Deer renewal, more problems on the horizon.

cookimonster

solarwinds wrote: »

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.

I actually agree with you up to a point. A student may call a person a teacher or an instructor but I look on them as a facilitator, it is the student that puts in the effort and it is because of the effort that they pass the course or more importantly learn. People only get out what they put in. Most assessments carry a minimum pass rate and all those who pass do exactly that -pass, weather it be a distinction or a bare scrape through on the minimum required points.

Individuals who fail the HCAP multiple choice do so because they did not prepare adequately, those who have to resit the range test numerous times in a row do this because they too did not prepare adequately.

If you are a person who believes that there should be some sort of hunter competency taught then the type of courses that are been run now are a starting point, though not in the context that they are being driven at the moment. God knows I've seen education courses radically change over the years both for good and bad, but they all started some where.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

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.

You have said here that you agree the test is inadequate but maintain that it is better than nothing. Can you not see the conflict in those two statements?

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

Yes.

.it is not the act of only selecting one line, it is the act of choosing to ignore points that contradict you argument.

Which would be?

The quote above chooses to ignore the rational,

I can only respond to what you say, not what you think.

.... 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'.

A contracted version of my previous post about training and education.

That is a nearly oximoronic answer considering the argument is for learning, be it in a structured way.

ONCE AGAIN, i've no problem with training or learning, but not by a vested interest group that lobbies for control of it, with a test that is, by your own admission, not up to standard.

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.

You done well to avoid naming a course so i'll ask again. Name a course, SHOOTING wise, that allows you to continue after multiple failures.

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.

A private group tries to lobby the Government to introduce mandatory courses for EVERYONE to make them do their course to be allowed to keep shooting deer on land they have no control over in a sport they do not own for a species they do not own without oversight/audit by an external source for the sole purpose of making money and you think this is NOT personal?

Could it be you think this because you have done the hcap course you don't see the problem? IOW "i'm alright jack"

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.

You want numbers contact the deer alliance amnd ask for the list of participants that have had to resit the test and the amount of times they done so. I am speaking of what i've seen over the years and as you've sat the test i assume you seen a tiny bit of it on the day.

You have complained about people not knowing their stuff. I put it to you that the shooting part is vastly more important than the MCQ because there is a firearm involved. "Technically" passing means people that could not pass in their first, second, third, etc. attempt now have "authorisation" to shoot on lands that frankly are suitable to do so.

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

Shooting related?

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.

You agree its not up to spec yet say its fit for purpose. I don't get that.

The NPWs won't be rolling out anything as they don't make these decisions, but a course is coming just this time for newbies only. As i said previously i won't be affected by any changes coming in, and the fact i'm annoyed at how this whole thing was done and is being done should speak volumes.

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.

Ok so lets discuss it.

You want newbies to be trained and educated, and i agree such training and education is not a problem. The MCQ part of the hcap is something i have no idea about but you've done it so explain to us how it works. You sit in a room for a few hours, read a book, and then answer MCQ i presume? How long does it last, what is the content of the book/reading, do you believe it's comprehensive enough, etc.

The shooting part/range test. Take a test, any test, and if you fail you can most certainly try again, but not on the same day and not time after time it until you eventually pass.

To break it down for anyone not familiar with the hcap the shooting goes like this:

• Prone position at 100 yards (any type of rest you would use in the field) and three shots into a 6 inch sighting disc in the top right corner of the target.
• Anyone that fails can immediately try again while those that passed standing back from the firing line while they [those that failed] try.
• Anyone failing the zeroing disc a second time removes themselves and their gear from the line and the ones that passed (including those on their first attempt) now shoot at the deer target
• Prone position at 100 yards and two shots into the heart/lung area of the deer (it measures roughly 8"x7")
• Move forward to 60 yards and from the sitting/kneeling position two more shots into the same area.
• Move forward to 40 yards and two final shots from the standing position into the same area.
• Once it's confirmed all shots are in the target area you pass.
• Anyone that fails this can re-try the deer target, and they need only do the deer target, in another detail.
• If they fail the deer target a second time they can retry the test, but must do so from the beginning which includes the zeroing disc.

I believe each re-test (full re-test) costs about €35 or so. The hcap has, off the top of my head and from viewed performances only, an average of 70% pass rate on the first attempt. Others pass on the their second go, but anyone failing their second attempt, in my opinion, should be failed and given the option to try again at a later date. Instead they can pay, and go again on the same day. As many times as is necessary for them to pass. I believe this a serious failing.

I cannot tell you why the deer alliance allow such carry on. It could be for stats (to say they have a high to 100% pass rate) so when Coilte ask it looks like all shooters are top quality, it could be that lads have a lot of money invested in a lease and they don't want them to lose out on that shooting, or it could be as simple as they don't care how many times a lad has to shoot so long as he "passes" at the end of the day.


What can be done to stop this? I don't know. I have ideas but that would mean investing some of the money raised from the hcap back into the sport in the form of training, but that won't happen and will instead result in a person facing increased fees and costs for "pre-hcap" testing.

Grizzly 45

Whats wrong with HCAP?Jeebus, where to start?
Ok starting with the manual, and I am open to correction as I only have a 2006 copy to go by if this info has been amended [and I sincerely hope so]

It is an appaling and badly put together manual for a start, which has got information that is on some parts wholly wrong, confusing, outdated,going against the principles of conservation themselves, cobbled together from the German hunting test, UK BASC, US NRA hunter safety course, goes into minute detail on some aspects that is info overload, and in others barely mentions or lacks illustrations to explain what the technical subject is about,or worse leaves you hanging missing pertinent details or explanations and in some parts downright dangerous! After reading that manual, you would be better off going online and looking at the UK BASC or DHC pages and be better educated for free.
So now as a newbie after doing this manual, you are utterly qualified to go hunting deer in Ireland armed with this knowledge.:rolleyes: The old adage of "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing "certainly applies to this manual.

Just for an example, building the high seat. As this is one I am too familiar having done this one in Germany and as it is part of the practical German hunting test, of Revier arbeit Hunting let chores. First off you have to build it with natural forest materials for the test.IE As you have plenty of wood in a forest you want planks, you go and cut them off a log. This requires some teaching in basic field carpentry and in how to use dangerous cutting tools like chainsaws,as not every German housewife or city banker has ever handled one,or even knows how to drive a nail into fresh timber. Also, you need a particular type of timber to make this.LARCH pole pine. It is grown specifically in Germany for outdoor woodwork and I have never seen it grown here. this part of the test with your instructors present can take a full 12to14 hours, a weekend if it is a Kanzel Enclosed watch tower effort.But you could adapt it to Irish standards I hear? Certainly, but then why include instructions that are particularly German? In that case,as we don't have those kinds of raw materials to hand, why not just suggest buying a portable high seat? Much better and more practical.

I won't even go into the statement about not feeding wild game in Winter or the ridiculous suggestions of game counting by chasing up hill and down dale, as it flies in the face of all conservation and practical logic.

Other would be this thing of the "mitbringsel" and "Todt beller" ideas for your dog.The hunting dog part of the German course is literally 3weeks in itself and a lifetime of tests and competitions to keep even your dog qualified. In short, both ideas are methods for your trained dog to alert you to a fallen big game.

The Death barker[Todtbeller] is a dog that keeps barking so you can find them in the forest with the game. Great for some breeds like Jagd Terriers and Dachshunds that never shut up in the 1st place. Abit more difficult to train say a Labrador to do this. The mitbringsel, is a stick tied to the dogs collar by a small piece of rope.She is supposed to catch it in her mouth and bring it to you to alert you that she has found the game and lead you to it. Takes a lot of training,and the dog can "lie" on this too. In that, she locates the general area of the game,but isnt standing on it directly.

That, of course, would be explained to you in the hunting lessons and not left to your imagination or initiative over here to find out about under the HCAP.

Those are just two examples of multiple bad info you are reading as a newbie and are not being taught, explained or informed about unless you do the 1DAY course at another 50 quid before the MCQ.

As for the shooting test...Well let's not go there, that has been trashed out already ad infinitum. Good job we don't have wild boar here then..As part of it in Europe is shoot with your rifle at a running boar target. Three shots in the vital zone in the 30 second [?] moving display:rolleyes:

In short,this is why I wouldn't waste one cent of my money on HCAP,as it flies in alot of sense against everything I was brought up with in hunting. One being that as a hunter your primary job is a lot of conservation and maybe shooting a lot less.HCAP is just a get money out of people so they are "qualified" to shoot in Coilte lets.All it was and all it should ever be.NOTHING goes back int conservation or NPWS or to the welfare of the animals.:mad:

Grizzly 45

Now HERE is a sensible idea for people to gain experience on stalking Pros are volunteering their experience to teach newbies. [I redacted names to initials]

On behalf of the WDAI I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the senior more experienced members for offering their services to the organization and willing to take the minors out on a shoot. If you would like to partake in this please comment ur name below it’s open only to novices & WDAI members only. Names will be put on a list & a draw will take place before AGM 😀😀😀 AC, N M A Mck id like to thank these in particular for offering their services an expertise as this is what WDAI is all about helping to teach & advising and helping members gain invaluable experience. Yours in sport ADMIN 😀😀😀

cookimonster

You have said here that you agree the test is inadequate but maintain that it is better than nothing. Can you not see the conflict in those two statements?

No I can't, some sort of training / education is better then none, where does HCAP teach someone the wrong thing, leaving out the 'retesting' the information required to answer the MCQ exam and the shooting test is the same format as the UK DSC1

A contracted version of my previous post about training and education.

I summarized your post in order to highlight the conflict in your own point of view-
'ONCE AGAIN, i've no problem with training or learning, but not by a vested interest group that lobbies for control of it, with a test that is, by your own admission, not up to standard'.

So you would throw out the baby with the bath water because you have issue with 'who' is running it.

You done well to avoid naming a course so i'll ask again. Name a course, SHOOTING wise, that allows you to continue after multiple failures.

UK DSC1 you have three attempts at every detail - 3 x zeroing practice, 3 x prone, 3 x sitting/kneeling, 3 x standing.

........... you think this is NOT personal?

As I said, I read your last paragraph in that post and I believe I understand where your coming from.

Could it be you think this because you have done the hcap course you don't see the problem? IOW "i'm alright jack"

You said it yourself, you don't know know what I'm thinking, instead, would it be because I have course done I now realize the value of it.

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

.

What I am asking is the proof that people left the range after not successfully completing the test, certified.

You have complained about people not knowing their stuff. I put it to you that the shooting part is vastly more important than the MCQ because there is a firearm involved. "Technically" passing means people that could not pass in their first, second, third, etc. attempt now have "authorization" to shoot on lands that frankly are suitable to do so.

But have you not maintained under the present system, a person is good to go once you have FAC and DHL, thus having the necessary "authorization".

Shooting related?

There are many courses such as the DHL where your not required to attend work shops, distance learning for many NRA courses ar various levels.

You agree its not up to spec yet say its fit for purpose. I don't get that.

The course in its present form was designed as a prerequisite of Coilte for its terms and conditions of its hunting lets. Is it up to standard for a national course that could be held up against its international equivalent?, then no.

The NPWs won't be rolling out anything as they don't make these decisions

True, but if they are directed, then it most likely will come through them.

Ok so lets discuss it.

You want newbies to be trained and educated, and i agree such training and education is not a problem.

And that is the trust of my belief, nothing more.

Ref the MCQ.

You can purchase the HCAP manual, in my case I used it alongside online UK and other relevant resources. You self study the book, on the web site there are a bank of sample questions to use as reference.

Information covered includes:(from memory as I don't have a manual to hand)
Deer biology and ecology
Aspect of the law surrounding the hunting of deer.
Stalking techniques, points of aim and the reaction of the deer to shot placement.
Safety- firearms, knives, equipment, environmental safety
Carcass inspection, disease, infestation

You attend a testing center, there is an option of a work shop (additional cost) prior to the MCQ. You are assigned an exam number and you sit a MCQ (multiple choice questionnaire - tick the box) with in a given time frame. The test paper and answer sheet are professionally printed. The testing procedure is overseen by various individuals.The questions themselves cover the sections of the manual and are robust and conform to the norms of most MCQ formats I have come across.
Exams are handed in at the end of the period and you are notified via the web page as to your marks. The pass mark is set at 80% and if you check the web sight they do indeed have failures.

I have ideas but that would mean investing some of the money raised from the hcap back into the sport in the form of training,...

It would be excellent to see this, maybe an on line resource as seen in the UK, multiple locations around Ireland for MCQ and Range Testing and sponsored work shops. Make the whole process as accessible as possible with little or no cost to individuals.

Cass

Before i start, you will see a "edit" tag under your post above. I did not change or alter any of what you wrote. I merely edited it to remove two quotes where you had your comments mixed in with mine which made it look like i said it all. As they were opposing arguments it was, weird. I can have another Mod confirm this if you wish.

cookimonster wrote: »

No I can't, some sort of training / education is better then none, ..........

Then there is little point in continuing this debate. The "test" is not up to par, and you agree with this, but you'd rather see people tested (not taught) wrongly than not at all.

So you would throw out the baby with the bath water because you have issue with 'who' is running it.

Yes.

This thread is not about, although it has gone that way, the quality of the test, but the people running it. They have attempted, and thanks to the work of ordinary shooters, and failed to gain sole control over deer stalking.

A couple of years back the renewals asked about hcap or other certification, now it is not marked as a "questionaire" but a question on the renewals even though it STILL has no basis in law. The deer alliance pushed for this as we all know.

This thread was started because i see now the NPWS are "recommending" a larger caliber than is legally necessary based on their opinion of what is suitable. The exact same thing that the deer alliance proposed and which i spoke about here, and how such a move would essentially eliminate not only the smaller deer calibers, but anything under 6.5 INCLUDING 243s.

With our back and forth the last few days perhaps that aspect of this thread is lost on you. They have on three separate occasions tried to undermine and seize control of deer shooting with their own agenda.

UK DSC1 you have three attempts at every detail - 3 x zeroing practice, 3 x prone, 3 x sitting/kneeling, 3 x standing.

What happens when you fail those?

As I said, I read your last paragraph in that post and I believe I understand where your coming from.

Which is?

You said it yourself, you don't know know what I'm thinking, instead, would it be because I have course done I now realize the value of it.

How would i know? you still have answered so anything i say is a guess, but i notice you have not answered or said why.

What I am asking is the proof that people left the range after not successfully completing the test, certified.

Who said they left without completing it? I said they failed numerous times, but on meeting them before they left they had the cert. They may have done it another one, two, three times, etc. and eventually passed.

My point was no one leaves having completely failed based on everything i've seen.

But have you not maintained under the present system, a person is good to go once you have FAC and DHL, thus having the necessary "authorization".

Why have you put authoriation in quotation marks as though its not proper? Once a person has a firearms license and DHL they are "good to go" in that they are legally allowed to go deer hunting.

If you are reffering to competence then please just say so.

There are many courses such as the DHL where your not required to attend work shops, distance learning for many NRA courses ar various levels.

WHICH ONES? You have yet to name them.

True, but if they are directed, then it most likely will come through them.

I doubt it.

The NPWS cannot police the current areas, leaving entire counties without a single ranger. They won't have the money, personnel or time to arrange such courses.

What will happen, when it does happen, is legislation will be put in place to say you need to do a course, then as with everything else left up to those that wish to run courses to do them. No regulation, to certification, no qualification, nothing. The competence courses are run the exact same way.

With regard the info on the MCQ, thank you. Useful info to have.

The pass mark is set at 80% and if you check the web sight they do indeed have failures.

I know. Not once have i said those that fail the MCQ are allowed to proceed.

Make the whole process as accessible as possible with little or no cost to individuals.

At present the book is €35, the MCQ and range test is €165, and the workshop is €50 (IIRC). Thats €250.

I've broken down the costs umpteen times so no one needs to go through it all again, but i have to ask with over 60% of the monies being pure "profit" where does it go?

I don't see free workshops, training programs, education classes, practical teaching, etc. done by the deer alliance. I see their blog and they post quite often about various topics, but that is it. Please, if i'm wrong and they invest in all the above then show me and i'll happily eat my words.

As i said this thread is not solely about the testing levels of the hcap. It's about the deer alliances actions, proposals, etc, etc. What they ask for we generally end up seeing on the deer renewals within a year. Ever since the NPWS and the various other groups formed this sub committee and have been able to do all this without the knowledge, input or where necessary intervention of all other shooting bodies that sit on the main panel of the FCP.

ayagerard

cass wrote:

This thread is not about, although it has gone that way, the quality of the test, but the people running it. They have attempted, and thanks to the work of ordinary shooters, and failed to gain sole control over deer stalking.

A couple of years back the renewals asked about hcap or other certification, now it is not marked as a "questionaire" but a question on the renewals even though it STILL has no basis in law. The deer alliance pushed for this as we all know.

This thread was started because i see now the NPWS are "recommending" a larger caliber than is legally necessary based on their opinion of what is suitable. The exact same thing that the deer alliance proposed and which i spoke about here, and how such a move would essentially eliminate not only the smaller deer calibers, but anything under 6.5 INCLUDING 243s.


At present the book is €35, the MCQ and range test is €165, and the workshop is €50 (IIRC). Thats €250.

I've broken down the costs umpteen times so no one needs to go through it all again, but i have to ask with over 60% of the monies being pure "profit" where does it go?

I don't see free workshops, training programs, education classes, practical teaching, etc. done by the deer alliance. I see their blog and they post quite often about various topics, but that is it. Please, if i'm wrong and they invest in all the above then show me and i'll happily eat my words.

As i said this thread is not solely about the testing levels of the hcap. It's about the deer alliances actions, proposals, etc, etc. What they ask for we generally end up seeing on the deer renewals within a year. Ever since the NPWS and the various other groups formed this sub committee and have been able to do all this without the knowledge, input or where necessary intervention of all other shooting bodies that sit on the main panel of the FCP

:mad:


my point to all this is why is it that the couple of people running these ( deer alliance , sports coalition and their likes ) keep making these proposals to the minister without fear of reprimand or loss, their arrogance based on their history speaks for it self , with friends like these you wont need any enemies because as it is you cant take you eyes of them , they have more harm done to shooting in ireland than any anti veggie , vegan or their like , would they have the balls to try and get this the min cal of .240 and 100g bullet through in the uk i think not and most would be on their way for the port tunnel or a couple of weeks in scotland or ireland where they aren't known, searously they want to re write history here when all we had was .22 in the 70s 80s, 90s
where were all of the humanitarians and do gooders then i ask you

Training I AM ALL FOR , bul not this ****tt thank you
any new hunter should like the uk go on a couple of stalks with an older more experienced hunter lets say 3 deer 20 hours job done he will learn more there than any course in europe all traits , safety ,health , welfare , no cost just a signiture on a piece of paper whereby he passes or needs to go again with another staker if in doubt or failed miserably , practice will make perfect , better than ticking boxes or computer games , but keep the cost out of it and dont commercialise it , how did we all learn when we did something wrong we got a kick in the arse a butt in the ribs and we didn't do that again ,or you were lifted off the ground by the shoe next time it was simple and worked

i must thank you cass and cookimonster for a great debate and showing two sides with no prisoners in what is a personal to many subject
the privatization of our sport for the personal economic benefit of a few and putting shooting and hunting beyond the next generation

Cass

ayagerard wrote: »

my point to all this is why is it that the couple of people running these ( deer alliance , sports coalition and their likes ) keep making these proposals to the minister without fear of reprimand or loss,

A couple of reasons as i see it:

• They are as entitled to propose changes as anyone the only difference with them is they have shouted and banged the table loud enough to be able to be invited to the main table and so their proposals take on more weight. They are viewed as legitimate and the Government side of the table are not interested in whether they are liked or not.
• You have the NASRPC and a host of other bodies, most non shooting related, supporting groups like the so called coalition which inflates their membership numbers and give even more credence to their proposals.
• They act in their own best interests.
• There are no reprimands or loss of anything for submitting proposals and if the Government are being offered further restrictions and ceding ground by our own then why would they reuse that opportunity?
• Some proposals are done in secret (as with the so called coalition) without the knowledge of the other bodies and even more is done in sub committees (as with the deer forum groups) where the main bodies don't have any representation.

would they have the balls to try and get this the min cal of .240 and 100g bullet through in the uk i think not

You forgot the best part, a 100gr c/f bullet, not less than .240 with a muzzle energy of 2,200 was the proposal. try as many configurations as you like, you won't find a 243 with a 100 gr bullet that will make the cut. They are between 150 to320 ft/lb shy of the 2,200 mark. So that means you have to go up another caliber to make the cut. Working on factory rounds/calibers that means 25-06 or up would be the minimum.

where were all of the humanitarians and do gooders then i ask you

At home with no access to the internet, thank feck.

I'm not saying the good old days were always good, but these constant proposals to change things that sometimes/most times don't need changing is giving fodder to be used against us at a later date. If/when we try to oppose them we'll have "sure yer lot proposed these changes" thrown in our faces.

i must thank you cass and cookimonster for a great debate and showing two sides with no prisoners in what is a personal to many subject
the privatization of our sport for the personal economic benefit of a few and putting shooting and hunting beyond the next generation

The back and forth serves more than just two people throwing it between them. It helps not only those undecided, but those that have no idea what is happening. It's also good for both of us as we can hear the other side of the argument and possibly consider things we may not have.

There are no quick or easy solutions to this. Change will happen, but it doesn't need to go from 1 to 100 overnight. The attitudes of people have to change too. A lot of people, myself included, protect the lands we have and are slow to change. Some people will have others to fall back on and some won't. Training is important and education is vital however i don't see these things as opportunities to be exploited as some seem intent on doing.

I don't have all, or even any for some things, but for the moment i know what i don't want to see happen to our sport and that is what is currently going on.

cookimonster

Cass wrote: »

Before i start, you will see a "edit" tag under your post above. ....... I can have another Mod confirm this if you wish.

Not a probelm

Original quote by Cass
Then there is little point in continuing this debate.

As per the debate, we must agree to disagree and I recognize that the thread has meandered of the original topic.

In respect of the UK DSC1:

Original quote by Cass
What happens when you fail those?

If after firing a total of, if my sums are correct, 27 rounds and you can not achieve a pass then you must return another day. Just to paint a clear picture that is 12 individual practices you would have to fail in a row.

Original quote by Cass
Which is?

...your pissed off and rightly so

Original quote by Cass
How would i know? you still have answered so anything i say is a guess, but i notice you have not answered or said why.

I thought I did, so I'll state it for the record : After doing the course, with all its failures, I believe there is value to such a course.

Original quote by Cass
Who said they left without completing it?

In response to the above you also said the following below:

Original quote by Cass
I maintain the hcap is not up to spec, allows failures to pass,

They either passed or didn't regardless of our opinion of the testing procedure, a failure can not be pass

Original qoute by Cass
Why have you put authoriation in quotation marks as though its not proper? Once a person has a firearms license and DHL they are "good to go" in that they are legally allowed to go deer hunting.

Why have I used quotation marks?, I used your own term of "authorisation", a document giving official permission, (see quote below: under lined and in bold by me) to highlight the fact they are legally allowed to go deer hunting even though they may have no related competencies.

Original quote by Cass
"Technically" passing means people that could not pass in their first, second, third, etc. attempt now have "authorisation" to shoot on lands that frankly are suitable to do so.

Original quote by Cass
WHICH ONES? You have yet to name them.

Sorry a typo there 'DHL' should read UK DSC, the NRA courses can be found here https://onlinetraining.nra.org/online-courses/ and here https://hcip.nra.org/

Original quote by Cass
What will happen, when it does happen, is legislation will be put in place to say you need to do a course,

.......

This is what I meant, that the individuals will be directed by the NPWS that they require prior certification in order to be issued a DHL.

Original quote by Cass
I don't see free workshops, training programs, education classes, practical teaching, etc. done by the deer alliance. I see their blog and they post quite often about various topics, but that is it. Please, if i'm wrong and they invest in all the above then show me and i'll happily eat my words.

Nope I agree with you here, the only thing I see is what Grizzly45 posted and all though not related to Deer Stalking the NARGC Youth Development.

We will, as I said in the beginning, have to agree to disagree, and not doubt continue to debate with each other on the finer points of our arguments. It may well serve to enlighten or embolden others or at the very least serve entertain.

ayagerard

Cass wrote:

There are no reprimands or loss of anything for submitting proposals and if the Government are being offered further restrictions and ceding ground by our own then why would they reuse that opportunity?
Some proposals are done in secret (as with the so called coalition) without the knowledge of the other bodies and even more is done in sub committees (as with the deer forum groups) where the main bodies don't have any representation.

to me this a nod and a wink politics whereby if if you give us this we will do this for you ,there can be no secrecy and all proposals should be under signed and if not binned , where is the democracy if you can cherry pick your vote from the table , if a recommendation is made in goodwill and you are proud of it ,its good for shooting wouldn't it be good to be credited for it with praise
if on the other hand if the recommendation is crap with only 4/11 around the table voted this rec in then it should not be mentioned again until all members are there to vote period
if you cant sign your name to it don't propose it , some people have no shame but it will affect their following and membership give some accountability and transparency
sub committees need to be done away with, all they do is spread the blame leaving you with no accountability ,our health service has more subcommittees than the whole of the uk gouvernance what does that say ,
if there is 12 on the committee then all 12 voices need to be heard carrying equal weight to what or who they are representing membership wise, bonafide membership , not claimed membership with qualifications plucked from behind a bush

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

If after firing a total of, if my sums are correct, 27 rounds and you can not achieve a pass then you must return another day. Just to paint a clear picture that is 12 individual practices you would have to fail in a row.

Exactly, return another day. Not done here. Here it's stay till you pass.

I thought I did, so I'll state it for the record : After doing the course, with all its failures, I believe there is value to such a course.

And i don't so i think for sanity sake we'll leave it there. I see no point in us posting "yes i do" and "no i don't". Starting to sound like a Punch and Judy thing.

In response to the above you also said the following below:

They either passed or didn't regardless of our opinion of the testing procedure, a failure can not be pass

I'll elaborate for clarity sake.

When i say failures pass i mean everyone walks out with a cert even those that have failed numerous times. Instead of, as you said above, coming back to try again another day with some practice between i'd assume.

I never said, not once, that someone walks out with a certificate of passing without actually having completed the course. That would be an utter piss take that could not be defended. What i said or more accurately meant was lads that in any other course or test that have failed so many times would be told to go away and try again are allowed to continue to try until they pass. IOW it goes from ability to probabilities.

One a stand out moment that jumps to mind is a chap who shot on and off from 10am till after 7pm. I had left the range where the hcap was being shot on, as he was the only one left. There were other range officers and one or two hcap reps still with him obviously. I had tidied up and was back at the club house when the chap pulled up, showed me his cert and drove off happy. I lost count at his 7th attempt. Thats 7 zeroing and 7 deer targets failed, 63 rounds, and they're the ones i saw.

Why have I used quotation marks?, I used your own term of "authorisation", a document giving official permission, (see quote below: under lined and in bold by me) to highlight the fact they are legally allowed to go deer hunting even though they may have no related competencies.

It reads as though the authorisation is somehow not valid or legal. My reasons was referring to the authorisation from the deer alliance to Coilte saying this person is competent.

Sorry a typo there 'DHL' should read UK DSC, the NRA courses can be found here https://onlinetraining.nra.org/online-courses/ and here https://hcip.nra.org/

They're American courses!

What Irish ones are applicable?

Nope I agree with you here, the only thing I see is what Grizzly45 posted and all though not related to Deer Stalking the NARGC Youth Development.

Another reason for my dislike. The money goes into the group and nothing comes out.

Cass

ayagerard wrote: »

to me this a nod and a wink politics whereby if if you give us this we will do this for you ,

There is nothing, and i mean NOTHING, the shooting community has that the DoJ would have to bargain for. They can simply take it or legislate it out of existence. I know this is not what you are referring to, but i honest to God cannot see the reasoning behind some of the proposals. Money, control of a discipline of sport, etc. are obvious reasons, but when some of the proposals seek to ban certain types of guns that would destroy some sports and eliminate others i cannot see the reasoning behind it.

I'm obviously missing something because otherwise why propose it.

Again our lot doing this.

there can be no secrecy and all proposals should be under signed and if not binned

They come out eventually, but usually when its too late to do anything or when someone gets wind of it and it comes out without them wanting it to.

if on the other hand if the recommendation is crap with only 4/11 around the table voted this rec in then it should not be mentioned again until all members are there to vote period

It happens on some topics, but on other ones its done with a collaboration of vested interest groups with the same goals. As per the deer forum. Its the NPWS, deer alliance, wild deer association, wicklow deer association, etc.

if you cant sign your name to it don't propose it , some people have no shame but it will affect their following and membership give some accountability and transparency

Their usual M.O. is to propose something, see the reaction, and if the SHTF then go silent until it blows over.

sub committees need to be done away with, all they do is spread the blame leaving you with no accountability ,

I wouldn't mind the sub committees as long as they are transparent and proposals are properly relayed to all groups, and hence their members, as to what they contain BEFORE any further action is taken.