Can the Forestry legally insist on DSC .... ???

[David63]

My personal view of this is:

Of course any landowner can ask for evidence of competence / insurance if they so wish.

An MOT is an MOT as has been said and you can get your car MOT tested from any certified garage. The MOT tests your vehicle to make sure it meets the minimum standards for safety, you car may well exceed theses standards of course.

DSC1 is DSC1 and tests the stalker to make sure they meet the minimum standards for safely and deer knowledge etc, a candidate may well exceed these standards of course. There are, I believe, 8 assessment centres in the UK and loads of people offering training. You can take your course and or exam with any supplier who offers it.

DSC 1 covers the following:

• Deer biology and ecology.
• Legislation.
• Stalking techniques and taking the shot.
• Deer identification.
• Safety.
• Shooting.
• Large Game Meat Hygiene.

Remember with DSC1 you do not have to do the course you can just take the exam.

Those who want stalking or any other form of training set down in law by the government process is asking for a government monopoly on compulsory testing, and I for one do not want to see that.

David

 

[Hodadr]

I have heard that their is a legal reveiw ongoing into this matter, on the point that the DSC is not a statutory standard and is being impossed by a governmental body without the force of law.

Now I understand the FC are supporters of DMQ, "supporters" being a very subjective tag, if FC provided funding to DMQ or DMQ did not undergo the correct tender proccess to provide QA in stalking to the FC then their could be significant awards of damages for those declined permits, as this may consittute a monopoly or undue pressure in a contract (sale of goods act).

Personnally i can not stand anything that has the mark of the BDS on it, a Society paid for by mainly recreational stalkers which provides no support for their Members is plain wrong.

But i am doing the DSC2 because its the only way to get stalking! hypocrite i know!

 

[devilishdave]

I have heard that their is a legal reveiw ongoing into this matter, on the point that the DSC is not a statutory standard and is being impossed by a governmental body without the force of law.

Now I understand the FC are supporters of DMQ, "supporters" being a very subjective tag, if FC provided funding to DMQ or DMQ did not undergo the correct tender proccess to provide QA in stalking to the FC then their could be significant awards of damages for those declined permits, as this may consittute a monopoly or undue pressure in a contract (sale of goods act).

Personnally i can not stand anything that has the mark of the BDS on it, a Society paid for by mainly recreational stalkers which provides no support for their Members is plain wrong.

But i am doing the DSC2 because its the only way to get stalking! hypocrite i know!

I dont think it can be a monopoly because there are so many providers of DSC2 training althogh there is only one awarding body but I guess that is similar in school education.

Dave

 

[Cris]

Guess you can look at it in many ways.
DCS1 a weekend of your time and you don't even have to have seen a live deer of any sort before. Shoot straight and safe then answerer a multiple choice questionnaire.
DCSC2 Shoot 3 of anything you like and put it in a portfolio with some words in front of a AW.
Bob's your uncle and off to the FC.
Sure it's not that simple as I have not done it having other qualifications and taken the GMH course on it's own.
As a rule it’s a good entry for anyone not been involved with deer before or have no other qualification's as there are others out there you can do but it's foolish to think that a person just starting out with little or no experience is competent on just the DSC and I am sure the FC would not take anyone with so little experience seriously.
Hmm by a new car and you don't need an MOT for 3 years!!!!!!!!

 

[enfieldspares]

Those who want stalking or any other form of training set down in law by the government process is asking for a government monopoly on compulsory testing, and I for one do not want to see that.

David

My point exactly or rather my point that it these "empire building" bodies that are trying to insinuate that THEIR COURSE becomes the one "set down in law".

The problem is that it becomes a self fulfilling requirement. In other words because the "FC insist on it" then Lord Tomnoddy insists on it.

Eventually ACPO (as they seem to have tried to do) then say that as most people with stalkings to let insist on it then everybody that wants a stalking condition on an FAC MUST have it.

As an example years ago I was interviewed for a job as an armourer with the Metropolitan Police.

One of the things insisted on was "must possess military armourer's qualification at level 1".

I asked them the question "why"? The answer was because all our previous armourers have held that qualification.

So I asked (knowing what the course was) asked what skills that qualification certified. the answer was astounding. They didn't know but as all their previous armourers had held it they thought all subsequent armourers ought to have it too!

Incredible! And actually there is very little, if anything, that actually was relevant in the qualification to the role (when you asked them what the role was) of what a Metropolitan Police armourer would EVER likely to be required to ever do!

Anyway back to the subject. The point is that a lot of these things are what those that teach it or set down the standards are merely setting down WHAT THEY THINK RELEVANT as being "the proper standard".

In other words because Fred, Freda and Tom know X and Y (but not Z) then X and Y (and not Z) become the skill set that everybody else is required to know!

Why for instance does DSC 1 not cover things like risks from ticks to the stalker? Or a knowledge of the risks of badly zeroed sights at longer ranges (the rule of "mils")? Or what is the potential "dangerous space" of a round from a shot that misses?

How background affects ricochet danger? Whether the ground waterlogged or dry. Gently sloping or flat. How a hill actually isn't always a safe and effective backstop and that a hill can actually increase the potential distance a bullet travels far greater than mere flat ground.

Or basic first aid in response to shooting injury or broken ankle etc., etc.?

I assume because Fred, Freda and Tom didn't know anything about that - my "and not Z" - so they thought it not necessary for anybody else to know it either!

Simply put as they don't know anything about it then nobody else needs to know anything about it either!

So if that is to be the case that a "recognised qualification" is required let it be from the start a test set down by the government and not a self-appointed coterie.

It is just like all the different "O" and "A" Level examination boards with all the different syllabus!

 

[Jamba]

Many of the members on here will already be aware as to why the FC requests DSC levels 1 & 2 as the minimum standard to control deer in the public forest.
It is a fact that members of public utilising FC facilities (Walks/cycle tracks etc) are far more likely to be at ease and assured when advised that personel carrying firearms for deer control have reached an industry Best Practice (DSC) and had other checks carried out before going on to the land.
The request for persons stalking on FC land in Scotland to work towards their DSC Level 2 has been well know to lease tenants for at least 4-6 years so this is not a new requirement.

Regards.

 

[enfieldspares]

It is a fact that members of public utilising FC facilities (Walks/cycle tracks etc) are far more likely to be at ease and assured when advised that personel carrying firearms for deer control have reached an industry Best Practice (DSC) and had other checks carried out before going on to the land.

Without wanting in any way to be rude or cause offence, but, this "fact" has been demonstrated by what research and results from how many interviewed or questioned members of the public?

I'd actually doubt that if you asked most members of the public utilising FC facilities what a "DSC" (no more no less just those three letters) was they'd know it from their "ARS"!

I think that they actually be just as re-assured to be told that it they see a man with a rifle it is just "somebody doing some gamekeepering on our behalf..."

 

[David63]

Hi Enfield,

The OP is whether or not the FC can put down conditions on who can stalk over their land, obviously they can!

But to answer some of the points about training…
DMQ is an awarding body made up of nearly all the key expert stakeholders, BASC, BDS, CA, GWCT, NGO, FC, DI, DCS, Lantra etc etc and a number of others. Most qualifications have one ‘Awarding Body’ – it would be ludicrous to have more than one, otherwise you are advocating different standards and replicating effort.

We don’t want to have a bureaucratic, expensive burdensome, non-applicable qualification that is mandatory. Government are not experts on Deer Staling – practitioners and representative bodies have direct access to the experts

If you can find out who has been lobbying ACPO to take this line then I am all ears because it is certainly not BASC

All the stakeholders, representative bodies and expert practitioners set down and agreed the criteria for DSC1.

Surely DSC1 is a basic training qualification. When learning to dive a car I don’t get taught advanced trauma first aid, or advanced defensive driving techniques!
More advanced and specialist knowledge comes for experience and or other specialist courses – what we are surely talking about here with DSC1 is an entry level course.

Regards

David

 

[6pointer]

The Forestry Commison can do as they like and if they make a mess of somthing then they just change the rules easy as. Do they want LEV 2 yes at the moment but that might change because filling leases is getting all to difficult .So while you can go out and chase all the paper work to meet there requirements. They can and do disregard them if you are a contractor for instance you can have all the bits of paper but the guys who are actually doing the work dont need anything at all. Not even a meat hygene cert. Rules are not for the government or the Goverment departments they are for us.
MY ADVICE TO ALL IS GET QUALIFIED OR AT LEAST GET STARTED BECAUSE IF THE VOLUNTARY SECTOR DONT SHOW A BIG IMPROVMENT THEN THE GOVERNEMT WILL STEP IN THAT HAS BEEN WROTE DOWN. NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO STALK DEER IN SCOTLAND WITH OUT BEING ON THE REGISTER. YOU ONLY GET ON THE REGISTER BY BEING SUITABLY QUALIFIED. so while the voluntary sector might keep the training . The governemt through the Deersector will have a mandatory register.

 

[JabaliHunter]

Personnally i can not stand anything that has the mark of the BDS on it, a Society paid for by mainly recreational stalkers which provides no support for their Members is plain wrong.

By the way, it is the British Deer Society, not the Bristish Deer Stalkers Society

 

[6pointer]

JH That might be so but i would love to see the state it got its self in if the Stalkers decided it was not for them. The marbles would well and truly fall out there mouths.But you never know they might even give you the times of day at the SCone Game fair

 

[JC275]

Anyone else noticed how 'Mr BarnDoor' started this topic then hasn't been heard from since? It never ceases to amaze me how everytime someone mentions DSC/BDS/BASC it turns into a bunfight, I even fall for it myself sometimes! I think we all need to get out more! JC

 

[MrBarnDoor]

Well! I joined this directory to - amongst other things - become educated, and that is exactly what I'm becoming. Thanks to all who have responded. I was certainly of the (mis?)understanding that the BDS were the self appointed guardians of their self appointed standard, now it seems to be the DMQ who hold that position..... but at least they do not carry out assessments themselves.

Firstimer...the point I was making was about the procurement process through which a Local Authority must ensure that it does not exclude providers from competing to provide a service. I agree that they can set standards, even that there may be a need for standards in deer management. Stagg and Orion, thank you for your input about the DMQ as an organisation. I visited the website and saw a list of 'Supporting Organisations' - what do they mean by 'support' I wonder, whatever, they are not the same as outlets through which a person can gain a qualification without the need to involve the BDS.

Looking further into the DMQ site it states "We do not carry out assessments or training. Assessment may only be offered by DMQ accredited Assessment Centres, all of which also offer training" and the link goes to a page where there are 8 outlets listed (of which 1 is the BDS)...but I can do the assessment at Castle Donington which is not listed..curious.

I suppose that as a relative newcomer to deer stalking, whenever I see the DSC there is always a connection to the BDS - bookings, training literature etc. maybe the question I need to ask is how I can gain the DSC WITHOUT any of my cash going to the BDS?.... suggestions anyone?

Once again, thanks for entering into the discussion. Cheers!

 

[MrBarnDoor]

Anyone else noticed how 'Mr BarnDoor' started this topic then hasn't been heard from since? It never ceases to amaze me how everytime someone mentions DSC/BDS/BASC it turns into a bunfight, I even fall for it myself sometimes! I think we all need to get out more! JC

Thats a bit of a cheap shot JC, it just happens that I have a life to lead so cannot sit and watch to see if anyone replies....I agree with you, you DO need to get out more

 

[trouble]

Level 2 is a good idea no matter where you shoot , its good to achieve something and gain new experiences isnt it ?

 

[6pointer]

When the new standard (DEERSTALKING COMPITENCE CERTIFICATE) is set over the next couple of years it will have all the creases ironed out the exam board i would imagine! will be indipendent of any shooting organisiation who still wants to assess teach and send cadidates for the exams. as this would mean a major conflicit of interest. While at this moment in time it is only voluntary and it maters not were the cash for LEV 1 and LEV 2 gose it will i am sure become madatory to have this new award before stalking deer in scotland. Transparancy and a level playing field will be the key. While the FC and other providers claim everything is good it by no means meets a legal standard in any way shape or form and that will be the standard this time. FC needed to back it they spent sh-it loads of TAX payers cash getting all there staf trained up and quite a few of there staff are also AW, -Assessors. Were will it all end your lots guess is as good as mine.

 

[rogwad]

The 'Deer Stalking Competence' matter in Scotland is still very much under discussion, perhaps because there may have been a tendency for some folk to recognise that a certification system administered by Civil Servants with a political agenda might not have been totally satisfactory. I think I would prefer to see qualifications managed by an independent body rather than Scottish National Heritage?

The BDS is certainly very active in the training arena, as you can see from the Home page here. And I have rarely heard much criticism of their courses as to quality. They are certainly not the cheapest. However, you also have to bear in mind that the BDS is not a shooters' organisation, it is a charity for the welfare of deer and has to operate within the strict rules of charity law. The fact that BDS is closely associated with training rather stems from this. If you prefer to go elsewhere, there are plenty of alternatives.

DMQ is run independently and is governed by the quality assessments described on the website.

 

[Peterm]

Looking further into the DMQ site it states "We do not carry out assessments or training. Assessment may only be offered by DMQ accredited Assessment Centres, all of which also offer training" and the link goes to a page where there are 8 outlets listed (of which 1 is the BDS)...but I can do the assessment at Castle Donington which is not listed..curious.

The reason that there are many other providers is that they deliver their training through the BASC Assessment centre. I'm not sure if many other assessment centres offer this service as widely as ourselves.

I hope this helps

 

[6pointer]

Peterm that was a good post and very honest and to the point can you tall me who keeps all the cash from the assessment centre and from DMQ registration,s .I was told that the BDS got a large lump of money from the DMQ process. Now in every walk of life there needs to be a provider but that provider cannot also be the Examiner conflict of interest Mr Snedon learned that not to long ago.
All i am saying is in the future should a CERTIFICATE BE REQUIRED TO STALK DEER IN SCOTLAND THE CURRENT SYSTEM I BELEIVE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE .

 

[Peterm]

Some of the money goes to DMQ to pay for the certification, quality assurance and maintenance of the qualification (All income is ploughed back into the qualification). Some of the money goes to pay for the administration of the qualification. For instance BASC employs two administrators Mary and Sue who's sole purpose is to administer the Deer Assessment Centre at BASC. The 'profits' cover the costs of employing these individuals - nothing more.

Our accounts are published annually in the magazine for all to see