Dsc1 condition rubbish

[al4x]

The simple thing is if you are serious then 1 and 2 are going to be almost compulsory, if its not the police then it's the forestry commission and other companies that let stalking demanding it. As for the police it's a simple **** covering exercise and helps to tick the need box as well as showing an element of seriousness. You only have to look at people on here doing everything possible to justify various guns for fac grant

[Dekers]

The simple thing is if you are serious then 1 and 2 are going to be almost compulsory, if its not the police then it's the forestry commission and other companies that let stalking demanding it. As for the police it's a simple **** covering exercise and helps to tick the need box as well as showing an element of seriousness. You only have to look at people on here doing everything possible to justify various guns for fac grant

 

Unfortunately that is probably correct, the DSC is frankly little more than an **** covering exercise for everyone.

 

Simple question, WHY, where are all the stalkers bodies and food poisoning cases prior to the DSC?

 

Many grew up in the country and learnt from their elders over many years, no course of a few days can cover that, but you do get a piece of paper, and today that is all anyone is interested in.

 

The tragedy is the DSC may actually have some merit, but life is not working out that way for it. The DSC is quite simply considered an easy way to get a decent centrefire today by many!

 

Ask another question, who would you rather be out in the field with, the guy who has never been in the field, does not know one end of a rifle from the other but is waving a DSC at you he did yesterday, or the guy who grew up on the estate, learnt from his Dad and other keepers over many years, went to Sparsholt, has seen it, done it, been there many a time but has no DSC?

 

Edited December 7, 2012 by Dekers

[Frenchieboy]

As we all know many FEOs and Firearms Offices will try to tell you that you will not get a Deer Calibre Rifle with deer on your conditions without having the DSC1, this is not a legal requirement at the moment. My FEO tried this when I put in for my .243 for both Deer and Fox. He said that I could not have a .243 for Fox as it was not suitable (My land was passed for up to .270 at the time as I was on closed conditions then) He also told me that I would have to have mt DSC1 first for a Deer condition to be put on my certificate. I questioned this along with some of the other things he said about Firearms Laws, which I believed he had quoted out of context or quite simply wrongly or didn't even exist in the HO Guidelines - That didn't go down too well with him! Even the Issuing Officer for Lancashire (At that time) wrote and said that even though they had spoken to the landowner of one of my permissions where I wanted to shoot deer they acknowledged that there were deer on that permission and that I had permission to shoot them but they could not see any reason for these deer being shot! (I still have that in writing from them) I put this to the SACS and they qestioned my Firearms Office about these "irregularities" and I got my certificate a week or so later with the .243 and Deer on it.

It does "appear" that some of them like to try to make the laws up as they go along - Having said that I do not want to tar them all with the same brush as there are some very good and helpful FEOs out there!

As for the DSC, I do not have my DSC level 1 yet but I have been "trained" and carefully watched over by a very experienced and knowledgable deer stalker and deer management expert (Who is an Acredited Witness) so I do not feel a need for the DSC 1! If the DSC 1 does become a "Legal requirement" then I would have to look at the situation differently and no doubt take the DSC1 course, but I do see terrible problems with trying to make the DSC a legal requirement for deer shooters - Especially those with many years of experience!

 

Edit: I've just noticed Deker's post that went up as I was typing mine - I couldn't agree more with you Dekers - Give me experience before a piece of paper any day!

Edited December 7, 2012 by Frenchieboy

[fruitloop]

Unfortunately that is probably correct, the DSC is frankly little more than an **** covering exercise for everyone.

 

Simple question, WHY, where are all the stalkers bodies and food poisoning cases prior to the DSC?

 

Many grew up in the country and learnt from their elders over many years, no course of a few days can cover that, but you do get a piece of paper, and today that is all anyone is interested in.

 

The tragedy is the DSC may actually have some merit, but life is not working out that way for it. The DSC is quite simply considered an easy way to get a decent centrefire today by many!

 

Ask another question, who would you rather be out in the field with, the guy who has never been in the field, does not know one end of a rifle from the other but is waving a DSC at you he did yesterday, or the guy who grew up on the estate, learnt from his Dad and other keepers over many years, went to Sparsholt, has seen it, done it, been there many a time but has no DSC?

 

+1 from me .as it seems the same with management they all have a diploma and the arrogance but not a clue about what they suppose to be managing

[Olliesims]

I'm going to put my variation in next month for .243 fox and deer and see what happens, and now ive been told i dont need a dsc1 its given me more faith as I thought it would be the deer part holding me back, before I go stalking on my own I do plan to do some paid stalks as there's a farm not to far from me that do them, and would like to experience it 1 on 1 with someone as to me that's the best experience you can gain

[Redgum]

Unfortunately that is probably correct, the DSC is frankly little more than an **** covering exercise for everyone.

 

Simple question, WHY, where are all the stalkers bodies and food poisoning cases prior to the DSC?

 

Many grew up in the country and learnt from their elders over many years, no course of a few days can cover that, but you do get a piece of paper, and today that is all anyone is interested in.

 

The tragedy is the DSC may actually have some merit, but life is not working out that way for it. The DSC is quite simply considered an easy way to get a decent centrefire today by many!

 

Ask another question, who would you rather be out in the field with, the guy who has never been in the field, does not know one end of a rifle from the other but is waving a DSC at you he did yesterday, or the guy who grew up on the estate, learnt from his Dad and other keepers over many years, went to Sparsholt, has seen it, done it, been there many a time but has no DSC?

 

I would rather be out with someone safe and has a good level of common sense and this is not a guaranteed fact from someone who has been brought up with shooting, though hopefully more likely. The old saying 'old dog n bad habits'. You cannot buy experience or replace it with a basic exam, but many start shooting a few rabbits with the rimmie, then a few deer are spotted on the ground. Farmers are usually not so sympathetic to deer and are usually glad to be rid so the offer of the service is welcomed from someone all ready on the land. Off goes the license for the 243 and the response from firearms may not be a welcome one, need DSC1 first. The post pops up on PW and the young gun is told its not law, write to your FA dept, don't take this sitting down, ring BASC etc.

One deer on a property won't bring the farm into bankruptcy, we all know that there is a certain amount of want rather than need for most variations which fuels these requests, the DSC1 does put the brakes on a bit and does make for a little more commitment and never goes down well. In this respect you can see why the police put this forward law or not. Someone who has no experience of deer hunting will be better equipped to shoot a deer with a DSC1 than one without for sure. I think you will find Dekers that someone who comes out of sparsholt college to manage deer would have done the DSC1, 2 and much more stringent deer management study on top.

[Gimlet]

The first thing that should be done to improve DSC1 is stop printing the questions in the back of the manual. The object of the course should be to aquire knowledge not scrape through an exam.

[Dekers]

I would rather be out with someone safe and has a good level of common sense and this is not a guaranteed fact from someone who has been brought up with shooting, though hopefully more likely. The old saying 'old dog n bad habits'. You cannot buy experience or replace it with a basic exam, but many start shooting a few rabbits with the rimmie, then a few deer are spotted on the ground. Farmers are usually not so sympathetic to deer and are usually glad to be rid so the offer of the service is welcomed from someone all ready on the land. Off goes the license for the 243 and the response from firearms may not be a welcome one, need DSC1 first. The post pops up on PW and the young gun is told its not law, write to your FA dept, don't take this sitting down, ring BASC etc.

One deer on a property won't bring the farm into bankruptcy, we all know that there is a certain amount of want rather than need for most variations which fuels these requests, the DSC1 does put the brakes on a bit and does make for a little more commitment and never goes down well. In this respect you can see why the police put this forward law or not. Someone who has no experience of deer hunting will be better equipped to shoot a deer with a DSC1 than one without for sure. I think you will find Dekers that someone who comes out of sparsholt college to manage deer would have done the DSC1, 2 and much more stringent deer management study on top.

 

I'm not arguing, just couldn't be bothered to write all that as well, plenty of people who have been around a long while are idiots or stuck in the past........

 

It was an example, it wasn't meant to be a definitive response, and plenty of people with a DSC are idiots, and may not go out from one year to the next, we can go on forever....

[Blunderbust]

I am in total support of the DMQ qualifications and think it should be law. Ok, having a DSC1 doesnt make you an expert stalker, of course not but it does prove that you have some understanding of the law that governs the animals you hunt. Deer seasons, legal calibres and muzzle velocities, what to expect and do when it doesnt quite go to plan. The shooting test is basic but gives a certain standard, it was the 'experienced stalkers' who struggle on my course.The safety training will make you aware of somethings you may have never have concidered before. Having DMQ's,especially DSC2 will open up opportunities for stalking leases on Forestry own land and culling for organisations like Natural England. Without a certain level of DMQ they will not entertain you.

Ok Basc and BDS make money out of the courses through the registration but the chaps that run the courses are usually totally committed and usually just about cover their costs. Many acredited witnesses for DSC2 do it for the love of it and make nothing at all. So those that moan about being asked to take DSC1 before being granted a deer calibre stop whinging and go and learn something about the subject you are about to become involved in.

 

I agree 100% with this post, I think you have hit it bang on the nail.

[Dekers]

I agree 100% with this post, I think you have hit it bang on the nail.

 

:hmm: There is so often another view!

 

So, what about Wild Boar that commonly use larger calibre than deer, what about paid stalks and foreign hunting trips, what about Wildfowling, what about Pest Control, what about the pheasant shoot, etc, etc, they can have seasons and laws,...and what about the guy that has had a .243 for fox for years but now wants to shoot deer (one of whom I had to Mentor before the police would enter deer on his FAC), are you suggesting he doesn't understand the rifle and needs training. Why is it we only need a course to shoot deer?

 

I know of one person who wanted to take up stalking but had never fired a rifle in his life, I had my doubts and issues with him so tried to steer him away, but he took and passed DSC1 about 3 or 4 years ago and has NEVER been out, so he is competent, knows all about it and you would be happy to go out with him, and the FC would actually let him shoot. The system is flawed!

 

The FC only requires the DSC to cover their ****, end of, they simply want a piece of paper to wave at someone if something goes wrong, the DSC does not turn anyone into a competent stalker, it just shows they have been through a course which they can promptly forget or ignore once they have that piece of paper.

 

Whilst I am vehemently against many tests I concede that there may be a need for some testing in some circumstances before issuing certain calibres to certain individuals, and that would take some defining, (I am not advocating this), but I do not consider the DSC addresses this, as I have said previously, where are all the stalkers bodies and cases of food poisoning Before the DSC arrived?

[Scully]

I can understand those who profit from teaching DSC courses having a vested interest in seeing this become law,but is there really an issue that needs addressing to the extent that legislation is required?

[Gimlet]

A shooting forum probably isn't the place to say this, but it needs saying more often and more loudly: what does need regulating is the sheer numbers of people taking up stalking as a hobby often without ecologocal need or understanding nor collaboration with neighbouring ground, which in many parts of the country makes a mockery of proper species management. And deer are a special case because they are not vermin or game, they are Britains largest wild mammals. They're not rabbits. Isolated "surveys" and subsequent cheque-book stalking on dozens of 150 acre contiguous plots do not constitute mangement. It is an uncoordinated free-for-all. Stalking needs managing on a large regional scale but passing the job by default to unqualified firearms licensing depts is certainly not the way to do it.

Deer management and stalking is a huge subject and quality training and study has to be a good thing and correctly applied should be encouraged. But if compulsory training is adopted as a legal safety net it is likely that DMQ courses will become production lines churning out entitled stalkers in industrial quanities, if they haven't already, which is the last thing a healthy and well managed deer population needs.

[ravanelli]

I wanted to shoot Muntjac with a .223.

Was told by my firearms officer that he would not allow it until I had done DSC1.....................so my ticket has a slot for the 223 but NO CONDITION for the munjac

Everytime I go out with my shotgun pigeon shooting over deecs or roost, I see munjac. They are everywhere!!!!

 

 

 

Rav

[Olliesims]

I wanted to shoot Muntjac with a .223.

Was told by my firearms officer that he would not allow it until I had done DSC1.....................so my ticket has a slot for the 223 but NO CONDITION for the munjac

Everytime I go out with my shotgun pigeon shooting over deecs or roost, I see munjac. They are everywhere!!!!

 

 

Rav

 

 

This was the same reason I questioned firearms team because of muntjac on the .223

Edited December 8, 2012 by Olliesims

[Redgum]

:hmm: There is so often another view!

 

So, what about Wild Boar that commonly use larger calibre than deer, what about paid stalks and foreign hunting trips, what about Wildfowling, what about Pest Control, what about the pheasant shoot, etc, etc, they can have seasons and laws,...and what about the guy that has had a .243 for fox for years but now wants to shoot deer (one of whom I had to Mentor before the police would enter deer on his FAC), are you suggesting he doesn't understand the rifle and needs training. Why is it we only need a course to shoot deer?

 

I know of one person who wanted to take up stalking but had never fired a rifle in his life, I had my doubts and issues with him so tried to steer him away, but he took and passed DSC1 about 3 or 4 years ago and has NEVER been out, so he is competent, knows all about it and you would be happy to go out with him, and the FC would actually let him shoot. The system is flawed!

 

The FC only requires the DSC to cover their ****, end of, they simply want a piece of paper to wave at someone if something goes wrong, the DSC does not turn anyone into a competent stalker, it just shows they have been through a course which they can promptly forget or ignore once they have that piece of paper.

 

Whilst I am vehemently against many tests I concede that there may be a need for some testing in some circumstances before issuing certain calibres to certain individuals, and that would take some defining, (I am not advocating this), but I do not consider the DSC addresses this, as I have said previously, where are all the stalkers bodies and cases of food poisoning Before the DSC arrived?

Your simply missing the point once again Dekers by keep repeating the obvious for a point of arguement. The DSC 1 does not make an experienced stalker, to think that,well one shouldnt even contiplate using a rifle. Olliesims has been using his 223 for foxs etc and is probably experienced enough to be very safe but as stated earlier deer are a differant subject to a fox. Some might argue that a Munty isnt much differant to a fox though a totally wrong approach. You don' t eat a fox and Munties are tough little devils that also are covered by our deer laws and deer on your license allows you to shoot all the deer species. Variations are based on good reason to possess and I don't think any police force will just give you a deer calibre soley because you have passed your DSC1.

So your vehemently against testing, what about the driving test, its a legal requirement though we all know, especially those of us old enough to remember the one part test that this does not make a good driver. In matter of fact there so no skid pans or motorway driving, basically it makes you aware of the laws of the road with a basic amount of driving skill. And the alternative to this, maybe no test then for the worry that you make think your a good driver. This is were I see the DMQ's, yes it could be better but I'm not about to lobby the government to change for a harder test as the opposition from the likes of yourself would be too great. It just gives someone new to deer shooting more knowledge than none.

[hillmouse]

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

DSC1 gives a good basic overview of legislation, safety and knowledge of deer species and sexing plus an accuracy test and information on many other areas of stalking and deer generally.

 

I do not think it is an alternative to experienced tuition, either formally or informally, nor was it ever intended to be.

 

Everyone driving on British roads has to pass a driving test, it does not mean they are good drivers.

 

I have mixed views regarding compulsory training. Is it right to allow a raw novice out in pursuit of deer with no training ? Is it right to insist on formal training for everyone ? I myself have no paperwork to prove anything. Is a newcomer to stalking who completes and passes DSC1 safe and experienced enough to be out stalking alone ?, While better informed than someone who hasn't taken it I would not be convinced by a piece of paper.

 

I do not hold DSC 1, nor do I ever intend to take it voluntarily. I stalked my first ever deer on 5th November 1982 with a Forestry Commission Ranger who was my guide and mentor and knew more about deer management than you probably need to know. I was lucky to be able to accompany him for several years. Sadly such chances are not available to many new entrants to the sport.

[Gimlet]

The question of compulsory training depends entirely on who is demanding it and why. Firearms licensing are concerned only with monitoring legal firearm ownership to try and ensure licenses are granted only to fit and proper persons; to enforce the firearms act and such laws relating to the use of firearms, and to protect public safety. DMQs have no bearing on that brief, so FEOs and CCs cannot logically insist on them. If the marksmanship and safety tests are essential to public safety, why are they not required before granting non-deer legal calibres? On the other hand if stalking itself were a licensed activity seperate from the licensing of the rifles used to do it, then proof of basic knowledge and competancy would surely be a minimum requirement.

I'm not suggesting stalking should be licensed, though that day may come: the country isn't getting any bigger, deer habitat is shrinking, the human population expanding rapidly with numbers wanting to go stalking expanding just as quickly, so it may well happen at some point. Until then training, whether informal tutoring from a time served-expert or a formal course of tuiton with a piece of paper for the student and a nice cheque for the BDS is clearly useful at any level and not something to be denigrated, and essential for the complete novice, but tacking it on to the conditions of an FAC would be, as has been said, a bureaucratic and largely futile **** covering exercise, and a license for someone to print money without any perceptible benefit either to public safety or responsible deer management.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Gimlet

[JonathanL]

I wanted to shoot Muntjac with a .223.

Was told by my firearms officer that he would not allow it until I had done DSC1.....................so my ticket has a slot for the 223 but NO CONDITION for the munjac

Everytime I go out with my shotgun pigeon shooting over deecs or roost, I see munjac. They are everywhere!!!!

 

 

 

Rav

 

As I have pointed out on other threads, I don't see that as a problem. If you read the condition it is a statement of what you must do and not what you are allowed to do or are not allowed to do. If you go and shot shoot a deer with your rifle what offence are you comitting? None that I can see.

 

J.

[Dekers]

:hmm: There is so often another view!

 

So, what about Wild Boar that commonly use larger calibre than deer, what about paid stalks and foreign hunting trips, what about Wildfowling, what about Pest Control, what about the pheasant shoot, etc, etc, they can have seasons and laws,...and what about the guy that has had a .243 for fox for years but now wants to shoot deer (one of whom I had to Mentor before the police would enter deer on his FAC), are you suggesting he doesn't understand the rifle and needs training. Why is it we only need a course to shoot deer?

 

I know of one person who wanted to take up stalking but had never fired a rifle in his life, I had my doubts and issues with him so tried to steer him away, but he took and passed DSC1 about 3 or 4 years ago and has NEVER been out, so he is competent, knows all about it and you would be happy to go out with him, and the FC would actually let him shoot. The system is flawed!

 

The FC only requires the DSC to cover their ****, end of, they simply want a piece of paper to wave at someone if something goes wrong, the DSC does not turn anyone into a competent stalker, it just shows they have been through a course which they can promptly forget or ignore once they have that piece of paper.

 

Whilst I am vehemently against many tests I concede that there may be a need for some testing in some circumstances before issuing certain calibres to certain individuals, and that would take some defining, (I am not advocating this), but I do not consider the DSC addresses this, as I have said previously, where are all the stalkers bodies and cases of food poisoning Before the DSC arrived?

Your simply missing the point once again Dekers by keep repeating the obvious for a point of arguement. The DSC 1 does not make an experienced stalker, to think that,well one shouldnt even contiplate using a rifle. Olliesims has been using his 223 for foxs etc and is probably experienced enough to be very safe but as stated earlier deer are a differant subject to a fox. Some might argue that a Munty isnt much differant to a fox though a totally wrong approach. You don' t eat a fox and Munties are tough little devils that also are covered by our deer laws and deer on your license allows you to shoot all the deer species. Variations are based on good reason to possess and I don't think any police force will just give you a deer calibre soley because you have passed your DSC1.

So your vehemently against testing, what about the driving test, its a legal requirement though we all know, especially those of us old enough to remember the one part test that this does not make a good driver. In matter of fact there so no skid pans or motorway driving, basically it makes you aware of the laws of the road with a basic amount of driving skill. And the alternative to this, maybe no test then for the worry that you make think your a good driver. This is were I see the DMQ's, yes it could be better but I'm not about to lobby the government to change for a harder test as the opposition from the likes of yourself would be too great. It just gives someone new to deer shooting more knowledge than none.

 

Chap, I didn't say that, check out my words above, and I certainly agree that any gun, and especially centrefires should not be given out easily, the problem with the DSC is that they ARE, the DSC is a potential shortcut for some people with no experience to get a CF! And then those same people can shoot of FC land, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up when others with many years of experience and no DSC can't, especially as you suggest the DSC is a basic test and experience comes in time!.

 

Lets not bring in the driving test, how many people are killed by cars, and how many people are killed by people that DON'T have a DSC, I hardly feel they are comparable.

 

What about my second Para, why are deer so important above all else I have mentioned? You feel that all other species and all other calibres need no testing, where is the logic in that against your argument

 

The DSC is (Allegedly) there from a SAFETY and food Hygiene point of view, we eat rabbit, pigeon, Boar, Pheasant etc, and shoot some with bigger calibres, why is there only a DSC if we all need to learn about the law and safety??

Edited December 8, 2012 by Dekers

[Redgum]

Yawn, you can take a horse to water but...........................................................

[Scully]

I can understand those who profit from teaching DSC courses having a vested interest in seeing this become law,but is there really an issue that needs addressing to the extent that legislation is required?

Couldn't be bothered to type it again,but as no-one has answered it thought I'd ask again.What is the issue?

[kent]

This is covered by home office guidence to police on issue of a deer calibre rifle it does mention EXPERIANCE or TRAINING.

I am in favour of DSC1 training but it proves nothing as its only theory, you pass without ever having actually stalked or graloched a single deer, DSC2 is better as you actually prove the theory you were taught at level 1 in the field were it matters.

 

Stalking in the UK has deteriourated into a total mess i agree with Gimlet on his comments and mention of "cheque book stalking" If it was down to me i should put deer as a national resource, introduce compulsary training yet plan proper culls locally, regonally and nationally and issue tickets and tags to those who have bothered to get trained and can be relied upon to ***** the beast they are about to kill. Get your tag and thats that. Never mind who thinks they own the deer and wants to let days with profit in mind. I have little good i can say about the "pay for the day" pushers or the "its my lease i will do as i wish" killer crew

 

What will this achieve? better management of a national asset and tickets and tags will cover costs, you wont find the BDS shouting this although i am a long term member myself quite a few prominant persons in the society own Estates and think of the deer as thiers.

 

Foxing and .243? just justify why you need a .243 on fox its possible as long as its actually true

[Redgum]

This is covered by home office guidence to police on issue of a deer calibre rifle it does mention EXPERIANCE or TRAINING.

I am in favour of DSC1 training but it proves nothing as its only theory, you pass without ever having actually stalked or graloched a single deer, DSC2 is better as you actually prove the theory you were taught at level 1 in the field were it matters.

 

Stalking in the UK has deteriourated into a total mess i agree with Gimlet on his comments and mention of "cheque book stalking" If it was down to me i should put deer as a national resource, introduce compulsary training yet plan proper culls locally, regonally and nationally and issue tickets and tags to those who have bothered to get trained and can be relied upon to ***** the beast they are about to kill. Get your tag and thats that. Never mind who thinks they own the deer and wants to let days with profit in mind. I have little good i can say about the "pay for the day" pushers or the "its my lease i will do as i wish" killer crew

 

What will this achieve? better management of a national asset and tickets and tags will cover costs, you wont find the BDS shouting this although i am a long term member myself quite a few prominant persons in the society own Estates and think of the deer as thiers.

 

Foxing and .243? just justify why you need a .243 on fox its possible as long as its actually true

:good:

[Scully]

I just get the impression(maybe incorrectly)that the only issue some people have is that maybe they feel their toes are being stepped on by the many who are simply going out and shooting deer simply because they can,who perhaps don't hold deer with the same high regard that they do,but I still don't see any issues that require legislation to address,unless it's merely to shut the door on those who are deemed by others to be unworthy.Snobbery is alive and well in the shooting 'sports'.Just my impression.

My mates and me shoot Roe on our own land for our own consumption,and have done so for many years.None of us has any intention of hunting deer further afield as we have all the deer we want here,and are not avid deer nuts anyhow,and I therefore think the only people to benefit from compulsory training through legislation would be the person/s who take our money to accredit us.

I don't have to justify .243 for foxes;I applied for a .243 for Roe primarily, and foxes secondly, as I didn't want two centre-fires and .243 was the minimum required for the former.If I lived in Scotland a .223 would suffice for both.

[Gimlet]

There is no resentment at having my toes trodden on as far as I'm concerned. People "Going out and shooting deer simply because they can" is precisely the problem. But it isn't one of snobbery. Deer are not a vermin species. I shoot rabbits with the express intention of total eradication. Rabbits are an alien species that could be exterminated without detriment to the landscape or species diversity. Deer are not rabbits. They cannot replenish their numbers like rabbits; they are a finite resource which must be managed not consumed to exhaustion in the pursuit of entertainment, and in some parts of the country, my own included, they are being grievously overshot. I think that matters.