Ethics ….

[Ronin]

Two scenarios

No back ground I’m afraid just looking for a discussion ;

Scenario 1

DSC1 shooting test -

Is it ethical to allow someone with zero experience of firearms (as in zero handling , no prior shooting) to be coached through the DSC 1 test by an aide (they pass the test and get certificate ) now are qualified to go kill deer but are now alone, have limited experience and zero knowledge of firearms and their actual capability’s


Scenario 2

A Range day

A range is used for practical purposes of practice and self development of like minded responsible rifle people to enhance and build on their skill set

The only targets available are steel and non would be harmed in the engagement of activity

Tthe range has targets way beyond the accepted stabdard (100 yard) guideline for killing deer and the people arranging are considered with a “stern” eye by their betters who suggest such activity should not take place and may be subject to negativity



No specifics - you don’t need them

Just interested in your thoughts on each

Double standards ?

Lack of backbone and “fibre”?

More woke bull ****?

Discuss ,,,,

 

[Rutland lad]

Scenario 1 - ridiculous, but it’s allowed by the law of this land.

Scenario 2 - I’d call this ‘development’ and once people have proved themselves at 100m then move them back until they run out of ability to show what the can and cannot expect to do in the field, on a live target.

The last scenario is an important one in my eyes and those suggesting and running such a day should be congratulated. Their actions may save deer from a slow and painful death by wounding.

 

[Sampo]

Neither, people without a DSC1 can go shoot deer all alone if they have their own land or have friends who would let them shoot on their land. DSC1 is just a certification that anyone can get with a bit of effort but doesn't make them a deer expert or a stalker. A range day is not different from someone having a go at paper targets.

What is this accepted standard of 100 yards for killing deer? What one need is experience and where possible some mentoring to get into stalking and I believe its a life long learning experience with different species, surroundings, challenges, fitness levels etc.

 

[finnbear270]

The people with the “Stern eye” should withdraw beyond the fence line, or boundary of their “Retreat” & live & let live,….. DSC1 test scenario, if a complete tyro, they should be identified during the L1 training as a complete novice & provided with further mentoring.

 

[Stevie/P]

Neither, people without a DSC1 can go shoot deer all alone if they have their own land or have friends who would let them shoot on their land. DSC1 is just a certification that anyone can get with a bit of effort but doesn't make them a deer expert or a stalker. A range day is not different from someone having a go at paper targets.


What is this accepted standard of 100 yards for killing deer? What one need is experience and where possible some mentoring to get into stalking and I believe its a life long learning experience with different species, surroundings, challenges, fitness levels etc.

This

 

[StephenToast]

1. You don't technically have to have any qualification of any sort to shoot deer - I was granted my .30-06 for deer without having DSC1 (although I did have experience of rifle shooting)

2. Shoot whatever you like on a range as far away as you like. Targets don't have feelings.

 

[Jagdmatch]

Scenario 1

I deal with shooting tests on almost a daily basis. The tests are set at the lowest point to demonstrate competency. The students are not coached during the test but should know the requirements of each part of the test and failure is fairly unusual. The test does not replicate anything that is tactical and any pressure is timed targets. The DSC 1 test has a basis on practical skills required but it does not and cannot replicate shooting a live animal ( you could elevate the candidates heart rate a bit but most of them will be nervous anyway) Do you want a situation with yearly reshoots? Probably not, but most people I know who kill deer rather than talking about it practice anyway which falls into scenario 2

Scenario 2

A Range day
This is a day to develop skill and allow the participants to stretch their skills and evaluate their personal limits around distance to target and how trajectory, sight adjustment and shooting positions can impact on the results. The type of target makes little difference. I zero on paper generally but check zero on steel at 2-300 yards if that’s what’s available. If you just shoot at 100 yards then that’s fine. I suspect the distain might be some rather old fashioned teaching and coaching ideas! Instruction is now far more ‘what can I do to help you with learning’ rather than ‘this is my range and you must do it my way’

Competency is a difficult area. Demonstrating competency on a range may not show that the person is competent away from the range. Conversely there are some very competent stalkers who may feel out of place in the formality of a range. Unless you demonstrate competence on a regular basis ( do you really want yearly shooting tests?) the only place you will have to take a test is as part of the NRA SCC system

 

[Dalua]

Unless I have misremembered, DSC1 includes basic ballistics and safe rifle-handling, as well as the shooting test - so I'm not sure that 'zero knowledge of firearms and their actual capabilities' is a fair assessment. They should have a good basic working knowledge, and be able to shoot - albeit to an admittedly at a standard at the low end of adequate.

My main reservation concerning steel targets would be that they don't show where you miss - which is in my experience one of the most useful parts of stretching the range for training purposes. Quarry-pictures as targets would, I'd have thought, be better, as they offer the same ill-defined target area as the real thing and so add naturalistic vagueness to the process - which a sharply-defined steel does not.
Those points aside, I can't see any reason to carp about riflemen practising at ranges over 100yds. It might well be that ordinary stalkers might well be less, rather than more, inclined to take 'long' shots after a bit of practice at 300yds.

 

[nun_hunter]

They sound arse about face.

The first is a test so should be zero coaching, and as such pass or fail based on your current skills/ability.

The second training so is all about trying things, with coaching and potentially not doing as well as hoped but learning none the less.

 

[Klenchblaize]

Scenario 1 - ridiculous, but it’s allowed by the law of this land.

Scenario 2 - I’d call this ‘development’ and once people have proved themselves at 100m then move them back until they run out of ability to show what the can and cannot expect to do in the field, on a live target.

The last scenario is an important one in my eyes and those suggesting and running such a day should be congratulated. Their actions may save deer from a slow and painful death by wounding.

What about saving foxes from a slow and painful death?

You say Scenario 1 is ridiculous but even with coaching, DSCL1 delegates fail the shooting test. Further, it may be permissible in law but it’s not a legal requirement to have DSCL1 to shoot deer. Nor should it be IMHO.

I’m not sure what this thread serves to promote unless it’s to stimulate unhelpful dialogue around the many and varied service providers in the field of deer management and the securing of a FAC.

Just my tuppence worth of course.

K

 

[Ronin]

Some good points raised Thabk you

Discussion healthy , no matter how thorny the subject

DSC 1 isn’t necessary for killing deer or obtaining permission on land to do so

But it’s easier to get permission if you have demonstrated the minimum level of competence (DSC1) and probably more so if you have level 2

Note I’ve said MINIMUM standard of competence

But from there there is no further competency based testing

In Scenario 1 candidates are coached through a test - so is it really a test if their ability or a test of the person coaching to get the candidate to settle and shoot straight

Twelve shots onto a target to pass a pretty basic test does not make anyone competent, neither does it demonstrate that the level of competence remains at that base level stabdard

Is there an argument for doing away with this system

Should there be a basic firearms competency course for all holders and annual or biannual testing for skill and saftey

Applicable for all firearms users ?

Why restrict testing to deer stalkers

Is there a need for all users to have a basic competency level or demonstrate a grading level system such as air rifle (level one ) shot gun (level 2) target rifle (level 3 ) vermin control (level 4) deer (level 5) danagerous game (level 6)

Is there an argument to support the need to do away with the cash cow that is DMQ and replace with a system that is based on the above and candidates attain their “grades” and move whatever level they wish that is transparent, and competency driven - if you don’t make the grade on your own merit you re take the test etc,,,


Scenario 2

Continuous Development of skills

Shooting reactive targets at distances beyond is a good way of developing and enhancing skills

Rifle shooting requires regular training without which one loses skill and ability

Steel targets are a good way to practice safely in a controlled environment (on an approved range)

Misses can be spotted easily in sand banks around the actual target

Ranges - regardless of the maximum possible distance one may shoot should be used to allow rifle users to enhance their skills

Better to do this in a sanitised range environment than taking pot shots at distance on an animal

Keep the discussion going please

 

[finnbear270]

In effect we have to re qualify for the visitor jagdschein, every annual visit for driven Boar, so say maybe a bi annual test in UK would be weeding out people like the recent magpie in tree fella.
You have to pass a shooting test for forestry leases, so what's the difference?

 

[Bo Diddley]

#1 reminds me of when I was learning to drive, 6 lessons, 1 test, a pass, and then I was driving a 1.5 ton car around on the public roads.
I've never killed anyone, I have had two minor accidents in 42 years, one involving another car.

 

[slider]

#2 who defined 100 yards as "the accepted standard"?

 

[Ronin]

#1 reminds me of when I was learning to drive, 6 lessons, 1 test, a pass, and then I was driving a 1.5 ton car around on the public roads.
I've never killed anyone, I have had two minor accidents in 42 years, one involving another car.

Using this analogy there is a good argument to liken current DSC1 training (scenario 1) to the Indian driving test

(Straight line for a hundred meters you didn’t hit anything - passed)

 

[Moray Outfitting]

If you have a candidate in the part 1 scenario, they probably do not have a firearm certificate. When going forward for one, it is common police practise these days to put the candidate on a mentoring clause on the certificate. J

 

[Bowland blades]

While knowing your ability on paper and steel and getting some trigger time in is important. The simple fact is i have seen many very good comp shooters exhibit terrible marksmanship on very easy targets . IMO we should discourage longer ranges until the person in question has naturally gained the composure required to take these shots in real conditions in the field and it should be worked more as a natural progression in the field
There are no real consequences for shooting your first sighting shot badly on targets as you still get another go and this is a fact missed by many and forgotten by most . Perhaps laying £50 on the table to make your first ccb shot and loosing it for a kill zone miss might change the shooters state of mind about their honest capabilities in the field under stress ?

 

[cjm1066]

DMQ1, coaching during pactice, no coaching during the test, as per DMQ2 if you have to instruct the assessment stops.

Range day, practice and stretching your ability, a long shot is occasionally required for a injured deer, or should be leave it to suffer if we can't get with X yards

 

[Bo Diddley]

Using this analogy there is a good argument to liken current DSC1 training (scenario 1) to the Indian driving test

(Straight line for a hundred meters you didn’t hit anything - passed)

Yes, a bit like the old motorcycle test, end of the road turn left, then left again, left again and if you got back in one piece you had your bike license, not ideal in this modern world.

 

[Nimrod1960]

#2 who defined 100 yards as "the accepted standard"?

Would be interesting to do a survey of species and range to see what actually goes on.
One for BASC ?