Deer renewal, more problems on the horizon.

cookimonster

Cass, I feel as if we are going around in circles.....but a few points:

Ref: Competitive Shooting 1865
Again a controlled environment not hunting so to me not relevant to my argumemnt.

Ref: Driving test analogy
You are afforded a retest, not on the same day, but a retest all the same.
Re HCAP -So what is the harm in some one been retested until they pass, at least they might learn something from it. It's a hell of a lot better than if someone never got a chance of some formal marksmanship.

Ref: Game Clubs
Why will not every one be in a club?
-slow turn over of existing members, parish politics you name it.
Or simply ...
A persons has no interest in club membership.

Meathstevie:

There are plenty of various courses in all forms, on line, distance learning, face to face etc in the international hunting fraternity. It's grand to say we independent and unique but several resources could be tapped into and developed for our way of doing things.

solarwinds

I know a lot of of highly intelligent well educated individuals who are at the top of their respective fields. Yet i wouldn't trust them to mind my kids let alone use a firearm.
In my experience common sense seems to get replaced by education and phd's.
Education is all well and good and needed these days but it is not the last word in anything.
You can do all the courses you want get all the qualifications you are told you need. But to date i have yet to see one course that can train the idiot out of someone.
All it's going to mean in the future is that there will still be a certain amount of messing going on but the difference will be they will now have some fancy bit of paper to say they have been properly trained.
Cant see that making anything much safer.

solarwinds

Courses will happen no doubt but they can not be run by a person whos sole intention is to squeeze every last cent from you.
Are HCAP exams currently externally evaluated and if not they have no credability.
From what i can see they can either pass Johnny on the day cause i know him sure hes grand or not because he tookover land i shot 40 years ago.
Any course worth anything must have external impartial evaluation.

cookimonster

Solarwinds
The criteria for applying for a FAC won't cover the built in idiot factor.

At the moment not all exams have to be externally examined, they can be set, deliveried and corrected by tutors.

solarwinds

Unfortunately nothing can cover the idiot factor. If it did we would just end up with a better idiot.
I agree. I have done numerous courses where the tutor provided the exam and certification at the end. But on everyone of them the tutor themselves were subject to regular audits as was the course content.
If there is no oversight by a third party all you end up with is a fancy bit of paper with some guys signature on it.

cookimonster

Absolutely the need for validation and QC .

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Ref: Competitive Shooting 1865
Again a controlled environment not hunting so to me not relevant to my argumemnt.

You brought it up, not i, so any responses are to your original point.

Ref: Driving test analogy
You are afforded a retest, not on the same day, but a retest all the same.
Re HCAP -So what is the harm in some one been retested until they pass, at least they might learn something from it. It's a hell of a lot better than if someone never got a chance of some formal marksmanship.

You have said from the off that you see "loads of lads" that are shooting years but have no competence, cop on, or knowledge. You have a problem with this.

now you say you have no problem with a chap that cannot hit a 6 inch circle at 100 yards (from the prone position), and then an 8x7 inch target at 100, 60 and 40 yards> Some cannot do this after 7 attempts, but your attitude to this is "what is the harm?".

This course is not up to spec. It has no oversight, no accreditation and no regulation yet they tried to privatise deer hunting overnight with an attempt to legislate us ALL into doing their course.

The money earned does not go back into any aspect of the sport, or none that i can find, and is not recognised outside of Coilte lands, and that is now not the only one they [Coilte] now recognise.

In short their attempt to seize control of one part of the sport has resulted in them loosing what little corner they had. As a result more people will start running the courses and it'll be "par for the course" for deer stalkers, then it'll move onto other types of game hunting. Mark my words, it'll happen and all because people did not "see the harm" in it.

solarwinds wrote: »

Are HCAP exams currently externally evaluated and if not they have no credability.

Nope.

One man, with 5 lads helping run the testing.

Any course worth anything must have external impartial evaluation.

Yup.

Plus there are laws and ways such courses are assigned to whomever seeks to run it and standing up and saying ""we're doing it" just doesn't cut it. There was no tender for the contract to run a course, there is no legislation to make it mandatory, no coruse is officially recognised (like the competence courses currently being ran by every Tom, Dick and Harry), the list goes on.

gunny123

This hcap course has zero to do with competency, thats a cast iron, 100% pure fact. It is the same small gang of cronies and gangsters looking to make money out of the shooting community. Run to the minister with a scary scenario, Be it gun dealers without "proper" security, or shooters not having the correct training, or doing highly illegal things like lamping foxes, so the minister covers his ass by giving them the go ahead to start this rubbish.

They got one past us with the dealers having to get timelocks and all that, but that should be the last of it, if we have our heads together.

Grizzly 45

I've pointed it out before and it was dismissed, but I'll say it again their are a raft of courses and credentials required in other countries before you can hunt, so what makes us special here?

Three words...DIFFERENT HUNTING CULTURES. We in the Republic are probably the youngest independent countries in Europe, so we do not have an established by the centuries of monarchy and whatnot right to hunt or possess weapons throughout our history. Our weapons laws and hunting laws are pretty simple throughout our history.[1 If you were of a certain religion, clan or ethnic background, you were prohibited from owning any sort of weapon or go hunting or fishing. END OF!
2] If you were descended or of landed and a correct political hue and religion, well go ahead and do and posses as you please. Stayed the same until independence, and apart from adapting our overlord's ways and mores, and banning owning certain types of firearms, things continued much the same on hunting law.

Germany, for example, had laws and licensing going back to before its unification in the 1800s. As it was made up of multiple microstates and kingdoms before unification under Prussia, Prussian law on hunting became more or less the norm, as under the smaller states and kingdoms it was at the grace of the ruler as to whom of the gentlefolk and commoners could hunt and what and when.As Germany industrialised and became a more regimented nation so too did its hunting, rather than its gun laws change, much.
Pre WW1 you still bought a hunting license and off you went and got your let. By post WW2 you were doing a hunting license test,that has now become known as "the Green leaving cert" it is that stressful.
And probably for a good reason, there is not enough shooting ground left in Germany, either West or East to cover the output from the courses anymore. Getting into a syndicate, be prepared to put down at least 10k PA and 2 or 3 days per week being out on the let doing work to keep it in order. Simply put, being a hunter in Germany is a lifestyle choice, not a hobby. However, you do have more rights than the average citizen and can purchase long firearms and ammo aplenty.
Ireland OTOH, we don't come from that type of culture or have a lot of traditions going with our hunting. Nor do we have that kind of pressure and demand for hunting here.

Short story long. A course as it stands here like HCAP serves no real purpose.It is too short[and wrong] in some points, outdated in others,and not very informative or impractical in others IE building tree stands, they describe building a German tree seat very well. But forget to mention you need Larch poles to build it! Anyone growing Larch pole trees on their let? Plus in the German hunting course, this is a group project over a weekend and exam to build one of these, and you need instructions and demos in using power tools etc to do it. Ergo their course in crammer mode is 30 days long.:eek:
We have no pressure on our resources to need a selection procedure as rigorous as Europe. Or the historical context to need one,or the willingness of the State to get involved in the licensing or collection of revenue from the private companies to benefit the wild game in the long run.

It is still a money-spinner for someone, rote exam with some stationary target shooting thrown in any way you cut it.So why not just make it an afternoon gun safety course with a walkabout shoot/No shoot course??At least you would have at least a safe gun handling course out of it.

cookimonster

Cass, don't put words into my mouth;

You have said from the off that you see "loads of lads" that are shooting years but have no competence, cop on, or knowledge. You have a problem with this.

That's not what I said or inferred, I have over the course of my shooting / hunting experiences met people who had poor or little gun safety and or knowledge associated with hunting. My main trust of the argument is the education of new entrants into the sport, always has been.

now you say you have no problem with a chap that cannot hit a 6 inch circle at 100 yards (from the prone position), and then an 8x7 inch target at 100, 60 and 40 yards> Some cannot do this after 7 attempts, but your attitude to this is "what is the harm?"

But now you have a person in a controled environment 'been put right' as to their failings. Can you not say that this person came away from the range a bit richer in experience and knowledge. Am I right to say that only those that complete the test are awarded a pass, so if after 7 attempts an individual still can't do it and no award is issued then the test was valid. If you are wittnesing this at the regular HCAP range tests does this not strengthen the argument for some sort of compentcy testing.

From your point of view and I quote :

Sometimes people have to go it alone until they find their feet

...then we would have these people firing at live quarry with unzeroed rifles and poor grasp of the principles of marksmanship because they went it alone and never realised the magatudie of their imcompetence.

Do many volunteers still attend the HCAP range tests? Would it be better for the range safety officers and the like to boycott the test in solidarity with the stalking community. Sometimes we must stand fast regardless of the outcome of our actions.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

This hcap course has zero to do with competency, thats a cast iron, 100% pure fact. It is the same small gang of cronies and gangsters looking to make money out of the shooting community. Run to the minister with a scary scenario, Be it gun dealers without "proper" security, or shooters not having the correct training, or doing highly illegal things like lamping foxes, so the minister covers his ass by giving them the go ahead to start this rubbish.

They got one past us with the dealers having to get timelocks and all that, but that should be the last of it, if we have our heads together.

Plus 1, and what I don't understand is why a bunch of us aren't sitting outside these peoples offices, front doors or clubs saying we would like a word in their shell-like, please, about how you are going about representing us,and we would like to skip protocol about bring up points at AGMs etc,because this is now getting a bit past playing pretty please patty cake.:mad:

cookimonster

Grizzly45.....

So why not just make it an afternoon gun safety course with a walkabout shoot/No shoot course??At least you would have at least a safe gun handling course out of it.

Now that's a logical thought process and thanks for the history lesson.:)

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Cass, don't put words into my mouth;

That's not what I said or inferred,

Its exactly what you said:

cookimonster wrote:

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

But now you have a person in a controled environment 'been put right' as to their failings.

No they're not.

They receive no tuition, no help, no guidance, etc. They are told to wait for a new spot and try again. It's why it takes them 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 attempts. IOW the blind squirrel finding a nut idiom comes to mind.

Can you not say that this person came away from the range a bit richer in experience and knowledge.

Nope.

The hcap is not a tutorial, it's a test. They are testing a persons ability to hit a target at a given distance(s). The person fails, sometimes multiple times, and still they walk away with their cert. regardless of the amount failed attempts.

I'm not saying this is prevalent, but for those struggling they learn nothing more than to keep shooting until they hit the target the required number of times. On more than one occasion i've seen lads struggle to adjust their scopes citing "they don't know how" to adjust for it being off zero/target.

Those being tested are even forbidden from zeroing/checking zero prior to the shooting even though the range offers them the facilities if they need to.

Am I right to say that only those that complete the test are awarded a pass, so if after 7 attempts an individual still can't do it and no award is issued then the test was valid

I have never seen anyone walk away without their cert. On a few occasions those that fail completely are taken aside and tested separately at the end of the day, something i have not been part of, and when i speak to them before they leave they have their cert.

Your implication that this makes the person "qualified" is contrary to good practices and is in line with with your concern, that i quoted at the start of this post, about people being out there without being fully competent.

The target is a life size deer target (see below). There are bullet holes between the legs, on/at the ground/hoof, in the throat, in the belly. Each black sticker is a covered up bullet hole. There are also 6 bullet holes in the target area. So out of 17 shots, 9 were in the "kill" area, one in the head, and the rest either complete misses or wounding the animal. You might also notice a good few patches in the top right corner. Those are issed shots ont he 6 inch zeroing disc, at 100 yard. Now this is not a single shooter, it could be two or three as the target is patched/reused (i won't make it seem like it's one shooter simply to support my argument), but it shows that at 100 yards, 60 yards and 40 yards, some people cannot either hit the deer AT ALL, or hit a 7x8 inch area. Yet they pass at some point and are "certified" as competent.

If you are wittnesing this at the regular HCAP range tests does this not strengthen the argument for some sort of compentcy testing

This is there competency test.

Again i'm not going to blow it out of proportion and say it's everyone because it's not. A good amount of the participants pass first time, or they fail the zeroing shots, but on retest they pass and then pass the deer target first time. However for every 20 lads on the firing at any one time, you may have between 4 to 6 that fail either the zeroing test or the deer test. Then you have about 50% of those that fail a second time, and as the fails continue that ratio drops.

I'm not having a crack at the lads shooting, but if after 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 attempts with anything between 27 to 63 rounds and they still cannot hit a target consistently, but then manage to scrap pass in their last go, are you telling me that would satisfy you that they are competent.

From your point of view, and i quote:
...then we would have these people firing at live quarry with unzeroed rifles and poor grasp of the principles of marksmanship because they went it alone and never realised the magatudie of their imcompetence.

As you say not to put words in your mouth, please have the decency to apply context to my words and not cherry pick the bits. What i said was:

Cass wrote:

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.

It was in response to you saying that you have your Father and other family to help you out when you started.

My statement is not only true, but something that a lot of people (i'd guess) had to do and that was go it alone. It still happen today. Is it perfect, no, but i would rather a chap start off on his own that face a barrage of mandatory courses and large fees/costs when he starts shooting.

I've blurred the lines a little with some of my responses, and for that i apologise, because while the topic of this thread is about the hcap and deer stalking i have allowed myself to reply as though mandatory courses could become an issue for all types of shooting. IOW i'm thinking of one aspect, and replying as though you all know what i'm thinking even though i have not written about it.

I still maintain that [mandatory courses for all types of shooting] is a very real threat to our sport, but given the Minister's statement i suppose all of this back and forth between is moot with regard to deer stalking courses simply because a mandatory course will be coming at some point, for new shooters. So my concerns about monopolies, improper courses, privatisation, etc. are somewhat redundant now.

The biggest issue i have had with the hcap, other than how its ran, etc, is the way they tried to corner the market on deer stalking and make their course a mandatory thing. Remember they did NOT say this was for new shooters, but for EVERYONE currently and intending to shot deer. They literally wanted to privatize the sport and leave themselves as the sole source for not only courses but deciding who would get a deer license (something that is given to us free from the state). They even said in their reply to our concerns (see point 10) that their course was the only proper course and that anyone trying to run a similar or competitive course is doing so only for financial gain. That is not the attitude of a group that has the sport and proper deer management at heart. They should welcome other courses if they are to be mandatory and be glad the sport is being improved upon through proper education and training, while all the time acknowledging that the decision to take such training/education is on an individual basis (IOW not compulsory)

Do many volunteers still attend the HCAP range tests?

I don't know, i stopped doing it a couple of years back. Could not be two faced or have double standards by voluntering for it, while being critical of it.

Would it be better for the range safety officers and the like to boycott the test in solidarity with the stalking community. Sometimes we must stand fast regardless of the outcome of our actions.

I want to make this abundantly clear. I DO NOT speak for the range, am not a Trustee of the range and am not a PRO for the range. Anything i say is my opinion and mine alone.

I cannot, and would not, assume to speak for any of the ROs nor for the range.


I have said from day one i'm not anti training, not anti education, not anti learning. I am however against any form or forced training/certification that is either not required by law or being pushed for by a vested interest group for their own gain.

When the NASRPC tried to seize control of c/f pistols i spoke up against it. When the so called coalition submitted the ridiculous proposal for a ban on semi autos and a lot of 22 pistols i spoke up. When both the nasrpc and so called coalition tried to introduce graduated licensing and proficiency courses i spoke up against it. Now when the deer alliance tried to privatise deer stalking i spoke up against it and will continue to do so.

My point is don't assume to take my opposition as a refusal to move forward or allow for change. Its an opposition to how it's implemented.

cookimonster

The written word is very hard to deny but is often misinterpreted by design or by accident.

I've blurred the lines a little with some of my responses, and for that i apologise, ......, and replying as though you all know what i'm thinking even though i have not written about it.

We are all guilty of this from time to time and the medium of the forum can often cause the train of thought to drift, as does it allow us to very easily cherry pick any points both for and against opinions and stances. It is the very art of persuasive argument.

meathstevie

Cookimonster, I don't want to sound derogatory but if you know of a shooting instructor who can teach someone basic marksmanship in the space of a few rounds during a HCAP test you have found a living breathing unicorn.

You may well be able to somewhat correct the worst of someone's mistakes but training someone to a skill level that could be deemed to be basic marksmanship is not something that can be done in a few hours.

cookimonster

Don't confuse military techno speak with other terms of reference in respects of marksmanship.

Marksmanship principles

• The shooting position and hold must be firm enough to support the rifle.

• The rifle must point naturally at the target without any undue physical effort.

• Sight alignment and sight picture must be correct.

• The shot must be released and followed through without undue disturbance to the
  position

.


Taken from The Deer Initiative
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk/uploads/guides/146.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiKv77ksqPbAhWRN8AKHcIQDUkQFjAPegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2Jpx49PekFjLuRw07Ap-5l

You can deliver the principles, the foundation of good shooting, to a an inexperienced or poor shot and have them on target pretty quickly.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

You can deliver the principles, the foundation of good shooting, to a an inexperienced or poor shot and have them on target pretty quickly.

But it's not done.

gunny123

Box ticking, ass covering, pr exercise. Also a handy way to make easy dosh.

cookimonster

Cass wrote: »

But it's not done.

If your referring to the HCAP range tests, no it's not part of the days programe......and from my only time there the remedy seemed to be to lend someone a proven rifle, which I did for a lad who knew a mate of mine there, as did another bloke I know do the same on his test. One rifle had a serious issue with bedding and another the lad brought some cheaper ammo, Prvi Partizan, that wouldn't group and get him through the grouping application. This obviously will only deal with the firearm and not the shooters ability.

.....if on the other hand you saying it can't be done period, I would very much dispute that. Novice shooters can achieve respectable groups in terms of hunting accuracy and in fact military requirements, which are similar in required group sizes and accuracy at the minimum of 100 yards in a fairly short period of time.

ayagerard

gunny123 wrote: »

Box ticking, ass covering, pr exercise. Also a handy way to make easy dosh.

who gets the money , where will they be in 5 years time when a new course will be introduced, when this **** is seen to be not fit for purpose, a lot of money here been wasted non profit my ares, believe me it is not for your or my interests they are running these exercises ,
i have one question regarding the box ticking exam is it completed in pencil or Biro , as i have not done one of these pr exercises but have come across their likes in the form of the safe pass and other than my employer paying for it i wouldn't be wasting my time with it ,
my take on this is any money generated from any mandatory course (s) should be invested back into the sport , npws , where by there would be enough wardens trained to at least count deer , i hope i am not setting the bar too high
forking out a couple of hundred euro to these entrepreneurs will do nothing for safety certainly wont improve accuracy, along with mabe a false sense of capability, like driving you are learning for the first 100,000 miles it takes some a year others a lifetime others should not be on the road at all but they still passed their tests with honors no doubt

Cass

.....if on the other hand you saying it can't be done period

I'm not.

solarwinds

cookimonster wrote:

If your referring to the HCAP range tests, no it's not part of the days programe......and from my only time there the remedy seemed to be to lend someone a proven rifle, which I did for a lad who knew a mate of mine there, as did another bloke I know do the same on his test. One rifle had a serious issue with bedding and another the lad brought some cheaper ammo, Prvi Partizan, that wouldn't group and get him through the grouping application. This obviously will only deal with the firearm and not the shooters ability.

So a person who couldnt hit the side of a barn with their own personal gun is given someone elses to pass. But that same person has now been given a cert to say all is ok and is now let loose into the wild with an unreliable firearm and worse still lacking the knowledge to put it right.
And this passes as an exam sure why go in at all why not pay them the money and let them post you out the cert. Jesus wept do these people have no moral compass fair enough we all know its to make as much money as possible. But they are certifying potentially dangerous people with unreliable equipment.
When will the madness end will no one think of the poor deer.

cookimonster

I am seriously cherry picking this one.....

.....potentially dangerous people with unreliable equipment

....now let loose into the wild with an unreliable firearm and worse still lacking the knowledge to put it right.

When will the madness end will no one think of the poor deer.

....and to think this is with a course, can you imagine the few that don't even do a course, have no reliable and practical sources of reference or guidance.

....the glass is half full or half empty depending on the way you see it. The HCAP is far from perfect but so is the alternative of NOTHING (not shouting, emphasising)

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

.... can you imagine the few that don't even do a course, have no reliable and practical sources of reference or guidance.

1. How does the HCAP correct this?
2. How does the HCAP teach them the shooting skills they need?
3. How much are those not attending the HCAP loosing out on marksmanship training?

....the glass is half full or half empty depending on the way you see it. The HCAP is far from perfect but so is the alternative of NOTHING (not shouting, emphasising)

There can be "half full/half empty" when it comes to this. The fact that you have said yourself "it's better than nothing at all" implies it is not up to standard.

Teaching someone bad habits is worse than not teaching them at all. However the hcap doesn't teach bad habits or problems it simply does not recognise them.

cookimonster

Cass,
For the first part of your post:

The HCAP course with all is failings directs an individual to engage with the associated theory around deer stalking and recognise the requirement of basic marksmanship.
It is not perfect but if people can disengage their personal feelings from the discuusion and maybe talk about the relevance if any of hunter training / education, not the back door dealings that have gone on or who's going to make a mint.

However the hcap doesn't teach bad habits or problems it simply does not recognise them.

Please explain that one above, genuinely interested, not arguing for the sake of it. What do they not recognise?

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

Cass,
For the first part of your post:

The HCAP course with all is failings directs an individual to engage with the associated theory around deer stalking and recognise the requirement of basic marksmanship.
It is not perfect but if people can disengage their personal feelings from the discuusion and maybe talk about the relevance if any of hunter training / education, not the back door dealings that have gone on or who's going to make a mint.

Thats not an answer, its the same rhetoric you've been saying from the start. You cannot make a claim without verifying your answer. So i'll ask again.

How does the hcap teach basic marksmanship? How does it raise the level of shooting ability of the person involved over someone that has not taken their course? How does allowing someone that fails a shooting test keep on trying until they pass?

You have cherry picked your answers by only responding to certain questions or points while ignoring those you either cannot or don't want to try and explain as is the case with my post (#44) above where you responded to only one sentence and ignored the entirety of the post.

Please explain that one above, genuinely interested, not arguing for the sake of it. What do they not recognise?

The short comings in their testing procedures.

cookimonster

How does the hcap teach basic marksmanship?

It doesn't and I didn't say it does

How does it raise the level of shooting ability of the person involved over someone that has not taken their course?

Not ability , where in the course does it claim this or I claimed it? I would say awareness.
But if it identifies to a person that there are issues with their shooting skills or knowledge, then that's a positive.
If and no doubt it will occur, a person who leaves the range after taking 7 attempts to pass, thinks there is nothing wrong well then no amount of education, training or advice from fellow shooters will benefit this person.
So I ask you, what about the absolute novice in possession of a firearm and deer licence who goes out shooting, who may never have shot a rifle let along shot at live quarry?

How does allowing someone that fails a shooting test keep on trying until they pass?

If you read my post #54 to 'solarwinds' I question that myself.
There are many assessments the require the participant to redo failure until a positive out come has occurred.

You have cherry picked your answers....

Second only to you cherry picking my points.

you either cannot or don't want to try and explain as is the case with my post (#44) above where you responded to only one sentence and ignored the entirety of the post.

Please identify your question, the post #44, frankly is rambling, as are many of mine, and at that stage of the thread the argument between us had deteriorated into a war of wording and not rational points hence my one line answer to you acknowledging the tendency to losse meaning and understanding in the written word,

The short comings in their testing procedures

Okay, leaving aside the the dirty dealings of trying to slip the course in etc and the obvious issue of the multiple retesting at the range test, which we both have issue with, please identify the failings of the course in its entirety.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

It doesn't and I didn't say it does

Exactly.

Not ability , where in the course does it claim this or I claimed it? I would say awareness.

So it doesn't! Finally we're getting somewhere.

But if it identifies to a person that there are issues with their shooting skills or knowledge, then that's a positive.

And how does it deal with those problems? It lets them proceed regardless.

If and no doubt it will occur, a person who leaves the range after taking 7 attempts to pass, thinks there is nothing wrong well then no amount of education, training or advice from fellow shooters will benefit this person.

Not talking about the person, i'm talking about the test. What do you consider the testers to be if they concur with the person's personal assessment of their abilities to the extent they grant them their certificate?

So I ask you, what about the absolute novice in possession of a firearm and deer licence who goes out shooting, who may never have shot a rifle let along shot at live quarry?

Learn. Like we all had to.

If you read my post #54 to 'solarwinds' I question that myself.

Another confirmation that it's not up to standard.

There are many assessments the require the participant to redo failure until a positive out come has occurred.

Such as?

Second only to you cherry picking my points.

You do understand the meaning of cherry picking? Point to where i selected only one line out of any of your replies while ignoring the rest of the content of the post? Like you did to most of my posts including post #44 as referenced earlier.

Please identify your question, the post #44, frankly is rambling, as are many of mine,

Please do not confuse my apology to others for going between topics as an admission of of "rambling". My post was in response to one of your posts, which you choose to ignore almost in its entirety.

and at that stage of the thread the argument between us had deteriorated into a war of wording and not rational points hence my one line answer to you acknowledging the tendency to losse meaning and understanding in the written word,

Speak for yourself.

You maintain the hcap is "better than nothing" and helps people including identifying their weaknesses in shooting ability.

I maintain the hcap is not up to spec, allows failures to pass, does not teach or guide anyone experiencing trouble and effectively gives credence to an unqualified person to go deer shooting. If Coilte seen the range test i wonder would they be so quick to accept the hcap "certification" as good enough.

I've also said that the other side to this whole debacle is the actions of the hcap group. Trying to proivatize deer shooting with lobbying through a sub committee of the FCP for changes that would directly benefit them. Vegeta said it well when he aske dus to Google Regulatory capture.

So this is not solely about how many time someone can hit a bit paper, but the actions of a select few vested interest groups.

Okay, leaving aside the the dirty dealings of trying to slip the course in etc and the obvious issue of the multiple retesting at the range test, which we both have issue with, please identify the failings of the course in its entirety.

They're not enough for you to think the course is not up to spec or the group running it?


The attitude of "sure it's better than nothing", or "it's all there is" are the reasons these groups try these tactics and think they can do what they want. Too many back room dealings have lead us [the shooting community] into more trouble, harsher restrictions, and having to put out fires started by our own than the Government has ever done. Yet year after year another group tries their hand at. From the NASRPC, to the so called coalition, and now the vested interest groups that make up the deer sub committee.

I'm tired of it all. I'm tired of having to constantly keep abreast of these groups and their dealings so i don't wake up some morning and find my sport privatized or banned on the request of a shooting group/body. The same ones that could not organize a piss up in a brewery. Only when they shine the light on themselves is their dealings exposed.

solarwinds

Sorry but its not better than nothing. It is giving participants false expectations as to their ability and in my view could actually leave people worse off. People attend courses because they feel their knowledge is lacking and want to improve. But all that seems to happen is people leave reassured that they know what to do because they have been given a cert.
Someone medocre going in is still that coming out but worse now because they have been told they are ok so have learned nothing.
To me it only further instills any bad habits a shooter may already have.

cookimonster

And how does it deal with those problems? It lets them proceed regardless.

Not talking about the person, i'm talking about the test. What do you consider the testers to be if they concur with the person's personal assessment of their abilities to the extent they grant them their certificate?

In my previous post I stated I have an issue with the range test. But I will comment on the second part of the quoted text. 'What do I considered the testers to be if they concur with the persons.......' Ham stringed by a poor assessment criteria at the least, negligent in their responsibility at the worst. Hence in my previous post the agreement that external QC should be applied to the process.

So I ask you, what about the absolute novice in possession of a firearm and deer licence who goes out shooting, who may never have shot a rifle let along shot at live quarry?

Learn. Like we all had to.

So you ask me to give you an example of cherry picking :

Point to where i selected only one line

.....

....it is not the act of only selecting one line, it is the act of choosing to ignore points that contradict you argument. The quote above chooses to ignore the rational, highlighted by yourself in your post depicting the poor standard of shooting that can be seen on a HCAP range and when I offer this as a rational to having the test so that novices can be educated in a controlled environment you proffer 'Learn. Like we all had to'. That is a nearly oximoronic answer considering the argument is for learning, be it in a structured way.

There are many assessments the require the participant to redo failure until a positive out come has occurred.
Such as?

Continuous assessment, used in various practical courses applying particular learning out comes, students will repeat the associated learning out comes, with the goal of improving /developing, achieving desired markers and or consistency. Too may to mention, but if you care to, there is a load of reading material as well as courses run in your average run of the mill IT.

Please do not confuse my apology to others for going between topics as an admission of of "rambling"

.

Often confused but not there, the apology had nothing to do with my use of the word 'rambling'. The apology was quite clear and concise in its meaning.

Speak for yourself.

Your whole argument and position, strikes me as being very personnel and I reflect on your last paragraph here and understand where your coming from.

I maintain the hcap is not up to spec,

Agreed

allows failures to pass,

Prove it. If your talking solely about the range test, then technically they pass, you and me may not like it but that is the criteria.

does not teach or guide anyone experiencing trouble

Agreed, as does many distance learning or self guided courses.

and effectively gives credence to an unqualified person to go deer shooting

.
No, at present it is fit for purpose for Coilte, what it was intended for. Is it fit for the NPWS to roll out?, we don't know. Who is to say it will be adopted.

So this is not solely about how many time someone can hit a bit paper, but the actions of a select few vested interest groups.

So back to my original point that was not solely about holes in paper but rather overall education of hunters, I have for the last few post asked to discuss this without the reference to politics, talk of dirty dealings or money.