Benefit of training to hunters/shooter

Sparks

as you note, long-term stability is obviously something they know nothing about, right?

Nice snark, but ignores the little details.
Like, say, the GDPR which currently means that when brexit takes effect, we have to cut off most if not all data flows to the UK that could have PII data on them.
*That* is the long term stability I was talking about. Not whether C&G would be here in three years; but whether they would count for anything outside the shrinking borders of the UK. Such things have to be internationally agreed-upon through things like the Bologna agreement and such. And with the UK doing a nose-dive out the window of the EU without those agreements in place, what a C&G accreditation will be worth outside of Wangland in two years time is currently anyone's guess.

gunny123

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, yes, the UK City and Guilds organisation. It was founded on November 11, 1878 by the City of London and 16 livery companies – to develop a national system of technical education, City & Guilds has been operating under Royal Charter (RC117), granted by Queen Victoria, since 1900. The Prince of Wales later King Edward VII was then appointed the first President of the Institute. City & Guilds is a registered charity (no. 312832). The Institute's president is HRH The Princess Royal who accepted this role in June 2011 (following her father HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, who held the position for nearly 60 years), and the Chairman of Council is Sir John Armitt, who took office in November 2012. Many of the livery companies who lend their weight and support to the C&G themselves date back to the 13th C - as you note, long-term stability is obviously something they know nothing about, right?

So, the City & Guilds - another fly-by-night, flash-in-the-pan, here-today and gone-tomorrow bunch of wowsers esconsed in fly-blown little office somewhere in London.

Obviously, another bunch of scheming Brits who can't be trusted, eh?

I've got two of their qualifications, gained way back when I was a techie in the Army - one in electrical and the other in mechanical engineering. These days either would have gotten me a walk-in apprenticeship with that other British back-street organisation, Rolls-Royce.

tac

City and guilds were common enough qualifications here in the engineering trades until, i suppose 15 or 20 years ago Tac. They are all Fetac now.

tac foley

Sparks wrote: »

Nice snark, but ignores the little details.
Like, say, the GDPR which currently means that when brexit takes effect, we have to cut off most if not all data flows to the UK that could have PII data on them.
*That* is the long term stability I was talking about. Not whether C&G would be here in three years; but whether they would count for anything outside the shrinking borders of the UK. Such things have to be internationally agreed-upon through things like the Bologna agreement and such. And with the UK doing a nose-dive out the window of the EU without those agreements in place, what a C&G accreditation will be worth outside of Wangland in two years time is currently anyone's guess.

Not a 'snark', Sir, but a statement laying out the facts behind the C&G organisation whose 'long-term stability' you doubted.

Whether or not any post-exit British qualification will mean anything in Ireland is going to be a discussion point for years to come. Many of your doctors train here, as do many other medical specialists in every field. As do your scientists and so on - UK universities are as full of Irish students as any other nationality.

Many other skilled professionals in the public and private sectors are trained in UK. All achieve current UK standards, but will the Republic authorities acknowledge them?

These standards are hardly going to take a nosedive after the exit, or do you believe they will?

Still, the thread is drifting, and I'm sorry about that.

tac

Sparks

tac foley wrote: »

Not a 'snark', Sir, but a statement laying out the facts behind the C&G organisation whose 'long-term stability' you doubted.

But not the relevant ones in regard to the instability that I was talking about. C&G courses aren't going to stop; but their accreditation within the EU (and hence in Ireland) isn't clear and so using them as a basis for a training course's accreditation would not be the first choice of anyone starting the process in Ireland today.
Because of long term stability problems.

Whether or not any post-exit British qualification will mean anything in Ireland is going to be a discussion point for years to come.

No, it's been an action point for several months now.
Just because it's not hit the main papers doesn't mean that things like the GDPR don't require immediate prep work. Some of us have to do that kind of stuff for a day job, so this hasn't been some academic point to chat about over a pint, there's serious amounts of work involved in this and billion-dollar companies have been working on it flat out since last June.

These standards are hardly going to take a nosedive after the exit, or do you believe they will?

Whether they nosedive or skyrocket won't matter. Whether they are recognised at all is the question. My degree is recognised all over the world because of a fairly complex set of international agreements, from the Bologna process (which almost all STEM degrees rely on and which is a purely EU thing and which the UK just opted out of, so anyone currently in a UK uni course in years 1-3 is in trouble), to the Dublin, Washington, Seoul, Sydney Accords and a few others. It's a lively intricate net and Brexit just dropped a brick through the lines holding the UK in it and while nobody knows where the damage ends, nobody thinks it's untouched either.
And that's at the degree and higher (professional or academic) degree level. Lower certification levels are in even more fun territory.

TL;DR - if you're starting today, you use FETAC because nobody knows what a C&G accreditation will be worth outside of Wangland in two years time.

tac foley

Thank you for the thorough explication.

tac

bluezulu49

Not sure if this is the correct place to put this but I just found this:

"Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands."

I found it on http://www.coillte.ie/our-forests/explore/permits/

Third sentence of third paragraph of Licenced Hunting. Who is going to provide the course, who is going to approve it and who has the competence here to do either?.

BattleCorp

bluezulu49 wrote: »

Not sure if this is the correct place to put this but I just found this:

"Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands."

I found it on http://www.coillte.ie/our-forests/explore/permits/

Third sentence of third paragraph of Licenced Hunting. Who is going to provide the course, who is going to approve it and who has the competence here to do either?.

I know feckall about deer hunting but is it the HCAP training that they are talking about there?

bluezulu49

BattleCorp wrote: »

I know feckall about deer hunting but is it the HCAP training that they are talking about there?

No. Not only talking about deer. See quote of section on Licenced Hunting below.

LICENSED HUNTING
Game hunting and deer stalking are amongst the oldest forms of forest recreation and continue to be legally enjoyed by many people across the country.

Respecting the traditional nature of this activity and recognising the social, environmental and economic benefits which hunting can contribute, Coillte permit certain types of hunting on their estate where it is deemed compatible with forest management objectives and where it is not considered to compromise the safety of other forest users or negatively impact populations of quarry species. This is in line with our Recreation Policy and Deer Management Policy and supports the principles of multiple use forestry.

Hunting is managed and regulated through the issue of licences which are subject to open public tender. Tender bids are evaluated based on the annual fee offered, applicant's previous experience, their commitment to safety as well as environmental and local interest considerations. Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands. Currently this is a mandatory requirement for all those intending to hunt wild deer.

Coillte have produced a code of practice which establishes minimum standards expected of all persons engaged in these activities alongside compliance with national legislation and conditions of the licence agreement.

Coillte is totally opposed to illegal hunting or use of firearms on its lands which is an offence under the Wildlife Acts 1976 (as amended) and under current Forestry Bye-Laws. Suspected occurrences of this activity should be reported immediately to an Garda Síochána, National Parks and Wildlife Service. Coillte fully supports the "Shine a Light on Poaching" campaign.

bluezulu49

It gets worse.
I just had a look at Coillte's Code of Practice for Sustainable Hunting.

"2. Hunter Competence
Coillte believe that it is incumbent on all hunters to develop and maintain their skills and competencies with their firearms in order to minimise any associated safety risks and to avoid potential injury and unnecessary suffering by the quarry species. Regular practice on approved target ranges will assist a hunter in maintaining familiarity and proficiency with their firearm.
(Note:- The zeroing of rifles or other forms of target practice including clay pigeon shooting are not permitted on Coillte lands except under licence).


Coillte is rapidly moving to a position whereby only persons who have demonstrated their competence by satisfactorily completing recognised qualifications in safe firearms use and humane / sustainable hunting practices, will be licensed to hunt and use firearms on its lands.
Coillte’s current policy on this is :-
2.1 The hunting of game birds and other small quarry species :-
Coillte highly recommended that all game hunters complete a Nationally recognised, certified, firearms safety training course and have demonstrated their competence through the successful completion of an appropriate assessment.
After the 1st January 2021, only persons who have satisfactorily completed an approved, certified, hunter competence assessment will be permitted to hunt and shoot game and other quarry species on its lands.
2.2 The hunting of wild deer :-
Only persons who have satisfactorily completed an approved, certified, hunter
competence assessment are permitted to stalk and shoot deer Coillte lands. This policy is implemented as follows:-
2.2.1 Licence Holders and Stalking Permit Holders (standard) :-
Only holders of the Hunter Competence Assessment Programme1 (HCAP) qualification can hold a licence to hunt deer on Coillte lands.
All persons nominated to hunt under such licences (“nominated hunters”) will also require this qualification in order to be issued with an annual stalking permit which covers the full duration of the hunting season (standard permit)
2.2.2 Stalking Permit Holders (restricted) :- Nominated hunters who do not hold the HCAP qualification, but do hold an alternative, hunter qualification may, subject to additional conditions, be issued with a “restricted stalking permit” for a maximum duration of 2 weeks. A total of two such restricted permits may be issued to such an individual during the course of a hunting season.

1 Please note:- The Hunter Competence Assessment Programme (HCAP) – Is the only such qualification currently accepted by Coillte, as it is the only such assessment which evaluates an individual’s knowledge and understanding of relevant National legislation as well as Coilltes’ licencing conditions and safety control measures."

This is a very worrying development for all who shoot on Coillte ground as it appears to open the way for a "Game Shooting HCAP".

It strikes me also that someone has possibly done a cut and paste job on something published in England.

Sparks

Nationally recognised, certified, firearms safety training course

Does not exist.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

Does not exist.

Neither did HCAP until recently

Looks like "training" for all is on the horizon. Not a surprise when apparently the NASRPC rep just happens to own a firearm/training company and this training thing is on the fcp agendas. The range bit & practice I wonder if some of the range operators on the fcp are trying to make range membership/use compulsory too. nice little earners for some.

Any truth in the story that all nasrpc range officers have to pay this new company every 3 years to remain range officers

Fcp is a cosy cartel with all participants making sure their businesses are looked after and all backing each others proposals at least NARGC & IFA seem to have thrown a temp spanner into the works on one scam.

Sparks

1) It's not as simple as owning a company and trying to push for your company to get business. National recognition and certification is controlled through QQI and that means you need a FETAC course and that means ISO certification; and that means that there's an independent standard, not Joe Blog's Famous Firearms Course.

2) The FCP is not a cosy cartel and you're buying straight into the biggest lie that's circulated about the FCP.

Sparks wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the rumour to get injected that this is all the FCP's fault, when it seems that this, which would bring a huge amount of damage to the FCP's reputation, is coming from a group who've a public history of being highly opposed to the FCP...

Sparks

Also,

The range bit & practice I wonder if some of the range operators on the fcp are trying to make range membership/use compulsory too.

It's not legal to shoot outside of an authorised range if you're practicing. That's a ****ty law, but it's the law and Coillte can hardly require people to break it in a written document with their name on it.

Grizzly 45

I do belive said individual has stepped down from the NASRPC board due to this being a conflict o f intrest??

As for Coilte and HCAP.As rightly pointed out somewhere on one of the threads.HCAP would not exist because of shooting in Coilte woods.So without shooting in Coilte there would be no need for HCAP. I wonder how well Coilte would fare financially if there was a nationwide boycott of their lets for a season or two? Us hunters are providing a gratis service to them that we have the privilidge of paying for.I wonder how much would it cost them to hire in pro stalkers and all the rest .Ye are paying them a serious chip of change for these lets,I would be thinking you might also liked to be asked your opinions on how things might and could be done?Ye are after all customers too?

Grizzly 45

Please note:- The Hunter Competence Assessment Programme (HCAP) – Is the only such qualification currently accepted by Coillte, as it is the only such assessment which evaluates an individual’s knowledge and understanding of relevant National legislation as well as Coilltes’ licencing conditions and safety control measures."
QUOTE]

There is your cosy cartel.... Blatantly illegal under EU law.I'd rate a German Jagd Schein ,a French Permit De Chasse, or any other EU hunting license as a 1000% superior qualification than this joke that professes to be a qualification here.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks wrote: »

1) It's not as simple as owning a company and trying to push for your company to get business. National recognition and certification is controlled through QQI and that means you need a FETAC course and that means ISO certification; and that means that there's an independent standard, not Joe Blog's Famous Firearms Course.

2) The FCP is not a cosy cartel and you're buying straight into the biggest lie that's circulated about the FCP.

Re no 1 is Hcap covered by all those requirements?

Re no 2 my point is that the shooting participants seem to be submitting their agendas and they then don't diasgree with each others so doj think all shooters are happy with the agendas when in reality ordinary shooters are being asked or told nothing

Walter Mittys Brother

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

I do belive said individual has stepped down from the NASRPC board due to this being a conflict o f intrest??

Is he still on fcp?

Is he pushing this at fcp?

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Re no 1 is Hcap covered by all those requirements?

It doesn't meet them but it didn't have to as it was only coillte looking for it. If it had to be a nationally recognised certification then it would have to have done all of that but AFAIK only one portion of it did. And that was not to do with firearms at all.

Re no 2 my point is that the shooting participants seem to be submitting their agendas and they then don't diasgree with each others so doj think all shooters are happy with the agendas when in reality ordinary shooters are being asked or told nothing

Not participantS. Just one group from all appearances.

Walter Mittys Brother

Sparks you seem to be in the know so if hcap and other shooters training is to rolled out nationwide they'll have to get all the stuff you listed above?

If this training ****e goes compulsory for all shooters who will decide who gets to do it?

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

........... my point is that the shooting participants seem to be submitting their agendas and they then don't diasgree with each others so doj think all shooters are happy with the agendas when in reality ordinary shooters are being asked or told nothing

I said a good while back and i'll say it again to remind everyone.

THIS IS NOT THE FCP.

This is a minority of people, composing of at most two groups, within the FCP that are doing end runs without the knowledge of the majority of the other FCP reps, and more importantly without the knowledge of the people they claim to represent. As for the other groups doing nothing, my rep has challenged these, the NARGC have launched a petition as well as discussed it, but all of them are working on the back foot having only learned about these recently.

So look at the so called "sports Coalition". The NARGC left it, as did the NASRPC. The groups that cuurently make it up include the ICPSA, NSAI, WA1500, Irish Bullseye, IFDA, ROAI, and some angling crowd.

The important bit to note is the IFDA and ROAI. They are the Irish Firearm Dealers Association and Range Operators Association of Ireland. Two groups that up till a few years ago DID NOT EXIST and if memory serves me right has one or two people as its entire membership.

IOW the sports coalition is a dangerous relic of a time when people within the sporting community tried to break it into pieces they could control and manage. It failed but what is left is still being run the same way.

To blame this on the FCP is wrong, and a huge disservice as it only spreads the rumors i spoke about before (here and on other threads).

If this training ****e goes compulsory for all shooters who will decide who gets to do it?

It's not happening. It's a proposal form the very same group above, WITHIN the FCP and not the FCP itself. As proposals they can be countered, argued against and in the end defeated.

Contact the sports coalition and ask them why they are doing this. Ask them why they have taken these steps of their own volition without informing other parties on the FCP or the greater shooting community. I bet you get the same answer we all got when they tried this sh*t two years regarding the review on firearms when they submitted secret proposals which say them (the sports coalition) calling for the banning of semi auto rifles, pistols under 5 inches, demanding time lock safes for all, ballisitic testing that we have to pay for, etc, etc).

Walter Mittys Brother

So why does the fcp exist? Is it to make sure garda and or doj can't shaft us like they've tried previously? Or as it looks now is it to allow some shooting crowds to try and shaft us instead?

Cass

The FCP was created by Minister Ahern in 2008 IRC.

He created it and invited the various shooting bodies to be present to discuss firearms, legislation, etc. along with a representative from his office and An Garda?. We have no power, authority, etc. IOW we cannot tell them to do something. What we do have is a direct link to the Minister's office and a voice that has to be heard as equally as the voices of An Garda?, etc. IOW we have a foot in the door.

It's mission is simple. To try and create a platform whereby shooting sports gets a fair shout when any future or possible future legislation is being considered/drafted. IOW no nasty surprises. We also get to an input into how that future legislation can work for our benefit while giving peace of mind to the DoJ and An Garda?.

The problem is some shooting bodies have over the years done their own thing, separate to the rest of the FCP, and this has caused tension, disharmony, bad feelings and even a period of inactivity within the FCP. So ,ong as the people that have seats on the FCP do these secret proposals, end runs, etc. without the knowledge of the rest of the FCP or the greater shooting community we wil always face these kinds of situations.

Thankfully such acts are the work of a very, very small few and are in most cases shot down very qucikly as it's seen for what they are.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

Sparks you seem to be in the know

About FETAC courses, somewhat. About this latest nonsense, nope.

so if hcap and other shooters training is to rolled out nationwide they'll have to get all the stuff you listed above?

So "rolled out nationwide" and "nationally recognised" are not the same thing.
You can have a nationally recognised certification that has no courses anywhere and is effectively defunct; and you can have a course that's available everywhere but isn't a nationally recognised certification.

The important bit here is the "recognised" bit, because that implies that people are not allowed to say it's meaningless.

Right now, your local Super can look at an application for a licence that comes in and if it lists a course as proof of competence, he's totally free to say he won't accept it, because there are no recognised courses that prove competence. There are courses that are run (more or less) nationally; but that's not the same thing. Recognition would mean that the state has formally recognised it as (in this case) proof of competence and the Super would not be entitled to refuse to accept it. It's kindof a Big Thing?.

For example, you do a degree course. That degree gets recognised as saying you have a certain level of competence in whatever the degree was on. Doesn't matter when you did it or where, you have that bit of paper, nobody can say you know less than that certain level about the subject. Your boss wants to fire you and say it's because you don't know the job? He'd lose in court because you have a recognised qualification. That's how serious it is and that's why it's so much work to get a course recognised. There's a lot of hoops to jump through. And once the course is recognised (by which I mean the syllabus, the materials, the length of the course, the specification for how it should be taught), then people who want to run that course have to show that the specific training they provide meets the standard set out by the course.

If this training ****e goes compulsory for all shooters who will decide who gets to do it?

edit: I thought it was implicit but just to be clear, that is a monsterously huge if. It's really unlikely to happen.

Anyone who meets the standard of training required can teach a recognised course.

By which I mean, when a course is recognised, it's not an individual company's training that FETAC look at, it's the syllabus and standards of the course itself. And once that is recognised, everyone who wants to provide training to that certification level has their training inspected and approved by FETAC and then they can train people to that certification. It's not possible to have a monopoly on it - same way you can't have a monopoly on first aid courses or maths degrees. Anyone that meets the standard can get approved to teach them. So you don't get a UCD Maths Degree, you get a BA in Maths. You just happen to get it from UCD. You could as readily have gotten *exactly the same degree* from any other university that teaches that course.

Also, in case it's not clear, it's a huge amount of work to set all this up. It's not something someone is going to be able to do over a weekend, it's usually months of work if it goes fast.

edit: Also, ugh, it's not FETAC anymore, it's QQI these days - they basically merged FETAC, HETAC, NQAI and another crowd I can't remember into QQI a few years ago. The argument still holds, the process will still be the same.

cookimonster

Just a point to note, since we're on an acidemic slant - IF (notice the big 'if') this goes down the road of a national qualification then it most likely fall under the remitt of QQI if this is case then the course program will be more or less set in stone in regards to any other 'program' providing training and qualification. QQI are not in the habit of approving courses similar in design, learning out comes and respective certification.
Once they accept the course it is then open to any organization or group to be able to deliver this once they meet the requirements such as resources, quality assurance and system of work etc. So in theory a single gun club or a group of gun clubs can come together and deliver the course. If done right then cost would be minimal.

Level 5 and 6 courses are being delivered in local community centres by local people with minimal funding and at free gratis to the learner. Something to think about.

jb88

Ive looked at some of this with interest.
If you are new to shooting, whats the best course of action?

1. Join a club
2. That club should have the ability to train you to the club standard.
3. The Club provides the course and gives you the ability, knowledge time and patience to succeed in that course.
4. After a period of time when that new participant has demonstrated that they have passed the minimum standard required to be safe on a range then the Chief Range officer along with other range officers can sign that person off.
5. They are issued with a cert, that cert can be used along with other criteria to gain a firearms licence.

The onus is on the clubs to train their members and no one else, if a hunting club the same applies.

Train your own members or don't take on new ones.

Anyone wanting to see this in action should look at the 100 people trained for Free on both new and refresher courses for Range officers by the GRPAI in Harbour House over the course of the last 4 months.

Clubs have to train their own new participants to the clubs standard to allow a level of competence.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

If you are new to shooting, whats the best course of action?
1. Join a club
...
Clubs have to train their own new participants to the clubs standard to allow a level of competence.

That is not only the normal course of action, it was considered to be the preferred course of action when the proof of competence requirement was added to the Firearms Act.

As we've said here more than once, courses were not intended to take over from this, they were only supposed to provide an additional optional means to provide that proof for the edge cases who didn't have access to clubs or similar training. This thing where everyone "has to do a course" is a perversion of the original intent of the change.

jb88

Sparks wrote: »

That is not only the normal course of action, it was considered to be the preferred course of action when the proof of competence requirement was added to the Firearms Act.

As we've said here more than once, courses were not intended to take over from this, they were only supposed to provide an additional optional means to provide that proof for the edge cases who didn't have access to clubs or similar training. This thing where everyone "has to do a course" is a perversion of the original intent of the change.

If you are new to shooting, just like any other sport, its wise to get some form of training, who its from and what it entails is up to the person needing this training to research.

You don't just get into a car and drive unless you have had some instruction, somebody somewhere at some point has to have taught you how to drive.

So a person new to firearms needs someone to show them how to properly use the firearm. The club or range should then have to sign that they are proficient. If not and they use land owners on the reference then one of them should vouch for their knowledge and proficiency


The same as a referee on your application

This should be on the FCA1

Anyone in Ireland can get reasonable access to a club who should be able to give them the level of training they require to make the new entrant proficient. If not they should not have a firearm, but that's up to the DOJ and Gardaí to decide.

Sparks

jb88 wrote: »

If you are new to shooting, just like any other sport, its wise to get some form of training

That's not in dispute.
Never has been.

The form that training takes, however, is now becoming problematic, because as we've mentioned, the total lack of any and all regulation of firearms training (for civilians at least) means that we're starting to see more and more of these half-assed one-hour "courses" being cited as proof of competence and sooner or later that will lead to someone being badly hurt.

But bringing in a nationally recognised course isn't something that should be done without some thought. Firstly because to make it mandatory would require an amendment to the Act and that's always a risky idea given what happens when election-watching backbenchers get wind of it.

But more from our point of view is that if you make this mandatory and it is written in such a way that clubs can't run the courses themselves (and there is no conceivable reason they shouldn't do so given that it's kept us safe for the last 170 years), then we're all hooped.

So a person new to firearms needs someone to show them how to properly use the firearm. The club or range should then have to sign that they are proficient.

Can you spell "legal liability"?
You just required everyone who gives that course to get public indemnity insurance in the million-euro range.
Now maybe that'll just be a thing we have to do. And if so, maybe it's not the end of the world. But you do not bring in a requirement like that by accident because you didn't think the plan through in more detail first!

The same as a referee on your application

That is *not* what a referee on your application does. They testify to your character not your competence and most of the time they wouldn't be qualified to testify as to the latter.

This should be on the FCA1

No, it should not be.
This idea that we have to do a course is a bad one. The "proof of competence" approach is better and more flexible. There are too many different circumstances for people coming into the sport to do otherwise.

Anyone in Ireland can get reasonable access to a club

Eh... not quite. Unless you are *very* lax about your definition of the word "reasonable". And that's part of this whole problem as well. You make a course mandatory but someone in Donegal can't do it without taking a day off work and travelling half the length of the country and probably having to stay overnight before returning home? That's a failure, right there.
(Not to mention, this one-day-course idea is nowhere near as good as the traditional club approach of watching someone for weeks or months as the good habits bed in).

Mississippi.

bluezulu49 wrote: »

Coillte is moving toward a position whereby only persons who have completed an approved competence assessment will be permitted to hunt on its lands. Currently this is a mandatory requirement for all those intending to hunt wild deer.

Is this recommendation from coillte separate from the sports collation recommendations about night time hunting bans and that all dear stalkers need a heap or is there a link from coillte to the sports collation also??

Sparks

It's independent. Coillte can demand it on their land because, well, their land. Nationally however, is a whole other ball game.