Text Re Trained Hunter

jww

hi all did anyone get a txt today about trained hunter course , it seams that it is compulsary to supply game as from november 2013.:mad::mad:

DR6.5

Got it as well, theres no way that they can certify all deer stalkers by november, a lot of people wont be willing to shell out the guts of 400 for the course.

dr6.5

deerhunter1

jww wrote: »

hi all did anyone get a txt today about trained hunter course , it seams that it is compulsary to supply game as from november 2013.:mad::mad:

Is it only for people who sell the game

jww

Its for anyone selling to a game dealer

DEMOLISHER

/WHICH ORGANISATION SENT OUT THE TEXTS

DR6.5

Got mine from mick healy in glenmalure, wicklow

wild irish game

meathstevie

I want to see the legal instrument outlining that position before I'll take a text message from someone with quite likely a material interest in the courses for granted.

Cass

Typical. :rolleyes:

When this was first announced it said only people certified as trained hunters, and having completed a course can sell game that was shot, but there was no infrastructure in place to train people before the announcement and since it it's been a free for all much like the competency courses.

Then it was announced it was only for people selling the game themselves, and those selling to a dealer need only supply name, address and license number.

It's a combination of rapid legislation, no forethought, and then leaving it to whomever wants to run the courses and make people compliant with the legislation.

Can anyone really see dealers refusing legitimately shot deer? However as said above i'll wait to hear from the NPWS or similar body before taking what is said/claimed as 100%.

Mauser 308

Have all the texts come from the same game dealer, or multiple dealers?

I supplied a small few deer that were excess to the dealer in Co Kildare last year, and no text from them as yet.

Personally I don't have an issue with this as I have only ever sold them 3 deer. My deer are for myself, friends and family.

Is this perhaps a misguided way of thinking they can reduce the poaching problem?

In reality it will slow it down. But only temporarily until the poachers get off their arse and do the coarse, then the issue resumes.

Cass

Mauser 308 wrote: »

But only temporarily until the poachers get off their arse and do the coarse, then the issue resumes.

While you don't need to have a deer license to do the course you do to sell game to the dealer. So any poacher selling game to a dealer doesn't have a deer license number to provide so i doubt having or not having a course cert will bother them.


I think it's more to do with money. Legitimate shooters sell more deer than poachers do. Till now there was no way to monitor how much someone was selling. It's a matter of revenue/tax and if the person selling is on welfare then they will cut your welfare according to your earnings from selling deer.

Think about it. A person selling 50, 100, 150, 200 or 250 deer a season (and there are people that sell that much and more) has the ability to earn from €5,000 up to or in excess of €25,000 per year. Basically tax free. And as said above if that person is on welfare they probably receive between €10,000 - €15,000 per year on top of that.


So to me it's about recovering revenue wherever they can. The fees being charged for the courses are pure profit for the organisations running them. Nothing to do with taxes, Government, etc. as no Government body runs these courses. It;s all associations, and NGBs.

Mauser 308

Cass wrote:

Think about it. A person selling 50, 100, 150, 200 or 250 deer a season (and there are people that sell that much and more) has the ability to earn from €5,000 up to or in excess of €25,000 per year. Basically tax free. And as said above if that person is on welfare they probably receive between €10,000 - €15,000 per year on top of that

Cass, I am a deer Stalker. In my opinion anyone selling anything like the numbers you have mentioned are getting the deer at night and illegally.

The normal stalker averages between 5 and in some cases up to 20 deer a season. Selling 50,100,150,200 or 250 deer a season is just not done via normal stalking. That's my opinion I may be wrong but that's my experience.

ah sure !

Are some guys really shooting up to 250 deer a season ? that is a huge number.

Have to agree with Mauser 308 , a "normal" stalker wouldn't.

One shot on kill

A guy on the social with noting else to do only go out every morning off the week might.

If I were a me to get that money extra every year she would have no problem lettinge out all the time.

ttemme

Hate to hear of people selling game anyway, so this sounds good to me

Cass

Mauser 308 wrote: »

In my opinion anyone selling anything like the numbers you have mentioned are getting the deer at night and illegally.

Mauser 308 wrote:

Selling 50,100,150,200 or 250 deer a season is just not done via normal stalking. .

I wouldn't know if it's illegally done or not, but it is being done. There are people hunting that many and more as they use deer and deer shooting as their livelihood.

ah sure ! wrote: »

Have to agree with Mauser 308 , a "normal" stalker wouldn't.

No, they wouldn't.

250 would be the high end, but it's not a number out of the blue. It comes from a claim i was told by a person on the range one day. He even does it "tag team". Has a partner that collects the deer he shoots. He shoots them, marks the spot, and the other person comes along after and collects them. Then the partner will be out shooting when he is in his day job.

With 6 months of the year open for deer, and an average of 30 days per month that leaves 180 days to shoot them. If they only shot 2 a day that's 360 so it's very possible to shoot an even larger number than 250 and completely legal (during the day).

Forgetting about the ones that exploit the deer look at those that shoot an average number. They only go out twice a week. That's a possible 48 outings. With only one deer per weekend it's still in the 48 mark.

Then you have those in between the high and low number (50 - 120 mark) and those in the very low mark. Less than 30 a year.

I realise people will not always get a deer when they go out, and that the amount of people doing the really high numbers is probably low, but my point is the possibility of shooting such number are there, and whether it's one deer or 1,000 deer the Gov. are not going to let anyone earn (whether they are on the brew or not) a penny without taxing it.

One shot on kill wrote: »

A guy on the social with noting else to do only go out every morning off the week might.

If I were a me to get that money extra every year she would have no problem lettinge out all the time.

Correct on both points.


From a personal point of view i have no problem if a lad wants to sell a deer. I see no issue with a lad selling some to cover costs or even put a couple of quid in their pockets. It's not wrong (legally) and imo opinion not wrong morally once they are all legal and above board.


What does sicken me is those that act all high and mighty and slate people that sell deer (at all) yet sell twice, three - ten times more than anyone else. IOW those with the internet/media moral high ground yet cannot pass a deer without pulling the trigger.


This course, and to get back somewhat on topic, is yet another method to exploit shooters, and get revenue wherever possible. I;d expect it from the Government, but the amount of people that climb out of the woodwork with "expert courses" is amazing. The difference in price is another issue. Why is one expert worth €400 and then another only €100.

In my opinion the Government or relevant body should have courses and the infrastructure in place before these changes are made. However that has never been the way when it comes to shooting issues, and it both sickens and infuriates me.

One shot on kill

Will it ever happen.

Can the hunter be responsible for what enters the food chain I don't think so. But the company has to be responsible.

Would that not be fair to say.

Cass

That is the way it works which is the basis for my irritation at these courses.

It is the dealers responsibility to inspect, buy, process the meat and it's for this reason he pays for a game dealers license. Hunters can shoot as many deer as they like, but if they are poor quality, sick or just badly shot the dealer will tell them to feck off (or should).

Whether they have a course or not the game dealer is the one that will be approached if there is any contamination/problem with the meat. Not them. Their responsibility ends when it passes inspection and they sell it.


Don;t get me wrong i've no objection to a course. If for no other reason than to educate. It's the manner they are run that bothers me. I keep comparing it, but it's the same as the competency courses. Unregulated.

One shot on kill

Ye I know what your saying. As far as I know the guardi won't actually stand over any coarses and say they are good enough because of responsibility reasons. But wouldnt give a license without one.

It would be a shame for the stalking to go the same route.

Educate ye no problem. But **** coarses were you sit in a room and listen to the teacher brag about his shooting skills.

No thanks.

PL05

If you have HCAP cert are you classed as a trained hunter.

kellyvince

PL05 wrote: »

If you have HCAP cert are you classed as a trained hunter.

No hcap is only good for coillte let's . Trained hunter is another course 300 euro to do it . But you only need it if your selling game to game dealers .

One shot on kill

kellyvince wrote: »

No hcap is only good for coillte let's . Trained hunter is another course 300 euro to do it . But you only need it if your selling game to game dealers .

We're did you get that price.

And who said you actually need it at this stage.

kellyvince

One shot on kill wrote: »

We're did you get that price.

And who said you actually need it at this stage.

That's what a friend of mine payed 300+ .and You don't need it .as i said, its only if your selling deer ..

PL05

Done hcap so i could go on coillte let, and someone told me that i could sell to game dealer with it. you learn somthing new everyday, thanks. anyway it seems that history is repeating itself. deer hunting use to be called the sport of kings, ie money money money, and all these organisations/ associations that are the driving force behind all these courses including the hcap are run by people that have money to burn and the ordinary joe soap thats struggling will eventually be squeezed out of this sport.

One shot on kill

So its in now that you have to have it to go to a game dealer.

Is that right.

Cass

One shot on kill wrote: »

We're did you get that price.

And who said you actually need it at this stage.

One shot on kill wrote: »

So its in now that you have to have it to go to a game dealer.

Is that right.

Came in last year.

As there was no courses up and running it was deemed that until such a time as everyone that wishes to take the course gets it done you simply provide your details and deer license number to the dealer when selling.

Since then courses have begun to sprout up varying in price from €100 up to €360 per course.

The trained hunter courses are, as i see it, a course on meat handling, preparation, food safety, etc. as opposed to the training/education you are meant to receive from doing the HCAP which is only mandatory for coilte leases as mentioned above. One does not cover the other.

Now i could be missing something, but i don't see the need for the trained hunter course. All game being sold will be going to a game dealer. They will in turn prepare, treat, package the meat further until it is sold to whomever buys it. So whether a trained hunter or a normal hunter sells it the dealer will still process it.

Perhaps it is down to accountability, but if the dealer saw something wrong he wouldn't let it go through the processing process. If he did regardless of the condition then what does it matter how well trained the hunter is or what certificates he carries?

One shot on kill

Cass wrote: »

Now i could be missing something, but i don't see the need for the trained hunter course. All game being sold will be going to a game dealer. They will in turn prepare, treat, package the meat further until it is sold to whomever buys it. So whether a trained hunter or a normal hunter sells it the dealer will still process it.

Perhaps it is down to accountability, but if the dealer saw something wrong he wouldn't let it go through the processing process. If he did regardless of the condition then what does it matter how well trained the hunter is or what certificates he ca?

That's exactly what I was thinking the only thing that could ever happen to the hunter is to be contacted saying there was something wrong with the deer and there could be more in the herd.

I don't think I will be doing it until I'm made do it. Not that I intend selling deer or shooting them every weekend. Just out for fun and some meat for the fridge.

I'd say by the time you sell enough deer to actually turn a profit it wouldn't really be worth it anyway.

Unless its the big number and let's face it there section 42's and all the rest.

Cass

I'm not preaching here and if it's coming off as such then it's not intentional.

I have no problem with people selling deer for a few quid. None.

I don't do it myself because i neither shoot enough nor have any interest in it.

If people want to do the course then more power to them. Not insulting them for doing it.

My problems/issues are;

• The typical "make money" schemes run as soon as some new rule, law comes into play.
• Associations that have no standing as a recognised organisation making up rules themselves.
• Associations running courses for things they normally have no input with.
• No regulation of these courses. For fees, adequacy/competency of instructors, etc.
• The higher than thou attitude of some. Slate people for making money selling deer when they do the exact same and usually in greater numbers. Lets face it there are far more selling than let on to. (Not to be confused with genuine people that do not like to see people selling, but enjoying the sport of deer stalking)

The list goes on. As for now the HCAP nor this trained hunter course has any bearing on my shooting. Until such a time as it becomes mandatory i'll give it a miss.

Cupid__Stunt

Lads not all of us have to do it, the animals going into the dealer need to be checked and signed off by a trained hunter, so if one lad in a group has it done then he can verify all the deer for the rest of the group. The only thing he needs to watch out for then is the tax man.. AFAIK you can make €2000 from a sport before having to declare it as an extra income.

Fallow01

Just saw this on the Wild Deer Association of Ireland FB page

Public Consultation on the selling of Wild Game - The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine have launched a public consultation (details below) on the compulsory implementation of the trained person declaration used when selling game to approved game handling establishments. As you will be aware to achieve this standard requires the successful completion of two exams at an approx cost of €400.

We would be interested in hearing your views on whether this should be compulsory to meet the UK export requirements for wild game? The proposed implementation date is November 1st 2013 is this realistic? Any other views you may have? Please reply to us no later than August 14th 2013 with your comments.

We are aware of at least one approved game handling establishment who is canvassing hunters suggesting the implementation date has been agreed, this is incorrect and ignores the public consultation process.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

REQUIREMENT THAT ALL WILD GAME PRESENTED TO APPROVED GAME HANDLING ESTABLISHMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A TRAINED HUNTER DECLARATION

Background

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is proposing to make it compulsory that hunters who supply wild game to the market must undergo formal training in food hygiene, as required under EU Regulations. Before introducing this requirement the Department wants to consult with interested parties. This document explains what is involved.

Trained Persons

The authorities in Ireland have encouraged hunter organisations to provide hunters with training in food hygiene. In December 2011 the authorities approved one such course for the training of hunters provided by the NARGC. Other organisations are invited to provide similar training. It is normal practice across Europe for hunters to have this ‘trained persons’ qualification.

Hunting for Own Consumption

The hunting of wild game for own use is outside the scope of the hygiene package regulations. The ‘trained persons’ requirement is for those who hunt wild game with the intention of placing it on the market for human consumption and it does not apply to hunters who only hunt for domestic use.

Presentation to an Approved Game Handling Establishment

The Department proposes that all wild game presented to Approved Game Handling Establishments should be accompanied by a trained person declaration. Many wild deer shot in Ireland are sold to the UK ‘in the skin’. The UK authorities are now insisting that all these deer must be presented with a trained person declaration to the approved game handling establishment.

Where a hunter is part of a hunting party, it is sufficient that only one person of the hunting team has the requisite training. The trained hunter can undertake the necessary examination and sign the declaration for the other hunters in the hunting party.

Date of Introduction

The Department proposes introducing the ‘trained person’ requirement from 1st November 2013.

If you wish to comment on these proposals you are invited to make a written submission to Public Consultation, Meat Hygiene Section, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Grattan Business Centre, Portlaoise or by email to Danielle.coll@agriculture.gov.ie by Monday 19th August 2013.

Vegeta

Fallow01 wrote: »

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is proposing to make it compulsory that hunters who supply wild game to the market must undergo formal training in food hygiene, as required under EU Regulations.

The above paragraph outlines my problem with this trained hunter proposal.

In Ireland hunters cannot supply wild game to the market, unless they all have facilities akin to that of a professional butcher and are game dealers themselves. Without serious consideration and investment I cannot set up a stall at a farmers market and sell venison. Multiple Depts or the Food Safety Authority would close it down.

The person supplying the market here is not the hunter. It is the game dealer. They have their own safeguards, regulations, vets, etc so why add another layer of red tape to the process for zero added benefit. It is wasteful of peoples time and effort. In a word, unnecessary.

Fallow01

"They have their own safeguards, regulations, vets, etc"

Report here from this year shows a Tipperary Game Dealer was prosecuted for illegally processing wild deer, Tipp FM at the time said it was his second conviction. The lack of regulation or safeguards are my concern, we can talk EU directives till the cows come home but if there's no spot checking, they can put any trained persons name on a carcass

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=516028688419777&id=125121684177148

Vegeta

Fallow01 wrote: »

"They have their own safeguards, regulations, vets, etc"

Report here from this year shows a Tipperary Game Dealer was prosecuted for illegally processing wild deer, Tipp FM at the time said it was his second conviction. The lack of regulation or safeguards are my concern, we can talk EU directives till the cows come home but if there's no spot checking, they can put any trained persons name on a carcass

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=516028688419777&id=125121684177148

Exactly, I believe we already have the required legislation in place. I'm not familiar with the above case but obviously the necessary legislation exists if a prosecution was secured.

Hunter can only sell to Wildlife Dealers and Wildlife Dealers supply the market and operate under Dept rules and regs. Proposals don't suggest any changes will be made here, therefore trained hunter course is not necessary. Spend the wages on enforcement of current legislation as opposed to solicitors drafting more useless legislation, which can be abused without proper checks/enforcement anyway.

HughF

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

REQUIREMENT THAT ALL WILD GAME PRESENTED TO APPROVED GAME HANDLING ESTABLISHMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A TRAINED HUNTER DECLARATION

Background

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is proposing to make it compulsory that hunters who supply wild game to the market must undergo formal training in food hygiene, as required under EU Regulations. Before introducing this requirement the Department wants to consult with interested parties. This document explains what is involved.

Trained Persons

The authorities in Ireland have encouraged hunter organisations to provide hunters with training in food hygiene. In December 2011 the authorities approved one such course for the training of hunters provided by the NARGC. Other organisations are invited to provide similar training. It is normal practice across Europe for hunters to have this ‘trained persons’ qualification.

Hunting for Own Consumption

The hunting of wild game for own use is outside the scope of the hygiene package regulations. The ‘trained persons’ requirement is for those who hunt wild game with the intention of placing it on the market for human consumption and it does not apply to hunters who only hunt for domestic use.

Presentation to an Approved Game Handling Establishment

The Department proposes that all wild game presented to Approved Game Handling Establishments should be accompanied by a trained person declaration. Many wild deer shot in Ireland are sold to the UK ‘in the skin’. The UK authorities are now insisting that all these deer must be presented with a trained person declaration to the approved game handling establishment.

Where a hunter is part of a hunting party, it is sufficient that only one person of the hunting team has the requisite training. The trained hunter can undertake the necessary examination and sign the declaration for the other hunters in the hunting party.

Date of Introduction

The Department proposes introducing the ‘trained person’ requirement from 1st November 2013.

If you wish to comment on these proposals you are invited to make a written submission to Public Consultation, Meat Hygiene Section, Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Grattan Business Centre, Portlaoise or by email to Danielle.coll@agriculture.gov.ie by Monday 19th August 2013.

Cupid__Stunt

Does it count if one has done the HACCAP training in food hygiene?

meathstevie

As far as I can see it the whole idea of a "trained hunter" certification would be akin to asking a farmer to assume responsibility for the hygiene standards and the quality control measures in a meat processing factory.

Using the analogy of a farmer supplying animals to a factory; the farmer is responsible for rearing the animals in an acceptable way from a welfare point of view and he's also responsible to take measures to prevent disease and contact either a vet and or the department depending on what he thinks is wrong with an animal(s).

There is no legislation anywhere to state that a farmer should have certain veterinary skills to make a correct disease/illness diagnosis. There is on the other hand piles of legislation obliging a farmer to notify the Department of Agriculture / vet if he suspects a particular disease like foot and mouth or TB has gotten into his herd.

I believe it should be a similar situation for hunters; if you shoot a deer and the lungs for example appear rotten with lesions and infection suggesting TB you should notify the NPWS of location and date and safely dispose of the carcass maybe retaining the lungs in a sturdy plastic bag so they can be handed over for testing to an NPWS/ Dept. of Agriculture location and there the hunter's responsibility ends.

As has been outlined above it's not the hunter who sells to the market, it's the game dealer who is the first step in a series of commercial transactions with the end users of the meat and it's there that the meat should be certified as fit for human consumption.

CJhaughey

I urge everyone to make a submission to the Dept regarding this matter.
From doing similar consultations I know that if they suddenly receive 20 letters or emails regarding this then they will take notice.
Its ALORT(Another layer of Red Tape) that is unnecessary.
If this is made mandatory then the hunter himself may as well get a game license and sell directly and cut the buyer out of it altogether!
If a diseased animal was found to have entered the food chain certified by a trained hunter does that mean the game buyer who placed it on the market has a scapegoat?

One shot on kill

CJhaughey wrote: »

does that mean the game buyer who placed it on the market has a scapegoat?

That can't happen anyway. Just because your trained and I use the word trained very very lightly. You definitely cannot be considered a professional. If they need a standers of " trained" hunters they will have to set up a training standard and coarse criciluam and as said this is just about revenue not about setting standards.

IMO.

meathstevie

Even highly qualified professionals in the meat industry like Department of Agriculture vets and so on will hardly ever work on a visual diagnosis alone when dealing with below standard and unsafe carcasses unless it's something straightforward like for example tapeworm or an animal being brought for slaughter with a broken leg.

When confronted with for example a dodgy beef carcass they'll deem it unfit for human consumption and destroy it straight away but confirmation of initial suspicion/diagnosis will often be gotten through lab tests.

Keeping that in mind doesn't a hunter to an extent do exactly the same ? Shoot a deer, open it up, see something wrong, bury the lot and bury it deep ?

Keeping all the food safety and traceability rules and regulations in mind it still doesn't prevent the likes of dioxin contaminated feed getting into the foodchain, dodgy nags being sold for beef, doubtful origins Asian poultry being labeled EU because it was re-packed somewhere in the EU etc etc....

No matter how many rules and layers of bureaucracy one adds it's only still as good as the next shifty caracter deciding there's a quick few quid to be made.

Since Irish legislation prohibits the introduction of wild animal carcasses into the commercial food chain unless at least one of the parties involved in the transaction is a licenced game dealer I believe that the carcass inspection and certification should remain at the gamedealer level.

One shot on kill

Was talking to a game dealer today. He said this is coming down the tracks but they will still take deer now the way things are.