We in the UK don’t have compulsory hunting tests for Stalkers as yet, which puts us out of step with most of Europe. Our main hunting / shooting association (the BASC) is officially against compulsory testing, but over the last few years has been very successful in introducing and promoting voluntary stalkers training training courses known as the Deer Management Qualification Level One and Level Two.

It has lobbied the Forestry industry and other such organizations to the point that to obtain a stalking lease from a major landowner these days, you must have Level 1 and shortly will need Level 2.

Further many police forces are putting pressure on new stalkers to do the Level 1 course before they will grant a Fire Arms Certificate to own a rifle..In effect “mandatory testing” is being introduced through the back door.

The BASC says it is simply promoting higher standards, but the more cynical of us see them making a fortune from running these courses. Another concern is that mandatory training/testing will be used as an hurdle to restrict firearm ownership and limit access to stalking/hunting in the future…

What do our European friends think of such testing? I believe the German hunting test is particularly difficult to pass and the training for it can be very expensive…How is it in our European countries? Are these tests recipical across Europe?

Regards,

Pete

Why would you want "European point of view"? Why not accept your countrymen point of view?

Pete, I have passed the test in the following countries:

-- Germany - this about on par with the Swiss test concerning curriculum, although there are differences in how the tests are made (written vs. verbal) and wether additional practical work is required (as it is in Switzerland). The Swiss and the German tests are probably the toughest I have run into.

-- France - one step below the German level, but still a whole bunch to learn. No shooting test, no practical part.

-- Denmark - again probably one step below the French test, but has a practical part where you have to show safe gun handling skills, as well as range estimation (for safe and ethical use of a shotgun for hunting various species). Additionally, the Danish system has a separate rifle test, without which you are not allowed to hunt with a rifle - the standard test "stops" at the shotgun level, a traditional Danish hunting weapon.



All of the tests required a fair bit of work (in the canton of Zurich where I live, it typically takes 2 years to pass the test), and while you are studying the additional work is obviously a pain in the posterior. On the other hand, hunters here are in general very well educated before they are let loose in the hunting fields. That is a good thing.



Cost can indeed be considerable - could well run into 1-2000 Swiss Franc in Switzerland, and in general one can not say national tests are acknowledged in neighbouring countries. There are exceptions to that rule - mostly if you live in country A and want to hunt in country B.



- mike

In Belgium, same as in Germany without the practical field probation. Candidates must pass an official (multiple choice)written test (small & big game, game mgt., game laws, firearms) following 60 H (paying) schooling before being eligible for the (paying) practical exam : security and gun handling, shooting with rifle at 100 m (10 shots at 10 cm target -passing score = 60%) and shotgun (passing = 6/10 clays). Success rate is about 40% and no second chance (failed candidates must reapply and repay in full the following year).

Well

In Sweden you have to do one course for class 4 to class 2 weapons. This includes a written test, then a range estimation course, shooting test with rifle and shotgun. A safe gun handeling test. This exam allows you to hunt every from birds with a 22 short rimfire, shotgun to class 2 rifle. A class 2 rifle is anything less than 6,5X55 with a 140 grain projectile.

Class 1 test includes a written test about our large speices. A shootingtest from bench and in a free prosition plus the famous running moose. This also includes safe gun handeling. The test allows you to buy rifle from 6,5X55 and larger.

It is fairly simple about the lever of the french, I guess

/ JOHAN

Pete,
I've passed a course to be "hunter expert in big game and grouse Management" some year ago, already beeing hunter for the Italian law.
This means that I've already passed another examination to demonstrate that I know little and big game, the guns, the rules, the behaviours and the laws, in less all is needed ro be hunter in Italy.
In Italian the first definition means , more or less, that I am able to understand the age, the health of the big game and eventually which animals are to cull or less, which guns are to use etc.etc. Anyone make me know some about Grouse management, but "transeat".
Wild boar and deers species are the big game species.
I had to demonstrate the I was able to shoot five shots in the vital area of a roe deer painted on a target and put at 100 meters. And about this I'm proud to declare that I still have one of the best targets of the Unione Regionale Cacciatori Appennino association.
5 6.5x55SE shots in one hole.
But once again "transeat".
The course is positive to introduce a not skilled hunter to this kind of hunt, but only the experience made with well trained and skilled companions can mould a novice.
The shooting test force many to practise at the range.
We did not have problems on guns with police forces, the courses instead are a real business, where the demand is very strong, but the supply is low and expensive, the hunting areas are not so much with short booking lists. And again high prices.

Time to go home now,
bye

Norseman,



Why do I ask the views of our European friends? For better or worse, the UK is tied to Europe therefore what goes on there has a direct bearing on us at many levels including Fieldsports and Hunting..



Secondly,it might surprise you to know that stalking in the UK is a lot closer in form to that carried out in Europe than to "deer hunting in America".



That is because British woodland stalking in its present form owes is modern origins for the most part to returning Servicemen from the BAOR ( British Army On the Rhine) in the 1950's and 1960's.



These servicemen who saw at first hand how the Germans managed their deer and imported their ideas and stalking lore to the UK where we adopted/adapted them for use here..



At that point, I regret to say we still snared deer and blaste them with bird shot on Pheasant drives!



As a result, even leaving political considerations aside, we still encourage the inter change of ideas ect with our European friends.



With the advent and the spread of the Net and forums such as this, we are know learning more about "deer hunting" in America and other places like New Zealand and Oz and are starting to learn different approaches, and see things with a different view and perspective.



Such interchange of ideas and sharing expirience and in a way kinship with fellow hunters/stalkers from across the world can only be a good thing?



Regards,



Pete

Gents,

Thanks for the interesting responses.

A couple more questions...

If there was a vote for or against mandatory testing in your country, would you vote to retain it or get rid of it and why?

For those of you who have hunted/stalked in Britian or with British sportsmen, do you feel mandatory training/testing here would benifit us in any significant way? I guess what I am asking is do you feel the "average" European a better hunter/more knowledgeable than his "average" British counterpart?

Honest answers amungst friends appriciated!

Regards,

Pete

I can't tell as I only hunted with professional British stalkers or game keepers. What I may say is that on every one of those occasions your pro's have complimented us for our behaviour, game knowledge, hunting skills and shooting.

Pete,
big game hunting has been recently developed in Italy, until eighties only the northern alpine regions already knows this kind of hunt. And wild boar was hunted only in Tuscania.

I have some suspect that the interests of Regions, an administrative power, have matched with the interests of a hunting lobby, the Union of the previous post (not yet created but "in fieri"), and the opening to this kind of hunt has been consequential to the creation of the courses and viceversa.

Regional or provincial rules are the complements and completion to the #152/97 Italian hunt law, and do not need any vote session.

I worry about a referendum on guns or hunt, even if three times hunters and shooters has won, and after all, if courses and test can select or raise the quality level of hunters, and moreover they are not used against hunters, why not?

Pete,
I have some different idea on this argument.
I'm a town dweller, I always lived in Milan, near to the center.
What does it means this phrase? That my familiarity with the country, tha game habits and characteristic is not so good as I would like to have.
The course did not make me an expert, as the pompous definition of the certificate says, but gave me some starting base.
bye

In Sweden, the compulsory hunting exam is being gradually made more and more difficult - in particular the practical tests - but there is also a lot of good information to be gained from the course. A positive effect is that once you have the complete test, you can get permits for up to four rifles/shotguns without motivating the need for them or showing affidavits from landowners etc. The law presumes that as you have made the test, you have a need for the guns. It is a once in a lifetime test and you get your permits for life.



Still, many Swedish hunters feel that the freedom is more and more taken away and you can not get permits for more then six hunting guns in total without being a full time gamekeeper or similar.



We also have a yearly shooting-test when we shoot at a running moose figure at 80 meters. This compulsory in many hunts, sometimes imposed by the landowners, but not by law. There is a lot of discussion about that, and some pressure groups are trying to pull through such a law. This test is rather easy and as much as I dislike laws that restricts hunting, I guess that it would be a good idea with such a law as it would force some hunters to practice a bit more... But this is a rather controversial opinion if you ask old farmers up north.

British,

I believe in these circumstances you can only use the rifle at the club, which you will have to prove the membership of. In this case you wil also not be allowed to use the rifle on deer unless it states it's viability in the restrictions. For example I recently had to add wild boar to my FAC to allow me to shoot them legaly with the rifle i already own... Also you may not be licenced to buy expanding ammunition if you are only target shooting, & game in the UK may only be shot with expanding ammo.

More than likely someone will say otherwise here but the main problem lies in the lack of consostency on the police forces behalves. I have dealt with 4 different FAC officers in the last few years, and each has requested different stipulations before they stamp my new premisies as OK.

As far as the original question goes. I'm all for educating stalkers/shooters, but I don't believe a 2 day course will ever succeed in doing this. And it is the police's responsibilty to decide if a person is fit to own a firearm. When an open certificate holdng DCS level 2 stalker shot a 4 month old fawn in sussex this year his "education" was entirely discredited in my eyes.

FB

FB - Im a bit confused about why you feel the individual that shot a 4 month old fawn demonstrated poor judgement. Was it identified incorrectly as a Roe or something similar?
Ian

British,

With regards the circumstances of owning a particular caliber and its use, my understanding is the same as Fallow Bucks.

However, I disasgree when he as its down to the police to decide who is fit to own a firearm; I see it as quite the reverse! The Police should only prevent you owning a firearm if you are unfit and surely it should be up to them to demonstrat that if they refuse to grant you an FAC??? Thats providing you can satisfy "good reason" of course, which is another hobby horse of mine!

Regards,

Pete

Ian,

As far as this guys judgement is concerned, the shooting of the fawn was a clear indication of the lack of his knowledge. I have to state here and now that I take some responsibility for letting him shoot unaccompanied but ultimately he pulled the trigger.

My point was that if he had passed a DSC2, then he should have been able to identify the beast at 70yds in the daylight. As such My view is that any number of courses cannot make up for the correct experience and attitude.

Personally I don't shoot unless I'm sure of what I'm shootng at. If that means that I can't positively identify a doe from a headless pricket then I won't shoot. I'm sure I cuold get another half a dozen beasts into the larder each season if I took those shots, but that just my way.

FB

Hi Pete,

Your point is exactly what I meant.

It IS the polices job to decide suitabiltiy for FAC ownership, and they should only do this according to the Home-office guidelines. So... if a person fills in the form and shown NO reason for being unsuitable, they should be granted the FAC. Plain and simple.

I don't agree with the police having discresionary powers beyond the guidelines. Asking for DSC qualifications, or other caveats, in order to grant an FAC really gets on my nerves!!

Unfortunately many stalkers choose the easy route, and comply with (what I feel) are unreasonable requests. As such we are creating a percieved normal process and increasing the regulation on ourselves.

While I'm on my soap box, I'll mention another one of my gripes with firearms ownership. The police is very happy to grant a .22 rimfire on relatively small bits of land. Given the riccochet on this round I think it is far more dangerous than many quick centerfires which break up so easily. Yet a suitable person has to jump through hoops to get a .243.

FB

Hi,
I would have to vote AGAINST such a law, as I believe that internal regulation is more efficient (tests made by hunters for hunters) and less beaurocratic.
The first step towards losing any right is making it a pain in the but to attain. Less and less weekend hunters will bother to renew and their kids won't care either. Sure mistakes will ALWAYS be made, but even in countries with hard tests- hunters can be unfit/ out of practice, which leads to much more carnage/suffering than the occaisional mistake in the field.
Imagine how much easier it is to recruit new hunters when all you need is to let them borrow your gun and go hunting together rather than make them sit a written exam etc. and deal with police like a potential criminal.