Trained Hunter Course???

wirehairmax

Cass wrote: »

There are no reps for the WDAI on Boards. Not in an official capacity. So anyone responding on behalf of the WDAI is not representing them, officially, as far as Boards.ie is concerned.

To do so they need to contact the Mods, ask for a Representative account, have such an account verified by the admins, and if successful an account will be set up for them and their title will be changed to highlight they are official reps. Then anything posted under that account is official WDAI correspondence/information/statements.

I don't think they will look for an official account. I don't know anyone in the WDAI personally but if I were them I wouldn't come on here to have muck thrown at them. Same for the NARGC. They both do good work in their own ways although lately the lines have been blurred on all sides. The NARGC should have stayed a million miles away from the game meat handling course. It's in their constitution to preserve and conserve wild game and no member should profit from membership of the association. The way I interpret this is that the minute a NARGC member enters lands with the intention of shooting game to sell on, they are in breach of the constitution and should be subject to appropriate disciplinary measures.
By facilitating game dealers with this course I would question the ethos and objectives of the NARGC.
I'm all for education and good courses but the learning outcome must suit the needs of the participant.
The objective of the game handling course is not about the hunter. It is about ensuring the game dealers are kept well stocked and the supply of venison for export is maintained.
In saying all that, I have bought the book and it is very well produced and well worth €25. But there is no way in hell I ever want to do that course for €300. The book is a good read and well illustrated and presented and according to the NARGC is worth 22 hours credits for just reading it. My one gripe about the book is that it's littered with references to a particular game dealer and they are acknowledged and thanked in the book also. There is an emphasis on how to produce a carcass to a dealer which is what the whole course was designed for and not for the hunter only shooting for himself which is what the NARGC should have prioritised and not the needs of game dealers.
The WDAI should never have become involved in the gun licensing debate last week. Des crofton has shown his teeth in the past in the various courts and media and the WDAI would probably be well advised to give him his rope as des sails fairly close to the wind when he's on his soapbox in the Irish shooters digest and is quick to attack when his opinion is challenged. The Gardai have been hesitant so far in getting into a war of words but I do wonder what's coming down the line?
The NARGC deserve great praise for the orginization they have become and have many positive elements however the "trained hunter" is in direct conflict with the constitution and ethos of conservation.
Shoot for sport and food and not for profit. That is what we should all remember as that's what our main hunting body should be in mind of also and not the needs of a cartel of game dealers.

Cass

As a non member of the WDAI let me ask you this.

• Do the WDAI not do a course too?
• As a Deer specific organisation would they not hold such values even more closely?
• I'm sure members of the WDAI sell deer as some of the member(s) make either a living or extra income from the shooting of them do they not?

My point(s) being the same values should apply across the board or not at all to all groups. So saying the NARGC are breaking their own constitution by allowing the selling of deer, when the WDAI members may do the same thing is not really a comparison.

I agree both groups have their merits, but they seem to have the same faults too. It's most likely not just applicable to these two either, but as i won't be dragged into a conversation on the practices of groups that i don't know about i'm going to limit my discussion to the two groups mentioned here.

wirehairmax

Cass wrote: »

As a non member of the WDAI let me ask you this.

• Do the WDAI not do a course too?
• As a Deer specific organisation would they not hold such values even more closely?
• I'm sure members of the WDAI sell deer as some of the member(s) make either a living or extra income from the shooting of them do they not?

My point(s) being the same values should apply across the board or not at all to all groups. So saying the NARGC are breaking their own constitution by allowing the selling of deer, when the WDAI members may do the same thing is not really a comparison.

I agree both groups have their merits, but they seem to have the same faults too. It's most likely not just applicable to these two either, but as i won't be dragged into a conversation on the practices of groups that i don't know about i'm going to limit my discussion to the two groups mentioned here.

As far as I know the WDAI do not have a similar or equivalent course although there was talk of a course to rival the NARGC one for €100 but I don't know where it stands now.
http://www.wilddeerireland.com/membership.html The aims and objectives are outlined here. Similar to the aims and objectives of the NARGC. Conservation, preservation etc etc. not as formal though and all it takes to join them is your membership form and the fee. It's very informal membership unlike the NARGC which has a clearly defined structure and rules and constitution. I suppose unlike the NARGC the WDAI cannot discipline or be held accountable for its members actions. My point on the constitution of the NARGC is that the rule about profiting from membership and shooting game is there in black and white and by facilitating this "trained hunter" course, they are contradicting their own constitution and rule. If you read the NARGC constitution it was amended in July 2012 to specifically exclude the sale of deer carcasses from the rule 11 concerning "commercial exploitation". Id imagine this was changed in preparation for the "trained hunter" course which began in 2013. Although when I read the constitution a few months ago this amendment hadn't been updated on the website. I actually hadn't spotted this amendment in the meantime so my comment above regarding the breach of constitution and the sale of deer is incorrect at this present time although the timing of the amendment and the fact that it was changed to specifically exclude deer should certainly raise questions as well as eyebrows. It all points back to making sure the game dealers are supplied with their most valuable raw materials and our main body for game shooting and conservation are facilitating them.
Yes I'd imagine there are WDAI members selling deer and up to other things also as human nature but the links are not as obvious or blatant. In a national orginization, human nature is going to vary significantly and not everyone is who they proclaim to be. Just take the posters here who hide behind their usernames and paint themselves whiter than white but I know one or two who post here as if they are angels but I wouldn't trust them with my dead dog. That's just human nature and I believe every person is accountable for their own actions even if you are part of a group or body.
The NARGC cannot be responsible for their members actions and neither can the WDAI and the NARGC states this on their website that stupidity and bad behaviour will not be tolerated.
Anyone who has been shooting deer for a few years know that numbers are way down except in isolated pocket in certain areas. Surely now is not the time to be encouraging the sale of deer by introducing courses by our main game conservation body to satisfy export demands by dealers.
The WDAI have lobbied for a change to the seasons to allow pregnant hinds a chance in February and also lobbied game dealers not to take section 42 animals out of season.
As I said at the outset I don't know anybody personally in the WDAI nor do I have any allegiance to them except for the €20 I gave them so I could attend their free seminars on butchering and tracking dogs.
I am a member of my local GPA and am actively involved in many of the activities within the club. I have benefitted greatly from being a member of the association over the past number of years. Other than this "trained hunter" issue I have nothing only praise for the NARGC although I do feel their director could be a little less litigious and confrontational although I suppose that's what he's there for. I've never met the man although he did phone me one day after I voiced my opinion about the course on the NARGC Facebook page. I was left in no doubt that I was to mind my manners and tow the party line or I would get myself in trouble? Take what you want out of that?

Cass

wirehairmax wrote: »

It's very informal membership unlike the NARGC which has a clearly defined structure and rules and constitution.

Not being argumentative, but it's membership or not. How well it's structured/managed is an academic discussion. Fact is people pay membership fees to be included in that association.

I suppose unlike the NARGC the WDAI cannot discipline or be held accountable for its members actions.

The NARGC cannot impose any legal sanctions on theri members, no more than the WDAI can, but both group, WDAI included, can cancel membership, and disassociate themselves from such people. You even so say yourself further down in the same post:

wirehairmax wrote:

The NARGC cannot be responsible for their members actions and neither can the WDAI and the NARGC states this on their website that stupidity and bad behaviour will not be tolerated.

Yes I'd imagine there are WDAI members selling deer and up to other things also as human nature but the links are not as obvious or blatant.

AS what? How would the NARGC control such selling anymore than the WDAI? People are already selling without the traineed hunter course on both sdies so how would one group running such a course make them more responsible for their members actions? As you said yourself:

That's just human nature and I believe every person is accountable for their own actions even if you are part of a group or body.

Anyone who has been shooting deer for a few years know that numbers are way down except in isolated pocket in certain areas. Surely now is not the time to be encouraging the sale of deer by introducing courses by our main game conservation body to satisfy export demands by dealers.

Excuse me on this point. not really following you. If numbers down surely encouraging the sale of deer by any group is not the way to solve it? Or have i misread the post?

The WDAI have lobbied for a change to the seasons to allow pregnant hinds a chance in February and also lobbied game dealers not to take section 42 animals out of season.

To whom? On behalf of their members? Again much like the other thread on the main forum did they consult with the other groups, and get their members opinions before acting on their own?

As I said at the outset I don't know anybody personally in the WDAI nor do I have any allegiance to them except for the €20 I gave them so I could attend their free seminars on butchering and tracking dogs.

Does the fee not count as membership? I'm sure it is and not just a donation. As such you are a member and entitled to ask questions of the committee, their actions, any proposals by them to any Dept, etc, etc. IOW you have rights much like anyone else does in the NARGC.



I just want to say that i'm not trying to nit pick or be argumentative. I have my own opinions on these courses, as i touched on at the start of this thread. I'm trying to get to the core of both groups beliefs, their intentions, the differences and similarities of their members (which i don't hesitate to guess would share a large crossover, IOW members of one are members of the other).


Without going off topic, in relation to the trained hunter courses, i've seen people that rely on Deer shooting/selling, yet call for proper management, an end to certain practices, etc. The very things they do. Much like what was said at the start about some people making disparaging remarks about the courses then actually taking them (not saying this happened, only quoting a reference to it above). IOW lead by example.

luvhuntin

wirehairmax wrote: »

You've some hard-on for the WDAI. I'd love to know what they did to you? Obviously some history there? You might be better off picking up the phone and ringing them directly. They don't seem to be responding to your friendly invitation here. Who are the reps from the WDAI on boards btw?

Your quite right Wirehairmax I have some hard-on for the WDAI and others aswell though but not because they done anything personally on me(Which is always their reply aswell:rolleyes:) If you look back on my few posts let me know if there are any questions I asked that you dont think are important for them to answer. I have also stated that all the organisations do some very good work but that doesnt mean we turn a blind eye to some serious issues.