Not legal to shoot deer without dsc 1 after April 2014 ?
- Thread starter Double four
- Start date
in norway you have to take a shooting test and a course to hunt . but they accept the British level 1 and 2 as evidence of competence and will issue a Norwegian hunting license on production of these .In Germany they will not accept the level one or two as a qualification in hunting but if you submit your norwegan one they will issue you with there one and no shooting test is needed then . it just shows you what other countries think of our system as its not compulsory they dont recognise it some places in the world and you have to take a test before you can hunt there Im not sure were we go from here but rumorer have a habit of materializing if some body can make money out of it
Moray Outfitting
Well-Known Member
You raise one of the nubs of the issue (there are many! ).
Whilst always dangerous to generalise, from experience of many nationalities stalking with us, 'trained' German hunters have often not been the best performers. No matter what system of training or certification is applied - or the field, much still comes down to the person - the individual. In every field you will get the good, bad and indifferent - no matter what paperwork they hold.
Not sure there is any system yet in existence that can really solve that.
However - plunging straight in with a major generalisation
- experience in general makes me believe the volunteer is usually better than the conscript. I think that is a strength in the DSC scheme - one that perhaps deserves better promotion. It has certainly been one of the points I have put forward in letters to and discussions with the various policy makers.
Whilst always dangerous to generalise, from experience of many nationalities stalking with us, 'trained' German hunters have often not been the best performers. No matter what system of training or certification is applied - or the field, much still comes down to the person - the individual. In every field you will get the good, bad and indifferent - no matter what paperwork they hold.
Not sure there is any system yet in existence that can really solve that.
However - plunging straight in with a major generalisation
- experience in general makes me believe the volunteer is usually better than the conscript. I think that is a strength in the DSC scheme - one that perhaps deserves better promotion. It has certainly been one of the points I have put forward in letters to and discussions with the various policy makers.
.....so what you're saying is we need to take our DSC certs to Norway, get the Norwegian ticket to then take to Germany, to get the German ticket. ....and all presumably absolutely nothing to do with the fact the Germans still don't like us 'after the War'.....
Presumably, the German ticket is the most efficient and effective 'vorsrung durch technik' type thing there is - and that everyone accepts?! I think I shall start my 'hunting ticket collection' magazine now - get a complete set in one hundred parts - and only £899 for the first two parts......
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
Here we go again!
The only people that decry the DSC process seem to be those that have not been through it, and are therefore not best placed to criticise it! Most, if not all that have done it can appreciate what it is all about and are happy with the qualification gained.
Just to pick up on a few points:
As for this statement:
Originally Posted by caorach 
I've never seen any evidence that deer stalking in the UK, whether carried out by "qualified" or "unqualified" stalkers, presents any safety or welfare issue. I've also never seen any evidence that stalkers with DSC1 are any safer or better for deer welfare than those without.
I think you must live under a rock mate?
There are some horrific levels of deer management going on out there from people that don't know any different! I met a chap last year that shoots an awful lot of deer, mainly with a .22 rimfire. If that wasn't bad enough, he also admitted that he'd never shot one in the daylight!
But, most worrying of all, was that he didn't know he was doing anything wrong!!
I know of several 'deer managers' in this area that haven't a clue what they are doing but still have deer calibre rifles. Surely DSC 1 alone would go a good way to 'educating' these individuals to some extent? Just knowing deer legislation would prevent many issues.
If not having DSC prevents such persons from causing such safety or deer welfare issues, then quite frankly, I'm all for it!
MS
The only people that decry the DSC process seem to be those that have not been through it, and are therefore not best placed to criticise it! Most, if not all that have done it can appreciate what it is all about and are happy with the qualification gained.
Just to pick up on a few points:
As far as I'm aware (and I accept that I am a bear of little brain so could be totally mistaken)
DSC is only about deer.
The DSC1 assessment tests knowledge and skills in the following areas:
So... NOT just about deer then!
- 1. Deer biology and ecology.
- 2. Legislation.
- 3. Stalking techniques and taking the shot.
- 4. Deer identification.
- 5. Safety.
- 6. Shooting.
- 7. Large Game Meat Hygiene.
DSC training is mostly about pay and go.... ie.
DSC training is not run as a club or other "not for profit" organisation.
Surely you cannot expect any organisation to deliver training for free? There are several providers of this training and it is generally exceptional value for money when compared to most other commercial or industrial training at a similar level!
DSC is not internationally recognised.
Why should it be? What international qualifications do we officially recognise in this field? How can so many different techniques, weapons, calibres and legalities from so many different countries be 'transferred'? For instance, how can you equate a sedate stalk on a muntjac with a rifle to a driven boar with a shotgun in Europe, or an elephant in Africa!??
And... DSC testing, although set by DMQ, is not actually supervised independantly from the (for profit) training, which I'm sorry to say, fails to satisfy my cynical mind, in terms of purity, flawlessness and value.
The training and testing is provided by various 'suppliers' and is supervised by DMQ. The process is based on the NVQ system and involves assessment and verification at various levels. It is no different than any other industry standard training.
So, whatever DSC is mostly about it isn't really what I would wish.
Pigeons, cat, have at it...
As for this statement:
I've never seen any evidence that deer stalking in the UK, whether carried out by "qualified" or "unqualified" stalkers, presents any safety or welfare issue. I've also never seen any evidence that stalkers with DSC1 are any safer or better for deer welfare than those without.
I think you must live under a rock mate?
There are some horrific levels of deer management going on out there from people that don't know any different! I met a chap last year that shoots an awful lot of deer, mainly with a .22 rimfire. If that wasn't bad enough, he also admitted that he'd never shot one in the daylight!
But, most worrying of all, was that he didn't know he was doing anything wrong!! I know of several 'deer managers' in this area that haven't a clue what they are doing but still have deer calibre rifles. Surely DSC 1 alone would go a good way to 'educating' these individuals to some extent? Just knowing deer legislation would prevent many issues.If not having DSC prevents such persons from causing such safety or deer welfare issues, then quite frankly, I'm all for it!
MS
Well done you for pointing out quite clearly the benefit of our system and simple how the move to complusary DSC 1 may infact reduced the perceived credit of the ticket.
scrumbag
Well-Known Member
the establishment of "not-for-profit" local hunter clubs/memberships as the basis of a system of dissemination of education, training and local information on hunting opportunities, leading onto a nationally/internationally recognised standard "Hunter" qualification administered by a separate "official" testing agency. But maybe that's just the slightly socialist and/or pro-European side of my personality showing through.
Hang on Tamus, this is a scary proposition:
1) It brings about the chance for NRA and NRA types to run hunting qualifications and access. I'm recently new member of the NRA and I have to say: Dealing, training and shooting with DSC-1 certified people is a lot more pleasnant and shooting is more accessible. It is in the NRA's charter to bring more people into shooting, they, I'm sure with the best intentions and I quite agree that people should be trained to use a range safely, but boy they don't make this easy. (I've recently joined, interesting experience to say the least..)
2) You basically want more government involvment with shooting? I can't imagine that will help. Also, gov't involvement will just mean they'll have someone to administer the test. You will still have to do training like you pay someone privately to teach you to drive and pay a test fee to the local DVLA test centre.
If anything, I think by shooters, for shooters is better than getting the gov't involved which will just push up red tape and cost I reckon. Our associations are at least in some measure for us and not making a huge profit!
I think what needs to happen is that the DSC-1 needs to be better recognised abroad and DMQ should work on that.
Just my 2p.
Scrummy
caorach
Well-Known Member
I think you must live under a rock mate?
There are some horrific levels of deer management going on out there from people that don't know any different! I met a chap last year that shoots an awful lot of deer, mainly with a .22 rimfire. If that wasn't bad enough, he also admitted that he'd never shot one in the daylight!
If not having DSC prevents such persons from causing such safety or deer welfare issues, then quite frankly, I'm all for it!
MS
I think firstly we have to accept that poaching and other actions outside the law will always remain outside the law. I have a poaching problem, it results in deer welfare issues, but I don't for one minute think that making legal stalkers do a course will solve the problem, nor do I believe that my poachers will take the course. In truth here in Northern Ireland to get a rifle for deer you need to have DSC1 so the people involved are already, effectively, required to have done the course. So, forcing DSC1 on the law abiding will not in any way impact upon those acting outwith the law.
As I've said in the past there is no evidence that stalkers or stalking presents a threat to public safety or deer welfare. We can't speak for those acting illegally and they are not part of what we do. When the government can provide proof that legal stalkers present a threat to the public or the deer and when they can provide proof that having a DSC1 will remove that risk then they can justify forcing the DSC1 upon everyone. Until these conditions are fulfilled the argument for forcing stalkers to take DSC1 is merely an emotional one based upon, mostly, media hype relating to "high powered rifles" and the like.
The bottom line is that you have to prove there is a risk, and I mean prove rather than produce an emotional argument about "high powered rifles" and so on, and then to prove that your solution will remove the risk. Your example of clueless deer managers just makes the point - if these people do a DSC1 will they be any less clueless? Will they change the habits of a lifetime? Is there any evidence that they are actually clueless rather than that you don't like or agree with their methods? How do we quantify the risk they present? How do we quantify deer welfare and measure the change before and after DSC1? How do we quantify the risk to the public posed by your clueless deer managers and then how do we measure its improvement after the DSC1?
To force things upon people who are legally going about their business before we answer such questions would mean that we were acting on a purely emotional basis - i.e. that we FEEL that others (but rarely ourselves) should have more restrictions forced upon them. Until we can quantify all the factors involved and demonstrate risk and measurable improvement then we must not allow government to interfer in the lives of people who are minding their own business because until we do that we can't KNOW that there is a problem and KNOW what the solution might be.
Tamus
Well-Known Member
Why Government or the NRA? Neither are equiped. We are though.
For instance, I go along to my local clay pigeon club with a shotgun. We compete against other local clay pigeon clubs. There's help for newcomers and one another, with technique and advice which often leads onto game shoot syndicate contacts and memberships and there's not a "Government" person involved. Why not something similar for rifles and rifle shooting.
As for the idea of gaining an easy intro, some experience and passing a nationally standardised, internationally recognised and independently supervised test before getting access to simplified FAC processing, what's scary about that?
It's pretty much exactly what happens in many European countries already.
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
You're completely missing the point mate!
These are not 'poachers' I'm refering too! They are legal holders of deer calibres rifles (as well as rimfires) and they are stalking deer on land which they have permission as well. They just don't have a clue regarding deer welfare of the law! The reason they operate outside the law, is that they don't know the law, as they have never been trained and are clearly not bothered. As for meat hygiene and where the carcasses end up, there's another very worrying prospect!
MS
These are not 'poachers' I'm refering too! They are legal holders of deer calibres rifles (as well as rimfires) and they are stalking deer on land which they have permission as well. They just don't have a clue regarding deer welfare of the law! The reason they operate outside the law, is that they don't know the law, as they have never been trained and are clearly not bothered. As for meat hygiene and where the carcasses end up, there's another very worrying prospect!
MS
deermagnet
Well-Known Member
i did my dsc1 last month just because i wanted too not because i need it but there was a guy doing the course who tolds me he had to do it as west yorkshire police would not give him deer on his fac until he had it even though he already owned a 308 for target only
caorach
Well-Known Member
QED. If they are not bothered any amount of courses and government interferance will clearly have no impact upon them. It will, however, have a significant impact upon the general stalking population.
My point, quite simply, is that there is no evidence and no metric to demonstrate that stalkers need more training or that the training would be effective and as such there can be no justification for forcing more burden upon stalkers. You might know some people who you consider "bad" but there is no metric by which to measure this, for example they might be right and it might be you who is wrong, and no evidence that DSC1 is the solution even if it were to be shown that their actions were substandard.
Forcing people to jump through more hoops is not going to be a good thing for new people taking up the sport as they have enough to deal with and when there are only a few stalkers left the government will walk all over us.
Oh and I do have my DSC1, I enjoyed it and found it a positive and useful experience and I think it would benefit many stalkers to do it, but I don't think they should be forced to do it and I don't think it made me a different person or a better stalker depending on how you measure "better".
Tamus
Well-Known Member
MS
I have gone through DMQ and I can assure you that when I did it the only quarry species referred to as part of the course was deer. I shoot virtually all UK quarry species and can't really fathom why I never require such qualification to shoot any of the others. For instance, the last lease I signed required DSC2 to be held by the prinicpal lessor but allowed the consequential shooting of any game and foxes, subject to season and so forth, with no "bits of paper"... Go figure.
Perhaps you should re-read my posts and you'll see I am only suggesting deficiencies and possible improvements. I'm not actually knocking DSC course providers.
As it happens, I'm a big fan of joined up thinking, as it's called. At the moment there is a deplorable lack of that around rifle's and rifle sport. Whether we further discuss the matters above or go on to discuss the variance in approach between licensing authorities you can hardly say I'm wrong there.
But... as I first said in relation to the BDS rumour in this thread, it seems highly improbable to me that by 2014 a DSC1 will become universally mandatory before the taking of deer would be lawful. The random whims of politicians excepted.
I have gone through DMQ and I can assure you that when I did it the only quarry species referred to as part of the course was deer. I shoot virtually all UK quarry species and can't really fathom why I never require such qualification to shoot any of the others. For instance, the last lease I signed required DSC2 to be held by the prinicpal lessor but allowed the consequential shooting of any game and foxes, subject to season and so forth, with no "bits of paper"... Go figure.
Perhaps you should re-read my posts and you'll see I am only suggesting deficiencies and possible improvements. I'm not actually knocking DSC course providers.
As it happens, I'm a big fan of joined up thinking, as it's called. At the moment there is a deplorable lack of that around rifle's and rifle sport. Whether we further discuss the matters above or go on to discuss the variance in approach between licensing authorities you can hardly say I'm wrong there.
But... as I first said in relation to the BDS rumour in this thread, it seems highly improbable to me that by 2014 a DSC1 will become universally mandatory before the taking of deer would be lawful. The random whims of politicians excepted.
Dekit
Well-Known Member
The country side need more people to do the country sports side , if you have to pay more and more low earners will be edge out. Rich get richer pretty soon back to the landed jentry the only ones shooting ( and they wonder why there are more poachers )...
Steve.. ( low income shooter )................
Steve.. ( low income shooter )................
bally
Well-Known Member
It will be pushed through by health and safety legislation
Go into a lot if not all work environments now and you will be asked to fill in a permit to work.you will also be asked to supply a method statement this wasn't the case too long ago,
insurance will also start to question qualifications
so going into work place with a drill requires this type of paperwork why not when you arrive at a forest with a high powered rifle with expanding ammunition that is capable of
massive amount damage will be the cry
get ready for it lads
Go into a lot if not all work environments now and you will be asked to fill in a permit to work.you will also be asked to supply a method statement this wasn't the case too long ago,
insurance will also start to question qualifications
so going into work place with a drill requires this type of paperwork why not when you arrive at a forest with a high powered rifle with expanding ammunition that is capable of
massive amount damage will be the cry
get ready for it lads
To ms and all that believe that all deer stalkers should have dsc 1 minimum before the issue of a deer calibre rifle, I am thinking about having talks with my local mp and chief constable, basc and anyone who will listen, about the skill required to hunt squirrel, as a hunter who holds a small game license in Illinois, I find it incredible that they are issuing firearms to people in the uk who have not been on a ssc ( which I have the sole rights to certify) these animals deserve the same respect as deer and are not getting it, the same goes for fox,rabbit etc. As a further thought I suggest that as in the target world no person should own a firearm until they have been a member of a club for a set period.
As to Health and safety pushing it through, the biggest thing you will learn. Is that you are responsible for your own safety and the others around you and no amount of legislation will improve that. Insurance companies are like poker players they bet on the odds, just because you have a driving license does not mean you won,t crash.
As to Health and safety pushing it through, the biggest thing you will learn. Is that you are responsible for your own safety and the others around you and no amount of legislation will improve that. Insurance companies are like poker players they bet on the odds, just because you have a driving license does not mean you won,t crash.
mel
Well-Known Member
Ok, so some of these institutions/estates/police require DSC1 as a minimum. How do the DSC certifications equate to the NVQ Gamekeeping & Wildlife Management (Deer) qualification? It's a certification track that is never mentioned but shouldn't it also have some merit when people talk about deer qualifications if people require 'paper' to be shown as evidence of expertise? Do these institutions/police etc, requiring DSC1 as a minimum, even know it exists and how do they compare the diferent certifications?
BTW - I work daily in a world of qualifications and certificates, and they are just that - bits of paper. There are many people with them that are still shite, just the same as people with driving licenses!
Mel
BTW - I work daily in a world of qualifications and certificates, and they are just that - bits of paper. There are many people with them that are still shite, just the same as people with driving licenses!
Mel
Last edited:
Taff
very interesting point
just in the UK
they seem to feel that stalking is the most up and coming sport, so there is cash for feck all to be made from it
DMQ played a blinder and fair play to them for the vision
to agree or dis-agree is not an issuse
there are more opertunities to be had and aslong as us in the UK keep forking out , nothing will change
as it seems qualifacations is the way forward , but to what??
very interesting point
just in the UK
they seem to feel that stalking is the most up and coming sport, so there is cash for feck all to be made from it
DMQ played a blinder and fair play to them for the vision
to agree or dis-agree is not an issuse
there are more opertunities to be had and aslong as us in the UK keep forking out , nothing will change
as it seems qualifacations is the way forward , but to what??
Monkey Spanker
Well-Known Member
QED. If they are not bothered any amount of courses and government interferance will clearly have no impact upon them.
I think it will, as this sort of person will also 'not be bothered' to do the course and will then no longer have justification to hold a deer calibre rifle!
My point, quite simply, is that there is no evidence and no metric to demonstrate that stalkers need more training or that the training would be effective and as such there can be no justification for forcing more burden upon stalkers. You might know some people who you consider "bad" but there is no metric by which to measure this, for example they might be right and it might be you who is wrong, and no evidence that DSC1 is the solution even if it were to be shown that their actions were substandard.
Most stalkers probably don't need more training, but there is clearly a 'benchmark' minimum standard required to appease our critics, and DSC is surely a suitable metric to measure this by?
Forcing people to jump through more hoops is not going to be a good thing for new people taking up the sport as they have enough to deal with and when there are only a few stalkers left the government will walk all over us.
This is just one basic hoop to jump through. Anyone new to the sport should still have a good understanding of what is involved before participating. It is essential to have this basic knowledge for the sake of deer welfare and safety. The government could walk all over us anyway, and no doubt will if we give them reason to do so. However, if all stalkers embraced the idea of DSC 1 as a minimum standard, we would be viewed as more of a 'self-regulating' body which requires no further restriction!
Oh and I do have my DSC1, I enjoyed it and found it a positive and useful experience and I think it would benefit many stalkers to do it, but I don't think they should be forced to do it and I don't think it made me a different person or a better stalker depending on how you measure "better".
It might not have made you a better stalker or person, but I now know that you have been trained to a standard level, and so does everyone else who may be concerned. If I were a landowner, I would be happier to let you roam my land, and if I were an FLO i would be happier to grant you larger calibres/open ticket/ etc..
You have 'Trained hunter' status which speaks volumes to those who may otherwise criticise.
I'm sure this topic will go around a few more times yet, but you better believe that this is just around the corner and WILL happen!
You can disparage the idea as much as you like but you'll be wasting your time. A wise stalker would just get on and get it done! You can bet your arse that course availability and cost will alter as soon as it does become a reality!!
Meanwhile, I'll sit back and relax whilst waiting for all the cheap secondhand rifles and stalking which will no doubt become available from 2014!!
MS
caorach
Well-Known Member
DSC1 isn't a metric - it is a training course.
Now, and I appreciate that the real world often works differently especially after "New Labour" which seemed keen on interfering for no reason in people's lives, what happens is that you should be able to measure a need for a training course. The course should then be designed to address this need and, as a result, after completing the course people should perform better than before they went to the course. This improvement should be measurable and quantifiable.
I've never seen any metric, or attempts to produce them, for deer stalking and it therefore stands to reason that while we might produce a course telling people what we think they need to know we are not actually addressing any measurable training need. Nor are we able to measure any improvement. In real measureable terms the DSC1 course fails to meet a need that doesn't exist
So, to say that we NEED DSC1 is untrue because, quite simply, we don't know what we need.
Now, I'm sure your comments were made in jest but it is quite unreasonable to take pleasure that people might be driven out of stalking because they haven't done a course for which there is no proven need. This smacks of the "New Labour" version of "right on socialism" where you ban anything you don't understand and you interfer in everything else. There is quite enough regulation in stalking today without any more - remember quite a proportion of the DSC1 is about legal matters and if the DSC1 were to become a legal requirement than a small proportion of the course would be about the fact that doing the course was a legal requirement
However, despite all of this I don't actually think we are so far apart MS as I've said in the past that it is much better that we take on our own training and take responsibility for this rather than have a whole government department, for which we would have to pay, doing it for us. I also understand that in the current climate of blame landowners and the like are looking a "get out of jail" card and that is the "I checked he was properly trained and documented" excuse currently flavour of the month among management across the land.
I think we also both agree that more knowledge and improved standards are a good thing and it is worth promoting that within the stalking community. However, from the perspective of government and others our position must be that there is no evidence of a threat to animal welfare or public safety and, therefore, there is no justification for interference.
Now, and I appreciate that the real world often works differently especially after "New Labour" which seemed keen on interfering for no reason in people's lives, what happens is that you should be able to measure a need for a training course. The course should then be designed to address this need and, as a result, after completing the course people should perform better than before they went to the course. This improvement should be measurable and quantifiable.
I've never seen any metric, or attempts to produce them, for deer stalking and it therefore stands to reason that while we might produce a course telling people what we think they need to know we are not actually addressing any measurable training need. Nor are we able to measure any improvement. In real measureable terms the DSC1 course fails to meet a need that doesn't exist
So, to say that we NEED DSC1 is untrue because, quite simply, we don't know what we need.
Now, I'm sure your comments were made in jest but it is quite unreasonable to take pleasure that people might be driven out of stalking because they haven't done a course for which there is no proven need. This smacks of the "New Labour" version of "right on socialism" where you ban anything you don't understand and you interfer in everything else. There is quite enough regulation in stalking today without any more - remember quite a proportion of the DSC1 is about legal matters and if the DSC1 were to become a legal requirement than a small proportion of the course would be about the fact that doing the course was a legal requirement
However, despite all of this I don't actually think we are so far apart MS as I've said in the past that it is much better that we take on our own training and take responsibility for this rather than have a whole government department, for which we would have to pay, doing it for us. I also understand that in the current climate of blame landowners and the like are looking a "get out of jail" card and that is the "I checked he was properly trained and documented" excuse currently flavour of the month among management across the land.
I think we also both agree that more knowledge and improved standards are a good thing and it is worth promoting that within the stalking community. However, from the perspective of government and others our position must be that there is no evidence of a threat to animal welfare or public safety and, therefore, there is no justification for interference.
Similar threads
