Not legal to shoot deer without dsc 1 after April 2014 ?

[Lee 308]

Completely agree with all Monkey Spanker has said, i think its going to be mandatory in the near future and im all for it. Im a recreational stalker and didnt need to have dsc 1 but considered it a way to learn more about my quarry and all the legalities and i really enjoyed the course.

I can never understand people moaning about the cost when if they know as much as they claim to they can just sit the exams and shooting test for around £140, if you cant afford that how can you afford all the equipment needed for stalking plus lease or payed days ?

The same goes for level 2, if you have your own ground, do the legwork before you arrange for an AW to accompany you and it can be done in 3 stalks if luck is on your side and you prove you know what your doing. If you pay by the day there are guys on this site who take clients out and will AW your portfolio for only a few quid more.

IMHO its a small price to pay by todays standards if it secures your future in the sport, and it cant hurt to show the politicians and general public that you've put the time and money in to prove you are up to an acceptable standard.

just my opinion of course.

 

[hangfire]

Who knows what will come in next, after 30 odd years of shooting i'd never have thought i'd have to take a certificate of competence to shoot at an M O D range, a large number of the questions were on loading a black powder pistol ????? and parker hale micrometer sights, you should have seen the looks when I asked " is this what they mean by fixed power" followed by "hang on mines broken someone nicked the cross hairs"

 

[willie_gunn]

caorach

you should be able to measure a need for a training course

You can! For some training courses the need is demand, pure and simple. I don't "need" to go on a training course on how to do stick-making, but I want to and I'm willing to pay, hence the training courses exist. For other training courses, the "need" is to ensure a minimum standard is met. That is what the DSC1 is designed for. Forget, for the moment, whether it is voluntary or compulsory, free or paid. I doubt, if you look at the syllabus, you'd find much fault with the content of DSC1, given it's stated aim.

DSC1 isn't a metric - it is a training course.

I know I'll be criticised for being a pedant (and not for the first time) but DSC1 isn't a metric or a training course - it is a qualification, delivered via a training course and assessed via examination. It is, in DMQ's own words:

"DSC1 is a basic qualification for deer stalkers and managers. It is a largely knowledge based qualification which enables candidates to demonstrate their understanding of basic deer management principles and meat hygiene, and to show competence in shooting at simulated targets."

It doesn't claim to make people better stalkers, it enables them to demonstrate their understanding of what they've been taught. Again, looking at the syllabus, I'd hope we'd all agree that what is taught matches these aims.

As such, it provides a standard, rather than a metric, in that anyone who has passed a DSC1 has proven their ability to meet the required standard/pass rate to gain the qualification.

I've never seen any metric, or attempts to produce them, for deer stalking

Oh, I'm sure you have! I know I'm taking part of a sentence in isolation, but......a metric is an analytical measure, so deer shot per outing would be a handy sort of metric for deer stalkers....and one often used by professional stalkers to express the likely level of success when taking out a client. A cull plan is full of metrics for deer stalkers - population density and age profile, fecundity, etc.

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.

But isn't this exactly what DSC1 is designed to do - increase knowledge and improve standards? So is the argument really about whether DSC1, DSC2, etc are fit for purpose, whether they are necessary, what they cost, or whether they should be made compulsory?

Taking the DSC1, I would suggest that it is fit for purpose. I also think it is necessary because (a) there are laws relating to deer that should be adhered to, for deer welfare reasons if nothing else, (b) a lot of venison is put into the food chain, and (c) for the health & safety of the stalker and others. I agree that they shouldn't be compulsory, or at least not to the point that they are a pre-requisite to granting an FAC. As to cost, well that argument will never be settled

we don't know what we need

Which, again, is why DMQ exists! In their words, to maintain the standard of the DSC qualifications (i.e. to make sure they are fit for purpose), to quality assure the assessment process (i.e. to make sure all training courses are delivered the same way and meet the same criteria) and to administer the awards. The organisations they work with provide input to the standard, i.e. together they define "what we need". Who out there is better qualified??

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 am interested as to who, exactly, is the "we" in this, if it isn't the organisations that support DMQ? Is there really some happy, well-intentioned, collective that exists in deer stalking to do all this for nowt? If so, they're damn well hidden!! Like any industry, if deer stalking can't self-regulate then it will be regulated.

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

I disagree with that statement. Every time someone goes out stalking there is - at least theoretically - a threat to animal welfare and/or public safety. As to evidence, what about notifiable diseases? Also there are, sadly, well-documented examples of other parties being shot by people out stalking - in one well-known case a father shot his own son. Both the above are thankfully rare, but they cannot simply be discounted as "no evidence".

I don't think you, MS and I are far apart at all, our differences are minor.

willie_gunn

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Well said Willie, but I have just one question.....

How the hell do you split quotes like you did in the above post???!!!
MS

 

[David TS]

Well said Willie, but I have just one question.....

How the hell do you split quotes like you did in the above post???!!!
MS

Well said Willie, but I have just one question.....

How the hell do you split quotes like you did in the above post???!!!
MS

The multi quote button Mick, and edit out the person part of the quote

 

[willie_gunn]

Well said Willie, but I have just one question.....

How the hell do you split quotes like you did in the above post???!!!
MS

MS

When you are posting your reply there is a little speech bubble in the tool bar above where you enter the text. If you cut and paste the text you want from the original post into your reply, then highlight it, then click on the speech bubble, it wraps the QUOTE characters around the highlighted text. When submitted, the message then has multiple "quotes".

Quite useful!

willie_gunn

 

[Monkey Spanker]

The multi quote button Mick, and edit out the person part of the quote

MS

When you are posting your reply there is a little speech bubble in the tool bar above where you enter the text. If you cut and paste the text you want from the original post into your reply, then highlight it, then click on the speech bubble, it wraps the QUOTE characters around the highlighted text. When submitted, the message then has multiple "quotes".

Quite useful!

willie_gunn

Well.......
"Slap my legs and call me Susan"!!!
I never noticed that before!
Every day is a school day on here eh?!
MS

 

[Moray Outfitting]

Fantastic debate. Just wanted to say thank you again - great reading and largely informative. After all the negatives that SD has attracted, this really is showing the way as to how we can debate stuff, disagree, learn and above all keep it intelligent.

Only contribution regards METRICS ( and off topic ) is that I still wince when reading out the issued DMQ instructions at the start of the shooting test - requiring 3 shots in a 4 inch target at 100 metres.

 

[caorach]

You can! For some training courses the need is demand, pure and simple. I don't "need" to go on a training course on how to do stick-making, but I want to and I'm willing to pay, hence the training courses exist.

A course that you attend to improve your own knowledge, as I did with DSC1, is different from a course that is forced upon you by government. My issue isn't with DSC1, which I've done, but with government getting control of yet another aspect of my life. If you chose to do something for your own benefit or pleasure that is fine, if the government wish to remove that element of choice in order to gain more control over your life then they must produce evidence that the control is necessary. It is quite simply not acceptable to demand control over the lives of others just because it takes your fancy, or because you think a course is a good idea, or for any other number of reasons. A big part of the problems in this country at present relate to people going around pointing at aspects of the lives of others and demanding that they are changed. The government must also produce evidence that the control measure they wish to enforce will be effective in reducing any "risk" which they have provided evidence exists at a sufficient level to cause concern.

My position is, simply stated, that no attempt has been made to establish the NEED for DSC1 based on some scientific, and preferably peer reviewed, measure of risk. For example you cite a son shot by his father, I've heard a similar story from Norway and wonder if you are talking about the same thing as I am? Are both your story and mine true? Is only one of them true? How would accepting both these stories as "fact" impact upon the "number of deaths per 10,000,000 stalking trips?" Do we count the people who have heart attacks climbing the hill, or break a leg in a bog, or do we only count those shot? We simply cannot enforce a range of expensive control measures upon people who are going about their legal business based upon something you and I heard and "believed" to be true.

To highlight the complexity of this problem let's consider deer welfare - how would you define a deer that was injured by a stalker? Is it one that runs 50 yards? My chest shot sika always run 50 yards no matter how well hit. Is it one that isn't found in the follow up? It might be injured but it might also by lying under some leaves in a ditch 20 yards from where it was hit. Until you define what constitutes an injured deer you can't possibly decide if it is happening a lot, or rarely, or even on the definition of "rarely" or "a lot."

So, this discussion is I think interesting but is starting to go around in circles a little and I'm repeating myself wayyyyyy too much, therefore I'd like to ask a question: Could those people who believe the government should force DSC1 upon all stalkers indicate what risk to public safety and animal welfare they believe currently exists and quantify the differing levels of this risk between those who have done DSC1 and those who are stalking without it?

 

[scrumbag]

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.

Tamus,

Well, you said "official" testing agency, in the UK, that would have to mean the Government or a Statutory Body/Agency which is the Government by another name. If you want an official agency, the only way it can exist is by one of those two methods.

NRA might not be equipped, but if the sort of people who run the NRA run deer stalking with the kind of officiousness and disorganisation they impose on target shooters, dear Lord we're in trouble... Makes the BASC look slick.

Also, you have to ask, why should shooters have to join a club? As long as it is safe and legal, why do people have to be in a club to stalk? They effectively have to on the continent, not a system I'd want to see in Britain...

 

[limulus]

I dont think there has to be any measurable risk to public safety or animal welfare. Remember weapons of mass destruction? The fact that there is a perceived risk is sufficient in the public's mind to warrant licensing/certification/action of some sort.

 

[Tamus]

Tamus,

Well, you said "official" testing agency, in the UK, that would have to mean the Government or a Statutory Body/Agency which is the Government by another name. If you want an official agency, the only way it can exist is by one of those two methods.

NRA might not be equipped, but if the sort of people who run the NRA run deer stalking with the kind of officiousness and disorganisation they impose on target shooters, dear Lord we're in trouble... Makes the BASC look slick.

Also, you have to ask, why should shooters have to join a club? As long as it is safe and legal, why do people have to be in a club to stalk? They effectively have to on the continent, not a system I'd want to see in Britain...

OK, a parallel notion then. I learned to drive on the farm, taught by other family members and the men who worked on the farm at the time. I still went for two formal lessons just after my 17th birthday before booking my test with an independent examiner, which I passed incidentally.

My point? The learning can be carried out with or without payment but the TEST must be independant of the training. Or else, why don't we all get tested by our driving instructors? Or has this changed too, since my day?

Shooting clubs, as on the continent, have their pros and cons I agree. I happen enjoy going down to the clay pigeon club and think that as well as being fun it is healthy and useful, that's all.

ps. Useful as in, amongst other things, a form of peer review if you like.

 

[David TS]

Well.......
"Slap my legs and call me Susan"!!!

Remind me next time I see you

 

[willie_gunn]

For example you cite a son shot by his father, I've heard a similar story from Norway and wonder if you are talking about the same thing as I am? Are both your story and mine true? Is only one of them true?

caorach

I can't vouch for the story from Norway, but here's the link to the UK one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4209528.stm

I heard about the story on a course some months ago, but reading about it now still makes my blood run cold.

The charge stated that the individual with the rifle "owed a duty to those engaged in a night-time shooting party to take reasonable care that a high-powered rifle was operated safely". We all have that same duty of care, whether out stalking, lamping or game shooting.

Let me make it clear: I am not citing this case as a reason for compulsory training, but anyone who knows the details of it would be unlikely to disagree that even the most rudimentary form of 'education' might have helped to prevent this tragic, tragic, event.

willie_gunn

 

[limulus]

Just read that story Dom and the judge states 'to discharge the shotgun as you did'. I know it makes no difference to the tragic outcome of events but its a bit unclear as to whether a rifle or a shotgun was used.
With regard to training and certification, I think its inevitable that we will end up with a statutory requirement to reach at least DSC1 or equivalent in the not distant future.

 

[willie_gunn]

I don't know why the judge was reported as saying that as it was a .22 rifle, as per elsewhere in the report.

willie_gunn

 

[Kalahari]

As Scrumbag said, "why should we belong to a club"? I mean I wouldn't belong to a club that was so low it would have me for a member!!!

David.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Having just read through the majority of this thread again, I'm pretty sure I can see where the biggest problem lies, and potentially a solution!
Firstly, lets go back and see what DSC 1 is actually about.
DSC 1 is aimed primarily at 'ab initio' stalkers. It gives an excellent (albeit theoretical) start to a deer stalking career. There is a clear requirement for this course at this level, and most, if not all beginners that complete it, hold it in high regard - FACT!
Your 'business metric' (if you insist on one) is that complete novices are taught all they need to know to operate safely, within the law, and the basics of large game meat hygiene. I think we all agree that there is a definite 'need' for training at this level, and the improvment is fully 'measureable' in the form of an assesment at the end resulting in a pass or fail with a certificate issued to successful candidates.

So, it would therefore be fair to assume that this would be a suitable 'entry level' standard for us all to hold as a minimum? If so, then we should surely ALL hold it to give us credibility as a whole?

But then comes what I perceive as the main problem!

Why should existing experienced stalkers have to go back and do the basic course?!

Some are way above this level and would clearly gain no benefit or 'improvement' from attending such a course.
Some would learn something new, but are probably operating safely already and within the law.
Some might think they are doing everything right, but aren't, and don't know any different!

I'm sure there are a few more categories too, but these three should cover most of us!

So, should any of the above have to do the course?
Well, the simple answer is NO!!!
Nobody 'Has' to do the course, and probably never will.
What you might have to do though is the assessment!
You do not have to do the course to take the assessments!
It is much cheaper this way also.
So...
Here is a solution.
If you think you are good enough, why not just do the assessment?
What could be difficult about that?
It would be no different than all of us that have been driving for years re-sitting our driving test. We are all experienced drivers - what could possibly go wrong?
HMmmmmm!

My point is, that things change with time. Standards and requirements also change. You may well have been doing it for years, but are you doing it right and could you be doing it better? If you truly believe that you have stopped learning, then you should probably stop stalking!
If you truly believe that you are above the 'minimum' required standard, then prove it to yourself and others by passing the test!
Please feel free to discuss further!
MS

 

[Monkey Spanker]

Oh dear!
I seem to have ended what was a rather interesting thread!
MS

 

[finnbear270]

Or else, why don't we all get tested by our driving instructors? Or has this changed too, since my day?

Well a greater portion of the idiots that cause the motorways to grind to a halt, seem to emanate from this sort of training.