National wild venison standard

[GeorgeC]

VSS hits on the head. Having taken time to read it and assimulate the info, as producers we already have DSC and local EHO guidance / training / monitoring. What the purpose / aim of truly doing this is should be better explained by the parties that have brought this to the fore. Was there any questions posed to the stalking community, asking they thoughts and opinions? If so, I missed it. As a BASC member, I don't recall anything coming from them.

Having been in the food industry, I have seen schemes like this flourish and end up costing a fortune and embed lots of red tape, something most stalkers won't /can't afford. One thing it may do is push venison prices up, a gain for the stalker but not necessarily cover the true cost. As this will not replace the EHO visits / audits this will just add another day lost.

It would be interesting to see who the auditors will be, the current DSC2 Assessors? Seems sensible given they hold a National Assessor Qualification but this time paid for the assessment?

Lastly, they need to publish estimated prices so that people can decide. Personally just see this as another downside.

 

[308rws]

It risks causing a two-tier market, with the larger producers, who can justify the cost of membership, commanding higher prices even though their production standards are no higher.

A 'two-tier boundary' already exists between those who operate under the Trained Hunter exemption who directly supply the final consumer and/or local retailers and those Trained Hunters who supply AGHA and Game Dealers.

Now that an official 'GOV.UK' national wild venison standard exists, what are the implications for the business insurance premiums of stalkers who continue to supply wild venison under both the exemptions?

Likewise, will the insurance premiums of Trained Hunters supplying under the scheme come down?

Either the BQWV scheme reduces risks, or it doesn't?

 

[VSS]

A 'two-tier boundary' already exists between those who operate under the Trained Hunter exemption who directly supply the final consumer and/or local retailers and those Trained Hunters who supply AGHA and Game Dealers.

That's not a two tier market. That's two completely different ways of marketing. A two tier market would exist in a situation where two stalkers doing exactly the same thing (eg, both selling direct to retailers, or both selling to an AGHE) were getting vastly different prices just because one was a member of the scheme and one wasn't. A small-scale producer, who couldn't afford the membership, would be placed at a disadvantage even though his standards were equally high and he satisfied all the legal requirements.

 

[Hayduke]

How does increasing costs, bureaucracy and restrictions result in increased deer culls? It seems counterproductive putting more barriers in place.

Are the AGHEs and processors who join the scheme going to start paying significantly more for carcass? No chance!

Why don't they list the scheme costs up front?

 

[VSS]

Are the AGHEs and processors who join the scheme going to start paying significantly more for carcass? No chance!

They might start paying significantly less to stalkers who aren't members of the scheme.

 

[Woodenbeam]

So to control the ever increasing deer population red tape and ball-aks are going to be introduced…………yep that’ll work.
At least she replaced Zac Goldsmith so that has to be a positive.

So would you advocate no change then? I remind you of your first comment!

Baguio, I will admit to there being a certain amount of sarcasm in my message.
The increase in deer populations is actually quite good for a fair few people I’m guessing. Higher success rate for recreational stalkers. Plenty of deer about for paid stalking operations. Management of deer now being valued for actual management as opposed to income generated by letting of stalking rights. You never know this may actually open up availability a bit - you hear of huge swaths of land being tied up to individuals for stalking, far more than they can realistically manage.
The introduction of a ‘scheme’, I see only as a level of un-needed bureaucracy and an additional cost that has to be paid for by someone………….maybe the carbon credit-tree planting brigade can fund it out of the millions they’re racking in. Don’t get me started on that palaver

 

[devon deer stalker]

They might start paying significantly less to stalkers who aren't members of the scheme.

Why would they do that as they won't have a market to sell on the venison, unless perhaps it goes into dog food?

I do wonder if the general public will give 2 hoots if it is labelled as a similar 'red tractor' scheme that exists for other produce.

 

[The Singing Stalker]

Why would they do that as they won't have a market to sell on the venison, unless perhaps it goes into dog food?

I do wonder if the general public will give 2 hoots if it is labelled as a similar 'red tractor' scheme that exists for other produce.

This might be of use to larger producers but for the likes of me who will do maybe 20 deer a year it is highly unlikely to be of benefit either financially or customer wise.

 

[Heym SR20]

Just skimmed through it. It terms of Lead Free full definition is included in definitions



Nothing in the document that is beyond best practice etc in terms of shooting, gralloching, larder etc or that is already there. I suspect the bit that may be a challenge will be keeping traceability from stalker, through game dealer to the end consumer. But this traceability is already there in a lot of other meat products.

And suspect it will rather help consumers gain confidence that venison is a really good product for every day consumption. And not either something just for Toffs, or something that has fallen off the back of a truck.

In Scotland you already see a lot of farm shops and butchers showing such traceability. Suspect a lot is already there in England. Where this will help is developing brands for supermarket type sale.

And I would hope that it will ultimately allow venison to be treated as valuable product with commensurate reward from good and sustainable management, rather than just a pest.

And by good management, I mean getting your stocking densities right so that all beasts get a good level of nutrition and thus producing good quality carcasses. And by taking out the weaker / scruffier animals you quite quickly end up with much better animals overall - resulting in better quality and thus more value.

 

[Heym SR20]

This might be of use to larger producers but for the likes of me who will do maybe 20 deer a year it is highly unlikely to be of benefit either financially or customer wise.

I am in the same position and so are many others. However many amateur stalkers do feed into game dealers, and most/many will already have DSC2 and hunter numbers etc. and when you do sign something across to the dealer you are already confirming that it is fit for consumption etc. It may make some of us sit up and think about the implications of this.

 

[RM100]

Remember as a result of changing the DMQ syllabus Trained Hunter status is no longer awarded with DSC1. It’s awarded with DSC2.

What about those of us with the old DSC1? Surely, we ought to be somewhere in fine print.

 

[big ears]

They might start paying significantly less to stalkers who aren't members of the scheme.

Very probable. Another closed shop affair

 

[big ears]

What about those of us with the old DSC1? Surely, we ought to be somewhere in fine print.

Without going over an old thread the BDS/BASC want to push the DSC2……..

 

[RM100]

Without going over an old thread the BDS/BASC want to push the DSC2……..

Bugger! Well, I suppose charity begins here on

 

[VSS]

Why would they do that as they won't have a market to sell on the venison, unless perhaps it goes into dog food?

To be seen to be paying higher prices to scheme members. But they won't be. They'll just be paying lower prices to non- scheme members.
So they'll just be buying the same amount of venison as at present, only some of it will be cheaper. It's a win for them, because they can use this as a lever to push down the price for a proportion of what they buy.
I can't see it working the other way, can you? ie, stalkers who are scheme members demanding (and getting) higher prices for carcasses sold to AGHEs? Not unless there's also going to be some kind of National pricing structure that members sign up to. Or even subsidised prices.

 

[cookingfat]

This was “launched” by David Hooton of the FC at their excellent “managing deer in the landscape” conference and they had a recorded video from the DEFRA minister. The pricing tier was shown on a slide which I didn’t write down the full details but for it’s based on carcasses processed and the lowest tier covers up to 300/year. I recollect that this category was over £200 but the FC would offset a £100 of this as part of an introductory scheme. Wish I could recall the exact details but @Alastair Boston hopes to make the slides available soon.

As I said then
A small processor can join for £110 and the FC will top up with £180.
not sure I will get my money back but its a start of something that may help small producers.

 

[devon deer stalker]

To be seen to be paying higher prices to scheme members. But they won't be. They'll just be paying lower prices to non- scheme members.
So they'll just be buying the same amount of venison as at present, only some of it will be cheaper. It's a win for them, because they can use this a lever to push down the price for a proportion of what they buy.
I can't see it working the other way, can you? ie, stalkers who are scheme members demanding (and getting) higher prices for carcasses sold to AGHEs? Not unless there's also going to be some kind of National pricing structure that members sign up to. Or even subsidised prices.

That was my question, why would they pay anything to non scheme members?
To be sure, at the end of the day the stalker won't see any benefit from this scheme, unless I am missing something?

 

[VSS]

That was my question, why would they pay anything to non scheme members?
To be sure, at the end of the day the stalker won't see any benefit from this scheme, unless I am missing something?

Ah, I see your point.
So stalkers would either have to become scheme members, or retail their own venison (which could itself, theoretically, become difficult without the assurance scheme "rubber stamp"), eat it themselves, or dump it.
Which brings us back to an earlier point I made: The scheme would disadvantage smaller scale producers (ie, hobby stalkers) who could not justify the cost of membership for their level of throughput.

 

[User00038]

However many amateur stalkers do feed into game dealers, and most/many will already have DSC2 and hunter numbers etc.

The definition of the Trained person does need to be absolutely clear that it includes anyone who has the large game meat hygiene certificate, through whatever route it was obtained. That is my interpretation of the wording too, @Heym SR20, but it is unhelpful if stalkers believe that they are not eligible to apply for BQWV standard without having passed DSC2.

The scheme would disadvantage smaller scale producers (ie, hobby stalkers) who could not justify the cost of membership for their level of throughput.

It would be fascinating to have real data about the stalkers/producers who feed carcasses through AGHEs. My gut feeling is that the small scale producers who couldn't afford the extra £100-200 for certification either are keeping for home/exemption use anyway (so the BQWV is irrelevant) or don't want to risk the challenge/inspection of their carcass handling procedure. I appreciate that the odd extra £100 here and there accumulates - but for most people it costs more than £100 to fill their vehicle up.

 

[devon deer stalker]

Ah, I see your point.
So stalkers would either have to become scheme members, or retail their own venison (which could itself, theoretically, become difficult without the assurance scheme "rubber stamp"), eat it themselves, or dump it.
Which brings us back to an earlier point I made: The scheme would disadvantage smaller scale producers (ie, hobby stalkers) who could not justify the cost of membership for their level of throughput.

Spot on, it would disadvantage hobby stalkers