population density and public access to forests are infinity greater that US/Canadian/Continental models.
FC/FLS have massive public scrutiny over public access and health and safety risk. To them close management of these aspects is far more valuable that paying contractors
I agree that's how they look at it, but I still think it is bizarre approach. Following 'right to roam' (in Scotland) public access is pretty much universal irrespective of the model of deer control (its probably heading towards universal in England too).
There is no reason why Tag applicants cannot be required to gain the same qualification as contractors, say DSC L2.
If you have a problem with people (with the same L2 qualification) running around with rifles on public land, you shouldn't let them run around on private land nor become a contractor, nor sign a lease etc.
If any of the above is still deemed unsafe, its the qualification that isn't fit for its purpose, not the way stalking is organised.
Last edited: