Voluntary Annual Assessment - Poll

[NoIDeer]

Every deer you put in the larder to go to a game dealer you are assessed on. If you only shoot the odd deer a year for friends and family you assess yourself. How many stalkers do you think enjoy wounding?

Every deer I have missed or wounded has been followed by a good deal of self reflection, practice and checking of kit. (Thankfully not common btw)

If a land owner asks me to prove I can shoot then no problem.
None of us need more bureaucracy, look at the results of your own poll.

 

[jimmer.13]

I sometimes get clients who haven’t had the opportunity to get out for while. So when they are organising a booking they will ask “Any chance of squeezing a few rounds off to check zero before we set off chap”
The same when someone is borrowing a rifle also.
I often find it’s a nice way of introduction and alleviates self induced pressure.
Makes for a good experience all round.
Everyone I know locally to me offers the same to their clients whether regular or new.
I get the sentiment of practice makes perfect but all the stalkers I come across know that anyway and do their very best to maintain their personal skills.
More often than not I am extremely impressed with the marksmanship and the self discipline of my clients to shoot with in their skills and abilities.
Mostly the Chris Kyle types just live on internet forums…..thankfully

 

[nun_hunter]

I would participate for fun but that's about it.

Having shot plenty on a range, under pressure and various positions it doesn't necessarily translate to real world performance due to all the other variables involved.

What range time has taught me is what my limitations are, and being out in the field has taught me what works for me. For me quad sticks are great on a range for a stable standing position but I hate carrying them on a stalk and never do. I use twin sticks but I limit shots to where I know I'm still accurate enough so 100m standing shooting a small group off sticks isn't something I need to prove because it's not something I'd ever do.

 

[Mike L]

Can’t believe 7 people have voted yes!!!!

 

[DVS1]

There was a post by a lad on here that he applied for a variation for a deer calibre, and I quote

"Told must have DSC1 for anything larger when I started stalking. Did the DSC1 and then told must have 5 witnessed kills before granting. Did this and eventually granted my .308 and 6.5 on closed"

Goalpost moved further and further with ZERO legislation to back it up just because someone thinks it's a good idea!

If this 'voluntary assessment' gets taken on by someone who thinks its a good idea in a licencing dept and next thing you know it will be 'expected' to have 5x successful assessments be submitted with your renewal or you lose your deer stalking calibres.

Because of course ethically shooting a deer is miles different from fox, rabbit, or any other of our quarry species isn't it.

 

[timbrayford]

Good Evening All,


Following recent debate around deer stalking qualifications on various threads here I am curious to see peoples opinions on a voluntary annual assessment to demonstrate continued competency of practical marksmanship.

The assessment would offer several 'levels' to allow for 'grading' a candidates ability.

The assessment would be shot with three zeroing targets per candidate, one for each section of the assessment.

Gold
Five shots within 2" circumference circle around the bull, no time limit.
Two shots off sticks at 100M inside a 3" circumference circle around the bull, total of 60 seconds to build position and take both shots (rifle starts slung on shoulder).
Two shots prone at 100M inside a 2" circumference circle around the bull, total of 60 seconds to build position and take both shots (rifle starts slung on shoulder).

Silver
Five shots within 3" circumference circle, no time limit (centred on bull).
Two shots off sticks at 100M inside a 4" circumference circle around the bull, total of 60 seconds to build position and take both shots (rifle starts slung on shoulder).
Two shots prone at 100M inside a 3" circumference circle around the bull, total of 60 seconds to build position and take both shots (rifle starts slung on shoulder).

Bronze
Five shots within 4" circumference circle around the bull, no time limit (centred on bull).
Two shots off sticks at 100M inside a 5" circumference circle around the bull, total of 60 seconds to build position and take both shots (rifle starts slung on shoulder).
Two shots prone at 100M inside a 4" circumference circle around the bull, total of 60 seconds to build position and take both shots (rifle starts slung on shoulder).

Ungraded
Candidate was unable to meet one or more of the criteria for Bronze, more practice/tuition is recommended.


The assessment can be shot up to twice if the candidate wished, with the higher grading of the two being the final result for that day.

The idea behind the design of the assessment being to demonstrate precision with the first target, then ability to cope under pressure with the latter two; building an appropriate position, making a good shot, then placing a follow up shot from that position within a reasonable time frame.

The bronze standard is done with the view it should roughly match a DSC One pass standard of marksmanship.


Would you take part in an annual assessment like this if it was for a very menial fee (£5-10 range fee?) which included sign off and proof of level obtained?

I am interested to hear peoples thoughts!


Ben

If we are to go down the competence/qualification route I believe that it must be statutory to gain public confidence (i.e. HO , FLD etc.) and be traded off against substantial relaxation of the bureaucratic elements of the Firearms Act- certainly no less than the guns that are now commonly used for target, vermin & deer stalking being subject to S2 type controls instead of S1.

 

[Robs]

So many issues with the OP where do you start. Where done, assessed by who, extended to AOLQ, extended to shotguns for game shooting, voluntary to mandatory, paper versus the real thing, funded by who.

This mentality of extending assessments would have us having yearly medical forms and annual FACs. Not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see extended mentoring required for all game shooters. Next thing only "licenced stalkers" to shoot deer and game dealers reporting on the accuracy of shot placement to the authorities.

Those who wish to become better shots need to practice.

Sends shivers down my spine.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Christ most of the responses to this thread don't fill me with confidence in the deer stalking community. I would have thought there would be more conscientious individuals who could see the benefit of continuous professional development and quality assurance then appreciate the second/third order impact this could have in improving deer welfare.

I also will not claim the sun shines out of my backside before anyone suggests that - I have had shots go wrong, but I practice in order to mitigate that. I would attribute that practice to why my wound/miss rate is significantly lower than the average indicated in the 2014 study, despite taking difficult shots most would choose to pass up.

Anyhow, I'm out for tonight as the lack of logic is making by brain hurt.

Yup
There’s the self righteous attitude behind the thread idea
It’s that self righteousness that means you’ll never see the flaw in your logic which makes pointing it out a waste of time.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

I know of many older stalkers that can barely hold a rifle steady now due to shakey hands and aging bones - but it’s not often they miss/mess up as they know to stalk into sensible ranges and won’t stretch shots of feel forced by any cull numbers. And they’d likely pack it in before they’d succumb to pressures to do so at the detriment to animal welfare, they usually take someone under their wing to do the bits they struggle with and that’s natural progression and mentoring - far better than a few days course in my opinion.

Shooting can be a funny thing as you will get people that go out and shoot 3 deer a year, they are in many cases professional people who’s career does not allow any more trips as they are busy people, but they have maybe been doing it for 25 years, so do they need to pass a test?

I would say these people who shoot three deer a year are most likely to get it wrong, as they’re unlikely to be practicing a sufficient amount - for them to be able to pass a voluntary test and know they’re still at an acceptable standard to be stalking is surely a positive, rather than going out and making a mess of something through ignorance to skill fade.

Many people say the pulling the trigger is the easy part - and that’s true in most cases. The gralloch and handling is probably the part where things go more wrong yet it’s a small area of focus on current DSC, and so is getting into position for a shot - again, things that come with practice, difficult to teach in a few days of course and so again, that leads me back to mentoring….

Regards,
Gixer

I agree that the gralloch is what people generally get wrong or are less proficient in, I agree with you that the DSC One fails to address this, however I will say I think it’s a less important learning point as deer welfare does not rest on being able to gralloch. Being able to shoot however is directly linked to deer welfare, hence why I believe voluntary events like this which make people reflect on their abilities have a positive effect.

You will figure out in years to come that marksmanship is a perishable skill….nothing you can do or say will stop this, it’s going to get worse.

I appreciate it is, and there is certainly a physical fitness proponent to marksmanship.

That to me places even more emphasis on this voluntary assessment, given the deer stalking community’s average age is increasing year on year, there will be more and more stalkers who cannot meet the standards and may not be as aware as you think.

Age is not truly an excuse to very poor marksmanship, I understand it may be more difficult to maintain, but there are plenty of individuals who are a little older and still able to shoot incredibly well due to the work they put in to maintain that?

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

cpd has become an industry in its own right. i have to do cpd to be a member of the npta. i can gain over half the years points from reading a magazine and answering the quiz, less than half the questions relate to pest control. one memorable question how many techs does a compny hope to have by xmas?
ben idea will end up being required as @enfieldspares mentioned.
starting as a nice idea with low cost, becoming mandatory on some leases, then the police on grants.
practice would help any body improve. testing is a poor way to show experience.

The idea that is considered CPD is mental, I am in no way considering that should be what is required as it doesn’t fulfil a training objective and just serves as a tick box exercise.

I also am in no way saying the assessment can show experience, it shows ability, which are two separate qualities, both important.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

There was a post by a lad on here that he applied for a variation for a deer calibre, and I quote

"Told must have DSC1 for anything larger when I started stalking. Did the DSC1 and then told must have 5 witnessed kills before granting. Did this and eventually granted my .308 and 6.5 on closed"

Goalpost moved further and further with ZERO legislation to back it up just because someone thinks it's a good idea!

If this 'voluntary assessment' gets taken on by someone who thinks its a good idea in a licencing dept and next thing you know it will be 'expected' to have 5x successful assessments be submitted with your renewal or you lose your deer stalking calibres.

Because of course ethically shooting a deer is miles different from fox, rabbit, or any other of our quarry species isn't it.

To be clear I’m not the police and I’m not proposing something which would be legislated as part of licensing.

The police deciding to add additional hoops to jump through is an issue which needs to be fought by the candidate and the shooting organisation - it shouldn’t form the reason we don’t attempt to improve and show competency as a community?

The police look to DSC One and the same way they look to a club induction for target shooters, as it contains the safety element. Once again I would hypothesise the 5 stalks was in order to ensure the safety elements were done correct. I am yet to hear anyone’s FEO comment about or ask about their accuracy in terms of if something is granted or not.

no, I don’t believe it is different, however this an issue with licensing you have, I am not police licensing and nowhere have I suggested it would be something to inform licensing.

 

[MAH]

voluntary annual assessment

Hi Ben.
An interesting question.
I've voted no, and I notice most people have also voted no.
I guess that response is fueled by the ever increasing creep of UK regulation and the feeling, why add more, voluntarily ?

I'd also guess many, if not most stalkers do practice on paper targets.

I regularly participate in Running Boar and simulationed Deer Stalking target competitions.
Most of the attendees are stalkers.
I really enjoy it, and one occasion it identied a problem with my rifle.

So, having said the it may seam contradictory to vote "no".

The issue for me is the slow cream of voluntary to mandatory.

On the flip side. I also guess, that votes would have been reversed, If you posted a question.
"Hi all I'm running a free simulated Stalking Shoot on dd mm yy.
Course of fire , Blair Blar.
Is anyone interested?"

M

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

So many issues with the OP where do you start. Where done, assessed by who, extended to AOLQ, extended to shotguns for game shooting, voluntary to mandatory, paper versus the real thing, funded by who.

This mentality of extending assessments would have us having yearly medical forms and annual FACs. Not too much of a stretch of the imagination to see extended mentoring required for all game shooters. Next thing only "licenced stalkers" to shoot deer and game dealers reporting on the accuracy of shot placement to the authorities.

Those who wish to become better shots need to practice.

Sends shivers down my spine.

Done at range days as run by various organisation.

Assessed by an independent party, ie those running the range, doesn’t need anyone special to check the bullets were inside a specified circle.

The measures you mention, yearly FAC, yearly medical etc, these are impractical and offer little to no benefit, do you believe the police won’t revoke a cert. In the middle of the term if they believe you’re unsuitable because ‘they have X amount left, we’ll wait?’

And the point of this being there are plenty who don’t realise they need to improve their skills, so don’t practice, whereas when some people don’t meet the pass standard and it made them realise they can’t hold that standard (in a purely voluntary assessment) it may make them realise they are the ones needing to practice.

 

[finnbear270]

https://y.yarn.co/ff85054d-bb63-4e48-b217-7d5e519082eb.mp4

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

I guess that response is fueled by the ever increasing creep of UK regulation and the feeling, why add more, voluntarily ?

I'd also guess many, if not most stalkers do practice on paper targets.

So, having said the it may seam contradictory to vote "no".

The issue for me is the slow cream of voluntary to mandatory.

On the flip side. I also guess, that votes would have been reversed, If you posted a question.
"Hi all I'm running a free simulated Stalking Shoot on dd mm yy.
Course of fire , Blair Blar.
Is anyone interested?"

M

Understood - I appreciate that concern and do understand that point of view.

I guess from my point of view, I have seen that through self imposed regulation and voluntary assessment you get left alone from true mandatory assessment because regulatory bodies see it’s in hand and being dealt with responsibly.

I guess the reasoning I feel an assessment is a better idea than a pure ‘simulated stalking day’ is because stalkers, having observed them a lot at events such as those, don’t learn from not meeting the standard when they see it as just practice or just paper. On the other side to that being if it’s an assessment they are told they haven’t met the standard (which nobody wants to hear) and tends to have more of an impact on motivation to practice.

I do appreciate the clear concise response though, it’s a lot easier to understand and unpick than some of the angry ranting/rambling responses seen previously!

Ben

 

[Selous]

You don’t like the answer you got as it doesn’t tie in with yours so you bow out?….why not think of other options/solutions?

I can go with this that there may be other ways to improve the standards of marksmanship amongst stalkers. What would people suggest?

 

[Rake Aboot]

Point out the angry rambling posts please , I’ve not read them ?

 

[nun_hunter]

Uhhhh not really - that was why it was suggested as a voluntary assessment, as far as I am concerned do what you like, this would in no way influence what you can or can't do while stalking, but I would hope as a stalking community we would be concerned enough with deer welfare to self reflect and see competency checks as a helpful way of ensuring we can make clean kills when in that situation stalking?

While I agree with your sentiment, in practice people can't agree on where is the best/effective/humane place to shoot a deer. You may be getting all your shots within a 25mm circle on the range, right over the centre of the target but they will be 50% of stalker's who tell you that you've shot the deer in the wrong place
"head shot? That's unethical, go for a high shoulder, pin it so it won't run"
"High shoulder? What are you trying to waste meat? Double lung all the way"
"Double lung? Do you want it to run off and die slowly? Hillar zone all the way"

 

[palmer_mike]

Just make something voluntary available?, bit like the advanced driving test?
And wasn't this in the title?

It would be sensible to remember that the DsC1 is voluntary. That being said many FLDs are now insisting that new applicants for deer condition rifles have it.

THINGS THAT START OF AS VOLUNTARY HAVE A HABIT OF BECOMING MANDATORY

 

[Selous]

But isn't this the road that DSC 1 has led down? And now some police forces insist either formally or less formally on such in regard to an FAC? I see all these and similar such as "empire building". No more and no less.

Isn’t DSC1 being used as a way of making sure novices have at least had some instruction on the use of a centrefire rifle? Possibly also to weed out some who just want to own an CF rifle but have no other reason to do so. Isn’t this sensible and in the best interest of the majority. After all you can just apply for assessment only if you are already knowledgeable and experienced so that largely mitigates the costs. DSC1 has not founds its way into legislation or even the home office guidance so clearly remains voluntary at this stage perhaps 40 years after its initial introduction. The creeping appears to be happening slowly if at all. Perhaps it is best viewed as successful self regulation?