Grrrrrr Mentoring conditions for Stalking

[Grouse]

I am aware of this and do understand the need for training in that instance, I am referring to the singling out of Deer as a somehow special case for training/qualification before they can be shot, As i said in a previous post All quarry deserve the same level of care and respect when it comes to shooting humanely.

We are asked to conduct these discussions as if chatting over a pint at the pub, a bit difficult with the written word, sometimes its hard to express just what you are trying to explain?

Adrian

Agree totally, also due to the obsession of posting by some, showing long range vermin slaying on the internet, although nothing wrong with it in experienced hands, it could easily be taken out of context by viewing public and FLO.To my mind vermin control is open to more potential mishaps in certain circumstances than deer control.

 

Again reiterating that some form of competency test or whatever is on the horizon...

[srvet]

Meeting with a friends FEO last night. Applicant relatively inexperienced but given a cert for a rimfire and a 22/250 as these are suitable for the less experienced. Denied a 243 as that is far too dangerous! I understand the due diligence thing and also the need to demonstrate experience but cannot see the logic why the 22/250 is safer than the 243. Surely the rimfire/centre fire line would be a far more logical line but go figure !!!!

[Dalua]

Meeting with a friends FEO last night. Applicant relatively inexperienced but given a cert for a rimfire and a 22/250 as these are suitable for the less experienced. Denied a 243 as that is far too dangerous! I understand the due diligence thing and also the need to demonstrate experience but cannot see the logic why the 22/250 is safer than the 243. Surely the rimfire/centre fire line would be a far more logical line but go figure !!!!

 

Is there really any logic in granting RF, yet denying CF, if there is good reason for both?

 

.22LR particularly can bounce about like anything if the backstop/impact angle is poor and fundamentally, a backstop for .22LR is a backstop for any other powder-burner.

 

The answer to most of these questions of found in the Firearms Act which states that a FAC shall be granted to those who have good reason to possess and use the firearms applied for, and who have satisfied the police that they can possess and use them without risk to the public or the peace.

 

The whole conditioned mentoring thing, and likewise attempts to restrict rifles granted initially to smaller 'less dangerous' calibres, fall flat in their face as soon as we recognise this.

'Conditioned mentoring' suggests that the police are granting FACs to folk with whose ability to possess and use firearms safely they are not satisfied - something the Firearms Act says they shouldn't do.

Smaller calibres, even RF, are not in any practical safety-related sense any less dangerous than larger ones.

 

The problem, then, is how a novice gets to understand the safety-related stuff before he is granted a FAC for anything at all. I managed it, and I don't see why others shouldn't.

[gbal]

NO doubt well intentioned but a bit tricky to interpret,hence some of the issues.

 

"Good reason' is readily operationalised and accepted by most applicants and Police ('club shooting","deer stalking with permission" for example.

 

But 'satisfy the police that safe......no risk to public safety and peace" is less well served by clear cut criteria.As it's the Police who are to be satisfied, in the absence of independent criteria (though DSCs help) they interpret this severally,including possible mentoring,and so on. The Police might well prefer better relatively independent guidlines,and to be fair,some progress generally is being made.

 

What would 'satisfy' the shooting community-would we all agree? Thankfully,perhaps BASC et al take on much of this work,and should be credited for their informed input into the progress made to date.

 

gbal

[Safeshot]

gbal,

Are you having a bit of a change of view on this? You gave us a hard time when we first advertised on the site offering training for novices and shooters who want the competency evidence to satisfy the Police! To be fair it was well received and we made some changes based upon yours and others feedback. I agree that there is an absence of criteria, and as you point out DSC1 does satisfy a lot of FEOs. We decided to write our own.

We teach and assess the following:

Safe rifle handling in the field environment

Risk assessment

Land survey

These competencies all have a number of assessment criteria which are assessed by practical exercises, written tests, verbal question and answer and the requirement to assess a piece of land for shooting and produce a written survey report. Fail one element and you get to retake it. Fail two and you fail the course. The tests are not open book.

Our assessors and tutors are all professional full time firearms instructors. They all have appropriate qualifications to teach and assess as they have to have for their day job. They are assessed themselves every year and also have to demonstrate shooting competence every three months.

The course is about the same number of contact hours as DSC1 but with the time spent on safety rather than identifying deer species. The cost is about the same.

Of course any competency based training is based upon the student demonstrating competence on the day of the assessment. We pass the responsibility on to the Police and they have to decide the merits of an application or variation with our certificate attached.

This has been a good debate, well mannered with a good selection of views. We would support more self regulation (not yearly shooting tests or shooters competency cards) but this has to go hand in hand with sensible and uniformly administered firearms regulation.

[Ronin]

Adrian, no U turn at all, it was perhaps the way the post was interpreted for that I apologise for poor composition!

 

I mentioned larger quarry in my initial posts - again perhaps I should have been non prescriptive and included any quarry / targets - encompassing all

 

Annual - again a starting point for discussion, could be annual, bi annual, on renewal, on variation…..

 

 

I see issues with the mentoring scheme and imposed mentoring conditions - as I've stated, who trains or assess a "mentors" ability to be suitable?

 

Just because someone has "tilled the land" for twenty years does not make them a fit and competent person to mentor others.

 

 

Dalula - I take your point, some people do manage to start from being brand new to firearms and become quite safe and able - they are the conscientious ones...

 

 

How many of those are there?

 

 

Again, its ok to make points from specific examples known to the author ("I've never had an accident in 40 years", "I'm quite safe" etc etc as has been posted here from quite a few personal experiences, but we need to be thinking about the thousands of others who hold certificates thinking of taking up stalking for instance or who are applying who have no experience and turn to Mr xyz for help.

 

Only to find down the line that Mr xyz is passing on bad practice, bad habits and bad safety advice...

 

 

If we had a (dare I say) approved scheme, where best practice is taught from the beginning and one where there were a requirement to attend and pass a "regular" - 24 month, 36 month or 48 month one day course covering firearms use wouldn't this go a long way to remove the requirement for a "mentor" or have a scheme to bring mentors up to a national minimum standard…..

[gbal]

Safeshot,thank you for your balanced comments-I don't think I have changed at all (interestingly Ronins reply is adjacent,and seems not dissimilar.) 'Proper" accreditation,if you will.I am glad you were able to incorporate feedback from the previous posts,and there is much as you say here that is coherent and well informed and positive;there can be no disagreement with those as desiderata.

I was not advocating DSCs-just indicating an existing criteria that the Police seem to accept as relevant to their decision. The original point was that 'University of Life' degrees are not to be confused with the real thing (I'm not saying better/worse-just definitely not the same at all-and a great deal more variable in whatever they purport to add to the person's skills).

Accredited relevant qualifications/courses are highly desirable- the detail of the content/process ,and whether mandatory for FAC,are wider issues,meriting discussion and then operationalising.

We would be better to have such 'good courses',no change in my view there. (I was coming in from essentially an educational background,where I'd want any surgery (eg) performed by a qualified medic from a BMA accredited University Hospital,and not by someone who had once had an elastoplast on a minor finger scratch,however well that had healed. Extreme analogy,but you see where I was,and still am,coming from.)

 

Good instruction is to be welcomed.

 

gbal

[dylan5588]

This will be my last post on this subject, I have no problem with some kind of course/test/training before the grant of a certificate, to teach basic safety etc, My point was and still is, No amount of courses/ tests/training can stop accidents etc. maybe reduce them a bit yes, an annual/biannual/ on renewal/ refresher is not going to do anything to stop the, should i say less safety conscious among us, passing the test, then lapsing back into their old ways, that is human nature i am afraid. "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink" I think sums it up. Oh and my 40 something year no accident or incident record is not all through attention to detail and common sense, an element of "there but for the grace of god go i" is also involved, those that think it does not apply to them are just kidding themselves.

Adrian

[Ronin]

This will be my last post on this subject, I have no problem with some kind of course/test/training before the grant of a certificate, to teach basic safety etc, My point was and still is, No amount of courses/ tests/training can stop accidents etc. maybe reduce them a bit yes, an annual/biannual/ on renewal/ refresher is not going to do anything to stop the, should i say less safety conscious among us, passing the test, then lapsing back into their old ways, that is human nature i am afraid. "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink" I think sums it up. Oh and my 40 something year no accident or incident record is not all through attention to detail and common sense, an element of "there but for the grace of god go i" is also involved, those that insist it does not apply to them are just kidding themselves.

Adrian

 

 

Wasn't aiming directly at your replies Adrian - nothing personal