Dsc1 condition rubbish

[al4x]

Unless you include muntjac gimlet, invasive breed rapidly and doing a lot of damage to native woodland

[Scully]

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.

Fair point well made.Although it isn't the case around here,I can understand the concern in those parts of the country where it is.Would creating compulsory DSC accreditation prevent this though?

[kent]

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.

 

Yes 100% ! Let us not forget that its a great thrill for many non-stalkers to actually see deer in thier wild state. To be fair i still enjoy watching them myself.

Is it fair we deny them of this?

[kent]

 

Fair point well made.Although it isn't the case around here,I can understand the concern in those parts of the country where it is.Would creating compulsory DSC accreditation prevent this though?

 

No but nationally compiled cull plans, with good local variation being carried out by correctly trained " sportsmen" will benefit all the community and the deer. DSC1 is nothing but an introduction to deer stalking, one who is responsible for deciding on the annual cull plan should know more than this. "if its brown its down", "got a mouth shoot it", "freezers bare- theres one over there" these aint cull plans

[Dekers]

Massively overshot and heading towards extinction?!? :hmm:

 

http://www.telegraph...nts-a-year.html

Edited December 9, 2012 by Dekers

[kent]

Unless you include muntjac gimlet, invasive breed rapidly and doing a lot of damage to native woodland

 

Yet they get moved around illegally to new locations all the time, do we think a few stalkers might indulge in stocking from time to time?

[kent]

Massively overshot and heading towards extinction?!? :hmm:

 

http://www.telegraph...nts-a-year.html

 

Many areas have been overshot, some undershot, some never shot- mostly poorly managed, mostly mis understood.

[al4x]

 

 

Yet they get moved around illegally to new locations all the time, do we think a few stalkers might indulge in stocking from time to time?

 

Of course they do and it's certainly not to the benefit of their normal quarry, though I enjoy stalking them its easy to see down here that they are a serious threat to our woodland. You can't coppice with them about, ground flora in woods is at threat and once they get a hold you can't shoot them out as they have like foxes adapted to urban life

[Dekers]

Many areas have been overshot, some undershot, some never shot- mostly poorly managed, mostly mis understood.

 

...and through all this the population of deer in the UK has doubled in the last 10 years!

[kent]

 

 

...and through all this the population of deer in the UK has doubled in the last 10 years!

 

Yep, in all the wrong places! Happened in the states also in those that did not manage things quite so well. Result? deer tick issues, RTAs, commings together with fido in the park. Worst of all the rise of the urban deer poacher! I have had to finish a few in very public areas and its not good.

Like i say some aint shot at all

[kent]

 

 

Of course they do and it's certainly not to the benefit of their normal quarry, though I enjoy stalking them its easy to see down here that they are a serious threat to our woodland. You can't coppice with them about, ground flora in woods is at threat and once they get a hold you can't shoot them out as they have like foxes adapted to urban life

 

At the prices a day i can see why plus the Europian seaching for his trophy. I fear for the future of the English blubell woods

[Gimlet]

Deer management doesn't mean an automatic reduction in stalking and stalker numbers. It means a flexible targeted response to deer numbers throughout the country. Which is not happening. Management means equally the rigorous control of muntjac where they have become a pest species to the conservation of roe 150 miles away where bucks rarely survive to medal status or the important role of territorial dominance without someone shooting them.

Deer management cannot be conducted without an accurate survey and control of the numbers and species of deer that are being born and surviving in a particular habitat, and it follows that a survey and control of the numbers of stalkers shooting them should be an inseparable part of that process. Otherwise deer management is operating blindfolded with one arm tied behind its back.

[Bazooka Joe]

If Scotland is anything to go by, them who haven't made the effort ( DSC 1-2 ) will have no option,

 

http://www.scottishg...s-or-face-tests

 

Like everything else, once introduced, it's not long before it becomes mandatory,

 

Maybe not a bad thing either.

[Redgum]

Think we are slipping off the original post Kent and Deckers, proper deer management is barely if at all covered in the DMQ's, for that you will have to go onto advanced courses. Those of us who manage a population of deer in an area will know how difficult it is sustain a wild deer herd. You keep the numbers down because of private/farmer pressure culling mainly does and prickets and then a landowner decides he wants a piece of the pie and sells the shooting rights. If this area of land is a favourite spot for the deer the big boys are hammered out first then anything else that moves follows as the owner of the shooting rights is desperate to attract custom.

Having compulsory DMQ's may possibly arm these sport shooters with some knowledge, it may even be a big enough hurdle to stop a few.Whats the alternative, no training, just apply for a deer calibre stating you have good reason as you have been on a few paid stalks and will be going on a few more with the only knowledge you have is from some chap fleecing your pockets. People like Scully who are lucky enough ( or not, whatever the case should be) to have land with deer that need controlling on usually know what they are doing as they probably have to deal with livestock on a daily basis. I'm not saying that you should not have recreational shooting for those that may go out four times a year on paid stalks but at least arm them with some knowledge, the DSC1 is not enough but its a start.

[Redgum]

Think we are slipping off the original post Kent and Deckers, proper deer management is barely if at all covered in the DMQ's, for that you will have to go onto advanced courses. Those of us who manage a population of deer in an area will know how difficult it is sustain a wild deer herd. You keep the numbers down because of private/farmer pressure culling mainly does and prickets and then a landowner decides he wants a piece of the pie and sells the shooting rights. If this area of land is a favourite spot for the deer the big boys are hammered out first then anything else that moves follows as the owner of the shooting rights is desperate to attract custom.

Having compulsory DMQ's may possibly arm these sport shooters with some knowledge, it may even be a big enough hurdle to stop a few.Whats the alternative, no training, just apply for a deer calibre stating you have good reason as you have been on a few paid stalks and will be going on a few more with the only knowledge you have is from some chap fleecing your pockets. People like Scully who are lucky enough ( or not, whatever the case should be) to have land with deer that need controlling on usually know what they are doing as they probably have to deal with livestock on a daily basis. I'm not saying that you should not have recreational shooting for those that may go out four times a year on paid stalks but at least arm them with some knowledge, the DSC1 is not enough but its a start.

Ps look at what you have to go through if you want to hunt deer in france and they are not exactly known for their animal welfare.

[Scully]

No but nationally compiled cull plans, with good local variation being carried out by correctly trained " sportsmen" will benefit all the community and the deer. DSC1 is nothing but an introduction to deer stalking, one who is responsible for deciding on the annual cull plan should know more than this. "if its brown its down", "got a mouth shoot it", "freezers bare- theres one over there" these aint cull plans

So the answer is 'no'? So why do some feel the need for legislation?A legislation which would encompass all,including those shooters/landowners who own land where deer are present,but don't want to get involved in a 'nationally compiled cull plan'.For whose benefit?The BDS?Those involved in teaching DSC courses?The revenue of both?How will shooting 3 or 4 deer a year for personal consumption 'benefit all the community' in these cases,bearing in mind that those shooters involved would face compulsory training to do something they've been doing for decades?

There's nothing to prevent the instigation of 'nationally compiled cull plans' now,is there;without the need for legislation?Who qualifies those who would train would be 'stalkers',and what qualifies those who teach, if it isn't decades of experience?

I have nothing against national cull plans etc at all,and not even legislation if there's a genuine and necessary need,but I simply don't see the need.What is the problem?

It just smacks of 'too many chefs' to my mind,with those professional and dedicated stalkers fearing a loss of control over what some perceive to be their elitist 'sport'.Once training is compulsory, prices would no doubt rise.In an attempt to price undesirables out of the 'sport'?Forgive my cynical nature,but we live and learn.

[Scully]

Think we are slipping off the original post Kent and Deckers, proper deer management is barely if at all covered in the DMQ's, for that you will have to go onto advanced courses. Those of us who manage a population of deer in an area will know how difficult it is sustain a wild deer herd. You keep the numbers down because of private/farmer pressure culling mainly does and prickets and then a landowner decides he wants a piece of the pie and sells the shooting rights. If this area of land is a favourite spot for the deer the big boys are hammered out first then anything else that moves follows as the owner of the shooting rights is desperate to attract custom.

Having compulsory DMQ's may possibly arm these sport shooters with some knowledge, it may even be a big enough hurdle to stop a few.Whats the alternative, no training, just apply for a deer calibre stating you have good reason as you have been on a few paid stalks and will be going on a few more with the only knowledge you have is from some chap fleecing your pockets. People like Scully who are lucky enough ( or not, whatever the case should be) to have land with deer that need controlling on usually know what they are doing as they probably have to deal with livestock on a daily basis. I'm not saying that you should not have recreational shooting for those that may go out four times a year on paid stalks but at least arm them with some knowledge, the DSC1 is not enough but its a start.

Good post this,and one I hadn't seen before writing my previous post.

If it's simply on the grounds of animal welfare then I can see the benefit of training(rather than a 'license' to shoot deer,as I fear the DSC would become),but I would rather see compulsory membership of a relevant shooting organisation,(membership prices spiralling would be controlled by those organisations fearing the loss of membership numbers.Pricing people out of shooting would be to the detriment of us all wouldn't it?),where anyone who applies for a 'deer calibre' and a 'deer' condition is compelled to undergo relevant animal welfare training free of charge by their chosen organisation.With one stroke that person is not only insured,but has gained basic knowledge,and the shooting organisations would benefit,therefore all of us would benefit.

Professional deer stalkers wouldn't lose any revenue either,nor would those teaching DSC etc as those teaching these courses are already employed by one organisation or another as far as I know;my apologies if this last point is wrong.

As for those who don't want to join any organisation,well......stuff 'em!

Off topic I know,but there's a young lad who was invited to shoot in our syndicate as a guest,but because he isn't insured the shoot captain turned him away! Very embarrassing for him and my nephew,who had invited him,thinking he was a member of BASC.Silly lad(the guest,not my nephew)

Anyhow,tin hat on.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Scully

[Gimlet]

I think at the heart of this discussion is an unresolved issue which is the increasingly false assumption that a stalker can buy stalking rights and proceed to shoot deer at a profit while managing deer populations sustainably at the same time. That is too much like trying to square a circle. It is possible in some circumstances or for certain periods but often as not it is wishful thinking particularly on a small scale. It certainly should not be the default assumption made by anyone who sets out looking for some stalking ground to stamp his name on. Redgum succinctly nailed another problem which is ignorant or greedy farmers and landowners who are as much an obstacle to sensible mangement as uncontrolled stalking, and who should be compelled to play their part, by law if necessary, just as they are required to manage their hedgrows. Deer are being treated as either a cash crop, general pests or a sporting bonanza with every shooting enthusiast demanding the democratic chance of having a crack at them. That is wrong on just about every level, and without national or at least regional coordination on deer management it doesn't matter who is waving what piece of paper. And if that sounds like sour grapes or "too many chefs" then so be it. But while we're talking metaphors, its worth remebering that there's a reason why you have a head chef. If every chef in the kitchen, however well qualified, worked in isolation with no plan or without collaboration with his colleagues there'd be a massive fight, mess everywhere and nothing on the table at the end of it.

[Scully]

I think at the heart of this discussion is an unresolved issue which is the increasingly false assumption that a stalker can buy stalking rights and proceed to shoot deer at a profit while managing deer populations sustainably at the same time. That is too much like trying to square a circle. It is possible in some circumstances or for certain periods but often as not it is wishful thinking particularly on a small scale. It certainly should not be the default assumption made by anyone who sets out looking for some stalking ground to stamp his name on. Redgum succinctly nailed another problem which is ignorant or greedy farmers and landowners who are as much an obstacle to sensible mangement as uncontrolled stalking, and who should be compelled to play their part, by law if necessary, just as they are required to manage their hedgrows. Deer are being treated as either a cash crop, general pests or a sporting bonanza with every shooting enthusiast demanding the democratic chance of having a crack at them. That is wrong on just about every level, and without national or at least regional coordination on deer management it doesn't matter who is waving what piece of paper. And if that sounds like sour grapes or "too many chefs" then so be it. But while we're talking metaphors, its worth remebering that there's a reason why you have a head chef. If every chef in the kitchen, however well qualified, worked in isolation with no plan or without collaboration with his colleagues there'd be a massive fight, mess everywhere and nothing on the table at the end of it.

Fair points, but I have never assumed a 'stalker can buy stalking rights and proceed to shoot deer at a profit',but rather assumed that stalkers made a profit from taking out those shooters who wanted to shoot deer but had neither the land nor the necessary experience,but not knowing a lot about stalking at a professional level (or any other level) I may be wrong.I'm also assuming that stalkers employed by an estate are paid one way or another.

I'll agree there is an element of greed amongst some landowners/farmers who will grasp any opportunity to make a fast buck,and can't see further than their next bank statement;but in my experience of roe(the only species I have experience of) the vast majority are simply passing through,and where we suddenly see seven over the length of the next week,may see none for the next couple of months.Hardly the basis for the leasing of shooting rights.It may be different in other parts of the country and for different species,I don't know.

I realise that deer are a national asset,but still remain confused as to what threat they are facing which would warrant legislation.Can anyone tell me?I get the impression there is a plethora of 'sporting' shooters buying shooting rights and eradicating herds of deer.Is this the case?If not so,then who is doing this 'uncontrolled stalking'?Professional stalkers?

What would we,or the deer we shoot,gain from some national authority deciding we can/cannot do this or that?I don't mind submitting in depth info' on a purely voluntary basis,but how long would that state of affairs last?

I sort of agree regarding chefs,but it's also worth remenbering the vast majority are an egotistical bunch who can never see eye to eye.

I'm not seeking an argument, I simply don't understand what issues require addressing by legislation.

[Redgum]

Fair points, but I have never assumed a 'stalker can buy stalking rights and proceed to shoot deer at a profit',but rather assumed that stalkers made a profit from taking out those shooters who wanted to shoot deer but had neither the land nor the necessary experience,but not knowing a lot about stalking at a professional level (or any other level) I may be wrong.I'm also assuming that stalkers employed by an estate are paid one way or another.

I'll agree there is an element of greed amongst some landowners/farmers who will grasp any opportunity to make a fast buck,and can't see further than their next bank statement;but in my experience of roe(the only species I have experience of) the vast majority are simply passing through,and where we suddenly see seven over the length of the next week,may see none for the next couple of months.Hardly the basis for the leasing of shooting rights.It may be different in other parts of the country and for different species,I don't know.

I realise that deer are a national asset,but still remain confused as to what threat they are facing which would warrant legislation.Can anyone tell me?I get the impression there is a plethora of 'sporting' shooters buying shooting rights and eradicating herds of deer.Is this the case?If not so,then who is doing this 'uncontrolled stalking'?Professional stalkers?

What would we,or the deer we shoot,gain from some national authority deciding we can/cannot do this or that?I don't mind submitting in depth info' on a purely voluntary basis,but how long would that state of affairs last?

I sort of agree regarding chefs,but it's also worth remenbering the vast majority are an egotistical bunch who can never see eye to eye.

I'm not seeking an argument, I simply don't understand what issues require addressing by legislation.

 

Believe me Scully, many will take paid stalks on land with less deer than you have. Its such a complex subject and we will all have differant views so the arguement will rattle on for ever. The way I see it is that a majority of profit stalking has the ring of gold,silver or bronze head, something I have no interest in, I just like eating the venison. Shooting for antlers isnt the best way of keeping a healthy herd, nor is letting the female population explode in the hope of keeping up the demand for bucks. The master bucks are replaced by a lot of unruly youngsters trashing all the trees and the increased doe numbers just do more browsing/crop damage. You could say that the increased interest in trophy hunting has fuel the increase of deer numbers in recent years which for us is a good thing but the deer numbers tend to hold up in safe areas, Suburban areas, SSSI sites, places were they are not so welcome. The final outcome that the large landowners, tennent farmers or whatever just want total rid of the lot because of the damage.

[Gimlet]

Believe me Scully, many will take paid stalks on land with less deer than you have. Its such a complex subject and we will all have differant views so the arguement will rattle on for ever. The way I see it is that a majority of profit stalking has the ring of gold,silver or bronze head, something I have no interest in, I just like eating the venison. Shooting for antlers isnt the best way of keeping a healthy herd, nor is letting the female population explode in the hope of keeping up the demand for bucks. The master bucks are replaced by a lot of unruly youngsters trashing all the trees and the increased doe numbers just do more browsing/crop damage. You could say that the increased interest in trophy hunting has fuel the increase of deer numbers in recent years which for us is a good thing but the deer numbers tend to hold up in safe areas, Suburban areas, SSSI sites, places were they are not so welcome. The final outcome that the large landowners, tennent farmers or whatever just want total rid of the lot because of the damage.

 

Bingo! Got it down to a T.

[Redgum]

Another quick question to strengthen the need for DSC1, how many of you that already have DSC1, especially those with little or no previous deer stalking experience can hand on heart say that they could already identify our six species of deer, both sexes and in winter and summer pelage before doing the course.

[Scully]

Believe me Scully, many will take paid stalks on land with less deer than you have. Its such a complex subject and we will all have differant views so the arguement will rattle on for ever. The way I see it is that a majority of profit stalking has the ring of gold,silver or bronze head, something I have no interest in, I just like eating the venison. Shooting for antlers isnt the best way of keeping a healthy herd, nor is letting the female population explode in the hope of keeping up the demand for bucks. The master bucks are replaced by a lot of unruly youngsters trashing all the trees and the increased doe numbers just do more browsing/crop damage. You could say that the increased interest in trophy hunting has fuel the increase of deer numbers in recent years which for us is a good thing but the deer numbers tend to hold up in safe areas, Suburban areas, SSSI sites, places were they are not so welcome. The final outcome that the large landowners, tennent farmers or whatever just want total rid of the lot because of the damage.

Fair enough Redgum.I also have no interest in trophy heads,and I don't mind ackowledging your superior knowledge regarding deer management either,and while I can now understand what the perceived problems are,how will legislation prevent what you claim is happening,from happening,and what would that legislation contain?

[Redgum]

 

Fair enough Redgum.I also have no interest in trophy heads,and I don't mind ackowledging your superior knowledge regarding deer management either,and while I can now understand what the perceived problems are,how will legislation prevent what you claim is happening,from happening,and what would that legislation contain?

Legislation won't make any differance to good or bad deer management Scully, the post heading is' DSC1 condition rubbish' and I was just trying to put across my feelings of why it isnt rubbish and its better to have some level of training than none. When I did my DSC1 I had already shot my first Muntjac but to have my own deer calibre my FA wanted me to do the test. I soon realised that I knew very little and came away with alot more knowledge after doing it. Only experience will make a stalker but we need to know what deer look like, whats in season and the relevant laws around them. I, like most others, was very annoyed at the FA's attitude to training when I first enquired about a 243. It wasnt a legal obligation and I called BASC and they told me it was either that or go and do some paid stalks to gets some experience. Well I'm really glad I did my DSC1 as it taught me alot and has been a good bases to build my experience on.