You are advocating VOLUNTARY but as has been said by others , this has a habit of becoming mandatory. Dont take the negative responses so personally
Voluntary Annual Assessment - Poll
- Thread starter Brave Echo Niner
- Start date
Brave Echo Niner
Well-Known Member
Anddd you've hit the nail on the head - "Traditional hill or forestry stalking" - not all of us fit into that bracket.
I am not trying to impose my beliefs, hence the 'voluntary' portion which seems to have been missed!
You seem to believe I am in some way trying to build my own empire of stalking assessment, I was proposing volunteers giving up their time to add value to the stalking community and safeguard the sport by way of improving standards and providing a low cost/free accredited way to demonstrate ability for those who need if for landowners etc.
You have seen the poorly shot deer or the stalkers told you of their poor shooting. I doubt the latter
I despair
Bo Diddley
Well-Known Member
On the point of "safe weapons" handling, I think sporting shooters are a fairly good bunch... I can't remember ever hearing or even reading in the tabloids of bullets crashing through someone's window, hitting someone's car or heaven forbid accidentally killing a person, I dare say an occasional accidental discharge happens, but my guess would be it's very rare indeed.... go to one of the big cities on the other hand and some drug dealers side-kick may just decide to try and shoot-up the opposition... with an illegally held Glock probably 
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
What you seem to have missed is twofold
One, your voluntary scheme would be roundly ignored
Two, the reason for that is that as soon as it is taken up , it will become compulsory and seen as a requirement to be allowed to shoot
You are advocating a rod for our own back that we don’t need
You imply that if you can’t go target shooting you shouldn’t be shooting deer
You imply that anyone disagreeing with you has no respect for deer welfare
You imply that anyone disagreeing with you shows no logic
I shoot deer , I’ve shot hundreds of the things
I’ve never went target shooting
I zero my scopes then shoot deer
If I have so much as an off centre shot I check my zero to prove the issue was me
I’ve never lost a deer as wounded and ran off
I pay more attention to deer welfare , population density , the health of the deer I shoot, how effective my rifle is at shooting the deer I shoot
I could give a toss about hitting paper at any distance to prove to some busybody who’s probably never shot a deer in their life that I can hit said paper
Most people on this thread agree with me.
Hope that helps
ATB
Rake
Brave Echo Niner
Well-Known Member
No, I still believe it would have a positive effect on deer welfare for those who go through it by means of highlighting where standard may be dropping year on year, highlighting where standards may already by below standard and giving a consistent method of tracking ability. I have had some good constructive criticism though which I am considering, particularly from @VSS and @bowji john
I would put the counterpoint that it's a fine line between principled and self righteous, perhaps I am straying close to that line in the way my responses are written and the sarcasm used, but I have my views which I will not bend on. I would hope it can be seen I'm simply passionate about deer welfare and things being done right and as an extension I don't like a 'that'll do' attitude generally.
I didn't reply to the question about which replies came across as angry and/or ranting simply because a lot of those were by yourself when I looked, I am happy to go through and pick out the posts should you like.
Not sure, I’m not German but experience in this country suggests that whenever government takes or other body gets the ability to control an aspect of shooting or hunting, it will only be used to increase regulation over time.
General licenses were meant to allow control of pest birds ‘as you were’ but have now been tightened up.
Conditions on FACs are forever being made more stupid. FELWEG are currently looking at how to define ‘zeroing’ in order that they can curtail people from shooting on anything other than a designated range.
There are numerous stories on here of people applying for a 308 (for example) having used a 223 (again, for example) and then being told they can’t have it until they can demonstrate experience with the ‘bigger’ cartridge.
I am just really unconvinced that inconvenience of this sort of this becoming mandatory (or quasi mandatory like DSC1) would ever be compensated for by having a few undecided members of the public looking a bit more positively at shooters, while still not really caring one way or the other. The antis of course, would be queuing up to make it harder and harder.
As time goes by, more and more things are regulated in our lives. Probably over-regulated in a lot of cases. The cops and your doctor every 5 years looks at your suitability and at times when you are with others shooting, if you are seen to be unsafe, it is pretty quickly pointed out to you, sometimes to the extent that you will get a red card. If it's a recurring thing with somebody, quite frankly you would be remiss if you did not act on it.
Parliament keeps on passing laws to further regulate us. Of course some are needed. But often there's a fine line between safety and freedom. Have we got it right at present?
Parliament keeps on passing laws to further regulate us. Of course some are needed. But often there's a fine line between safety and freedom. Have we got it right at present?
What you seem to be advocating for is a lot less people shooting.
The Gun Control Network push for 1 year licenses and ‘1 gun, 1 license’. I’m going to take a punt that they want this because they know it will be a total pain in the arse and that a lot of people simply won’t bother.
You keep saying this would be voluntary but, to paraphrase, it would be beneficial for deer welfare, a benefit to landowners etc (I’m sure I’ve missed some, but that’s not that relevant to this point). For that to work, it would have to be taken up in some substantial fashion, otherwise it’s no different to the myriad of other things people can (and many) do in order to improve their shooting skills. That means it becomes quasi mandatory, because if you don’t have it, all doors are closed to you. And that is without it being seized upon by government, FLDs etc. Whether you’ll admit it or not, what you’re pushing for would be more inconvenience to a lot of shooters if it was anything other than a failure.
I’ve seen you say that this wouldn’t become mandatory because, unlike DSC1, this isn’t about safety which is what the FLDs are worried about. That may be so, but if marksmanship needs assessing once a year, why is safety any different? So perhaps we should have an annual test of that and, while we’re at it, interview with the FEO to check you’re still sane. Further, all it takes is a slightly anti FLM to decide that ensuring deer welfare is now part of the department’s remit when granting FACs and so they need to concern themselves with whether applicants can’t shoot straight, not just with whether they’re safe.
The Gun Control Network push for 1 year licenses and ‘1 gun, 1 license’. I’m going to take a punt that they want this because they know it will be a total pain in the arse and that a lot of people simply won’t bother.
You keep saying this would be voluntary but, to paraphrase, it would be beneficial for deer welfare, a benefit to landowners etc (I’m sure I’ve missed some, but that’s not that relevant to this point). For that to work, it would have to be taken up in some substantial fashion, otherwise it’s no different to the myriad of other things people can (and many) do in order to improve their shooting skills. That means it becomes quasi mandatory, because if you don’t have it, all doors are closed to you. And that is without it being seized upon by government, FLDs etc. Whether you’ll admit it or not, what you’re pushing for would be more inconvenience to a lot of shooters if it was anything other than a failure.
I’ve seen you say that this wouldn’t become mandatory because, unlike DSC1, this isn’t about safety which is what the FLDs are worried about. That may be so, but if marksmanship needs assessing once a year, why is safety any different? So perhaps we should have an annual test of that and, while we’re at it, interview with the FEO to check you’re still sane. Further, all it takes is a slightly anti FLM to decide that ensuring deer welfare is now part of the department’s remit when granting FACs and so they need to concern themselves with whether applicants can’t shoot straight, not just with whether they’re safe.
No, I don't think that you are trying to do such. Absolutely not.
But kites when flown sometimes get seen by others.
And at age sixty-six I am painfully, aware of how the administration of firearms law in the UK has progressed I have seen too many voluntary good idea then become made into law. I am old enough to remember the calls for us to voluntarily lock air guns away if young people were in the house. In a "Code of Best Practice". Now that is the law.
In my parents' house neither my father's two shotguns nor my mother's rifle were locked away. The shotguns were in the gunroom and the rifle was in the linen cupboard behind the immersion heater. And there they remained for nearly thirty years for the rifle and forty years for the shotguns. In fact at that house the shotguns never ever were locked away and remained thus until the house was sold after my father's death and the guns came to me. Once locking the away was another voluntary "best practice". Now that is the law.
And as said the suggested "test" has no element of teaching shoot through nor a safe backstop, nor of ricochet danger and land layout and slope.
Last edited:
Brave Echo Niner
Well-Known Member
And if that's the general consensus then fine, I won't waste time and effort trying to organise it.
I have not at any stage implied if you can't go target shooting you shouldn't shoot deer. What I did say is if you can't shoot a group on paper you'll not miraculously be able to do it on deer, because the bullet doesn't care what the target it, it's where you're pointing it that really counts.
Again what I said was anyone who is stating marksmanship doesn't need to be to an acceptable standard has no respect for deer welfare as the two are directly linked.
And I'm not saying those all those disagreeing with me have no logic, certain individuals who have commented and disagreed have shown clear logic. It's just individuals such as yourself have not shown clear logic - hence I'm still confused as to how you believe some of the things you have said.
You say you were paras, did you not go on ranges to practice and have to qualify annually on a shooting test (what is now the ACMT) to prove you would be able to do the job should that be required of you?
I know now they certainly do not let anyone out the door having failed the shooting assessment with an the assurance 'I'll be fine on live targets,' everyone has to pass the marksmanship assessments.
How is this a different situation with grouping on paper vs deer?
EDIT: Ignore last, wrong person, my mistake.
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
Paras ?? Wtf? 
No idea what you’ve been reading but it certainly isn’t my posts hahaa
No idea what you’ve been reading but it certainly isn’t my posts hahaa
Brave Echo Niner
Well-Known Member
Apologies, just realised my mistake - edited seconds before you replied hahaParas ?? Wtf?
No idea what you’ve been reading but it certainly isn’t my posts hahaa
Rake Aboot
Well-Known Member
It is starting to look like an inter personal debate
Not my style so I’m out , I’ve had enough of that both on here and other forums
Your welcome to your opinion and ideas, hopefully the collective knowledge on here will show you why you’re wrong .
I hope no offence has been taken but I’m bowing out
You were not getting criticism from me
I agree with the thrust of your arguments
Brave Echo Niner
Well-Known Member
I had understood it as you thought some of the standards suggested were potentially too lax from your comment - apologies if I misconstrued that!
Ben
To be honest, in 40 odd years deer stalking, (I normally say 30 odd but just realised how old I am), I cannot recall many deer, sub 1% anyway, that have been shot and lost, either by myself or clients/friends.
I do recall an odd occasion when an obstruction, stick or stalk has caused a deflection and resulted in a protracted retrieve or loss. So in MY experience there is not a problem of deer welfare from shooting.
Vehicles probably cause more welfare problems in my opinion.
I do recall an odd occasion when an obstruction, stick or stalk has caused a deflection and resulted in a protracted retrieve or loss. So in MY experience there is not a problem of deer welfare from shooting.
Vehicles probably cause more welfare problems in my opinion.
Ben,
Take a breath, and some time to think and reflect. Your aims are well meant and that is clear. Well done for trying to promote something you feel would be a positive.
BUT….you asked for people’s views. In the main your audience here is committed, responsible, mature, and experienced. If you ask for opinion, you have to be prepared to listen to it- even if it differs from your own thoughts.
Look back at your original post- I think you have your answer. I have never seen a post on SD that was not in harmony with deer welfare (this isn’t Facebook). All of us have the same goal- don’t be too critical if (mainly) experienced stalkers feel they don’t need a ‘badge’ from a third party range day to prove it.
Take a breath, and some time to think and reflect. Your aims are well meant and that is clear. Well done for trying to promote something you feel would be a positive.
BUT….you asked for people’s views. In the main your audience here is committed, responsible, mature, and experienced. If you ask for opinion, you have to be prepared to listen to it- even if it differs from your own thoughts.
Look back at your original post- I think you have your answer. I have never seen a post on SD that was not in harmony with deer welfare (this isn’t Facebook). All of us have the same goal- don’t be too critical if (mainly) experienced stalkers feel they don’t need a ‘badge’ from a third party range day to prove it.
Similar threads
