Voluntary Annual Assessment - Poll

[Brave Echo Niner]

A few more thoughts:
1) Voluntary testing has a habit of becoming mandatory (eg, just like some police forces insisting on DSC1). We don't want that.
2) There is already a pretty good voluntary uptake on training courses etc, so I should say that CPD is well in hand already.
3) Most newcomers to stalking are enrolling on some kind of course (eg, DSC1) at the very start of their stalking journey, and undertaking some kind of test as part of that process.
4) Ranking stalkers against one another (bronze, silver, gold) is a bad idea. You either pass or fail.
5) Timed shooting has no place in stalking.
6) The "test" suggested in the OP is actually a competition. There are already range competitions for stalkers.
7) Most people can shoot well enough to humanely kill deer. It isn't poor marksmanship that's resulting in wounded animals. It's the taking of chancey or hurried shots that leads to wounding. Shots that would have been better not taken.
8) Testing at a measured 100 yards, prone or standing, is relevant to only a small proportion of shots taken in the field. Why would you want to impose such a test on someone who shoots all of their deer from a highseat at sub 50 yards (for example)?
9) Deer are worthy of no more or less respect than any other live quarry, so for the proposed "voluntary" testing to have any value it would need to be rolled out across all shooting sports that involve live targets. Including ratting with an air gun!
10) The one aspect of deer stalking that really needs to be improved is carcass presentation. There's a widespread problem with this. Far more of a problem than the possibility of a few wounded deer. If any resources are to be directed towards training and testing of stalkers then that's where the effort should be directed, not marksmanship.
11) Shooting targets is a science, whereas shooting deer is an art. The more experienced I become at stalking the more I realise that the two disciplines actually have very little in common.
12) I would probably fail.

1) I can understand that concern, but I don't share the opinion that DSC One is mandatory - a safety course to teach safe handling is generally requested as far as the police are concerned, DSC One is just one of the more accessible ones?

2) I would disagree as it tends to be the same faces always at best practice events, to have a widespread effort to voluntarily assess ourselves to maintain standards would hopefully permeate further.

3) I am not really suggesting there are too many issues at the start, it's the 'old guard' who cling to the fact their woeful group would be a 'dead deer', disregarding the impact of field conditions, time pressure, adrenaline etc.

4) I can see this point - I was more suggesting this in order it address where people may need to demonstrate a better than average skillset, IE reduction culls, areas where range will be more extended etc.

5) I completely disagree, deer don't always stand still, you may only have a limited time to get your shot off. With increasing pressure to meet culls being the normal to practice under pressure means you are better prepared and as such provides a better assessment of skill. It also bridges the gap between a sedate range and the adrenaline felt when stalking.

6) I wouldn't call that a competition as there's no winner, if I was giving a prize for best score/overlayed group I might be inclined to agree. This however is giving several grades to distinguish how competent you've been shown to be on this day.

7) I very much disagree, the last deer I was involved with following up was shot at sub 100M as broadside as they get, with no time pressure where the stalker was in a position to build a good stable position. The intended shot placement was Heart/lung and the bullet was well back in the guts. It was a marksmanship issue.

8) I would agree, everyone's stalking is different, however this averages out what peoples stalking tends to be, as I would guess most shots are either taken off sticks of some kind, or prone in some form. With any assessment it will never cover everyone's situation perfectly.

9) No disagreement, though as this would not be a deer specific target this could cover any quarry you like, it's just a demonstration you can repeatably place shots within a certain margin at a fairly standard CF Range.

10) Once again agreed, most carcasses I see in the Game Dealer are woeful. I was taught to gralloch by a surgeon, who was exacting in how they were to be presented to say the least, so it makes me cringe to see it. I still rest my case that has no impact on deer welfare though and I do not see a practical way of regularly reassessing/refreshing peoples knowledge on that aspect - feel free to start another thread with a suggestion around that if you have an idea there though!

11) Agree to disagree, the best practice I can do for stalking is shooting precision rifle competitions (again not an assessment, so completely separate) as it makes me adept at building a variety of positions, which directly transpose to field conditions while stalking. I think people would benefit more from range time if they changed it up from just paper punching from prone or comfortable positions which they know.

12) Does this not concern you that you don't think you would be able to place the shots within a 5" circle off sticks or a 4" circle from prone? I would personally be quite concerned heading out after deer if I couldn't do that at a bare minimum, as the edge my variation is liable to be at the edge/off the deer's chest on any of the smaller species?

 

[308tikka]

I believe the answer is fairly simple - people need to start stalking deer and stop sniping them. Also, the pressures to get cull numbers don’t help in some cases.

Mentors are far more important than a certificate - I know this can be difficult for some to get a mentor however most areas will have experienced people willing to pass on knowledge - and they don’t always have any DSC certs.

Regards,
Gixer

Very true. A good mentor will be able to ascertain ability and gently guide mentee to shots within their ability.

Vast majority of my shots are within 50-80yards. Improve stalking and the shooting is easier.

Practice both.

What this thread has also inadvertently shown is that there is little appetite in general for such courses. Maybe the BDS should stick with the regular range days, and run other events with a focus on welfare, leaving those with a yearning for marksmanship courses to run them independently?

I think you are on to something here. This could be provided by organisations/clubs/mentors.

Not by the usual suspects charging …

 

[VSS]

1) I can understand that concern, but I don't share the opinion that DSC One is mandatory - a safety course to teach safe handling is generally requested as far as the police are concerned, DSC One is just one of the more accessible ones?

2) I would disagree as it tends to be the same faces always at best practice events, to have a widespread effort to voluntarily assess ourselves to maintain standards would hopefully permeate further.

3) I am not really suggesting there are too many issues at the start, it's the 'old guard' who cling to the fact their woeful group would be a 'dead deer', disregarding the impact of field conditions, time pressure, adrenaline etc.

4) I can see this point - I was more suggesting this in order it address where people may need to demonstrate a better than average skillset, IE reduction culls, areas where range will be more extended etc.

5) I completely disagree, deer don't always stand still, you may only have a limited time to get your shot off. With increasing pressure to meet culls being the normal to practice under pressure means you are better prepared and as such provides a better assessment of skill. It also bridges the gap between a sedate range and the adrenaline felt when stalking.

6) I wouldn't call that a competition as there's no winner, if I was giving a prize for best score/overlayed group I might be inclined to agree. This however is giving several grades to distinguish how competent you've been shown to be on this day.

7) I very much disagree, the last deer I was involved with following up was shot at sub 100M as broadside as they get, with no time pressure where the stalker was in a position to build a good stable position. The intended shot placement was Heart/lung and the bullet was well back in the guts. It was a marksmanship issue.

8) I would agree, everyone's stalking is different, however this averages out what peoples stalking tends to be, as I would guess most shots are either taken off sticks of some kind, or prone in some form. With any assessment it will never cover everyone's situation perfectly.

9) No disagreement, though as this would not be a deer specific target this could cover any quarry you like, it's just a demonstration you can repeatably place shots within a certain margin at a fairly standard CF Range.

10) Once again agreed, most carcasses I see in the Game Dealer are woeful. I was taught to gralloch by a surgeon, who was exacting in how they were to be presented to say the least, so it makes me cringe to see it. I still rest my case that has no impact on deer welfare though and I do not see a practical way of regularly reassessing/refreshing peoples knowledge on that aspect - feel free to start another thread with a suggestion around that if you have an idea there though!

11) Agree to disagree, the best practice I can do for stalking is shooting precision rifle competitions (again not an assessment, so completely separate) as it makes me adept at building a variety of positions, which directly transpose to field conditions while stalking. I think people would benefit more from range time if they changed it up from just paper punching from prone or comfortable positions which they know.

12) Does this not concern you that you don't think you would be able to place the shots within a 5" circle off sticks or a 4" circle from prone? I would personally be quite concerned heading out after deer if I couldn't do that at a bare minimum, as the edge my variation is liable to be at the edge/off the deer's chest on any of the smaller species?

Some valid responses there, thank you.

12) Does this not concern you that you don't think you would be able to place the shots within a 5" circle off sticks or a 4" circle from prone? I would personally be quite concerned heading out after deer if I couldn't do that at a bare minimum, as the edge my variation is liable to be at the edge/off the deer's chest on any of the smaller species?

No, it doesn't.
I just can't settle when shooting paper targets. I feel agitated and under pressure, and consequently mess up. Yet I can calmly and consistently kill deer, without any stress at all. A significant proportion of the deer I kill are head shot, up to and exceeding 100 yards. Off sticks. That's a pretty small target.

I bet I'm not the only one.

 

[spanj]

I'm still yet to understand - a slippery slope to what, who do you believe is going to suddenly enforce DSC Two and then this proposal on you?

As far as I can see the only person who might ask for it is the landowner in order to ensure they're dealing with appropriately qualified individuals with suitable ability, which if you're not being asked for DSC Two already they're probably not too bothered about given DSC Two has been around for donkeys years!

Every single chief constable looking to make it as difficult as possible to go shooting.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

Every single chief constable looking to make it as difficult as possible to go shooting.

Sure they can be awkward at times, but I don't think they genuinely just want to make life difficult across the board.
In my experience it's more often ego, authority and lack of knowledge in equal proportions which can make them somewhat obtuse to deal with.

And if this was the case and they wanted to inforce all possible qualifications on people, how come only 17.188% of stalkers who have completed DSC One have done DSC Two, despite the decades that assessment has been around? I've certainly never heard of anyone being asked for DSC Two prior to grant, renewal or variation - happy to be educated if anyone has genuinely been asked for that by their FEO/Chief Constable?

DSC One is a different entity IMO, as it's logical to ask for an applicant to undergo some form of safe handling test (DSC One being the common accessible example) prior to being granted an open conditioned CF Rifle. Or do we not agree that teaching safe handling prior to giving someone a rifle is a good idea now?

 

[Sealgair nam fiadh]

I like how people who are new to shooting deer are the ones with the best ideas.

 

[spanj]

Sure they can be awkward at times, but I don't think they genuinely just want to make life difficult across the board.
In my experience it's more often ego, authority and lack of knowledge in equal proportions which can make them somewhat obtuse to deal with.

And if this was the case and they wanted to inforce all possible qualifications on people, how come only 17.188% of stalkers who have completed DSC One have done DSC Two, despite the decades that assessment has been around? I've certainly never heard of anyone being asked for DSC Two prior to grant, renewal or variation - happy to be educated if anyone has genuinely been asked for that by their FEO/Chief Constable?

DSC One is a different entity IMO, as it's logical to ask for an applicant to undergo some form of safe handling test (DSC One being the common accessible example) prior to being granted an open conditioned CF Rifle. Or do we not agree that teaching safe handling prior to giving someone a rifle is a good idea now?

I have had an open ticket for many years and am being encouraged / harassed to do dsc1 (not a condition of my fac….. currently) Explain that.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

I have had an open ticket for many years and am being encouraged / harassed to do dsc1 (not a condition of my fac….. currently) Explain that.

Because it's a safety assessment - it means they can say you've met a standard of safe handling that is recognised and therefore they have done due dilligence in vetting you're not a moron?
For all they know currently you are completely unsafe with your rifle, but you've got lucky so far that nobody has noticed or got hurt yet.

Completely separate to a marksmanship assessment, the police really aren't interested if you actually hit anything providing you are safe?

 

[enfieldspares]

Because it's a safety assessment - it means they can say you've met a standard of safe handling that is recognised

And there we finally have it. To be recognised it has to be delivered by a body or individual that issuing police forces accept as having some sort of standing. And so an empire becomes created. Yet again.

 

[Ronin]

Show a base level proficiency in marksmanship

Maintain it through frequent practice

Develop skills set by personal development

Skill set tested to show maintaining base level or progression



Yup I’d be happy with that

Kevlar helmet Ben ,,,

Some interesting comments

 

[Rory]

I do think there is some merit in desiring to improve - it's a natural process that we either want to improve our output or make life easier for ourselves - or both.

I think your op came across poorly, I think if, as willie-gunn suggested, you were offering developmental courses, with a scalable course of fire after some introduction assessments, you'd probably have more interest.
Setting out to get people to sign up to another annual test/assessment (yes, it might not be what you said it is, but remember how important perception is) is going to be difficult with a good number of people who've seen 'voluntary' become 'mandatory' (and it doesn't matter that it isn't 'the law'- the FLO's have siezed upon DSC 1 with gusto) over the last few decades.

I think your dogmatic views are not helping you either, it seems very difficult to get you to see others' points and even humorous posts are being taken at face value (VSS's point 12 as an example).

Lighten up, consider why people might be opposed to your suggestion. It's not that people don't care about what they do, it's the spectre of unnecessary and insufferable bureaucracy.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

And there we finally have it. To be recognised it has to be delivered by a body or individual that issuing police forces accept as having some sort of standing. And so an empire becomes created. Yet again.

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.

 

[spanj]

Because it's a safety assessment - it means they can say you've met a standard of safe handling that is recognised and therefore they have done due dilligence in vetting you're not a moron?
For all they know currently you are completely unsafe with your rifle, but you've got lucky so far that nobody has noticed or got hurt yet.

Completely separate to a marksmanship assessment, the police really aren't interested if you actually hit anything providing you are safe?

I should think 15 years with 2 & 4 para is some sort of qualification.

 

[VSS]

.

I think your dogmatic views are not helping you either, it seems very difficult to get you to see others' points and even humorous posts are being taken at face value (VSS's point 12 as an example).

I wish it had been humorous!

Lighten up, consider why people might be opposed to your suggestion. It's not that people don't care about what they do, it's the spectre of unnecessary and insufferable bureaucracy.

Exactly this ^^^

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?

If you'd suggested an annual driving test for all driving licence holders I'd have supported it. That would deliver far greater benefit to the general public than an annual shooting test for a very small minority group.

 

[spanj]

"DSC 1 has in fact found its way into the thinking of a number of police forces."
And how many FEO's are found with the knowledge to judge?
Some disgraceful activities seen on training days by those sitting in judgement.

They dont need the knowledge to judge.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

I should think 15 years with 2 & 4 para is some sort of qualification.

Yes, I would agree if you have some kind of proof you undertook WHTs and safe weapons handling (green card or other document) then I would be expecting the FEO to back off about DSC One.

If you can't produce them that sort of proof then honestly I can understand them still wanting you to undergo a recognised safety qualification.

 

[Rake Aboot]

I can take it that I’m now on the ignore list
Doesn’t like someone pointing the obvious out.

 

[enfieldspares]

There we are again a "known entity". Empire building.

France may have tests, Germany may have tests. They have public hunting domains open nominally to all in season in public forests. This is the United Kingdom. Not France, not Germany. And in France where they do have tests their safety records don't inspire.

Now me, personally, I see no need for sensible distance shots when hill stalking for quasi-military looking rifles with camouflaged stocks, bipods, pistol grips, cheek risers and long bull barrels, ten shot detachable magazines and firing cartridges with a muzzle energy of over 3,500 ft/lbs muzzle energy to shoot deer at one hundred yards. Nor for "woodland stalking" nor deer at fifty yards from a high seat.

So as I don't to seek to impose my beliefs on the OP let, please the OP not seek to impose his beliefs neither on me nor my fellow brother stalkers.

 

[Brave Echo Niner]

I can take it that I’m now on the ignore list
Doesn’t like someone pointing the obvious out.

Not at all - my ignore list has a sum total of 0 on it. I don't hide behind things like that.

Which comment have I missed responding to that you would like me to comment on?

 

[Rake Aboot]

Well most of them really
You’ve made some comments that smack of self righteousness and then berated replies as angry and ranting
I just asked about both

Basically no one has agreed with your idea and you’ve berated the people on the site as having no consideration for deer welfare because they don’t agree with you
I just wondered if you’ve realised it’s because your wrong.