Scapegoat
Well-Known Member
Err, Chris Eubank, surely?I heard Mike Tyson has written a book on Ethics...and if its successful he's going to write one about London
Ethics ….
- Thread starter Ronin
- Start date
I'm not buying it. I don't believe that countries with more red tape / annual hunting tests have better deer welfare than the UK.
I agree. I have had clients from all parts of the world, some where they have to passing test and it stills boils down to individual skills, ability, experience, mindset and equipment.
Some of the faults are quite easy to see and rectify. Quite common ones are, thumb on top of the barrel. Not following through. Not controlling the effects of adrenaline
Foxyboy43
Well-Known Member
Not just confined to overseas shooters!
Shot in Perthshire a few years ago - a few days after a wealthy client’s “miss” - aiming behind the shoulder of course….….
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Agreed. My great grand father was a property developer in the 1950’s, and 60’s building large numbers of houses. I worked with my great uncle who took over the business till he died a few years ago. He recalled that the “acceptable” death rate on building sites was 1 death for every £1m of property built, and a business like theirs would have had one death every couple of years.
It's not red tape. A skills test with a firearm is not an unreasonable thing to have. Lots of roles have some form of reaccreditation. I've just seen a video of a moose "hunt" on facebook. Three shots to drop, that's not good.
Yes - I wasn’t having a crack at Johnny Foreigner, just that each of those countries had more formal testing routines than existed here. Granted there are just as many well upholstered British bad shots, usually with the very finest firearms and outfits.Not just confined to overseas shooters!
Shot in Perthshire a few years ago - a few days after a wealthy client’s “miss” - aiming behind the shoulder of course….….
View attachment 331686View attachment 331687
Ronin
Distinguished Member
So is it time for a revision of the DSC process and the low fat high profit version to be scrapped for a more realistic, ethical and applicable version that incorporates all facets of modern deer managment
Is it time for change in the echelons of deer orientated societies who cannot or will not accept that deer management has changed ten fold in the last decade and are more bothered by public perception that deer welfare ?
Perhaps such societies should look within at their reason for existence, welfare, education and research and concentrate on leading from the front instead of hiding at the rear afraid of their shadow
If there is a refusal for change or to accept it’s needed is it time to withdraw support and vote with ones wallet
Is it time for change in the echelons of deer orientated societies who cannot or will not accept that deer management has changed ten fold in the last decade and are more bothered by public perception that deer welfare ?
Perhaps such societies should look within at their reason for existence, welfare, education and research and concentrate on leading from the front instead of hiding at the rear afraid of their shadow
If there is a refusal for change or to accept it’s needed is it time to withdraw support and vote with ones wallet
L2 changes are retrograde in my opinion.
Most DSC1 shooting tests are simply that.
What I find astounding is the lack of coaching in the basics and fundamentals of actual shooting on the DSC1 course as a whole.
Yes, it is a test,
So is the written part.
But you spend three days in the classroom arguably learning about deer species you many never see before those written tests.
You spend less time learning how to shoot than you do on how to cross a bloody fence with the rifle!
The shooting test is by far the weakest point in the course and the vast amount of failures are people with "yips" on the day who fold under the "pressure", turn up with new kit un-zeroed, or kit they haven't used in 6m, those that decide the firing point is a good opportunity to get the tool kit out to feck around with their DS or who haven't gained enough trigger time to be comfortable shooting out of their comfort zone, whether that be due to the group observing or the use of sticks.
IMO the entire DSC1 focus is in the wrong place.
I can look up Close seasons on my phone.
I can google gralloching and practice when I have the dead thing in front of me
I cant get an appropriate shot placement from google and then ask it to place the bullet there without practice and/or some training.
Too many people with poor understanding of anatomy, the change in POA required with a quartering 3d object and weak fundamental marksmanship skills will pass the DSC1 and get a "trained Hunter" badge with an additional LANTRA Large Game handling badge...
Police are only worried about safety and security and under the illusion that a DSC1 qualification is somehow going to add to that,
We (as stalkers) should also be worried about the lethality of the actual shot.
DSC1 does not give you that.
As for practising beyond the "ethical" ranges of deer stalking.
You need more of this, not less
My approach to this is you have a personal limit of a range you are comfortable shooting deer at, whatever it is you should be practising at least 100m beyond it.
Everything you do at the range goes out the window in the field unless you practice beyond that comfort zone.
100m zero and bug hole groups, practice at 200m
If you think 300m is the ethical limit on live quarry, you should be comfortable shooting targets at 400m
you think you are a super sniper at 250m on a summer range bench with no wind?
Do it regularly in a 10-20mph wind and learn your own capabilities.
All of this needs to be first round measurement.
Not walking them in from 2ft left
Go put a 6" gong out at whatever range you are comfortable with on your stalking ground and shoot it with a single round every time you are out.
Or find a range and go along
take notes
learn your craft
What I find astounding is the lack of coaching in the basics and fundamentals of actual shooting on the DSC1 course as a whole.
Yes, it is a test,
So is the written part.
But you spend three days in the classroom arguably learning about deer species you many never see before those written tests.
You spend less time learning how to shoot than you do on how to cross a bloody fence with the rifle!
The shooting test is by far the weakest point in the course and the vast amount of failures are people with "yips" on the day who fold under the "pressure", turn up with new kit un-zeroed, or kit they haven't used in 6m, those that decide the firing point is a good opportunity to get the tool kit out to feck around with their DS or who haven't gained enough trigger time to be comfortable shooting out of their comfort zone, whether that be due to the group observing or the use of sticks.
IMO the entire DSC1 focus is in the wrong place.
I can look up Close seasons on my phone.
I can google gralloching and practice when I have the dead thing in front of me
I cant get an appropriate shot placement from google and then ask it to place the bullet there without practice and/or some training.
Too many people with poor understanding of anatomy, the change in POA required with a quartering 3d object and weak fundamental marksmanship skills will pass the DSC1 and get a "trained Hunter" badge with an additional LANTRA Large Game handling badge...
Police are only worried about safety and security and under the illusion that a DSC1 qualification is somehow going to add to that,
We (as stalkers) should also be worried about the lethality of the actual shot.
DSC1 does not give you that.
As for practising beyond the "ethical" ranges of deer stalking.
You need more of this, not less
My approach to this is you have a personal limit of a range you are comfortable shooting deer at, whatever it is you should be practising at least 100m beyond it.
Everything you do at the range goes out the window in the field unless you practice beyond that comfort zone.
100m zero and bug hole groups, practice at 200m
If you think 300m is the ethical limit on live quarry, you should be comfortable shooting targets at 400m
you think you are a super sniper at 250m on a summer range bench with no wind?
Do it regularly in a 10-20mph wind and learn your own capabilities.
All of this needs to be first round measurement.
Not walking them in from 2ft left
Go put a 6" gong out at whatever range you are comfortable with on your stalking ground and shoot it with a single round every time you are out.
Or find a range and go along
take notes
learn your craft
I think comparing between nations might be difficult due to different hunting practices, driven shoots, monterias etc. I think the main advantage of accreditation, whether voluntary or mandatory is that it encourages practice…. at least to a certain level. There are no down sides to deer welfare by encouraging what we should be doing anyway.
Go on…. I bet it is quite a lot ??
Have seen this regularly
Ironically the ones I have experience of aced the written and shooting tests
Much to the chagrin of the guys with 40 yrs experience or those with £20k of kit who fluffed the shooting test
Yes, Yes and Yes once more!!
There is always room for us to improve what we do.
Whilst talking about training, does anyone else think the new DSC2 ‘single stalk’ principle is a turn in the wrong direction?
DSC2 used to be the marker of those who took the whole job a little more seriously, I’m now talking to newbies who ‘might as well’ get it done. It’s cheapened the qualification, figuratively as well as literally.
DSC2 used to be the marker of those who took the whole job a little more seriously, I’m now talking to newbies who ‘might as well’ get it done. It’s cheapened the qualification, figuratively as well as literally.
#71
Agreed, I think it was to increase footfall and the justification being if you have passed an assessment once then you can pass it again. To be fair there is a lot more emphasis put in detailed questioning by the assessor than with the 3 stalk test and the AWs are just observing performance criteria have been met. This may be more uniform and less susceptible to “friend bias”
Similar threads
