Deer renewal, more problems on the horizon.

Cass

Got my deer renewal this morning and like when they tried to introduce the mandatory HCAP and included questioning a few years before on any courses people have done this year they have included a "note" saying:

While the legal minimum under SI239/1977 is a .22 caliber bullet, producing 1,700ft/lb of no less than 55 gr, a bullet of .240 is more from an appropriate firearm is more suitable to deer hunting.

So there you all have it. The first step to introducing 243 as a minimum caliber. Regardless of your personal views on caliber choice as discussed in the start of this thread if they take the recommendations of the deer alliance and make it a 100gr bullet in a.240 the majority of 243s won't even make the cut and people will be forced to go the "top" end of 243 or move up to a 6.5 at a minimum.

We said this wouldn't happen when they sent out the questionaire a couple of years back asking about any courses, including hcap, that people had done yet that almost happened immediately and is now on the cards for all new comers to the sport, and it's on the renewal once again this year.

Looking through the renewal you have to wonder how they can do what they do. They are a Gov. Dept and must follow the legislation the same way we do, yet we have:

• An attempt to increase the minimum caliber
• A demand for information on courses when none are required
• A demand for 100 acres when there is no legal minimum in legislation

Grizzly 45

Dunno, this NPWS must be hard of learning.Or missing a copy of their primary legislation that covers their dept.
It seems that in the last three years now they seem to come up with this BS every season.We have to go running to our organisations and raise Hell about this until the next season rolls around.
Of course, nothing is helped if our respective organisations who are supposed to keep an eye on this yay say or say nothing at all. Isn't this where whatever stalking bodies we have should be making an utter row about this??...Sounds of crickets Oh sorry...Forgot ...THEY recommended this calibre ban!:mad:
BTW did you notice also the sneaky wording of "Have you a national recognisedHCAP or equivalent certification"? So forget any of those other EU or US inferior hunter licensing, and any EU legislation on transferability of documentation and qualifications.Either HCAP or CSI or go hump seems to be the new message here.
It would be of more help that they get this utterly archaic nonsense of an annual license to a 3-year affair on par with our gun licenses.

Truly, our worst enemies are in our own ranks here.

Vegeta

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Truly, our worst enemies are in our own ranks here.

Google Regulatory Capture. What is going on is so transparent it's embarrassing. Every time one of these restrictions is suggested I am going to e-mail the responsible government body and inform them that placing regulations on citizens for the benefit of those lobbying for these regulations could be extremely damaging to a government if we shout loud enough.

Cass

Vegeta wrote: »

Google Regulatory Capture.

Nice to be able to put a term to what we've all being saying for so long now. Vested interest groups lobbying for changes that will directly benefit them.

Cass

Who is actually going to fill in the bit about "nationally recognised HCAP or equivalent" part of the their renewals?

Seeing as how the HCAP is not recognised by the Dept as per the Minister's own statement in November 2017 i wonder what course they are referring to?

Grizzly 45

Now we have to ask ourselves the following too...As they state "nationally recognised" Does that mean the UK, German, French, US qualifications are not recognised here and by whom and under what authority are they recognised or not recognised by?

So if we all put down No, the following scenario comes about no doubt." A report by the Dept finds that XX% of Irish deer stalkers have no qualifications by their own admission to hunt deer humanely, and therefore some sort of mandatory course must be introduced."
The YES " The dept finds that there is an overwhelming success in the mandatory deerstalking course, and recommends that it is introduced for ALL deer stalkers in Ireland, regardless of other qualifications they have."
Dammed if we do and damned if we don't.

So let's send them an email, letter on the following;
Could they please clarify the following points?
1] What do they define as a nationally recognised qualification? Apart from HCAP and CSI deer stalking course?Are previous IS hunter courses of the 1990s now null and void?
2]By whose authority are they "nationally recognised",and please quote revelant part of the wildlifeacts 1976 /2004 that such is necessary for granting a deer stalking permit in the ROI.
3] Bearing in mind EU legislation on the interchangeability of skills and qualifications PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS DIRECTIVE (2005/36/EC), oor any such directive as applied to firearms license holders and EU hunters. Are non-Irish qualifications now exempt or null and void under this query?

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Now we have to ask ourselves the following too...As they state "nationally recognised" Does that mean the UK, German, French, US qualifications are not recognised here and by whom and under what authority are they recognised or not recognised by?

You're missing the point. There is NO nationally recognised course. HCAP, DSC1, DSC2, or any other course is not officially recognised by the Dept. As per the Dept.:

Letter from dept, December 2017 wrote:

There is currently no requirement for any applicant for a deer hunting license to have any particular training or certification.

Coilte can accept what they want but they are not the Dept in charge, and even the NPWS cannot make official, national, recognition without a change to the legislation.

Its a leading question that is off the same vein as the one from a couple of years ago when they asked it on the renewal forms, after which we saw the notification of the introduction of a mandatory course (now shown to be false).

Letter from dept, December 2017 wrote:

The Dept have no contract with the Deer alliance or any other body in the form of a contract or otherwise to provide such courses which shows that no tender for such certification has been released or won by ANY group.

It should be pointed out that the Dept has no contract with the Deer Alliance to undertake such courses. Neither are there proposals under consideration which would see the department entering into a contract with the Deer Alliance or other bodies to provide such courses.

Grizzly_45 wrote:

So if we all put down No, the following scenario comes about no doubt." A report by the Dept finds that XX% of Irish deer stalkers have no qualifications by their own admission to hunt deer humanely, and therefore some sort of mandatory course must be introduced."

A course is coming, we already know this so its not like refusing to answer will bring one about as if it were not going to happen. Again from the Minister's press release in November of 2017:

Minister's Statement wrote:

In that regard the Minister is satisfied that the most appropriate course of action is to consider the introduction of an appropriate training and certification process for first time applicants for deer hunting licences to commence from a date which will be determined in due course but certainly no later than 2020

Grizzly_45 wrote:

The YES " The dept finds that there is an overwhelming success in the mandatory deerstalking course, and recommends that it is introduced for ALL deer stalkers in Ireland, regardless of other qualifications they have."
Dammed if we do and damned if we don't.

They are already aware of the numbers that have done the HCAP and recognise that other bodies have begun running courses:

Letter from dept, December 2017 wrote:

While there is only one hunter competency course, it is the Departments understanding that there are other organisations which are in the process of developing equivalent certification programmes.

Grizzly_45 wrote:

So let's send them an email, letter on the following;
Could they please clarify the following points?

My own thoughts, which i'll be doing, is to leave it blank and if they refuse or ring up to get me to answer it i'll ask them the above and ask under what authority they demand such a course.

AlAlkovitch4

All the sounds coming out of Coillte and the Dept are for big business to get their hands on the main stalking rights within the country...they will start with this bull in Wicklow and when they get their hands on it and are fleecing the ordinary hunter for permits they will run it out all over the country...thin end of the wedge. Small few with vested interest will make a lot of Money

solarwinds

Let them and when they have no deer left to shoot then where will they be. Deer have lasted a long time under the current system. And to change it now for the benefit of tourism or a few vested interests will only hasten the decline of the population of deer.
Reminds me of a local business man who organised shooting parties for UK shooters. They would enter an area with no permission from land owners or local clubs, shoot anything that moved then move to a different area tomorrow.
After a few years he ran out of areas and wildlife.
The quick buck is all well and good but it does not one jot to benefit the countryside.
Unfortunately all the countryside is now to the powers that be sitting in their leafy suburbs is another comodity to be exploited and let someone else worry about the aftermath.
Rant over

meathstevie

AlAlkovitch4 wrote: »

All the sounds coming out of Coillte and the Dept are for big business to get their hands on the main stalking rights within the country...they will start with this bull in Wicklow and when they get their hands on it and are fleecing the ordinary hunter for permits they will run it out all over the country...thin end of the wedge. Small few with vested interest will make a lot of Money

In a scenario like that I predict a lot of old fashioned poaching for the pot rather than for profit.

gunny123

Could a group of shooters who resent this move get together, and run the hcap free of charge ? This would stop the course pushers making any money out of it, which lets face it is all they are worried about.

gunny123

solarwinds wrote: »

Let them and when they have no deer left to shoot then where will they be. Deer have lasted a long time under the current system. And to change it now for the benefit of tourism or a few vested interests will only hasten the decline of the population of deer.
Reminds me of a local business man who organised shooting parties for UK shooters. They would enter an area with no permission from land owners or local clubs, shoot anything that moved then move to a different area tomorrow.
After a few years he ran out of areas and wildlife.
The quick buck is all well and good but it does not one jot to benefit the countryside.
Unfortunately all the countryside is now to the powers that be sitting in their leafy suburbs is another comodity to be exploited and let someone else worry about the aftermath.
Rant over

The trouble is these Arfur Daly types milk something for as much cash as possible for as long as possible, and when it collapses, move onto some other scam, selling dodgy tv boxes or puppy farming or something else dubious and unethical.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

The trouble is these Arfur Daly types milk something for as much cash as possible for as long as possible, and when it collapses, move onto some other scam, selling dodgy tv boxes or puppy farming or something else dubious and unethical.

And then the PTB go and legislate the fuk out of it in a bolting of stable door after the horse, cows and entire stable has departed effort.:mad:

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And then the PTB go and legislate the fuk out of it in a bolting of stable door after the horse, cows and entire stable has departed effort.:mad:

Ireland, or as i call it "The Gangsters Paradise". It seems the only way to be in this country is bent, and greedy, which it is, from top to bottom :mad:.

AlAlkovitch4

Couldn’t agree more, big money wins out all the time... time we took control back but unfortunately no choices for the people in government... no matter who you put in their all bought and paid for in my opinion

cookimonster

gunny123 wrote: »

Could a group of shooters who resent this move get together, and run the hcap free of charge ?.....

Not aimed at gunny...

But it's never going to be free!!.....

Arguments aside people criticise the quality and validity of the HCAP course, so if you want to improve it your going to have to invest time, effort, resources and materials into it and that costs money.

'Run it at club level some say'.... again who will finance it, and what about the lads who are not affiliated to clubs? Back to square one there, forcing individuals to do something in order to have a deer hunting licence.....sure that's what this discussion is basicly about.

Forget about monopolies, that horse has bolted, Coilte now recognizes HCAP, Country Sports Deer Stalking Training Course and the DSC level 2, the potential for the dam to break is here, the cracks are appearing.

You could in theory run it as a friendly society, try get sponsors etc, bring the cost down to a minimum but after spending close on 30 years training and teaching i can tell you to run a course with any kind of professionalisum and the restraints inflicted by officialdom costs money.

Grizzly 45

Ahem..Online..NRA style Hunter safety course...Free...Pay only the use of range to do the practical shooting test...;)

cookimonster

Is that the IFHTA courses, the only one I see free us the basic firearm safety course. The others are priced over €125.00 for a day course.

If we're comparing apples and oranges with actual NRA (US) courses there are registration fees and the rest is highly subsidised by the NRA and their backers.

Grizzly 45

cookimonster wrote: »

I
If we're comparing apples and oranges with actual NRA (US) courses there are registration fees and the rest is highly subsidised by the NRA and their backers.

Yeah, shows exactly where the priorities are here of our representative shooting orgs in this matter..:mad: Create an unnecessary **** storm of their own to see if they can coin on it off people who had no intrest or desire to go within 5miles of a Coilte let.
Be understandable if it was a govt initiative or proposed legislation, but because of a group of NGBs wanting to stay in and keep their pork barrel projects going, we get it in the neck. Any org with any sense of decency would look at running this course for free for its fee-paying members.:rolleyes:

PS The US NRA hunter safety course online is for free, you only pay for the range use on the day, about 50 dollars, even less if you are a card-carrying NRA member

gunny123

cookimonster wrote: »

Not aimed at gunny...

But it's never going to be free!!.....

Arguments aside people criticise the quality and validity of the HCAP course, so if you want to improve it your going to have to invest time, effort, resources and materials into it and that costs money.

'Run it at club level some say'.... again who will finance it, and what about the lads who are not affiliated to clubs? Back to square one there, forcing individuals to do something in order to have a deer hunting licence.....sure that's what this discussion is basicly about.

Forget about monopolies, that horse has bolted, Coilte now recognizes HCAP, Country Sports Deer Stalking Training Course and the DSC level 2, the potential for the dam to break is here, the cracks are appearing.

You could in theory run it as a friendly society, try get sponsors etc, bring the cost down to a minimum but after spending close on 30 years training and teaching i can tell you to run a course with any kind of professionalisum and the restraints inflicted by officialdom costs money.

Well ok not free, but run at cost ? The ones pushing for this don't care a fig for irish shooting and shooters, its all a cash cow they want to milk. If there is no profit to be made, that would make their endeavours pointless.

cookimonster

gunny123 wrote: »

Well ok not free, but run at cost ? ........

You'd be surprised how the costs would pile up.... printing of literature and or maintenance of web site. If it's face to face training then a venue is needed, maybe insurance add on. Then if there's a practical and let's face it that's a bit of a monopoly at the moment, you have to factor the cost of that into the pot.

I've the HCAP done, my only justification for it at the time was for Coilte leases as i wanted woodland stalking, but at the time and indeed still today I still think it's value for money. I've done plenty of work shops and courses and have been fleeced at them with the absorbent fees charged for very little return in knowledge or resources.

I don't agree with the strong arm tactics been used at the moment and am surprised how it all went South on them in terms of mandatory certification and how badly they managed the whole fiasco, but I do think something needs to be brought in. There where clowns with guns over 40 years ago when I started shooting and their descendants are still out there today roaming the countryside.

I don't buy into the idea that just because your granted a firearms licence, then your good to go, all that says is your legal but that's it.
I hunt and have learnt over the years (still learning) different aspects of the sport but if I wanted to rock up and do some formal target shooting I'm going to have to learn my arse from my elbow. I can still apply for a target rifle, once I tick the boxs, and have no idea what I'm about. But hopefully in safe environment of a range I'll be less likely to f#ck up.

Grizzly 45

Can I ask? How many accidental hunting-related deaths have we had in total here since records began?? I would say less than 10maybe since the foundation of the state?And of those how many were related to deer hunting?? So either one of two things happens. Luck of the Irish that we don't shoot ourselves or others a lot more.[2] We actually are lackadaisical in lots of things, but apparently not in gun safety?
The reason I am saying this is,I have just read of another German hunting accident, the third one this year, not so far from where we live. When I think how much gun saftey was emphasised, non-stop from the word go on the course and by fellow hunters,I am at a loss as to how a German hunter still managed to shoot a man of 1.90 walking along a forest path in a late twilight from a tree stand and say he thought it was a wild boar!:eek::( So even the having all the qualifications,still might not sort out common sense or buck fever.

cookimonster

Very good point and when I was researching my permits for France it was noted that accidents are common in that shooting fraternity.
I know there are more guns in circulation then the average Joe would even care to guess at and would agree with you as to the low statistics of hunting accidents. From some of the cringe worthy story's that are recanted and some things I observed I do wonder how this comes about.
But did you know that statistically for an island nation we had a very low amount of drownings among the non sea going population. It is said that this was down to a low number of recreational swimmers.. Can the same be said about the nation who's history is not yet 100 years old and through out that had heavy bouts of firearm restrictions and now in recent decades are the number of recreational firearms owners increasing. How many accidents have been reported in the past, I know one lad with a shotgun pellet lodged in his eye, I doubt that went offical.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

You'd be surprised how the costs would pile up.... printing of literature and or maintenance of web site. If it's face to face training then a venue is needed, maybe insurance add on. Then if there's a practical and let's face it that's a bit of a monopoly at the moment, you have to factor the cost of that into the pot.

A lad earning a crust running these courses is not something i'd have an issue with. I also don't mind a company or organisation running it because the profits, after costs, are generally pumped back into the course or sport.

So tell me how the HCAP does this? It's a private person, who owns/runs the Deer Alliance, and after costs the profits go where? I'm not talking about a small number here. I've done this a few times before but once again.

A single hcap test of say 100 lads brings in €16,500. Each Deer alliance person gets a fee for their day. The range gets a fee for the hosting the test, and the location [hotel, etc.] of the MCQ gets a fee. The rest goes to administration of the website, internet service provider costs, and "indirect costs". So break it down. Range costs about €3,000 (100 x €30 per head). Each deer alliance man getting say €250 for their day is 5 x €250 so another €1,250. The hotel/location for the MCQ is most likely about €300 (i've hired function rooms and they are about this). Website domain names, and admin hosting costs are something i'm not sure on but can we agree on €50 per month. The site is basically a blog so postings are done at source.

Allowing for a couple of tests per year it's hard to figure the cost per test but we'll half the yearly cost and say €300 for 6 months. So we're up to €4,800. Some things don't make sense. ISP (internet service provider). This is the monthly internet fee. Usually between €15 to €50 per month. I'd assume it's done by the website management crowd so would be part of the fee above? Also travel costs. If each man is paid for his day does that not include travel costs too? Say they are separate costs. Allow another €600 for both. That makes €5,400. The hcap manual costs €35 so that more than covers printing fees so that doesn't count. So rounding up for any unknown or shortfall i expenses and we can call it €6,000 in expenses per test. So they take in €16,500 and spend €6,000. Where is the other €10,500 gone?

Does it get pumped back into the sport, even in part? The test hasn't changed in nearly 10 years so it's not that. So where does it go?

Previously there were three (3 range tests per year with an average of 120+ lads bringing in €54,000 a year, recently it's been two (2) tests per year with an average or 100 lads bringing in €30,000 per year. Now they say there'll be six (6) range tests this year alone. Give an average of 80 lads per test and you're talking about €80,000 per year, minimum.

All compulsory and all going to a private, non regulated, unrecognised (officially/legally) person. As siad above i'm not opposed to someone making a few quid, but this is not a lad or group that is running a course and making a few quid. This is a company that is trying to get legislation put in place to force EVERYONE to do THEIR course. Just so i can continue to shoot on PRIVATE lands, that i've shot on for the last 20+ years?

I don't agree with the strong arm tactics been used at the moment and am surprised how it all went South on them in terms of mandatory certification and how badly they managed the whole fiasco........

Greed.

they saw an opportunity to try and make THEIR course mandatory and done so without considering that other people are not in a coma or f**king morons and would not stand for it. All it done was highlight their own shortcomings and opened the flood gates for everyone else to get a piece of a smaller pie they already had to themselves.

but I do think something needs to be brought in.

Something is coming. As per the Minister's statement.

There where clowns with guns over 40 years ago when I started shooting and their descendants are still out there today roaming the countryside.

To me this is the same attitude as i'm seeing in the states. A few nutters or unfit people do something stupid and the reaction to to legislate it into oblivion.

As was pointed out above we have the best safety record of any sport. All SELF POLICED. Do you the one thing that would ruin it, Government interference.

I don't buy into the idea that just because your granted a firearms licence, then your good to go, all that says is your legal but that's it.

How would anyone get a start if they're expected to not only be competent but proficient, because whether you realise it or not that is exactly what you're skirting.

We all started without any knowledge and learned over time. Some better and quicker than others and for the rare few, not that much at all. However as long as they are legal, do no harm, then they are as entitled to get a firearm as anyone.

Proficiency is a dangerous and frankly repugnant idea that has been floated before. To introduce some sort of proficiency course or mandate would not only cripple shooting sports, but destroy it. Who is deemed capable of performing such courses? How are they deemed proficient? What qualifications have they? In what firearms? As proficiency can be "lost" who tests the testers?

It also opens the door to graduated license which two groups already tried to get in without even knowing it's ILLEGAL.

I hunt and have learnt over the years (still learning) different aspects of the sport but if I wanted to rock up and do some formal target shooting I'm going to have to learn my arse from my elbow.

And you'd learn target shooting the exact same way as you learned hunting, from someone showing you. It would be even safer as you have to do it on a range and there are rules.

I can still apply for a target rifle, once I tick the boxes, and have no idea what I'm about. But hopefully in safe environment of a range I'll be less likely to f#ck up.

Applying for a target rifle is no different than a "normal" rifle, shotgun, pistol, etc. so i don't see the relevance. As for the range, i addressed that above.

From some of the cringe worthy story's that are recanted and some things I observed I do wonder how this comes about.

Trust in God, everything else you check out.

Stories are good and fun to hear, but some are crap, some are exaggerated, others embellished to no end, some never come to light, and others outright lies.

My point is the statistics say were are very safe, so we're safe.

But did you know that statistically for an island nation we had a very low amount of drownings among the non sea going population.

i know the comparison you're trying to draw but you can drown in a bathtub. A gun/firearm is a dangerous tool and everyone that owns one knows this. We're not some smack head, drug dealing piece of crap that thinks sucking on the end of a Glock is fun.

We are not, and never should be, comparable to other activities.

Can the same be said about the nation who's history is not yet 100 years old and through out that had heavy bouts of firearm restrictions and now in recent decades are the number of recreational firearms owners increasing.

Up to mid 2009 we had some 155,000+ firearm owners, with over 230,000 licensed firearms. That number dropped like a stone in 2009 with the introduction of the 2009 Act, the banning of C/F pistols, and other factors.

Over the following couple of years numbers were somewhere in the 120,000 owners with 179,000 firearms.

Over the last 5 years we have seen a resurgence with numbers around 140,000 owners and some 215,000 firearms registered. So we're not even back at 2008 levels.

How many accidents have been reported in the past,I know one lad with a shotgun pellet lodged in his eye, I doubt that went offical.

I've seen lads get a "sniper's kiss", another caught his hand on his bolt, another between the action of an O/U, and i've even been on the receiving end myself with a faulty round that exploded in the gun, luckily the bolt held (brass was faulty). No serious injuries, some nothing more than embarrassment.

However we are still among the safest sports out there and to say we've been lucky or it's a fluke is a disservice the work everyone puts in to keep the sport safe. Courses are grand, and learning/education is never a bad thing. Where i draw the line is when after decades without incident we all of a sudden have to have ten courses, a degree in safety, and start off with a toy gun before we can get a real one, when all the stats show we are safer now than we have ever been.

Because people are educating themselves without any legislation to make them do it.

cookimonster

Cass, you make valid points, but please don't tie me into the stupidity of over the top gun control seen in America. I am one, from the outset, that thought the knee jerk reaction to Dunblane was totally uncalled for. A nut case, in possession with illegal firearms goes on the rampage and a high section of the shooting fraternity and others involved are vilified.

I agree that there is a safe record of gun use here but like other tragedies all it could take is the one incident to topple the community, I am in no way talking of a similar incident like Dunblane by the way. Your argument put forth is sound to a point but what about the individuals who don't seek out advice and sound knowledge and can circumvent the system and legally obtain a firearm. Now you have a person who is about the countryside with no idea as to ethical and or safe shooting/hunting.

My point about the range/target shooting was to highlight the difference in disaplines/ knowladge/ skills required for various shooting activities, which are not all transferable. I do know that there is no difference in applying for one firearm or another by the way, again it was used to highlight by personel example differences in disaplines.

Again, I don't agree the way the HCAP thing was rolled out....but besides that I can't begrudge theses guys making money, the course with all its faults is better than nothing......but wait I can hear it now 'I didn't need HCAP when I started off !' That's grand and I didn't do it straight away either when I started to stalk. But I was lucky my father taught me from a very early age about firearms and hunting and when I got into stalking I did so along side competent experienced hunters. How did I know that they where competent because their practices, ideologies etc where in line with what I knew and did. So let's not kid ourselves here there is very real potential for an individual to set themselves up for stalking and have absolutely no clue as to what they are about. Here we have potential for illegality, unethical practice and safety issues.
Contray to what may be expressed the hunting fraternity is a pretty much a closed shop with a lot of us guarding our patch and resources. This may sound cynical and others may not like it, but it's true just look at the on going issues of game clubs, please don't compare this point to ranges or shooting clubs. As both you and I pointed out these are safer environments by design and practice, my concern is with field shooting and the untrained, inexperienced novice or worse still the experienced idiot.
I've pointed it out before and it was dismissed, but I'll day it again their are a raft of courses and credentials required in other countries before you can hunt, so what makes us special here? Please don't dismiss this and say it's not relevant, there has to be a reason that they have them or is it just a money making racket?

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

I am one, from the outset, that thought the knee jerk reaction to Dunblane was totally uncalled for. A nut case, in possession with illegal firearms goes on the rampage and a high section of the shooting fraternity and others involved are vilified.

There is so much more to that story than a nutter with a gun. Accusations and credible evidence of police and political involvement in a paedophile ring, warnings before the shooting, and a massive cover up. However this is not the forum for such talk.

Back on point, you say there were clowns 40 years ago and their descendants are out there now. There are people who may be deemed incompetent out there today, and their descendants will be out there in another 40 years. You cannot legislate nor train the stupid out of some people. Given that we've never had any sort of serious incident and not so much as one mass shooting i think after 160 years we can call ourselves safe.

Its for this reason i don't accept the argument that because a small, small, fraction of the community may not be up to what most would call competent standards is no excuse to introduce mandatory courses that for the last 160 years have not been needed, or compulsory.

In short, its a solution to a non existent problem.

I agree that there is a safe record of gun use here but like other tragedies all it could take is the one incident to topple the community,

Again you cannot legislate for the unpredictable. A lot of things could happen, but trying to think off, and stop them before they are is an endless and futile task.

............... but what about the individuals who don't seek out advice and sound knowledge ....

It's their choice. Forcing them to do mandatory courses, compulsory training, etc, etc. takes their ability to chose from them. Put it this way, i don't know your age, but when you started if someone said you have to do this course, that course, this training, start with a gun you don't want, then maybe we'll (this generic yet unnamed we) will decide if your worthy to get the firearm you actually wanted would you have said "hell yes, lets get this done" or "feck that noise, i'm out".

I keep saying this, but in our long history with no serious incidents why do you think now it might happen or why is training/courses that were never there before suddenly a requirement?

and can circumvent the system and legally obtain a firearm.

Circumvent what system?

Obtaining a firearm with only the very basic of safety/competence is the only prerequisite. This is not circumventing anything, but following the system laid out for us. When i first started i had no idea how a scope worked, how to dial in, etc. Does that mean i shouldn't have gotten a rifle?

In an age of social media and everything you need at your fingertips nothing is as hard to find out or learn about as it was 20, 30, 40+ years ago.

Now you have a person who is about the countryside with no idea as to ethical and or safe shooting/hunting.

I know long time shooters that don't know this stuff. People that others would class as "sound" or "good lad". Also you make it seem the country is crawling with these sort of people. There is no credible way to determine the level of knowledge of everyone and identify those deemed incompetent. Which brings me back to me original point in my other post, who will judge these people, what are their credentials and what makes the so qualified to judge others?

My point about the range/target shooting was to highlight the difference in disaplines/ knowladge/ skills required for various shooting activities, which are not all transferable. I do know that there is no difference in applying for one firearm or another by the way, again it was used to highlight by personel example differences in disaplines.

You make is sound like a target rifle is some sort of "special" firearm or different from any other firearm. They're not. A CZ2 is a target rifle when shooting at targets, a Sako 85, a TRG, a Beretta O/U. They are all just firearms until they are used for targets.

As for a range, the comparison seems redundant. If you join a range you abide by their safety rules because you are in close quarters with many other people, but you are not forced to do mandatory courses or training, and will not be expelled if you don't want to do them. You also won't be charged for the privilege.

Again, I don't agree the way the HCAP thing was rolled out....but besides that I can't begrudge theses guys making money, the course with all its faults is better than nothing.

I couldn't give a crap about their course or if people want to give them money for it. What pisses me off is when these self titled experts say i have to do it, and so does everyone else, oh and by the way we're [them] pushing for it to be a legal requirement which just so happens to line our pockets.

The course was mandatory for everyone, and now it's on hold, temporarily, and when it does come in it'll be for newbies. As i won't be affected by any course, but am still pissed, does that not tell you how wrong it was for them to do what they tried?

.....but wait I can hear it now 'I didn't need HCAP when I started off !' That's grand and I didn't do it straight away either when I started to stalk.

You didn't and still don't. However you chose to do it, and thats fine, but that is not what they tried.

How did I know that they where competent because their practices, ideologies etc where in line with what I knew and did.

So you deem them competent because they did what you did, which is what they taught you?

So let's not kid ourselves here there is very real potential for an individual to set themselves up for stalking and have absolutely no clue as to what they are about. Here we have potential for illegality, unethical practice and safety issues.

More of this "won't someone think of the children"!

People that act illegally will take no heed of new laws so thats a moot point. I also reject your idea that people without training will act illegally.
As for unethical practices, that happens today, by people that would be considered competent and well able to shoot. Unintentional actions can happen to the best of us, and those done through ignorance cannot be quantified so starting it does happen or will is both unsubstantiated and without merit/proof.

Contray to what may be expressed the hunting fraternity is a pretty much a closed shop with a lot of us guarding our patch and resources.

This is not new or even news. It's a long held ideology and has been the way for decades. Gun clubs not allowing in outsiders, people coveting lands they have permission on, etc.

None of this is cause for compulsory courses, petitioned for by people set to make substantial amounts of money off it. At the moment its deer stalking, how till it's foxes, then rabbits, pigeon, pheasants, ducks, etc, etc.

I've pointed it out before and it was dismissed, but I'll day it again their are a raft of courses and credentials required in other countries before you can hunt, so what makes us special here? Please don't dismiss this and say it's not relevant, there has to be a reason that they have or is it just a money making racket?

What makes you believe that if other countries do it, we must?

I'm not dismissing it as much as saying it's a moot point. We already tow the line of oru EU masters and i sure as sh*t won't be giving up the only thing that affords me any real freedom to more bureaucracy.

We are a small country and our firearm saturation is small compared to other countries. 65 million in the UK, 85+ million in Germany, 69 million in France, 38 million in Poland, 47 million in Spain, etc. With so many people and a much, much larger population they either need such control or simply enacted it.

We have a tradition in Ireland that is uniquely ours. While we have set backs and further restrictions imposed on us for the most part people still enjoy the freedom of shooting. Its one of those things that you can grab the gun, head out for afew hours and if you get something grand, if you don't so be it. Start adding courses, mandatory training, licenses for every aspect, and you not only destroy the sport, you remove the freedom it affords.

I got my permissions by asking, i got my gun by showing i was of good character, i shoot only my land,s don't break the law, and don't act the f**kwit. Who has the right to tell me what i'm doing is wrong or needs to be administered by an outside agency or group? Same applies to a newcomer. You restrict the sport from the start and those that manage to even start will soon be pushed out through costs, hassle, or simply loss of interest.

cookimonster

There is so much more to that story than a nutter with a gun.

....which still led to a backlash on the shooting community!

Given that we've never had any sort of serious incident and not so much as one mass shooting i think after 160 years we can call ourselves safe.

First of all this is not about the potential for mass shooting etc, this is mundane firearm safety, edicate and hunter competency in the field. Secondly please show me the time line for 160 years of shooting, considering many State records don't go back that far.

Again you cannot legislate for the unpredictable. A lot of things could happen, but trying to think off, and stop them before they are is an endless and futile task.

No, not good enough, you don't have to think hard, basic safety is dealt with in the application process for a firearm, not matter what one may think of it its there, so why not ensure that a hunter has a basic knowledge of what their about?

It's their choice. Forcing them to do mandatory courses, compulsory training, etc, etc. takes their ability to chose from them.

...and your point?... what about driving licences etc you've no choice, the firearm licence?, no choice... so why not a competency cert for hunting?

Put it this way, i don't know your age, but when you started if someone said you have to do this course, that course, this training, start with a gun you don't want........

But this is the point, I started off in a controlled environment with my father, taught the principles of shooting and brought along hunting, absorbed the knowledge, corrected when I f#cked up. My father in a similar way with his father and brothers. An individual can purchase a firearm, does a basic competency course, but has no idea about hunting in a safe, ethical and legal manner. By the way I'm just short of 50 years toddling along this earth

I keep saying this, but in our long history with no serious incidents why do you think now it might happen or why is training/courses that were never there before suddenly a requirement?

Can you supply statistics of gun ownership going back, 100, 90, 80, 70 years. Has the amount of firearms for recreational use, outside of guns maintained by farmers for vermin etc increased over those years . Car accident statistics were relatively low until cars became more wide spread in use.

Circumvent what system?

I may have used the wrong 'wording' but an individual again legally gets a firearm for hunting (any species in respect of the firearm) but in fact has no prior knowledge of hunting. This and I want to make it quite clear now is not about preventing individual owning firearms or stopping them hunting, it is about insuring that those who get into hunting have some short of understanding to what their doing.

When i first started i had no idea how a scope worked, how to dial in, etc. Does that mean i shouldn't have gotten a rifle?

Whats the workings of a scope or dialing got to do with the argument?, many lads i know can't strip their firearm beyond removing the bolt so they can drop a cleaning rod down the bore. But this does not impact on their hunting competencies.

In an age of social media and everything you need at your fingertips nothing is as hard to find out or learn about as it was 20, 30, 40+ years ago.

I believe in the power of Google, but lets not insult each other here, not every one, both young and old can reach out or in fact 'will' reach out. There was an old mantra delivered to use over various periods of training about some people called 'Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody', that still stands today. Assume nothing, check every thing.

...who will judge these people, what are their credentials and what makes the so qualified to judge others?

Hey, I've been out educated and out ranked by many of my students I've thought over the years but this doesn't make me redundant in my job as far as my credentials go. As the systems and procedures change so do we. If a credible system of practice etc can be put in place then so be it. Most of the modes of education that we see here in this country are mirror images of those run else where.

You make is sound like a target rifle is some sort of "special" firearm or different from any other firearm. They're not. A CZ2 is a target rifle when shooting at targets, a Sako 85, a TRG, a Beretta O/U. They are all just firearms until they are used for targets.

Your beating this one with a stick......I, again, used the 'target rifle' and 'range' scenario to high light that if I was to take up formal target shooting in a range then I would have to seek advice, education etc about the subject, that is all, I'm not alluding to anything special about 'target rifles' in regards to a firearms cert.

As for a range, the comparison seems redundant. If you join a range you abide by their safety rules because you are in close quarters with many other people,

Nope, and in your own text above you highlight my point 'If you join a range you abide by their safety rules........in close quarters with many other people, and what of the inexperienced hunter on their own with no one to guide him.

but you are not forced to do mandatory courses or training, and will not be expelled if you don't want to do them.

No but i assume, you've been indoctrinated into the club rules and regulations etc, been given a safety brief and so on and so forth. How long would you be standing on the fireing point or be a member if their where breeches of such codes etc. I assume form my limited use of civilian ranges that members and officials would re-educate those who needed it.

I couldn't give a crap about their course ......

Again I agree with you on the way it was rolled out, but like caliber choice and referendums this seems to be divided by beliefs' and feelings, mine being some sort of competency should be done, even if its an on line thing. I couldn't, and to paraphrase you, 'give a crap' about anyone's shooting ability, although it seems to be the norm with any organised hunting of large game be it Scotland or Africa etc that the client prove the firearm and his ability. So if all it comes down to is you being able to prove simple knowledge of basic field shooting safety, hunting ethics and legality associated then so be it.

You didn't

...but i did for what I wanted to do, I want to stalk woodland and the only way was for me to go through Coilte.

So you deem them competent because they did what you did, which is what they taught you?

Can you compare your practices with others, can you determine when one or more practices, ideology etc are unsound? Have you built up enough experience over the years to determine what is right and wrong?, rhetorical questions, ..... I have read enough of your posts in the past to respect your knowledge and opinion on a lot of things shooting related, so I know your able to make a judgement call. Again the bones of the argument lie in the ability for an individual to go a field hunting with 'no knowledge what so ever'

More of this "won't someone think of the children"!

Drop it, its beneath you....... its not about the children or any such sh*t, reread my last point above.

People that act illegally will take no heed of new laws so that's a moot point. I also reject your idea that people without training will act illegally.

Your right people will do what they want once they chose to break the law.
I'm not talking poaching as intentional, poaching through ignorance of the legislation, regulation, what ever. 'I didn't know I could not shoot a hind in September', 'What you can't shoot pheasants with a .22 rifle?' , sound familiar, many other similar posts to be found here, ....at least they asked or were educated on the subject, how many don't ask

As for unethical practices,......

Education is a key to discouraging any form of unethical practice in any aspects of life.

This is not new or even news......

The point being is that we can't rely on the existing community to help develop new comers to hunting. Game Clubs would be and ideal place to nurture the novice, but not every one will be in a club.

What makes you believe that if other countries do it, we must?......
I'm not dismissing it as much as saying it's a moot point.

But just because we don't do doesn't mean that we are right, every one else in the room is wrong except us?

We are a small country and our firearm saturation is small ......

Are we out growing our boots?, back to my previous point, has the ownership of firearms increased to such an extent that maybe we need to have a look see?

Start adding courses, mandatory training, licenses for every aspect, and you not only destroy the sport, you remove the freedom it affords.

Don't buy this, how those this effect all those hunters who live in countries that courses are mandatory form doing the same?

I got my permissions by asking, i got my gun by showing i was of good character, i shoot only my land,s don't break the law, and don't act the f**kwit.

Okay cool, you ticked the boxes in as far as getting your firearm and you obtained land permissions. Anyone meeting the criteria can do that, all I'm saying is that there should be some sort of training for a person if they wish to actual hunt, again apply the KISS method but put something into place.

Serious question here, I hope I word it right and you interpret as I mean it to be:
What in terms of hunting with firearms would you define a f**kwit or actions of a f**kwit? (again a serious question)

Who has the right to tell me what i'm doing is wrong

.

Everybody and I mean everybody, because if your doing wrong then it must be corrected.
I will give you the credit that your not of the snow flake generation and therefore can take direction or correction, like normal people. I would take it that if you knew you where doing something wrong you would like to correct yourself. So why not have some education or process in place based on sound knowledge, recognized practice etc to ensure best practice.
We might not agree on all the terms of reference etc but hey look up the quote from John Lydgate........

But at the end of the day all of this is a moot point, ...............its above our pay scale for either side of the argument.

Cass

I've split the reply into multiple posts, hopefully make reading it a little easier.

cookimonster wrote: »

....which still led to a backlash on the hunting community!

And is still irrelevant as it's not Ireland.

First of all this is not about the potential for mass shooting etc,

You brought the topic up, not i.

Secondly please show me the time line for 160 years of shooting, considering many State records don't go back that far.

Here. Ireland shooting competitively since 1865.

No, not good enough, you don't have to think hard, basic safety is dealt with in the application process for a firearm, not matter what one may think of it its there, so why not ensure that a hunter has a basic knowledge of what their about?

You're changing your stance again. You brought up the topic of incidents or mass shootings to which i responded. You also brought up the topic of "only taking one incident" which my reply above is to. You cannot prepare for something that has not happened and may never happen and to legislate for it is to further restrict the sport over a non event.

...and your point?... what about driving licences etc you've no choice, the firearm licence?, no choice... so why not a competency cert for hunting?

Let me say this one last time. Driving a car is not the same as owning a firearm. In any way, shape or form. If you make a conscious decision to learn to drive you are in a vehicle that will interact with others on a daily basis and causes more deaths in one year than shooting sports has its its entire existence.

Secondly shooting is a pastime, and the amount of regulation we already have to abide by is only because we use shotgun or rifle instead of a Hurl, or golf club.

But this is the point, I started off in a controlled environment...

According to whom? You? This is MY point. You consider it controlled. A mandatory course removes that judgement and places it with someone else you'll charge you for the same.

with my father, taught the principles of shooting and brought along hunting, absorbed the knowledge, corrected when I f#cked up.

And for those not so lucky as you or i? What do they do?

Sometimes people have to go it alone until they find their feet. Once they are off good character, enough to get a firearm, they should not be prevented from doing so just because they haven't done a mandatory course.

Can you supply statistics of gun ownership going back, 100, 90, 80, 70 years.

No. Cannot even get proper stats for the last ten years let alone further back. The DoJ ask AGS, and they say it's forthcoming, but it rarely does. Also as this and this showed, their stats cannot be trusted so anything i give is made up or inaccurate.

Has the amount of firearms for recreational use, outside of guns maintained by farmers for vermin etc increased over those years .

No idea, but with a growing population and individual wealth since the 1870s or even 1920s i'd imagine the answer is yes.

I may have used the wrong 'wording' but an individual again legally gets a firearm for hunting (any species in respect of the firearm) but in fact has no prior knowledge of hunting. This and I want to make it quite clear now is not about preventing individual owning firearms or stopping them hunting, it is about insuring that those who get into hunting have some short of understanding to what their doing.

But it is.

A mandatory course, along with a level of proficiency you mentioned prior, would stop people getting a firearms license if they fail. If everyone passes like in the current HCAP (example here, second reply of mine) then what use is it?

Whats the workings of a scope or dialing got to do with the argument?,

Simply an example, same as you saying about how your Father thought you.

many lads i know can't strip their firearm beyond removing the bolt so they can drop a cleaning rod down the bore. But this does not impact on their hunting competencies.

Possibly, i cannot say for sure as i don't know them.

I believe in the power of Google, but lets not insult each other here, not every one, both young and old can reach out or in fact 'will' reach out. .

Not just Google but the ability to make contact with others. We have a lot of posts/threads with people asking to shadow hunters to learn. While not everyone can or will take advantage of this i wouldn't preclude someone or "punish" them with endless mandatory courses because they started shooting in a time when mandatory courses as an idea is being floated simply because it doesn't affect me or how i started.

Hey, I've been out educated and out ranked by many of my students I've thought over the years but this doesn't make me redundant in my job as far as my credentials go.

I've highlighted the key point there. What are the credentials of people running these courses? That they've been shooting for 30+ years? All that can mean is they've been wrong longer or read it from a book with no practical experience.

If a credible system of practice etc can be put in place then so be it.

As i've said nothing against training or courses, but not mandatory or imposed or reliant on your ability to pass to get a firearm or to take part in a sport.

It's privatisation of a free sport by a vested interest group.

Cass

Your beating this one with a stick............ I'm not alluding to anything special about 'target rifles' in regards to a firearms cert.

You brought it up, again, and keep highlighting a target rifle as though it were some sort of different beast to all other firearms.

........ and what of the inexperienced hunter on their own with no one to guide him.

You've answered it yourself.

No but i assume, you've been indoctrinated into the club rules and regulations etc, been given a safety brief and so on and so forth.

Of course, but only when i joined a range. I was hunting for years before that without any such course/training. Safely.

....... divided by beliefs' and feelings, mine being some sort of competency should be done, even if its an on line thing.

There is a competency requirement already in law. You must show competence via one of four ways:

1. Competence course and letter
2. Letter of support from other shooters
3. Previous experience with firearms
4. Training license

...but i did for what I wanted to do, I want to stalk woodland and the only way was for me to go through Coilte.

Exactly my point, it was your choice to do the course for the type of shooting you wanted to do.

This is about a forum of vested interest groups that want to make everyone do a course that they would directly benefit from in financial terms, to shoot on lands they have no control over or stake in.

Again the bones of the argument lie in the ability for an individual to go a field hunting with 'no knowledge what so ever'

This is, again, a key point. We ALL started of with no knowledge, no experience and green behind the ears. You and i were lucky enough to have friends and family to teach us and show us the ropes. Some are not so lucky.

You might say well doesn't this make a greater case for courses and i would argue not. If you fail the course you don't get the firearm and don't start in the sport. Even the worst, knuckle dragging moron, knows not to point a gun at someone, and not to fire where you cannot see. Our safety record in all aspects of shooting proves that.

While the topic is about deer stalking i see the slow introduction of mandatory courses becoming a thing to the point i some counties (think it was Donegal off the top of my head) they [AGS] are handing out forms to be filled in for people seeking to shoot foxes. Completely illegal of course but this is the edge of the slippery slope.

I said above that such courses won't affect me, but i'm still livid that their introduction is being considered, on a mandatory basis. If someone chooses to avail of training via a course then good on them, but they should not have it forced upon them.

Drop it, its beneath you....... its not about the children or any such sh*t, reread my last point above.

I did, and the point you raised in your previous post about new comers circumventing the system, committing illegal acts, acting unethical, etc. You have no proof or stats (as you asked me above) to show any of this is true so its disingenuous to cite them as reasons.

Your right people will do what they want once they chose to break the law.
I'm not talking poaching as intentional, poaching through ignorance of the legislation, regulation, what ever. 'I didn't know I could not shoot a hind in September', 'What you can't shoot pheasants with a .22 rifle?' , sound familiar, many other similar posts to be found here, ....at least they asked or were educated on the subject, how many don't ask

First off if you only read the back of your deer license it'll tell you what and when to shoot.

Secondly i get your point about educating people and if they choose to do so then fine, but the whole point of this thread, and previous threads on the subject, was not about the pros and con of training, but the manner in which one vested interest group was going to try and push through changes that financially benefited themselves.

Education is a key to discouraging any form of unethical practice in any aspects of life.

I wouldn't disagree with that but not via forced training, and not by the current group. The MCQ might teach a person something they didn't know, and i'd be ignorant to think i knew it all, however the other side of testing [the actual shooting part] is, well, lacking.

Your fond of driving analogies so i'll use one. If you fail your driving test do you get to do it again and again, on the same day, until you scrap pass?

Cass

The point being is that we can't rely on the existing community to help develop new comers to hunting. Game Clubs would be and ideal place to nurture the novice, but not every one will be in a club.

Why? Genuinely, why?

Its been this way for years and years so i don't see your point on how there is suddenly a problem when there previously wasn't (or at least not the same extent).

But just because we don't do doesn't mean that we are right, every one else in the room is wrong except us?

We have things in Ireland that other countries don't so my point is the grass is not always greener, and we're are own people. We don't have to do what others do simply because we think it's better.

Are we out growing our boots?, back to my previous point, has the ownership of firearms increased to such an extent that maybe we need to have a look see?

No. According to the available statistics are firearm ownership level is average among other countries, and below par to yet more. As said in my previous post we still have no gotten to pre 2009 levels.

What we have now that we didn't were private groups seeking to privatise the various sports by introducing mandatory courses and try to gain control of the various disciplines for monetary gain.

Don't buy this, how those this effect all those hunters who live in countries that courses are mandatory form doing the same?

This is not about America, UK, Spain, France, etc. It's about Ireland where no such system is in place and the introduction of one would stymie the growth of the sport and possibly destroy other parts. I say possibly because i simply don't know.

On another note look to America. Their second amendment affords them a constitutional right to firearms so much so that most don't agree with waiting times, safes, etc with some even arguing against bump stocks, binary triggers, etc. I support their rights, but as someone who grew up with strict gun control i cannot see the problem with safes, waiting times, etc.

IOW it's a matter of what you're used to.

Okay cool, you ticked the boxes in as far as getting your firearm and you obtained land permissions. Anyone meeting the criteria can do that, all I'm saying is that there should be some sort of training for a person if they wish to actual hunt, again apply the KISS method but put something into place.

So even though i've met the legal requirements to get a firearm you think i should now have to do a mandatory course to use it to hunt?

Serious question here, I hope I word it right and you interpret as I mean it to be:
What in terms of hunting with firearms would you define a f**kwit or actions of a f**kwit? (again a serious question)

Anyone that acts in complete disregard to the obvious, nonsensical, and unsafe handling or use of a firearm. Not a mistake, but a purposeful and deliberate act.

Everybody and I mean everybody, because if your doing wrong then it must be corrected.

No. Read it again. I didn't say if i'm doing wrong, i said who has the right to tell me that what i'm doing (me, now, as off today) is wrong? IOW how i got to where i am, without mandatory courses, or that i now after nearly 30 years of shooting need one to be trustworthy/credible?

But at the end of the day all of this is a moot point, ...............its above our pay scale for either side of the argument.

There is the kicker, NO ITS NOT.

This is OUR sport, not theirs to dole out. The attempted introduction of this mandatory course without debate, legislation, tender, etc. was almost a sure thing until it was found out and opposed. You like quotes so i'll take one from Hamlet:

"Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?"

The deer alliance, seen here, laid out all the reason why it was necessary after the initial round of rebuttals from us [the general us] then threw the dummy out of the pram when the opposition took on a much larger scale and the points they aid were of no importance (legality, tender, contract etc) suddenly became an issue.

Remember this is not only about mandatory courses. They have tried to, and currently are, seeking introduction of a change to SI239/1977 which would raise the minimum caliber for deer hunters. I laid out my concerns about that in this thread.

So you have to have a mandatory course, use the caliber of rifle they deem suitable (which would be a 6.5 or up), and then what? Whats next?

All by a "non profit" group (that only registered as a company 14 days ago?)

meathstevie

How does one suggest you train a hunter ? What standards do you set ? Personally I'm quite happy with things as they are. You need to satisfy the Gardai that you can handle a firearm safely, that you have somewhere to use it and that you're the type of person that can be trusted with a gun. After that it's up to you to educate yourself on Open Season Orders, species identification, carcass handling, field craft and so on.

Contrary to driving a motor vehicle for example that as an activity attracts thousands of people who have no interest in what they're doing or improving their skill set simply because driving is pretty much a necessity hunting tends to attract people with an interest in the activity which brings with it an interest to learn and discover beyond the level of mere basics.