The concept of mandatory training is always a thorny one, and something I am personally torn on. I play devils advocate to myself on the issue!
I don’t especially want to regulate any form of shooting any more than strictly necessary. Quite clearly the shooting industry is in for a rough ride, especially if Starmer gets in, with a lot of regulation in the pipeline. Do we want to throw more into the equation? How onerous, time consuming or expensive would it be, would this act as a barrier to entry to the sport? Because I feel we will need to strengthen numbers in the long run.
Any degree of training doesn’t mitigate against future malpractice in any event. Could the person who scrapes past DSC1 shooting test (or any test) start lobbing rounds at a stag at 500 yards-of course, you can never really tell what folks will do unsupervised.
However I very much understand the points by
@Selous and agree with the sentiment to an extent. I think we are actually managing it reasonably well. Those who stalk for organisations such as FE, NT etc are now mandated to undergo shooting tests. As it should be, for numerous reasons. Should mr 2 muntjac a year have to be tested?
The gist of my thoughts are those of us who are serious about this, it’s a moot point. We’d pass any test, and happily undertake it to keep our permissions, and would probably enjoy the training. Anyone who treats stalking as an occasional trip out might be legislated away from it. This could affect recruitment into stalking, it could affect stalking businesses. Is there a current giant welfare issue that has to be addressed? I honestly don’t know. This is a very fine line, and something that absolutely needs getting right so well done for raising the discussion.