Dmq nEW system

1967spud Reloading Supplies Ltd - UK Suppliers for Reloading Equipment supplies, We also stock Bullet Heads and Bullet Cases Guns Cabinets, Night vision and much much more...
D

Davie

Guest
Most people look on the Dmq system as a real pain in the ass others want to have even more tests etc but what i see all the time is when a post is put up about DMQ it has lots of responses most negative .
I would like to start a post to ask for suggestions from site members on how to improve the current system so that we still get people adequately trained to a start level safe standard .But still keep them happy and have a wee bit cash left in there pockets.
I have ideas and will voice them later in the posts so come on don't gripe give the DMQ mob some suggestions and help them improve.
 

Rangefinder

Well-Known Member
I think they should lobby police forces NOT to insist this qualification is gained before issue of the FC.

They would gain support for sure.
 
D

Davie

Guest
I agree mate it should be stated that this is still voluntary.

I think that there should only be one AW stalk i cant see any reason for three except for it to make cash

I think there should be a set price .

I think that the DMQ board should make sure the AW,S have good ground with a good chance at stalking deer.

I think the use of deer farms for lev 2 should be banned

I think the Lev one should be made a bit harder with regards the shooting tests to make it more realistic.

I think after a recent post that AW,S should have an ATT test to go with there undoubted knowledge.
 

griff

Well-Known Member
One of the proposals that I put forward on the last questionaire from dmq was to assess the candidate on a points basis rather than the tedious repetative questions.
Scoring on a 1-10 basis for each PC would give a better indication of a candidates skill and experience

regards
griff
 

lwcdart

Well-Known Member
DMQ?

Gents

I have had some feelings on this issue for a very long time now, lets face it a candidate can go on a BDS Course & obtain a DSC 1 & still in real terms have next to no field experiance at all & then be let loose to stalk deer, as I have seen a few people who have been granted a non supervisory section 1 FAC just because they passed a DSC1 by one police force in the UK.

Much as a supervisory condition is a real bind to many people I do strolgly agree that it serves a purpose in that it ensures that the candidate has at least got some grounding with a rifle in an accompanied enviroment, when I first learned to stalk I was under a supervisiory for about 3 months I think.

I still feel that there should be more mandatory field time for people to gain experiance prehaps as an overall part of the DMQ.

I just dont agree with the way that the BDS & BASC seem to just churn out DSC1 qualified newbies & I myself feel its just a revenue grabbing jump in on the old training cash cow-band wagon while we can make a few quid.

To be honest what other options do we have though at the moment?


With more people entering the sport I guess we do have more people with just a basic understanding of Deer Managment on which to build than we ever did in the past & we do have the DMQ to thank for this.

Regs Lee
 

snowstorm

Well-Known Member
I think DSC1 is too deer focused, and aimed at satisfying the professional user, hence it's alientation of the recreational shooter. It's like asking for a HVG/advanced drivers licence to drive your mini.

The police should not be concerned with deer welfare, only people's welfare. When they ask for DSC they are asking for a lot of competence in areas which have nothing to do with public safety.

There should still be two parts :

Part 1 - focuses on safe rifle owning/shooting practice (inc safe shot placement, not just on deer) and technical aspects thereof. This is shooter oriented and would allow most people who want to get into recreational stalking to a) satisfy 'safe shooter' requirement to get their FAC, b) prove to many land owners they are safe around people and property with guns.

Asking people to prove they can tell the difference bewteen a Roe and a Red deer is too much and it has no bearing on public safety. Any sensible person knows to research it and satisfy themselves.

This would be for rec stalkers who will eat their own deer and not sell it. After all you eat rabbits/fish/birds etc you shoot without having to be qualified in knowing the health risks.

Instead of Deer Stalking Certificate 1 it's called Safe Shooting Certificate.

Part 2 - focuses on food chain, carcass prep, practical gralloching etc - all the pro stuff you need so as to not to pose a heath risk from a food point of view.

Instead of Deer Stalking Certificate 1 it's called Game Food Preparation Certificate or similar. Instead of being onerously witnessed based, it takes a lot of what is in DSC1 now, but not relevant to gun safety, and moves it here.

So Part 1 - don't shoot anyone, Part 2 - don't poison anyone, or shoot the wrong thing.

You can do either or.

How many people know the difference between a pest crow and a protected rook? and you don't need to do exams in that to get a SGC.
 

scotspine

Well-Known Member
Well said Snowstorm.
Everyone should be obliged to demonstrate that they can handle a firearm safely and shoot competently before being issued a FAC.This will reassure both the police and landowners. An hour at the range with relevant assessor plus some brief 'classroom' work should suffice. This should not be costly nor time consuming, however the applicant would have to swot hard and enlist the help of an (experienced) FAC holder (to get in some range time) in advance of the test. Couple this approach with decent insurance and the individual can start to enjoy stalking. Other competencies can then be worked on as and when required.
DSC1 is being flagged up as the ‘industry standard’ just now as there is no alternative. Many landowners insist you have it but I’m sure that all they really want is safe, insured shots on their ground.The rest will follow.DSC1 is the classic ‘sledgehammer to crack a nut’; fine if you’re up for it but an oversized barrier for many stalkers who would rather spend their time and money where it matters.
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
I really don't understand why people want to wrap our sport in yet more red tape :confused:

Demonstrate the "problem" that currently exists which warrants more Government intervention, and the introduction of more hurdles to firearm ownership and I may change my mind...

How many firearm related deaths by FAC holders were there last year for instance? What about over the last five years?

Now compare that to the number of people shot in error by the "highly trained" Police firearms units...The long and short of it is that us FAC are generally a very safe and law abiding bunch so why penalize us with more red tape?
 

snowstorm

Well-Known Member
Erm, think you are agreeing with me Pete!

Take all the deer stuff out of DSC 1, call it something else and make it a day long assessment. While not being a requirement it's an easier way for people to show they are safe, which is a complaint you hear a lot.

Take ReneZ - experienced shooter abroad, reloader, trained hunter etc. fired guns most of us will never see in our lives. He failed DSC1 because he got the pic recognition wrong.

On the other hand, someone can get a FAC with no experience whatsoever because they had some trees to protect and could shoot away at anything they see.

Where's the sense in that.
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
snowstorm,

If you did that, you'd no longer have a Deer Management Qualification...I did my Level 1 and 2 essentially as I enjoyed learning about Deer..

I fully support it as a voluntary training/qualification system concerned with Deer Management but do not wish to see this or any other assessment/qualification become mandatory...

Regards,

Peter
 

steyr.308

Well-Known Member
Snowstorm,

A quick question if I may, have you done a level 1 course and if so who with and where?

Just curious that’s all.
 

jingzy

Well-Known Member
Although I understand that some people feel patronised with the DMQ system and also frustrated, I think it is a good idea.
Part 1. yes, all agreed that it should deal with firearms safety. What is wrong with having the species element in it? If somone does not know the difference between species, then they could be breaking the law when culling deer. There are many recreational stalkers out there that eat some of their quarry, but again a lot of it will reach the food chain. Therefor, they must understand what they are looking at on inspection to ensure that the carcass is fit for consumption (not like years ago when the pluck had to be provided and the onus was on the game dealer). Gralloching is a requirement as the people that have never done it before need to learn somehow. (i have seen this before on my NSCC)

I could write more on level one but will leave it for just now.

Part 2.
3 stalks, perhaps not a requirement to shoot 3 animals as dry stalks can be achieved to ensure that the stalker can state a safe shot. They can also judge the age (immature or mature) for cull plan and also shoot at a laid out target for the purposes of shooting accuracy. However, 3 grallochs and carcass inspections should be carried out as this is in my eyes the most important part as the animal will be going into the food chain. This could be achieved at a deer farm, however the logistics are not as easy as stalking in the field.
There is nowhere written down to say that the AW needs to supply the ground, therefor, if you have ground it should only cost you the price of getting the AW to your ground. (that is only fair) You could have a set price, but many AW's are self employed, then the price would have to be set high to accommodate them. The question part is very frustrating because if you have the same candidate out on 3 stalks, then you cannot repeat the questions as they will give you the same answers. They could give more informed or in depth answers each time though.

With the 3 stalks it would be more appropriate to have 3 different witnesses as this would have 3 different slants on questions and a more rounded picture of the candidate.

I have seen people that are supposed to make the grade, but fall sadly short usually due to the gralloching and inspection side. This can easily be rectified with a little tuition.

Awaiting incoming, and keyboard at the ready :lol:

J
 

snowstorm

Well-Known Member
jingzy said:
Part 1. yes, all agreed that it should deal with firearms safety. What is wrong with having the species element in it?
J

Nothing, but I don't think you should have to do that all in one go, when you can just do the safety/competence element which to my mind is the priority for a recreational stalker. DSC1 should be split to allow people to focus on meeting the public safety element more easily.

I think the point is that there are so few options for people and the DSC is a Deer based course, but getting an FAC is not just about stalking, but for many they have to go the full DSC 1 to show they are safe.

I'm not arguing for not having DSC. I'm arguing for a theoretical and practical safety course that helps people prove their safety, and as such focuses on what is needed for public safety when firearms are involved. Identifying deer species is just not relevant to that. I don't care if the guy up the valley east a spotty liver raw or not - that's his look out, but I do care that he might send a 308 my way because he avoided doing DSC altogether on account of the extra deer info he doesnt want to deal with, when he may well have gone on a one day 'how not to shoot the guy down the valley by mistake'.

Trawling my memory I think even the BASC do a introduction to firearms course that lasts a day - so it might already exist.

You can pass all of the safety parts of DSC, fail on the deer bits and be no further forward when it comes to showing the police and others that you are safe.

This started off as how to show the police you are safe (edit - thats the other thread going on). You just dont need the in depth deer knowledge on DSC1 to show that and I speak from personal experience.

steyr.308, - I do not have DSC1 or 2 at all.
 
D

Davie

Guest
Now why would any one have or need three stalks on deer or gralloch three times i for one would know if the chap was up to the job or not just watching him deal with a beast how many times do you need to check glands this is the only thing i know you need to sit three test to do the same thing .There are questions to ask Also if your chap doesn't meet the criteria he fails putting emphasis on the training and that is were we are having problems. Now we are going to have a situation were new lads cant get into the sport because they cant get a stalker to hold there hand or any one to mentor them and PETE E is wrong because the DMQ has already become mandatory to some police before putting deer on there ticket.
If any of the AW,S cannot tell if a chap should pass or fail on one stalk he should take up a new sport because he is useless.
 
D

Davie

Guest
Pete I fully support it as a voluntary training/qualification system concerned with Deer Management but do not wish to see this or any other assessment/qualification become mandatory...

What i am saying is it has already become mandatory and i had to help a chap get lev 1 before he got his FAC. If i was not there to help who would have done it how many chaps are put off stalking before they get started because we need to to much.
Lev one is the theory and lev two is the practical test this is the very start why ask how much experience this will give Christ the answer should be none but from now on i wil get as much as i can.
I remember my internal verifier asking why i had only put three stalks down on my portfolio answer that is what DMQ asked for. If i was a beginner one stalk should be enough then let me get out there and gain the necessary skill to call my self a stalker. ;)

If any one can tell me why a beginner needs any more than one stalk with an assessor i will get off my soap box ps and it will save time and money.
 

Pete E

Well-Known Member
6.5x55,

Holding a level1 is not mandatory as there is no requirment in law for this.

As for the standard required for Level 2, I assume when it was written, the criteria was arrived at after consulation with the various bodies and organisations supporting it, as their endorsement would be the "make or break" of it..

having said that, I honestly think you would moan what ever the cretiria was, some peole are just like that.

Regards,

Pete
 
D

Davie

Guest
Pete you are right and as always the paying public did not get a say in what went into the DMQ but it was nice to see them change the criteria after the Deerstalking community were struggling to get it done in time for the FC to have lev 2 as ( MADATORY ) A requirement of there leases. Now police forces all over England are using the DMQ as A STATMENT OF SAFTY BEFORE THEY ISSUE A fac WITH DEER ON IT How Mandatory do we need to get .
I put up suggestions that might help new starts because that is who we are blocking at every turn. Now me moaning might help some it might not but i do know this it wont help me (AS I AM ALRIGHT JACK ). ;)
 

jingzy

Well-Known Member
6.5,

some of these things are coming in as mandatory, but only on some ground (FE). If the police force are asking for this as a pre-requisite to a FAC, then I would complain against that constabulary and ask BASC or the BDS to contact them.


If i was a beginner one stalk should be enough then let me get out there and gain the necessary skill to call my self a stalker

I have had someone out stalking with me that has had the tuition from a so called stalker who said he was good to go and learn. He was good to go and learn, but only on how to become a more competant stalker, not to put a deer carcass into the food chain. The gralloch started in a stabbing motion. This then went onto the gralloch coming out in about 8 bits, stomach contents everwhere, pellets and intestine contents everwhere. The pluck came out in 6 big hauls and 6 bits. The lymph nodes could not be found, not due to the state of the gralloch or the shot, but the inability of the beginner in carrying out grallochs and his lack of knowledge.

Snowstorm,
You are right, BASC do a basic course if my memory serves me correct.
As far as I can see, anyone struggling should go on that course and as the DMQ 1 is deer related and someone wants to take up stalking then it could be advisable to go on one, particularly if they are going to go onto FE or FC land. If not, they should find a friend that does know what they are talking about, and let them teach the beginner.

Facts are that it takes more than a stalk or two to become competant.

Cheers,

J
 
D

Davie

Guest
If i was a beginner one stalk should be enough then let me get out there and gain the necessary skill to call my self a stalker

I think you misunderstand What i was saying was a DMQ LEV 2 stalk.
Now we need to get this correct if you are ready to go out on a DMQ witnessed stalk you are meant to be ready to go alone.
What i am saying is why have three stalks witnessed when one stalk done totally correct IMHO should be enough to satisfy any AW.
This would save time and money but the stalke will still be at a high standard .
 
CDSG Shooting Sports
Top