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:
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
