage records. It is NOT a case of pulling the ladder up afterwards but giving candidates a genuine sense of achievement and confidence the test is run fairly. We are after all seeking to get candidates to an absolute level of attainment not a proportional failure rate.

 

[User00053]

Going back 20 and 30 years in time it was remarkable how many failed the shooting test on DSC 1 courses on the Zeroing target by repeatedly failing to put 3 shots into a 4 inch circle [3 attempts allowed]. I do believe that it is 1) not an unachievable thing, 2) important to prove consistency and 3) good discipline. Reducing the number of subsequent shots [in different shooting positions] is probably less important and I do not think that a head shot at close range proves anything useful.
The crucial matters are the integrity of the testing regime and the willingness of instructors to fail people. Maybe there should be more verification of application of the rules in order that there is more trust in the system and some of the more cavalier commercial operators are brought to book even if it means decreasing their pass percentage records. It is NOT a case of pulling the ladder up afterwards but giving candidates a genuine sense of achievement and confidence the test is run fairly. We are after all seeking to get candidates to an absolute level of attainment not a proportional failure rate.

Funny carry on by the sounds of things then and now and probably speaks volumes as they say, got the impression from memory ( late nineties) when doing dsc1 it was designed to pass folks and not fail them and pretty much a formality if taken seriously as it should be.

 

[Buchan]

What is behind this fixation with DSC1 being primarily a test of shooting competence?

DSC1, if we recall, 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.”

I kind of understand why some members argue for DSC1 covered long range shooting, since its always a matter of debate when you get two or three stalkers together, but less so the idea that the shooting test should be segregated by stalker competence (novice vs professional).

However the other complaint I read is that the recent changes were made primarily for financial gain.

What do you think would happen if your proposals were implemented? DSC1 would cost more, take longer, and have a higher failure rate. It would be viewed as a significant barrier to getting new entrants into deerstalking. Is that really what you want?

There is nothing to stop you running courses on long range and/or precision shooting, if you feel it’s really that critical. When I did it, the shooting assessment on the BDS Deer Manager’s Course covered shots from 150m - yet not everyone bothered to take it. Alternatively perhaps advocate for a shooting competence test to become a formal condition of gaining a FAC?

More objectively, I’ve just checked our statistics and, of the 2,300 deer shot for which we have range information, the average range was 53.7 metres. Only 12 deer (0.52%) were shot at ranges of 200m or more, whilst 61 (2.65%) were shot at a range of 150m or more. That’s over a period of nearly 27 years, and covers what I would call classic Southern woodland deer stalking.

The numbers might vary if the majority of your stalking is on the open Hill, or after fallow on large fields, but I would doubt the average range at which most deer are shot in the UK is significantly different from that above.

Think of it that way, and the relevance of long range shooting to basic deer management diminishes somewhat.

That's interesting data and as you say - classic woodland. With some of the plantations here being about 800m across in their clear fell and some of our hills having about as much cover to hide a gnat's crochet longer shots are a reality.

 

[Selous]

How many deer have aiming points on them?

Every single animal has aiming points as we use anatomical features to guide our placement of a bullet to ensure a clean kill. You may have heard of the advice to aim small, Miss small. If you merely aim at the deer, all sorts of terrible things will happen, most of which result in reduced welfare of the deer.

“Run the crosshairs up the back of the front leg, and aim somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 way up the body”

Simple instructions, easy to follow, that have worked well for decades - even before DSC1 was a “thing” and telescopic sights became commonplace. [/QUOTE

]

This is a blatant digression and I’m not trying to teach Granny to suck eggs but this shot placement is outdated and suboptimal, it will as you say result in a dead deer and might save a small amount of the triceps muscle BUT it places the bullet perilously close to the apex of the diaphragm which in turn is far more likely to result in a carcass contaminated with rumen contents. These days this may write off the whole carcass at the game dealer. Better to reference off the centre line of the forelimb which gives a larger margin for error and reduces the chance of gut contents spilling. If anyone doubts this cut away the rib cage on the left side of a deers chest without removing the diaphragm and look how far forward the rumen and diaphragm comes. Exhalation will make it worse. Unfortunately the majority of the anatomical diagrams published are wrong which doesn’t help to get the message across.

 

[cjm1066]

And the deer target is at right angle to the shooter, that isn't always the case in the field, like wise a leg might be back?

 

[finnbear270]

Not at all, just playing fair, they were an excellent club once and did start "Stalker training", with a little more emphasis on the "Training" than those who copied them. That's not defensive, just fact. I was an "A" member and enjoyed it, but chose to leave when the "New wave" commenced.

Guess those two were possibly part of the new wave you mention.