ES,

You may like to quote the rest of the letter, ie the part that says about disabled shooters.

quote:

Originally posted by DJM:
ES,

You may like to quote the rest of the letter, ie the part that says about disabled shooters.

Please, if you have it, post it, in full if possible, all of it. But whilst we are posting letters I'll post the one I received in response to this "News Item":

FROM BDS WEBSITE:

The NRA have suggested that all users of any range whether MoD or otherwise should be competent and it is possible that in due course the BDS may implement a similar competency scheme for everybody shooting on any BDS range event.

FROM THE NRA TO ME VIA E-MAIL:

That’s not what the NRA are saying, thankfully. The Shooter Competency Certificate is only required by those who shoot on MoD ranges and Bisley ranges. Private ranges/land are not affected.



But now back to 1988 - THIS IS WHAT DOUGLAS HOGG WAS ASKED:

Mr. Buchanan-Smith:

"My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned two categories of people who use SLRs—the disabled, and women who wish to use rifles. In Scotland there is a great deal of afforestation and another category of user who has come to my notice is those people who use SLRs to control vermin. With the first shot, vermin may just be wounded and the advantage of a SLR is that a second shot can be fired quickly. In a densely wooded area, as opposed to an open hill, there is not the opportunity to dispatch vermin, without suffering on the first shot. Therefore, there a humane reason for considering such users".

Mr. Bellingham:

"I do not plan to detain the House for more than half a minute, but I was on the Standing Committee when the matter was discussed in some detail. We raised this point at considerable length, in terms of the disabled, women and young people and in terms of the humane aspect, which has just been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), of the importance of shooting the second round very quickly during deer culling or vermin control".

THIS IS WHAT DOUGLAS HOGG REPLIED:

"I was taking that argument seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North expected me to. Incidentally, it is extremely similar to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, and identical to that put earlier this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The latter made the point very plainly that he needs his guns for deer shooting. He is not—and this is the point that I am making—supported by the Chairman of the British Deer Society".


So Douglas Hogg is saying that he has been told by the then Chairman of the BDS that the view of Buchanan-Smith's and Henry Bellingham (referred to as "the Member for Norfolk North-West") as quoted above and directly referring to self-loading rifles for the disabled, and by others, for shooting deer was NOT SUPPORTED by the BDS.

Just a recent update all.

Cheque has been stopped and a formal grievance raised with DMQ. It apears the candidate has definite grounds as in the witness guide it states that the candidate should be asked before they arrive if they feel they are ready for the witnessed stalk and asked basically on what their experience is to date, what they expect to gain from the exercise, made to feel at ease etc etc.

What actually happened was this - under guidance of the AW, candidate turns up, checks zero, is then taken on 4 accompanied stalks. 100% factual account of what happened.

Will keep you posted.

So Douglas Hogg is saying that he has been told by the then Chairman of the BDS that the view of Buchanan-Smith's and Henry Bellingham (referred to as "the Member for Norfolk North-West") as quoted above and directly referring to self-loading rifles for the disabled, and by others, for shooting deer was NOT SUPPORTED by the BDS.

This concerns me - but I would have to suggest that the then Chairman may well have made a remark that was not the feeling of the rank and file!

People do silly things!

Rgds Ian

quote:

This concerns me - but I would have to suggest that the then Chairman may well have made a remark that was not the feeling of the rank and file!

People do silly things!

Rgds Ian

Well they do make silly errors of judgement. And the British NRA was just as guilty in 1988. But let us hope that things have moved on from there.

But I would like at least, other Forum posters here can now understand my and others historical reasons for our opinion of the BDS.

I hope they have changed, but fear that their recent "tests" on shot gun use and the "news item" on Range Competency Certificates (see also above) give me cause for concern.

Stu, Read the post by Enfieldspares. It sounds like you are by no means alone in this....

http://forums.accuratereloadin...5421043/m/7451052001

"An "assessment" is somebody else certifying that you know "all about deer" to a level of knowledge above that deemed as a first level (Level 1) by the people that promote their Scheme. This whole nonsense has now been hijacked being pushed forward as a make rich scheme by many with a hidden agenda. It may have started with the best of intentions but that isn't where its is going.

For most "rifles" it is not even necessary. Not even "Level 1". You go out with a "stalker" and are told what to shoot - a "trophy head" if you've booked that or a lesser beast or a hind if you just want an outing and to shoot your own venison- and if the animal is being kept by the estate the "stalker" does the gralloch.

How would this work if applied to feathered game? Do I really need to know the diseases of game birds, their breeding cycle, their habit etc., etc., how to pluck and gut them and what a black grouse and a grey hen looks like and the seasons for capercaillie if I live in Northamptonshire and want to book a driven pheasant day?

Back to cloven game. If I am still in Northamptonshire and am just shooting over land that holds only muntjac and only ever want to shoot muntjac and am happy to let pass anything that isn't a muntjac then why on earth should it be of any relevance to learn about red deer or fallow deer? If I'm after muntjac only what earthly relevance is it that I do know or don't know the legal seasons for roe deer and what a sika hind looks like? Please enlighten me.

The cleaning and checking for disease can be taught in a classroom. From photographs or film. Indeed it has to be. It's a nonsense to think that real live examples of deer with F and M can be provided. Or fresh specimens of a diseased liver to palpitate.

Sadly, since we lost the Empire, "jobsworths", "little Hitlers", "petit Napoleon" and others. So full of their own self importance that that's the only thing that stops them disappearing up their own arseholes have sought to recreate it."

It goes on but I'll leave you to follow that up


Yes the link above does seem to show this particular occurance, not only that it also shows a history of deficiencies with the DSC2 system, and that in this particular case the candidate has stopped his cheque, i am not sure if that is the correct thing to do in this matter as i am instructed by my legal eagle that having paid for the service by whatever instrument indicates legally that you agreed to the sum raised and in law is considered the end of a transaction , apparently you cannot at a later date revisit or challenge an error,but if goods or services were suppled and they proved to be defective and proved not suitable for the purpose they were designed for then thats a different issue, as only a service was provided in this case here a legal challenge may be flawed from the outset. If there was dissatisfaction it should have been raised at the time and if agreement could not have been sorted amicably then it would have needed to be resolved in court.

So a lesson to be learned here if you are not satisfied dont pay and that reffers to all issues
It most certainly looks like there is a lot of disatisfied candidates out there dosent it, which does not bode well for DMQ i am sure they could well do without all this adverse ill feeling , as with any product in any industry if bad reports are being banded about it does not show them in a fair light and as i have previously stated this being through no fault of their own, but they can make major changes , i was rather hoping that Ged (Tiggs) would have come into the arena with his idea which in my view would most certainly block out a lot of malpractices that are bringing the award into disrepute by those unscrupulous individuals who have seen it as a money making scam.
I dont want to take away Geds glory of his idea as it was he who thought of a way forward and one i personally would go along with.
1. An area assessor is appointed for each county or group of counties who is directly accountable to DMQ. Pref. employed directly by them.
2. Appointed Accredited witness working directly under the assessors control who can prove to him they are honest and fair who do not receive any financial renumeration whatsoever etc out of pocket expenses in other words unpaid volunteers who can only be allocated to a prospective candidate by the head assesor who is in full control of the candidates progress.
3. A set fee to be agreed of say £300-400 paid by a prospective candidate directly to the assessor to cover the admistration cost of the prospective candidate, other out of pocket expenses paid directly to the accredited witness .
4. Choice of venue to be agreed with the head assessor prior to taking the assesment if not carried out on candidates ground on land where the assessor is familiar with quantities of animals present and a fair representive of likelyhood of the candidate being succesfull in demonstrating his or her competency.
Should the candidate be unlucky in his or her endevours through lack of beasts making the test incomplete then provision should be made for such a candidate to complete at another venue agreed with the assesor at either no further expense or minimal cost

in legal eyes it may be deemed unjust to stop the cheque now,

the fact now is that the situation can be addressed and a compromise reached to the benefit of both parties.

the stalker might just realise he has been bumped and is not going to get away with extortionate rates.

A small claims court is the most likely venue to see this dispute next.
They are of course concerned with seeing that justice is done and will not place undue weight onto the point that a cheque has been uttered and then repudiated.
The AW is likely to be called upon to justify his approach and charges viz a viz the DMQ setup and the Tyro the same. The judge will then attempt to mediate a solution and if necessary, impose a judgement.
Obviously, attendance is expensive in terms of time and risk and both parties would be well advised to open a dialogue and settle matters between themselves.
A one sided public airing probably isn't a good prelude to success for the aggrieved and the accused may well feel he's been hung out to dry without the opportunity to put his perspective.
Naming names on a public BB is not likely to lead to a reconciliation

My english is not good enough to describe what I think about your rules.

But my experience from Norway and USA suggests that they are to much. Seems like the agenda is to keep people from hunting rather than help them to do it. If I continue to compare with Norway and USA, two coununtries in opposite ends concerning access to private lands, both stimulate new hunters and make it easy for everyone to go hunting.

Probably to do with people per area but better with special drawings than shutting people out.

I might have misunderstood the whole thing.

All AW's are sponsored by an assessor I suggest your friend phones DMQ and asks for the contact details of the AW's Assessor. Ring the assessor if you get no joy there then get the details for the Senior Interal Verifier and speak to him.
The ultimate poc would be to write to the DMQ quality assurance group and request they deal with this matter.

I have to say though the only part of the two days I can see that DMQ could be asked to look in to is the £75 charges for filling the ICR's which has not been done. The rest is a private arrangement between stalker and client.

I wasnt there so do not know but having taken people out before I have seen what can happen. Was the Buck shot the only buck there or did your friend shoot it when told to shoot another?

Pleas don't take offence just asking.

Surely the AW has been negligent as well in respect to letting the candidate carry on and shoot another 8 beasts after demonstrating that he wasnt ready and competent shooting another 8 beasts are not in the following few days are not going to improve the candidates performance. My view is that this was a deliberate means of extracting a few bob from the candidate what the AW should have done is stopped him and filled the portfolio out in respect of the criteria the candidate had met and made a note in the portfolio as to were he required to address further competence.
My view on the matter is quite clear the candidate has justification to complain on all counts.

I think that from what has been posted the stalker (AW) is related to Dick Turpin.

But then why did the candidate shoot 6 deer more than he needed to?

Why wasnt the paperwork done at the end of the first day?

This is fairly typical I will bet the candidate did not speak to his assessor (not AW but assessor listed in the portfolio) prior to booking his trip, if he did, he should of been briefed on what to expect and what to be aware of.

Wasnt Dick Turpin a Highway man?
or was that Robin Geet?

This is just descending into speculative why's & wherefores, This guy should be named & shamed, it's blatantly obvious what has gone on, IF, & I mean IF, the original account is factual!& Why should it not be so?, Surely the candidate would not be so foolish as to recount some fairy story?

quote:

Originally posted by Mannlicher Stu:
Surely the AW has been negligent as well in respect to letting the candidate carry on and shoot another 8 beasts after demonstrating that he wasnt ready and competent shooting another 8 beasts are not in the following few days are not going to improve the candidates performance.

If you look at the AW Witness guide mentioned earlier, there is no obligation for an AW to do this. However, I would think that common sense says that if the candidate makes a hash of the first couple of stalks, the AW would suggest calling a halt to the assessment and offer to coach the candidate instead...

If the AW percieved Candidate as being simply "borderline" and it was therefore worth carrying on the assessment, I would have expected the Candidate to have at least some of the PC's signed off...

It would be interesting to know if the Candidate was offered the chance to fill in the "Candidate Narrative" part of each ICR, and whether the AW filled in the "Witness Additional Notes"...

No matter how the rest of the assessment progressed, these two sections should have been filled in and signed off /read by both parties as all they are is essentially an outline of the events of the day.

In this case, after an explaination to the Candidate, I would expected the AW to have made notes on the short comming of the Candiate and why he could not sign off any of the PC's...

The Candidate should then be able to account for his version of events, and this enables the Assessor to read both sides, plus both parties go away knowing where they stand, even if they don't particularly agree.

Where the assessment has been less acrymonious, the AW notes should provide the Candidate the information on why a particular PC's wasn't signed off and where he needs to "improve" before his next assessment...

Edited to add, I'm beginning to wonder whether the AW actually finds the ICR difficult to completes...

Many people are not "academically minded" and their talents are in a more hands-on/practical way...If thats the case, it could even explain with the AW feels the need to charge £75 for the assessment...

Regards,

Peter

Steve,

I think the guy has been named and shamed somewhere in the thread...

Regards,

Peter

If he has been brought out into the full light of day, I reckon he should be given the chance to comment / defend his actions or lack of, Naturally, prospective candidates will make up their own mind over this, & then things will take their natural course, he will either fall by the wayside or talk his way out of it!

Based on what we has been posted here, a formal complaint is justified and the only way to resolve this situation. Then let us have a report of the outcome!

Is the person actually an AW?

as it would appear no one who has been there and posted on this thread or the same thread on other sites has had an ICR filled in.

I am currently working towards my level 2. i had an assessed stalk about a fortnight ago. At the very beginning of the day, over coffee before putting the gear in the car even, i asked the witness what he expected. we discussed the terms of reference before we went out. I adhered to them during the stalk. I think all level 2 candidates should bare this in mind as they stalk. the moment you say "Can i shoot that one?" you are saying "i am unsure if I am selecting the correct animal to cull" so the assessment stops. I hope to train up to AW standard. I will always make sure the candidate is under no illusions at the beginning of the day.