Voluntary Annual Assessment - Poll

[Klenchblaize]

If you feel the need to improve your sporting rifle marksmanship and maintain such c/o regular ‘engagement’ with the target, crack-on and join a club that promotes just that. I can think of at least one such club but as all members of it will be aware, it’s not compulsory to join.

K

 

[Dave_45]

You can rest on your laurels or you can go out and earn them every day.

Some people tried prs to see if it enhanced their shooting for live quarry,the consensus (a few I spoke to),said it was detrimental to their shooting and picked up bad habits.

I like the fact that they werent afraid to try a different discipline, it didn't help them,but now at least they know.

I think im trying to say ,our standards should be impossibly high, unattainable but always striven for.

I don't like the idea of more rules and regs and possibly paid for courses, but I absolutely love high standards.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I’m going to apologise now for my “ tripe” comment but you have to understand why proper deer stalkers don’t want this extra millstone .

I’m only apologising for it on this thread mind . The idea is still tripe

 

[Dickie]

DSC1 voluntarily taken especially in the early days, with many experienced stalkers doing it probably more than novice, 2 people on the one I did were from the local licensing dept any low and behold not long later if you wanted a deer calibre rifle you’ll need a lvl 1 was the reply even though plenty of people had been shooting foxes with non deer legal rifles and the land they shot only recently had deer move in.
As for WHT there have been many posts on here in the past where the applicant had been told the military service counted for nothing.

 

[shakey jake]

Should we by the same logic get rid of driving tests, because if I say I'm competent and safe to drive, is that not enough?

Certain things need to be recognised as a way of maintaining standards - there's nothing to say you couldn't use a LANTRA qualification, or PDS, or a military Weapons Handling Test in replacement to DSC One for the police. It's just about being a known entity that isn't your word alone so they have that warm fuzzy feeling that you know the basics of what you're doing.

why does it matter if your safe and competent when shooting deer?

 

[finnbear270]

They dont need the knowledge to judge.

One of the base problems.

 

[stubear]

I’m a bit late to this thread but this is the problem.

If something like this took off, it wouldn’t be long before someone in the FLD, government or an animal rights group starts pushing for it to be compulsory. And at that point (see BASC lead transition) it’ll be damned hard to say ‘no’ as we (as a group) will just have your sorts of posts quoted back as us to show that even we think it’s a good idea. That being the case, we should ‘welcome’ it becoming compulsory to weed out the wronguns.

Not long after, someone will point out that the same sorts of principles apply when shooting fox, squirrel or pigeon. So now I’m going to need to do 4 annual skills tests for deer, foxes, vermin and shotgun.

Now, there will be some who are sufficiently committed to put up with this but many who are more occasional will just say ‘eff this’ and pack it in. There’ll then be less of us and we’ll be even less politically relevant than we already are.

I might take a different view if we lived in a country which respected hunting and shooting, but we don’t and anything of this sort will eventually be used to bury us that little bit more.

I appreciate that isn’t what you want, but if you can’t see that it is what others will, then I’m afraid you’re extremely naive.

Agree with this completely.

Furthermore I don’t see the benefit of having gold silver and bronze tiers - what does that give us? I’d argue that’s going to make it HARDER to get and keep ground, not easier.

“Ohh I only take gold standard stalkers and I’m sorry you’re silver so that’s your permission gone and probably your FAC on next renewal because you no longer have good reason. Better go and join one of the many rifle clubs that exist sparsely in the U.K…. What’s that? There’s no rifle club near you? Oh well, better find a new hobby then”

 

[artschool]

i think it’s a good idea because more people would use shooting ranges and then more facilities/clubs would be created/supported.

 

[Apthorpe]

i think it’s a good idea because more people would use shooting ranges and then more facilities/clubs would be created/supported.

What shooting ranges? More facilities will not be created because there's not even a gnat's chance of getting new rifle ranges near population centres through planning permission. Shooting is too heavily constrained by red tape, which exists for little reason other than to suffocate shooting and field sports.
I'd love to be wrong, but it is simply unrealistic to dream that adequate range facilities to support this sort of practice will ever again exist in the UK.

 

[Pedro]

why does it matter if your safe and competent when shooting deer?

 

[finnbear270]

That's how I read it first time around.

 

[Klenchblaize]

What shooting ranges? More facilities will not be created because there's not even a gnat's chance of getting new rifle ranges near population centres through planning permission. Shooting is too heavily constrained by red tape, which exists for little reason other than to suffocate shooting and field sports.
I'd love to be wrong, but it is simply unrealistic to dream that adequate range facilities to support this sort of practice will ever again exist in the UK.

Even the remaining TA Centre tunnel ranges are to be found under permanent lock & key. The only reason they haven’t been demolished is it costs money to safely remove and dispose of asbestos.

K

 

[Selous]

why does it matter if your safe and competent when shooting deer?

You had better hope your FEO doesn’t read that and know who you are

 

[finnbear270]

A small matter of punctuation I think.

 

[shakey jake]

You had better hope your FEO doesn’t read that and know who you are

That's how I read it first time around.

glad you guys are concerned. my point is why not lamping for foxes and rabbits. all rifles have the potential to kill, why is deer stalking being held to a higher standard?

 

[shakey jake]

either every body needs training or we carry on as is

 

[willie_gunn]

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 have no doubt you are passionate about deer welfare, but plenty of others here are too.

Whilst your plan is undoubtedly written from the heart, any option that is entirely dependent upon volunteers has to get buy-in, otherwise it will never get off the ground. You might personally feel you have the perfect plan, but how will you ever see it come to fruition if you can't bring the stalking community with you? Telling everyone how crap we all are, how we don't practice enough, and how we don't care about deer welfare as much as you do, is hardly a strategy that is going to win you many converts!

You recognised that, with members of the Stalking Directory, you have the opportunity here to tap into a vast fund of knowledge and experience. You asked for people's thoughts, which they given. It can be disheartening to realise that others don't equally share your passion, but that's life!

The fact that the majority of respondees may not agree with your initial proposal isn't a reason to throw in the towel. There have been a number of constructive observations made as to how you might improve both the efficacy of the course itself and its attractiveness in general. So if your passion really is to improve deer welfare, and you feel some type of course aimed at improving people's shooting skills is the way to achieve it, then why not take those comments on board and come back with another iteration?

FWIW my suggestions would be:

1. Drop the idea of it being an assessment, as the word itself is toxic. An assessment implies a pass/fail result, and failure implies negative consequences. You have not explained in detail what would happen if someone failed, but consider that you would potentially then be responsible for them losing their stalking and/or their FAC. Who is ever going to volunteer for a course where that is the potential outcome? Whilst you might be able to claim the moral highground, it immediately makes the whole concept of your course a non-starter.
2. If you want people to attend your course, you have to make it sufficiently attractive that people are willing to invest their time, effort and money into taking it. If it is not to be mandatory, which you insist is not the aim, then you need to improve audience buy-in. In general the reasons for attending a training course are either compulsion or enjoyment. If the former isn't an option then you need to position your course as something aspirational - "Learn how to improve your stalking efficiency and get more deer in the larder." Who wouldn't want to do that?
3. Drop the whole Gold, Silver, Bronze concept, unless you aim to either to sell coloured badges or create additional levels in the future to encourage return attendees. Grading stalkers is always going to be divisive, and who wants to attend a course where the outcome is going to encourage a version of Stalking Top Trumps? From a welfare perspective it is also meaningless - either you want attendees to wound less deer or you don't.
4. Don't rely on outside organisations to support you, or sign off on your course. Getting them all aligned and signed up would be a lifetime's task, and for what end? Better to put in place a type of course that they then aspire to delivering - imitation is the best form of flattery.
5. Start small. As others have pointed out, there is insufficient infrastructure in place to support a national scheme. Also the idea that an organisation made up purely of volunteers can establish and run a new national standard that would be recognised by landowners, the police, and other establishments alike is very wishful thinking. Why start with a goal that is unachievable? Instead put something together that others aspire to replicate - that way it will grow naturally.
6. Don't put the central focus on accuracy, unless you want to limit your audience to wannabe snipers. You might feel accuracy is the be-all-and-end-all, but the effect it has is to automatically make your course sound competitive and judgemental. If I wanted to go on an Expert Marksman course I'd do it outside of any supposed assessment. Also whilst I have been asked by landowners about DSC1 and DSC2, as the information is useful to them when applying for forestry grants, I have never been asked about my shooting accuracy. Landowners are neither experienced nor interested enough to care.
7. Don't use "regular" targets - see my Post #129 for some examples of what might make your course more realistic and useful. They would also make it different, which it needs to be if it's going to attract an audience.

Don't lose heart, but treat the feedback you've received as another part of the learning experience. We need people to put their heads above the parapet and make suggestions for improvement, so well done for caring enough to do so.

 

[Selous]

glad you guys are concerned. my point is why not lamping for foxes and rabbits. all rifles have the potential to kill, why is deer stalking being held to a higher standard?

You pose a good question, there is no difference in my mind. Especially when considering night shooting

 

[devon deer stalker]

Not for me thank you, I keep it simple, I never head shoot (it has it's place in deer farms, I accept that) I'm confident in my abilities off sticks out to 200m broadside heart/lung, any further I just get closer, neck shoot facing or rear 75m or less.
Who can afford the time, or indeed price/availability of ammunition to punch paper?, I can't.
So I 'self police' if my rifle has taken a knock, I will do a quick zero test, if I miss place a shot (happens to the best of us) I will check the setup.

 

[LuckyEddie]

But is this not about the ones that go wrong, rather than those that go right, I appreciate even with a 10" group you will put deer in the larder, but you'll also wound or miss a disproportionate number?

If I change the context somewhat, would you want a pilot landing a plane you were on who goes to pieces in the simulator? Or would you want a pilot who can land it repeatably in the sim? I know which I would choose!

Then you get the ones that can produce the result on sims but can’t once you add in real life.

Have you watched the film “Sully” about the pilot who had an in flight emergency and had to land on the Hudson River?
The authorities tried to discredit him as it could be proven by simulation that he could have landed at nearby airfields - until he got them to add in actual field conditions.

So a big NO from me.
I belong to a target club and also practice when in the field.
This is enough for me.

If you want this then ammo should be supplied as part of it. Money is tight for me without having to fork out for needless certification.