Will you disagree?

fodda

Quite often people ask questions on here which i feel and maybe you too? that they should have found the info on before they went near a gun.


So i think a good idea would be as part of everybodies firearm application (new and renewed) they should have to fill in a complex questionaire on what when and where you can shoot, what you can and cant shoot, etc.

Get it wrong then you have to apply again and pay again until you can answer all questions correctly and the qeustions are designed to be many and complex.

The questionaire can be in several different guises to avoid cheating.

Tackleberrywho

fodda wrote: »

Quite often people ask questions on here which i feel and maybe you too? that they should have found the info on before they went near a gun.


So i think a good idea would be as part of everybodies firearm application (new and renewed) they should have to fill in a complex questionaire on what when and where you can shoot, what you can and cant shoot, etc.

Get it wrong then you have to apply again and pay again until you can answer all questions correctly and the qeustions are designed to be many and complex.

The questionaire can be in several different guises to avoid cheating.

In a word "NO"
Dyslexia is my primary concern.
Secondly, who sets the questions??
I have had enough exams to do me a lifetime!

fodda

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

In a word "NO"
Dyslexia is my primary concern.
Secondly, who sets the questions??
I have had enough exams to do me a lifetime!

Understand Tack.......but by that answer would you think it is ok to issue someone with a gun who hasnt got a clue where, how and what he can use it on?

Shooting body sets questions simply on the law.

jap gt

we are all deemed 'safe' by the super, we must also do a course on firearms safety, they dont just give firearms out like sweets, we must also have good reason for owning a firearm, which means you would want a fair idea about what type of shooting you do.. most of the questions people ask on here are about a certain type of shooting they dont have experience with, which is why this forum is here, its a place to get advice and hear peoples opinions.


so no i think its a bad idea

endasmail

dont no about you Fodda
but i answered enough questions face to face with the local super

so no, i would have to disagree with you

CJhaughey

Another layer of red tape?
Who sets the questions? Who supervises the asking and marking of the questionaire ?
Would you see your answers and what appeal process is there?
Does any group stand to gain financially from the process?
Would the system be open to abuse?
Is it essential?
Some chap might just want to have a shotgun for the odd fox that kills his chickens or lambs. Should he be subjected to a rigorous examination on game seasons?

I support the idea of a safe gunhandling course and to be fair the NARGC runs a lot of shotgun courses up and down the country.
But in many cases the added complexity of a questionaire to an already fairly substantial application would make the whole system more of a disaster than it is already.

fodda

Shooting from vehicles.

Shooting from boats.

Shooting certain shot types.

Shooting protected animals/birds.

Shooting near the road.

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land

jap gt

just curious op, do you shoot

fodda

jap gt wrote: »

just curious op, do you shoot

Irrelevent.

Cass

Absolutely not.

There are currently competency exams in place for all new shooters. They primarily revolve around safe handling and general firearm awareness.

To impose such an exam on new shooters would mean them requiring a detailed knowledge of all wildlife laws. While knowing these things is important it is implausible to think a 16, 17, 18, (etc) year old will and can learn ALL these things. Then there is the issue of those with reading/writing disabilities, the eldery that have shot rabbits for 50-60 years. Also to refuse a license under any other condition other than suitablility (safety) to possess the firearm or criminal record would be improper and dare i say it illegal.

Shooting/hunting has been, is and will be always be a learning sport. It provides bondships between neighbours, friends, and family members that rely on each other to teach and learn about hunting.

We suffer from some of the strictest gun laws in Europe and probably the world. To impose further restrictions that are simply a stealth method of hindering the hunting of animals and in a sly way provide a ban on hunting (if only temporary) is ridiculous. It would seem that such a move or proposal would stem from the ideology that .........

" We cannot get hunting with firearms banned, so we will get it slowed/reduced by asking ridiculously hard/complex questions".

Reminds me of a certain handgun legislation that would " in no way effect the registered, normal, law abiding shooter". No ban, but the restrictions put in place have all but imposed a ban without actually doing so.

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

Shooting body sets questions simply on the law.

Which shooting body?
Frankly, the idea that we'd have to go through an NGO to get a state licence is broken on many levels, at least in my opinion...

fodda

Sparks wrote: »

Which shooting body?
Frankly, the idea that we'd have to go through an NGO to get a state licence is broken on many levels, at least in my opinion...

Dont know Sparks just a general suggestion thats all.

jap gt

fodda wrote: »

Irrelevent.

how so? If you think all the people with firearms should be tested at least tell us if you will be joining us.

Cass

fodda wrote: »

Irrelevent.

Its extremely relevant. Its very easy to suggest a new wave of laws, guidelines, restrictions, etc when none of them will in anyway affect you.

fodda

ezridax wrote: »

Its extremely relevant. Its very easy to suggest a new wave of laws, guidelines, restrictions, etc when none of them will in anyway affect you.

Ok then yes.

jap gt

fodda wrote: »

Ok then yes.

what type of shooting do you do? could you answer all the questions you posted and more?

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

Dont know Sparks just a general suggestion thats all.

Something to think about though fodda - you've seen all the internecine shoutiness on here over the years, can you imagine that being a part of your licencing process?

Not to mention, if you can take the Super to the Court, you'd have to be able to do the same thing to anyone taking on that role...

Grizzly 45

NO way in that format!! Like everything in this country where power and money is applied in equal measures it will be abused 100%
As usual it is "get it wrong ,pay more money,so we'll make sure you get it wrong !"
A good example of this is the stalking liscense.If one is to belive the horror stories.

We have enough hoops and loops and laws if applied correctly to sort out any problems.We dont need more law,we need what is there to be properly enforced.

Only way I'd go for somthing like that is[which sounds like a european hunting/shooting test BTW] is that we then have the hunting and firearms liscense for life [bar comitting a criminal act]and that you can have unlimited long arms and two handguns on the hunting liscense.Or as many handguns and longarms suited for a particular sporting disipline that you are qualified in.
Chances of that happening are 0.0000000001%here.

deerhunter1

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

In a word "NO"
Dyslexia is my primary concern.
Secondly, who sets the questions??
I have had enough exams to do me a lifetime!

I agree

fodda

jap gt wrote: »

what type of shooting do you do? could you answer all the questions you posted and more?

Shooting from vehicles. NEVER

Shooting from boats. NEVER IF IT IS MOTORISED OR MOVING

Shooting certain shot types. SLUGS NEVER ON DEER

Shooting protected animals/birds. ALL ARE PROTECTED EXCEPT FOX, RAT, GREY SQUIRRAL, MINK, RABBIT, ... OTHERS HAVE SEASONS OR ONLY UNDER LICENSE AND ATTACKING LIVESTOCK/CROP

Shooting near the road. AT LEAST 60 FT BUT OPEN TO WHATEVER THE JUDGE MAY SAY

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land ONLY ON LAND THAT YOU HAVE PERMISSION TO SHOOT OVER.....NEVER EVER ENTER LAND WITH A GUN THAT YOU DONT HAVE PERMISSION CAUSE ALL HELL COULD BREAK LOOSE

Did this very fast as i have to go now............

Sparks

fodda wrote: »

Shooting from vehicles. NEVER

Motor vehicles...

Shooting from boats. NEVER IF IT IS MOTORISED OR MOVING

Dunno about Moving, thought it was just if it was motorised...

Shooting near the road. AT LEAST 60 FT BUT OPEN TO WHATEVER THE JUDGE MAY SAY

That's in the UK, not here, we don't have a 60ft rule, we have the more generic "no reckless shooting" rule.

Vegeta

fodda wrote: »

Shooting from vehicles.

Shooting from boats.

Shooting certain shot types.

Shooting protected animals/birds.

Shooting near the road.

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land

But the people are asking these questions and finding out the legal position. Surely that's a good thing, why is that bad?

meathstevie

A lot of countries have exams like that before you can go anywhere near hunting live animals in the open air. They involve a theory test on seasons open seasons, safe gun handling, carcass handling, habitat and conservation, legislation, etc etc and are often accompanied by range qualifications as well.

The one I would be most familiar with would the Flemish region of Belgium, I never sat it but know plenty of people who did, where the test is a theory test combined with a shotgun and a rifle practical. The shotgun one would be kind of a practical sporting clays walk through with all sorts of aspects thrown in.

By the way, it's the department of the environment that runs the exam over there for a rather nominal fee and hunting licences cost around €50 per annum after having passed the test and it also doubles up as your firearms licence for hunting firearms. Details of firearms possession are registered on a national database managed by the police.

I don't know anything about the target shooting scene over there so can't answer any questions on that.

dCorbus

Absolutely NOT!

First off: As has already been mentioned, we all have to show "good reason" to the satisfaction of the Guards and we all have to show "competence" either by way (generally) of being a member of an authorised range or having successfully completed a firearms safety training course - so why should we have to jump through more hoops, i ask?!

Secondly:

Shooting from vehicles.

Shooting from boats.

Shooting certain shot types.

Shooting protected animals/birds.

Shooting near the road.

Can i shoot this can i shoot that.

Shooting on land

I'm a target shooter - what relevance has any of the above got to do with the kind of shooting I happen to do? Or would you prefer us all to be tested on the various Wildlife Acts too?

So to answer your OP:

Will you disagree?

Yes, I most certainly will disagree and frankly I'm surprised that any shooter would be so niave and misguided to suggest such an idea. We have enough red-tape already without our fellow shooters (if that is in fact what the OP is) putting the boot in and suggesting even more ways we can be buggered.:mad:

meathstevie

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

NO way in that format!! Like everything in this country where power and money is applied in equal measures it will be abused 100%
As usual it is "get it wrong ,pay more money,so we'll make sure you get it wrong !"
A good example of this is the stalking liscense.If one is to belive the horror stories.

We have enough hoops and loops and laws if applied correctly to sort out any problems.We dont need more law,we need what is there to be properly enforced.

Only way I'd go for somthing like that is[which sounds like a european hunting/shooting test BTW] is that we then have the hunting and firearms liscense for life [bar comitting a criminal act]and that you can have unlimited long arms and two handguns on the hunting liscense.Or as many handguns and longarms suited for a particular sporting disipline that you are qualified in.
Chances of that happening are 0.0000000001%here.

You're basicly talking about the way it's done in a right few continental countries.

Sparks

Lots of Irish licences involve testing as well meath; driving, pilots, ham radio licences all need testing to get. But the state has expert bodies that administer the tests, those tests and the way they're administered are standardised and impartial and have appeal processes and all the mechanics that go with a fair standard test.

Our NGBs on the other hand, are understaffed, unfunded and not able to deliver a test that fairly. You could have a test, there are even ISO standards for doing so, but the test itself would have to be administered by the state and you'd need accreditation inspections for the testing and so forth (That's what the ISO standards cover). But there's no desire on the part of the PTB to run such a system, no manhours to administer it, no money to set it up, and none outside of the PTB to do so either.

I mean, just look at all the criticisim the HCAP gets and that's a very limited test applied to a very small section of the shooting community. A single test for all 200,000-odd shooters from farmers to hunters to target shooters? We couldn't set up something even that basic, let alone tailored tests. It's logistically and financially too much to ask for.

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Absolutely NOT!

First off: As has already been mentioned, we all have to show "good reason" to the satisfaction of the Guards and we all have to show "competence" either by way (generally) of being a member of an authorised range or having successfully completed a firearms safety training course - so why should we have to jump through more hoops, i ask?!

Secondly:



I'm a target shooter - what relevance has any of the above got to do with the kind of shooting I happen to do? Or would you prefer us all to be tested on the various Wildlife Acts too?

Target shooting has a completely different "risk assesment" if you like.

Once you're a balanced sort of a person without criminal tendencies and have an interest in your chosen sport you're halfway there. The next step is knowing that range commands/rules and safety officers are to be taken more serious than the Ten Commandements and the rest is training, training and more training if you want to achieve an anyway decent standard in your chosen discipline. As you said yourself it's a completely different environment ( I dare say to an extent controlled ) than hunting with a firearm and entry criteria should reflect that difference.

dCorbus

Hold on a second: What many seem to be talking about is "testing" hunters as to their knowledge of the relevant wildlife and hunting acts, regs, and best practice - What the OP was asking was about our Firearms Licences, which is something which we are all "tested" on already (so to speak) by way of our proof of competency and proof of "good reason" - Let's not be mixing up two related but separate areas.

And TBH the hcap is there for that reason for lads wanting to hunt on coillte land. Maybe the NPWS could administer a similar thing for hunters in general (TBH I don't know whether they do or don't already).

But that's not what the OP is asking about - he's suggesting a very large end of the wedge be driven deeper up our proverbial shooting small- and full-bores!:rolleyes: Not something I'd personally look forward to!

As you said yourself it's a completely different environment ( I dare say to an extent controlled ) than hunting with a firearm and entry criteria should reflect that difference.

Can't really agree with you there - Firearms can be dangerous in the field or on the range. Safe and responsible handling of a firearm is the same whether you're in a field, in a wood, or on the range (just adapted to the different locations). The Three Golden Rules and the 10 Commandments are equally applicable. A safe shooter knows how to behave safely whether it's on the range or in the field (or at least should do).

Sparks

That was rather my point dC - we dislike the thin end rather a lot, so it makes sense that we wouldn't like the rest of the wedge either!

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

Lots of Irish licences involve testing as well meath; driving, pilots, ham radio licences all need testing to get. But the state has expert bodies that administer the tests, those tests and the way they're administered are standardised and impartial and have appeal processes and all the mechanics that go with a fair standard test.

Our NGBs on the other hand, are understaffed, unfunded and not able to deliver a test that fairly. You could have a test, there are even ISO standards for doing so, but the test itself would have to be administered by the state and you'd need accreditation inspections for the testing and so forth (That's what the ISO standards cover). But there's no desire on the part of the PTB to run such a system, no manhours to administer it, no money to set it up, and none outside of the PTB to do so either.

I mean, just look at all the criticisim the HCAP gets and that's a very limited test applied to a very small section of the shooting community. A single test for all 200,000-odd shooters from farmers to hunters to target shooters? We couldn't set up something even that basic, let alone tailored tests. It's logistically and financially too much to ask for.

The practicalities of it would be fairly daunting in the early stages, I agree with you on that but the knowledge required would be nothing that surpasses the knowledge of a NPWS ranger who could be operating as a tester. If it means hiring a small number of rangers it shouldn't be an insurmountable obstacle and it would lift Irish hunting up to lot higher a level of credibility.

If NPWS was to run tests like that you could do the theory part like the driving test in a mobile test center like the driver theory test and as for the practical there's plenty of sporting clays layouts all over the county as well that could be block booked for a day by the NPWS. The only more complicated one might be finding full bore rifle ranges. With a bit of imagination and a bit of practical thinking it shouldn't cost the earth.

Sparks

meathstevie wrote: »

With a bit of imagination and a bit of practical thinking it shouldn't cost the earth.

*ahem*
Read the firearms acts or any debate surrounding them in the Dail or Seanad recently?

It's not that it's impossible meath; it's that it's never going to be done right and it's a really bad idea. Besides which, I can think of a few groups off the top of my head who'd try to take over the process in the effort to obtain a veto over who got a licence and who didn't. I think we can all agree that that would be a very bad thing.

MarkD.

Fodda answer me a few simple questions yourself please;

-Have you had a bad experience previously with a newcomer who'm you feel wasnt worthy of a licence by the means which the dept of justice has set out?

-Do you have a lack of patience for newcomers to the sport because they ask lots of questions?
Ive grown up all my life with a hearing difficulty, sometimes I wouldnt hear everything so id ask again, this led me to my motto; "Ask questions, get answers" It has helped me gain lots of knowledge about various topics. Might come across as annoying but sure how am I or others meant to learn if we sat and failed to ask.

-What is your take on the older folk into shooting, do you think they all know every single rule going?
As a learner driver rules of the road and he or she will get no doubt 75% right ask an "experienced" driver with years under his/her belt they prob forget or dont even know. Thats just my opinion on rules of the road, others view different.
Dont get me wrong I know drivers and hunters who are older then me and are well on the ball know every rule and reg off the top of their head. and are also very safe with their machine whether it gun or car.

Im just trying to piece together why you've set ypur orig post to new applicants

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Hold on a second: What many seem to be talking about is "testing" hunters as to their knowledge of the relevant wildlife and hunting acts, regs, and best practice - What the OP was asking was about our Firearms Licences, which is something which we are all "tested" on already (so to speak) by way of our proof of competency and proof of "good reason" - Let's not be mixing up two related but separate areas.

And TBH the hcap is there for that reason for lads wanting to hunt on coillte land. Maybe the NPWS could administer a similar thing for hunters in general (TBH I don't know whether they do or don't already).

But that's not what the OP is asking about - he's suggesting a very large end of the wedge be driven deeper up our proverbial shooting small- and full-bores!:rolleyes: Not something I'd personally look forward to!



Can't really agree with you there - Firearms can be dangerous in the field or on the range. Safe and responsible handling of a firearm is the same whether you're in a field, in a wood, or on the range (just adapted to the different locations). The Three Golden Rules and the 10 Commandments are equally applicable. A safe shooter knows how to behave safely whether it's on the range or in the field (or at least should do).

Sorry man, I meant the Ten Commandements as the ones that were carried down from a mountain side in olden times, not the ones that relate to gun handling. It goes without saying that safe gun handling is essential in any context. As often said, it's not the gun causing accidents it's the person handling it.

dCorbus

meathstevie, I think you're missing the point: The OP asked about testing of shooters and firearms licence applicants.

Not all hunters are shooters, not all shooters are hunters.

If the NPWS would like to administer such a scheme for hunters requiring a game licence from them (similar to what Coillte require by way of the HCAP) - that's a very different issue to Firearms Licencing. And IMverystrongO should be kept as a separate issue. The two are not mutually inclusive.

And where would such a scheme leave lads who shoot vermin and go foxing - I'd get my "approval" by way of my "target shooting" training (God forbid - I hope you're not suggesting that that would be "results based" or some such), You'd get yours from HCAP or the NPWS scheme, but who would you suggest administers the Fox, Bunny, Rat, and Miscellaneous Vermin Scheme? The IFA, the IDA, IMPACT, ICABS, or some other selection of letters?

I'm being facetious (intentionally;)), but I'm surprised you can't see the inherent unworkability and the dangerous precedent of the OP's suggestion.

meathstevie

MarkD. wrote: »

Fodda answer me a few simple questions yourself please;

-Have you had a bad experience previously with a newcomer who'm you feel wasnt worthy of a licence by the means which the dept of justice has set out?

-Do you have a lack of patience for newcomers to the sport because they ask lots of questions?
Ive grown up all my life with a hearing difficulty, sometimes I wouldnt hear everything so id ask again, this led me to my motto; "Ask questions, get answers" It has helped me gain lots of knowledge about various topics. Might come across as annoying but sure how am I or others meant to learn if we sat and failed to ask.

-What is your take on the older folk into shooting, do you think they all know every single rule going?
As a learner driver rules of the road and he or she will get no doubt 75% right ask an "experienced" driver with years under his/her belt they prob forget or dont even know. Thats just my opinion on rules of the road, others view different.
Dont get me wrong I know drivers and hunters who are older then me and are well on the ball know every rule and reg off the top of their head. and are also very safe with their machine whether it gun or car.

Im just trying to piece together why you've set ypur orig post to new applicants

MarkD.; let's use the analogy you were using; my grandad started driving in 1945, an American 5-tonne army truck the Americans couldn't be bothered taking back to the States at the end of WWII. In 1947 he had to go to the townhall to buy a driving licence and drove until 1998 or 1999. My dad had to do a short driving test before he could collect his licence at the same townhall. I got my driving licence from the same townhall but not before completing a theory test, 20 hours of lessons, 3 months on L-plates and a comprehensive test covering town center, main road and motorway driving.

You basicly have to make a start somewhere and the benefits will manifest themselves gradually over an amount of time.

fodda

MarkD. wrote: »

Fodda answer me a few simple questions yourself please;

-Have you had a bad experience previously with a newcomer who'm you feel wasnt worthy of a licence by the means which the dept of justice has set out?

-Do you have a lack of patience for newcomers to the sport because they ask lots of questions?
Ive grown up all my life with a hearing difficulty, sometimes I wouldnt hear everything so id ask again, this led me to my motto; "Ask questions, get answers" It has helped me gain lots of knowledge about various topics. Might come across as annoying but sure how am I or others meant to learn if we sat and failed to ask.

-What is your take on the older folk into shooting, do you think they all know every single rule going?
As a learner driver rules of the road and he or she will get no doubt 75% right ask an "experienced" driver with years under his/her belt they prob forget or dont even know. Thats just my opinion on rules of the road, others view different.
Dont get me wrong I know drivers and hunters who are older then me and are well on the ball know every rule and reg off the top of their head. and are also very safe with their machine whether it gun or car.

Im just trying to piece together why you've set ypur orig post to new applicants

Thankyou Mark

I asked the question not to do anybody down in anyway simply because time after time similar questions or discussions come up with multi-page answers trying to explain "that you can or you cant do that" and here's me thinking for f-k's sake man didnt you bother to find anything out before you got your license.

So as a way of self regulation and proving to the world giving good PR wouldnt it be good if you could say we have done this and proved that so yes we are safe, responsible and etc.

I set my post to all and every.

dCorbus

Sorry man, I meant the Ten Commandements as the ones that were carried down from a mountain side in olden times, not the ones that relate to gun handling.

No worries! My mistake.

Just goes to show how good safety training works though, when the first thing I thought of when you mentioned the Ten Commandments was not Moses and his buddies, but the NRA and Firearms Handling!;):D

That said, the basic rules for range and field are the same and they should become second nature to all shooters. When I'm out in a field, my safe handling of the firearm is different than the measures I take on the range - but the result is the same: safe handling by me, for the protection of me and all those in the vicinity.

here's me thinking for f-k's sake man didnt you bother to find anything out before you got your license.

Now, that I can agree with. But what's an Firearms Licencing issue and what's a hunting rules, regulations, and lore issue are still very much separate matters. Personally I thing that the requirement to show "competency" in the safe handling of firearms will weed out a lot of the safety issues - It still won't stop lads acting the tool - But one cannot nor should not legislate for stupidity and childishness. Whenever it's tried, it don't work.

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

meathstevie, I think you're missing the point: The OP asked about testing of shooters and firearms licence applicants.

Not all hunters are shooters, not all shooters are hunters.

If the NPWS would like to administer such a scheme for hunters requiring a game licence from them (similar to what Coillte require by way of the HCAP) - that's a very different issue to Firearms Licencing. And IMverystrongO should be kept as a separate issue. The two are not mutually inclusive.

And where would such a scheme leave lads who shoot vermin and go foxing - I'd get my "approval" by way of my "target shooting" training (God forbid - I hope you're not suggesting that that would be "results based" or some such), You'd get yours from HCAP or the NPWS scheme, but who would you suggest administers the Fox, Bunny, Rat, and Miscellaneous Vermin Scheme? The IFA, the IDA, IMPACT, ICABS, or some other selection of letters?

I'm being facetious (intentionally;)), but I'm surprised you can't see the inherent unworkability and the dangerous precedent of the OP's suggestion.

Target shooting and hunting with firearms both require a gun and that's where similarities end as in relevant legislation. If your passion is indoor airrifle target shooting the open season on woodcock has about as much relevance to you as the man on the moon, agreed. Having a hunting based test for target shooters as a consequence is nonsense. The only thing you could question and test a target shooter on when they wish to acquire their own firearm is safety issues and possession related legislation. Competitive shooting prowess and competence only comes with long hours of practice.

As for "vermin", that's a clear cut one in my opinion and falls under the hunting category with potentially an exception for farmers to shoot pests on their own land.

As for who is to organise the hunting tests; NPWS themselves and nobody with a commercial interest because that only leaves the door open for abuse.

fodda

meathstevie wrote: »

As for "vermin", that's a clear cut one in my opinion and falls under the hunting category with potentially an exception for farmers to shoot pests on their own land.

Good point give me the list of "vermin" now!

meathstevie

Sparks wrote: »

*ahem*
Read the firearms acts or any debate surrounding them in the Dail or Seanad recently?

It's not that it's impossible meath; it's that it's never going to be done right and it's a really bad idea. Besides which, I can think of a few groups off the top of my head who'd try to take over the process in the effort to obtain a veto over who got a licence and who didn't. I think we can all agree that that would be a very bad thing.

I do understand your cause to be pessimistic Sparks and unfortunately you're probably not too far wrong.

dCorbus

But then you're talking about a two-strand licencing system? One for target shooters and one for hunters?

What about lads who do both?
What about lads who want to move from one to the other?
etc
etc

Again, I have to say it, the issues you are talking about are purely related to hunting legislation, regs, lore, do's and don't, etc. They fall under the remit of the DoE / NPWS, not the DoJ.

To try to combine Hunting knowledge (a la HCAP) with Firearms Safety Competency would not be a good thing, nor should it be welcomed by shooters of any kind (Hunters, Plinkers, Target Shooters, Sportsmen, Vermin Controllers, etc** and the miriad of shades within our tightknit and loving community;))

** Please note these are not all mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Most of us will fall into one, two, or all these categories are various times of the year or career!:D:rolleyes:

meathstevie

fodda wrote: »

meathstevie wrote: »

As for "vermin", that's a clear cut one in my opinion and falls under the hunting category with potentially an exception for farmers to shoot pests on their own land.

QUOTE]

Good point give me the list of "vermin" now!

There's no such thing fodda, as a rule all wild animals are protected. That protection is lifted for some between certain dates, i.e. open seasons and for others, the so called "vermin" the protection is waived by a temporary derogation with specification of the species included signed by the minister for the environment on a regular basis.

Spunk84

Is it me but are all the anti hunters coming out off the wood work this month next thing we will have PETA tracking us down:D

fodda

meathstevie wrote: »

fodda wrote: »

There's no such thing fodda, as a rule all wild animals are protected. That protection is lifted for some between certain dates, i.e. open seasons and for others, the so called "vermin" the protection is waived by a temporary derogation with specification of the species included signed by the minister for the environment on a regular basis.

Thank you at least some know, vermin in some peoples books is anything they dont like, not realising it is totally protected.

MarkD.

fodda wrote: »

Thankyou Mark

I asked the question not to do anybody down in anyway simply because time after time similar questions or discussions come up with multi-page answers trying to explain "that you can or you cant do that" and here's me thinking for f-k's sake man didnt you bother to find anything out before you got your license.

So as a way of self regulation and proving to the world giving good PR wouldnt it be good if you could say we have done this and proved that so yes we are safe, responsible and etc.

I set my post to all and every.

Thanks for answering. It was a fairly innocent question to ask, your bascially putting this forward as to make things safer and less grey areas.

I can say from my own experience as Ive only my licence less then a month that I did a competency course for a shotgun, I was not asked random questions by word by the course fella, nor was I told to answer a few questions. It was a case I either listened or I didnt, I listened. I picked up all the rules and regs for myself, educated myself, I didnt have to prove myself to anyone that I knew them or not.
The club said I have to do an NARGC course at the end of the Summer. I do not know if I have to prove I know rules to them course clerks.

meathstevie wrote: »

MarkD.; let's use the analogy you were using; my grandad started driving in 1945, an American 5-tonne army truck the Americans couldn't be bothered taking back to the States at the end of WWII. In 1947 he had to go to the townhall to buy a driving licence and drove until 1998 or 1999. My dad had to do a short driving test before he could collect his licence at the same townhall. I got my driving licence from the same townhall but not before completing a theory test, 20 hours of lessons, 3 months on L-plates and a comprehensive test covering town center, main road and motorway driving.

You basicly have to make a start somewhere and the benefits will manifest themselves gradually over an amount of time.

Fair enough I take your very god point of view. I phrased it badly and used a poor example.
But if your and your ancestors were to apply today you would have to prove you knew what your doing and get certified before you drive on the road. That means the laws would be fresher in your mind for awhile after. How long who knows? Some drivers never bother to refresh the laws after a number of years. Some people do, its up to the individual.
Im going off topic now so I'll get back on track
I just stated that point as I was wondering did the orig post think every older firearm licence holer was better off and knew the laws better then a new applicant. Thats fantasy some of them need refreshing too..

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

But then you're talking about a two-strand licencing system? One for target shooters and one for hunters?

What about lads who do both?
What about lads who want to move from one to the other?
etc
etc

Again, I have to say it, the issues you are talking about are purely related to hunting legislation, regs, lore, do's and don't, etc. They fall under the remit of the DoE / NPWS, not the DoJ.

To try to combine Hunting knowledge (a la HCAP) with Firearms Safety Competency would not be a good thing, nor should it be welcomed by shooters of any kind (Hunters, Plinkers, Target Shooters, Sportsmen, Vermin Controllers, etc** and the miriad of shades within our tightknit and loving community;))

** Please note these are not all mutually exclusive nor inclusive. Most of us will fall into one, two, or all these categories are various times of the year or career!:D:rolleyes:

As for competency and safety, I believe they should be included in any hunting exam if a first licence is applied for for hunting purposes and no previous proof of competency exists. If a hunter wants to move into target shooting competency is allready proven.

As for an established targetshooter who can show proof of being a target shooter ( membership cards, firearms certificate in own name etc etc ) moving on to hunting testing on hunting aspects only should suffise.

It shouldn't really be a stretch of the imagination that for example the NPWS could test for competency and safety aspects on behalf of the DoJ. At the end of the day the testing tool would nearly have to be a standard battery of multiple choice questions scored electronically anyway.

dCorbus

the testing tool would nearly have to be a standard battery of multiple choice questions scored electronically anyway

Hmmmm.....now where have I heard that before?!:rolleyes::D
Are you seriously expecting any part of our permanent government to be able to organise that? Come now, surely you jest!;)

Have you been living in the country for the last 10 years at all?

What you are suggesting is frankly (IMO) unworkable and would create more confusion than any issues it may attempt to solve. Not that I think there is an issue to be solved (at least not as it's been discussed here so far).

Fine, if you want a "Hunting Licence" - apply to the DoEHLG or the NPWS or whoever (scrap the HCAP then too, as it would no longer be needed) and have them deal with this new "Hunting Licence" of yours - but it's nought to do with Firearms Licencing (Why can no one see this distinction?)

There are so many side-effects and foreseeable unforeseeables related to what you and the OP are suggesting, you'd be opening up such a sh1t storm of a can of worms of a mixed metaphor of a pandora's box, that it doesn't bear thinking about.

vermin in some peoples books is anything they dont like, not realising it is totally protected.

And you found that out when? When you asked about it on boards.ie about 6 days ago.
Was that before or after you got your licence, fodda?

Or would that question not be on your curriculum for others?

No one knows 100% of everything - What %age pass rate would you like to see applied to this new testing system of yours? 100%? 60%? or 40%? Or just those who now know that there's no schedule of vermin listed?;);):D:rolleyes:

(Apologies for the blatant sarcasm - I'm just trying to illustrate that not one of us in this thread so far know enough to say what the level of knowledge should or could be for this kind of hunting-knowledge testing)

fodda

dCorbus wrote: »

And you found that out when? When you asked

Nope never asked, the only thing i would class that way is rats, grey squirrels, mink which i think Ireland could do without except for providing food for other animals.

Magpies which i hate, crows and such even though most class as vermin actually do a lot of good (aswell as bad).

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one which i actually said "where is this list i have never seen one"

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Hmmmm.....now where have I heard that before?!:rolleyes::D
Are you seriously expecting any part of our permanent government to be able to organise that? Come now, surely you jest!;)

Have you been living in the country for the last 10 years at all?

What you are suggesting is frankly (IMO) unworkable and would create more confusion than any issues it may attempt to solve. Not that I think there is an issue to be solved (at least not as it's been discussed here so far).

Fine, if you want a "Hunting Licence" - apply to the DoEHLG or the NPWS or whoever (scrap the HCAP then too, as it would no longer be needed) and have them deal with this new "Hunting Licence" of yours - but it's nought to do with Firearms Licencing (Why can no one see this distinction?)

There are so many side-effects and foreseeable unforeseeables related to what you and the OP are suggesting, you'd be opening up such a sh1t storm of a can of worms of a mixed metaphor of a pandora's box, that it doesn't bear thinking about.



And you found that out when? When you asked

Exactly, do away with HCAP and the likes of it, one test for a hunting licence organised and supervised by an impartial state body that covers you for hunting any animal you can legally hunt and also entitles you to have firearms for hunting purposes in your possession and as for target shooters you get a firearms licence the way you always got it.

I honestly can't see the **** storm or pandora's wormy box can in this.

As for government competency to organise anything the likes of this, no comment the track record appears proven.

You mentioned pass rates; as nobody is perfect a reasonable pass rate ( in or around the 60% mark ) should do on hunting legislation issues. As for the safety aspects there should be no compromise; 100% or fail.

dCorbus

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one which i actually said "where is this list i have never seen one"

Please don't take me for a fool, fodda.:mad: I can read that other thread and what you posted. And that's all I'll say on that.

I was asking about the list because i knew there wasnt one

So you admit to trolling then? or flaming? or whatever it's called.
And is that why you asked about it again on this thread? For the sake of clarification, perhaps?
Thanks, at least that clarifies (for me, at least) the purpose of why you raised this issue in the first place.
It's alway nice to know where one stands.

I honestly can't see the **** storm or pandora's wormy box can in this.

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this so.:)

I've said my piece.

meathstevie

dCorbus wrote: »

Please don't take me for a fool, fodda.:mad: I can read that other thread and what you posted. And that's all I'll say on that.



We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this so.:)

I've said my piece.

That's fine by me, it'd be a miserable place if we all had the same opinions.