Compulsory HCAP - Cancelled

cavan shooter

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Cass wrote: »

Erm, nope.

I think this is the wrong way to go about it. The Deer Alliance and their ilk are using official channels and official means to have their side heard. We need to do the same.

Certainly, and we have to do the same...Make an appointment thru my/our local FG TD/ senator, which is the normal protocol anyway, as well as providing them with the items to be discussed.Joe Shmoe trying to meet the minister of his own bat isn't going to happen.Once you get to meet the Minister, it is an official engagement and it is transcribed as it was an official state business meeting.

Get a dossier together, present it to your local rep or even a rep for the NARGC, FCP, etc. and have them bring it up through official channels at an official meeting where the minutes and topic is recorded and can be referenced later.

This is where I see the problem...Whats the NARGC gameplan on this issue?Remember, they were planning their own version of this too?Who is deciding on the FCP,if and when they get into action again when if ever this would be discussed and TBH, it isn't really in the FCP remit this one?

Simply put...Can we trust our own organisations, that are "on our side" at the moment to deliver our concerns in full, and unexpurgated in those 22 points?
Not an ala carte few points that agree with someone's agenda, but OUR concerns all lock, stock and barrel.The only way for it to be delivered is for us to go and do it ourselves.
In the Machiavellian and Byzantine politics of Irish shooting it is now impossible to know who to trust anymore, and in this case, if you want the job done properly, its best done ourselves.

There was a meeting in Kildare last night and from what I took out of it they are doing a lot.

In fairness to the NARGC

1. They fought it when others said **** all, and will continue to fight it for their members

2. They got it kicked to touch till 2020 when others where forcing it through

3. They are fighting hard to have it for first time applicants only....seeking a recognition of "Grand fathers rights" for lads already licensed,

4. When there is a requirement for a course then like the proficiency course they will be ready to provide one for there members who are entering stalking for their first time but do not see a requirement for established stalkers.

Assume therefore thats their game plan

berettaman

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

This is where I see the problem...Whats the NARGC gameplan on this issue?Remember, they were planning their own version of this too?Who is deciding on the FCP,if and when they get into action again when if ever this would be discussed and TBH, it isn't really in the FCP remit this one?

Simply put...Can we trust our own organisations, that are "on our side" at the moment to deliver our concerns in full, and unexpurgated in those 22 points?
Not an ala carte few points that agree with someone's agenda, but OUR concerns all lock, stock and barrel.The only way for it to be delivered is for us to go and do it ourselves.
In the Machiavellian and Byzantine politics of Irish shooting it is now impossible to know who to trust anymore, and in this case, if you want the job done properly, its best done ourselves.

Yet again the NARGC had to act as the monkey with the wrench to break up the scheming of others.

In fairness the Chairman is a deer hunter and tries to always look hunters interests.

One thing is for certain. IF and when any kind of course is made mandatory it is the intention of the NARGC to provide that course to its members at cost...and that does not sit well with some..;)

ezra_

Here is the response from the Department, in relation to a question that was asked by the PAC after the situation was explained to them.

Uinseann_16

"depending on species and gender of deer" F*ck me here i thought it was antlered vs antlerless, jaysus you'd think they'd bother reading the licences they issue

Grizzly 45

berettaman wrote: »

Yet again the NARGC had to act as the monkey with the wrench to break up the scheming of others.

In fairness the Chairman is a deer hunter and tries to always look hunters interests.

One thing is for certain. IF and when any kind of course is made mandatory it is the intention of the NARGC to provide that course to its members at cost...and that does not sit well with some..;)

Soo what happens to people who are not NARGC affiliated?NARGC is fine if you are in one of their clubs.But what do you do if there isn't one anywhere near you??That is their biggest fault , it is all community members not individual.
so what happens there??

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So what happens to people who are not NARGC affiliated?

Won't or shouldn't affect them, i include myself in that group too.

This is not a club issue or an issue that the NARGC can negotiate for their members only. If any course comes into effect it'll hit everyone regardless of their status in a given group.

If anything the more the NARGC play this fo rthe benefit of everyone the more likely people are to look favorably on the NARGC and seek to use their courses/facilities above those that do not seem to share those goals.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

That i cannot speak to, but they've opposed the Deer crowd so far, and at this point the enemy of my enemy and all that.

Yes,but it is also good to know what your "Frenemy" is upp to as well,and are they using you for their own goals too?

As of now, three groups are doing the same. The NARGC, and according to the Minister two others.

Who are these other two groups?Why is the minister being so coy in not mentioning their names?

The previous Minister has made the statement that a course will be introduced so the Deer Alliance have sealed that much. We cannot avoid a course now, but what we can do is make sure that it is up to standard, gone to the best group/companies to run, and is done to a national standard. Look at the competency courses where they range from a day course on a range to a 20 minute chat in someone's kitchen. We don't want the same with any future deer course.

OTOH, we do not want a 6 month,80% mark or better written,800 euro semi doctorate on a lot of irrelevant padding course either, that requires driving the length and breadth of the country to ranges to shoot sub-MOA groupings at 300 meters and do a refresher course every X number of years course either.
We had better be careful for what we wish for as we might just get it.

All the groups that sit on it will have input, and not just the vested interest groups.

Then we had better get a group together to have a say as unaffiliated to anyone deer hunters.

The FCP is in action at all times. By that i mean they meet regularly and the last one was only a couple of months back with another one due in March i believe. They meet at various times to discuss various measures but they are not "gone" and idle.

What I am saying is this...Do those 21 points suit everyone's agenda representing us on the FCP to bring it to the ministerial attention?? We dont know what is going on in that room when they meet,so how can we be assured it will be discussed?In full?
To answer your next 3 paragraphs as to why it isn't the DOJ/FCP remit. I wrote to David Stanton TD regarding the matter of this group wanting to be involved in the points of scrutinising our firearms storage, competence and other points.Which by rights are between you and AGS, and not the business in any shape or form of any "deer licensing body".To paraphrase the response I got back was,"Thanks for the info, but it's really a problem for the minister of AHCG&TI.We'll pass it on to them."
I think this is the response the FCP will get from Charlie as well.."Not my dept lads."If that was the reply from his junior minister.

IOW they [deer crowds] have the undivided attention of the Minister. Our letter writing campaign got it shut down and if it means we all create a new group with our own reps to attend these meetings then we need to organise that and get in on future meetings.

Unfortunately, yes we do need to be thinking along those lines of forming a new group of unaffiliated Irish deer hunters, otherwise, we will never know what is going on in there.We need to figure out how to start playing the game rather than just watching it and yelling from the ditch.It's a major PITFH, but that seems to be the price to pay these days.Eternal vigilance.OTOH it allows US to design a workable, cheap and relevant course for any aspiring stalker in the future here in Ireland.

Allegiances and alliances change from month to month. All we can do is work with those that align with our interests at the moment. If we trust no one we might find ourselves at a loss and lose our sport.

If there is such a situation,it is best to be keeping your own counsel and be in the tent than relying on those who will gladly use your skin to protect their own.Let's just say , we should have major trust issues with anyone who says they are on our side and looking after our interests when betimes they have shown the exact opposite.

Grizzly 45

Interesting paragraph on page two, that states that the minister is considering the introduction of qualifications for 1st-time applicants not later than 2020.
Are they already considering grandfathering the rest of us??

Wonder also how skewed or factual or these numbers?5000 liscenses issued[what year?] and IDS/HCAP claiming 2,500 of these are HCAP qualified??Think those numbers are rather low on both counts??

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yes,but it is also good to know what your "Frenemy" is upp to as well,and are they using you for their own goals too?

At some point you have to have a little trust otherwise nothing gets done, and at this point the NARGC are backing our train of thought.

Who are these other two groups?

No idea, it's in the documents in ezra's post, #334

Why is the minister being so coy in not mentioning their names?

I'm assuming because nothing is finalised yet.

OTOH, we do not want a 6 month,80% mark or better written,800 euro semi doctorate on a lot of irrelevant padding course either, that requires driving the length and breadth of the country to ranges to shoot sub-MOA groupings at 300 meters and do a refresher course every X number of years course either.
We had better be careful for what we wish for as we might just get it.

At this moment in time it's too early to speculate, but i'm guessing a national standard with various ranges, groups and companies running courses will be the end result. A single day course, followed by a shooting course, and it's done. That cannot cost even as much as the current HCAP costs and its a competency issue they want addressed, refresher is more proficiency orientated. We've already been over why proficiency tests are pointless and unmanageable.

Then we had better get a group together to have a say as unaffiliated to anyone deer hunters.

Not following. Do you mean get a group together to represent us that is not affiliated to an existing group? If so, then yes, but also current groups that already sit at the table and have afoot in the door. Better they get talking now than a brand new group waiting weeks or months to be invited.

What I am saying is this...Do those 21 points suit everyone's agenda representing us on the FCP to bring it to the ministerial attention??

It doesn't have to be those 21, or even 21. We don't need to fixate on those points. Get to the table, then worry about what is said, by whom, and the responses given.

Thanks for the info, but it's really a problem for the minister of AHCG&TI.We'll pass it on to them."

Nor is it so he is right.

I think this is the response the FCP will get from Charlie as well.."Not my dept lads."If that was the reply from his junior minister.

Again Charlie has nothing to do with the current issue so his dept. is irrelevant. Even if the FCP don't normally deal with this as an invited representative group they have a voice and seat that makes them much better suited to bringing our concerns to the fore. Put it this way, instead of thinking they cannot help lets ask them, and see what comes of it.

OTOH it allows US to design a workable, cheap and relevant course for any aspiring stalker in the future here in Ireland.

That is a whole other ball of wax, and way, WAY, off in the distance. At east for now.

If there is such a situation,it is best to be keeping your own counsel and be in the tent than relying on those who will gladly use your skin to protect their own.Let's just say , we should have major trust issues with anyone who says they are on our side and looking after our interests when betimes they have shown the exact opposite.

Honestly, i cannot keep trying to sell this. You either take a chance and go with it, or don't and try it alone.

We need to work with someone and not be on here questioning every aspect of something we know nothing about. Any possible motives, ulterior motives or hidden agendas of possible allies will become clear if they exist, until then lets at least start a discussion with them. If we spend too much time worrying what might happen, so much time will pass that the deer crowd will be away with their shiny new course, unopposed. That i cannot take.

So for the love of God, lets contact the NARGC, see what they say, get their views, and see what common ground we have. Then take it from there. This applies to other groups too. Surely there are those in the NRAI, NASRPC, ICPSA, etc. that have an interest in what happens to their sport.

Its not just about the who is in it now, but the future of the sport too so it really concerns everyone.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Interesting paragraph on page two, that states that the minister is considering the introduction of qualifications for 1st-time applicants not later than 2020.
Are they already considering grandfathering the rest of us??

Don't know, but a better question, and i asked it already, what about those who have done a HCAP?

Any course that comes in will most likely be the only one recongized. By the only one i don't mean by one group, but that the course curriculum will be standardised regardless of who runs it. So those that have done previous courses may find the piece of paper they have to be worthless.

If they are grandfathered then it opens the door for everyone else with 5, 10, 15 years experience to claim the same thing.

Wonder also how skewed or factual or these numbers?5000 liscenses issued[what year?] and IDS/HCAP claiming 2,500 of these are HCAP qualified??Think those numbers are rather low on both counts??

Last time i got numbers it said around 4,000 licenses issued. That was about two years ago. Allowing for an increase of say 250 per year it would be higher but i don't think it's reached 5,000. However i don't know so it could be.

As for the HCAP. No idea. Each year someone does the HCAP they are "certified" for life. They don't have to repeat it. Then take those that don't stalk anymore, the new comers, etc. and its almost impossible to guess the exact number currently shooting with a hcap.

The only group to know would the deer alliance, and you have to assume the Minister got those numbers from them.

ezra_

Cass wrote: »

ever i don't know so it could be.

As for the HCAP. No idea. Each year someone does the HCAP they are "certified" for life. They don't have to repeat it. Then take those that don't stalk anymore, the new comers, etc. and its almost impossible to guess the exact number currently shooting with a hcap.

The only group to know would the deer alliance, and you have to assume the Minister got those numbers from them.

Not quite - the DA can say they have c. 2.5k people who have passed the course and the Dept know that they have issued c. 5k licences, but that does not mean that c. 50% of currently licenced hunters have a HCAP certificate.

Cass

Absolutely, and perhaps i worded my post incorrectly. The number of 2,500 having done the hap, is that everyone over the last 15 years or just among those that currently shoot?

Doing a bit math and averaging numbers it would seem that 2,500 is the total amount having done it since the inception of the new course. Last night i thought that number too low for everyone that has done it since 2003, but it seems it could be.

Then as you and i said, does that come from the total number of current shooters? I think not.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

At some point you have to have a little trust otherwise nothing gets done, and at this point the NARGC are backing our train of thought.

At this moment in time it's too early to speculate, but i'm guessing a national standard with various ranges, groups and companies running courses will be the end result. A single day course, followed by a shooting course, and it's done. That cannot cost even as much as the current HCAP costs and its a competency issue they want addressed, refresher is more proficiency orientated. We've already been over why proficiency tests are pointless and unmanageable.

Kind of amazed that with the interweb .That no one has suggested doing all the theory stuff at your own pace online?

Not following. Do you mean get a group together to represent us that is not affiliated to an existing group? If so, then yes, but also current groups that already sit at the table and have a foot in the door. Better they get talking now than a brand new group waiting weeks or months to be invited.

Correct on all points, unfortunately.The invitation is the biggest stumbling block and that was the plan to go up, meet, introduce and leave a calling card so to speak in these 21 points.

It doesn't have to be those 21, or even 21. We don't need to fixate on those points. Get to the table, then worry about what is said, by whom, and the responses given.

Or not said either...Not knocking the NARGC or anyone who is helping here in any way at all, but everyone will have their own agenda in this situation and if our POVs suit then they are our allies and best friends.After the facts is when I am concerned..
Like I said, are we better off if we end up paying a ridiculous money for a lengthy padded course with stupidly high pass requirements...We still have to hear what the egg heads in the IDMF will consider "up to the most modern standards" which translated from beuracraticese usually means lots of money and lots of paperwork exams.With refresher courses[YesI know what you will say about proficiency, but tell that to those lot, not the choir] And worst of all ,all our points were covered, but we still come out worse, in the fact we cut our own throats with our own knife...In that case, I think we would be better off just doing the HCAP seemingly idiot-proof course. Do we want safe deer hunters out there...Or semi professors with rifles out there?

Again Charlie has nothing to do with the current issue so his dept. is irrelevant. Even if the FCP don't normally deal with this as an invited representative group they have a voice and seat that makes them much better suited to bringing our concerns to the fore. Put it this way, instead of thinking they cannot help lets ask them, and see what comes of it.

Worth a try,but I do have the feeling I know what the answer will be.

Honestly, i cannot keep trying to sell this. You either take a chance and go with it, or don't and try it alone.

Is there anything inherently wrong with a two-pronged approach to this idea?

We need to work with someone and not be on here questioning every aspect of something we know nothing about. Any possible motives, ulterior motives or hidden agendas of possible allies will become clear if they exist, until then lets at least start a discussion with them. If we spend too much time worrying what might happen, so much time will pass that the deer crowd will be away with their shiny new course, unopposed. That i cannot take.

So for the love of God, lets contact the NARGC, see what they say, get their views, and see what common ground we have. Then take it from there. This applies to other groups too. Surely there are those in the NRAI, NASRPC, ICPSA, etc. that have an interest in what happens to their sport.

Ab solutely....But let's just say" By their works ye shall know them"And the Irish shooting orgs "works" over the last decade, both hunting and target or so has left me sometimes wondering were there closet antis in their ranks.Trust is good ...Proof of that is much better.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

Absolutely, and perhaps i worded my post incorrectly. The number of 2,500 having done the hap, is that everyone over the last 15 years or just among those that currently shoot?

Doing a bit math and averaging numbers it would seem that 2,500 is the total amount having done it since the inception of the new course. Last night i thought that number too low for everyone that has done it since 2003, but it seems it could be.

Then as you and i said, does that come from the total number of current shooters? I think not.

So that's on average 192 people per year have passed HCAP?Be interesting to see what the average deer licenses numbers were issued in the last 13 years per year to get a percentage PA of people applying.

Cass

The NARGC under its old leadership had some very bad ideas, and agendas of their own. All indications from the new leadership seems to be more aimed at getting back to its shooting roots and helping the shooting community. Not trying to become a legislative body. This is why i;m inclined to want to be involved with them, other than their strong position.

The other point about our interests versus the interests (known or otherwise) of possible allies is you are working on the assumption we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I've seen comments from regular lads, not associated with any group, that cannot see any problem with a mandatory course, don't care who runs it, and even more that don't have clue what is going on and then we're quickly back to the 2% rule.

Now if you turn up claiming to represent the average, non aligned, shooter what is to say those 21 points will be an issue for everyone? There will be a necessity to have meetings and put out our position before we start to judge others.

Walter Mittys Brother

Been following this thread. Ref Grizzly's proposal & Cass's proposal to go through FCP re meeting minister.

FCP is what got us in this situation expecting it to get us out of it is wishful thinking. I agree with grizzly time to bypass FCP and it's time the minister knew they (rep organisations) are not representing who they claim they are.

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

FCP is what got us in this situation ...............

How so?

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

How so?

Wasn't it a sub committee of FCP that took this proposal for training & ran with it?

Cass

No.

An independent group comprised of the Deer Alliance, WDAI, Wicklow deer group, NPWS and one other that i cannot remember who collectively call themselves the Deer management forum (DMF) or something like that.

The FCP's primary purpose is liaising with the DoJ at the invitation of the Minister to discuss firearm ownership, laws, changes, etc. It's the reason, i'm assuming, that Grizz believes the FCP to be of little use, and why he and i are going back and forth about approaching them.

Sparks

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

FCP is what got us in this situation

Nope. The FCP is run by the Minister. It's a forum. The idea presented at that forum by an invited guest is not the fault of the forum, any more than Currys is responsible for Joe Duffy because you bought your radio there.

I agree with grizzly time to bypass FCP

Nope. You bypass the FCP and you might as well pack it in, because there's no way we'll ever get back into the tent again after the last mess.

And in case you forgot, the last time we were out of the FCP, we wound up in front of a joint Oireachtas committee trying to argue with TDs against the Gardai making up a bunch of new laws because there was nobody around to point out early on in the process that they were based on nonsense.

That we didn't wind up screwed more badly by that mess is still a surprise to me today. Leaving the table isn't a good idea, if for no other reason than that you won't know when someone's sharpening knives for your back.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

No.

An independent group comprised of the Deer Alliance, WDAI, Wicklow deer group, NPWS and one other that i cannot remember who collectively call themselves the Deer management forum (DMF) or something like that.

The FCP's primary purpose is liaising with the DoJ at the invitation of the Minister to discuss firearm ownership, laws, changes, etc. It's the reason, i'm assuming, that Grizz believes the FCP to be of little use, and why he and i are going back and forth about approaching them.

That's what I said, with less detail.

The original concept was developed outside FCP but it was also discussed within the FCP framework subsequent to that, in a sub committee (which I read here on boards and I don't have the time or inclination to go looking for links).

This is my take on it .............................

FCP is being used to legitimise our, as in ordinary shooters, shafting, as the shooting reps on it are being portrayed as representing us, the ordinary shooters, when in fact all the shooting reps are more or less actually commercial entities. The shooting reps are accepting & even proposing stuff, to ordinary shooters detriment, in exchange for financial gain for themselves.

Cass

Walter Mittys Brother wrote: »

That's what I said, with less detail.

No it's not. The Deer Alliance, WDAI, Wicklow deer crowd, etc. don't sit on the FCP, TTBOMK. I believe there is a rep for the NPWS but cannot attest to that.

(which I read here on boards and I don't have the time or inclination to go looking for links).

If you have links provide them.

FCP is being used to legitimise our, as in ordinary shooters, shafting, as the shooting reps on it are being portrayed as representing us, the ordinary shooters, when in fact all the shooting reps are more or less actually commercial entities.

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the FCP as a body/platform and various bodies within it that act on their own agenda.

For the FCP to be at fault it would require all parties within it to be in agreement on any proposal. A single group does not equal the entire FCP. Also what is the alternative? The NARGC dropped out of the FCP some years back, under the direction of its old leadership, and we ended up with a cessation of talks, no voice at the table, and the formation of the so called coalition as a result.

The shooting reps are accepting & even proposing stuff, to ordinary shooters detriment, in exchange for financial gain for themselves

There is a huge thread on this very subject in the main shooting forum. The so called coalition doing secret proposals and end runs to suit their agenda. However i don't blame the whole FCP for their actions.

However i digress. To the subject of the thread and mandatory "hcap" like courses. We need to be proactive in our approach. The sitting back and trying to combat proposals we know nothing off is a bad position to be working from.

If that opposition comes in the form of a merging of existing bodies with new ones, or individual effort then so be it. Either will suffice until a more permanent arrangement can be sorted.

Grizzly 45

The FCP's primary purpose is liaising with the DoJ at the invitation of the Minister to discuss firearm ownership, laws, changes, etc. It's the reason, i'm assuming, that Grizz believes the FCP to be of little use, and why he and i are going back and forth about approaching them.

I'm only going by what feedback I've got so far...And specifically on the points RE firearms storage and security.If the DOJ can't/ won't understand that an unauthorised NGO wants to know what our security arrangements for firearm storage are under this proposed legislation or whatever we call it, and say it is a problem for the Dept of Arts, heritage etc... under their remit to issue deer licenses, what conclusion can you reach?Now unless NARGC and CO want to bring this to the table?I'm all for it...

Cass

You'll have to excuse me but i'm having a brain fart week. Can you explain this further.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

.......If the DOJ can't/ won't understand that an unauthorised NGO wants to know what our security arrangements for firearm storage are....

Who wants to know? The NPWS, DFM, DA?

under this proposed legislation or whatever we call it

What proposed legislation? If you mean a mandatory course, it's a proposal, nothing more.

...... and say it is a problem for the Dept of Arts, heritage etc... under their remit to issue deer licenses, what conclusion can you reach?

I cannot answer this bit without further explanation of the above.

Now unless NARGC and CO want to bring this to the table?I'm all for it...

As above.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

No it's not. The Deer Alliance, WDAI, Wicklow deer crowd, etc. don't sit on the FCP, TTBOMK. I believe there is a rep for the NPWS but cannot attest to that.

But the sports colation do, and they are cross-pollinated between hunting and target shooting.If there is one crowd that would Judas us for 30 pieces it would be them.Now it begs the question how much influence do they have in the FCP comittee,or the Dail public bar,where more legislation and decisions are made betimes the in the Dail chamber.

The NARGC dropped out of the FCP some years back, under the direction of its old leadership, and we ended up with a cessation of talks, no voice at the table, and the formation of the so called coalition as a result

.

However i digress. To the subject of the thread and mandatory "hcap" like courses. We need to be proactive in our approach. The sitting back and trying to combat proposals we know nothing off is a bad position to be working from.
If that opposition comes in the form of a merging of existing bodies with new ones, or individual effort then so be it. Either will suffice until a more permanent arrangement can be sorted

.

Indeed, can't fault any of that, but for once let us control the game and set the parameters, or at least have a major say in it rather than have decisions made for us, in which we have little or no say.

It probably is too early to discuss what sort of a course we will need to come up with once if ever there is an announcement or tender issued.but is there anything wrong with us doodling on the back of an envelope idea here and now?Rather than be caught flat-footed if say the tender was announced on the end of this season?
We can conceptualise from HCAP and what the IDMF have suggested what they would be looking at in a course and responsibility of stalkers, no matter how far-fetched some of their ideas are...
In short.Let's have some sort of plan that could be pulled off the shelf, rather than playing catch up once the tender[if ever ]is announced?

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

But the sports colation do, and they are cross-pollinated between hunting and target shooting.

You'll have to excuse me as my feelings on this so called coalition are well known but no they're not. They were one dealer, one range operator, fishermen, and one or two small target associations.

If there is one crowd that would Judas us for 30 pieces it would be them.

Given their track record.

Now it begs the question how much influence do they have in the FCP comittee,

It should have died a quick death when their secret proposals for a night time shooting ban, time lock safes, banning of 22 pistols, banning of semi autos, ballistic testing, etc, etc. were FOUND OUT. Instead the nasrpc decided these were a great bunch to affiliate to, after escaping from it a couple of year beforehand, which give it new life and new purpose.

So the answer before that travesty would have been little to none. Now? Who knows.

However as i said above i don't condemn the FCP for the actions of one group.

........... but for once let us control the game and set the parameters, or at least have a major say in it rather than have decisions made for us, in which we have little or no say.

I agree with the sentiment, but can we also agree we have no control over this as things stand. All we can do is make enough noise to be heard, and then we need support to be listened to.

but is there anything wrong with us doodling on the back of an envelope idea here and now?

Nope, none.

Look this back and forth has gone on for, well too many posts. Nothing either of us are saying is in conflict with the other and frankly i'm bored repeating the same things as i'm sure you are.

• We both agree that we need support and help.
• We both agree we need to be cautious
• We both agree we need to also make separate in roads in the event things don't go as planned.

All that is required now is to get the ball rolling. That'll start with e-mails to the relevant people and meetings were possible. Find out the lay of the land and work from there.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me but i'm having a brain fart week. Can you explain this further.

Who wants to know? The NPWS, DFM, DA?

The DAI/HCAP,as they call themselves as from their blog of Nov 2017 answer to questions..

“That the IDMF recommend to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Agriculture, Food & the Marine that Certification of Competency from an accredited source in knowledge of wild deer species, disease recognition, management, culling and safe methods of control, together with marksmanship and safe usage and storage of firearms, be a mandatory requirement before the grant of a licence to hunt wild deer;

Dunno about you, but ASFIK that last point is pretty confidential info to be handing out to a quasi NGO, who aren't even DPA registered and is really only your and AGS business.

What proposed legislation? If you mean a mandatory course, it's a proposal, nothing more.

OK proposal...Couldn't think of what it's or to call it.

I cannot answer this bit without further explanation of the above.

I'm referring back to the email I sent to D Stanton TD on the above matter of this quasi NGO wanting to gain access to confidential information on our firearms storage arrangements.The reply was in short .."Concern noted,not our dept the issuance of deer hunting licenses as this what it falls under.We'll pass on your concerns." Twice,as I tried to clarify that security storage point in a 2nd email... Really can't make it any clearer to the dept.That's why I think the FCP will get the same answer if they bring it up.It's not the DOJ's remit.

Grizzly 45

Cass wrote: »

The other point about our interests versus the interests (known or otherwise) of possible allies is you are working on the assumption we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. I've seen comments from regular lads, not associated with any group, that cannot see any problem with a mandatory course, don't care who runs it, and even more that don't have clue what is going on and then we're quickly back to the 2% rule.

Now if you turn up claiming to represent the average, non-aligned, shooter what is to say those 21 points will be an issue for everyone? There will be a necessity to have meetings and put out our position before we start to judge others.

You will always have that, there are just some people who will live under a rock, and won't or aren't interested in whats happening until it affects them directly on their doorstep when it's too late and then complain when it's all over. All we can do is get the message out as much s possible by our limited means of Boards and FB All we can do is work with those who are in contact with us and agree with our positions.

Grizzly 45

Slightly OT
But from the blog of the DAI/HCAP.The course has now gone up to 165 euros...
Love the comparison now of value for money compared to other EU countries..Especially Germany. The Deutsche Jagd Verband [DJV] would be ashamed to be compared to this,and it's not them that run the German hunting courses.Its the Federal state you live in.IOW its a state exam prescribed by the state and run by it too.DJV is like the NARGC,a hunters rep organisation that might or might not teach it and the course is expensive but its an intensive 30 day or 18 months theory and practical course.Plus they don't come around looking for refresher courses either.
You have the "green leaving cert " for life.

The HCAP Fee will increase from €150.00 to €165.00 with effect from 1st March 2018.

The increase of 10% is the first and only increase in the HCAP Fee in the twelve years since 2006 and is necessitated by a corresponding increase in the cost-per-candidate Range fee charged by Midlands National Shooting Centre of Ireland, where the Range Test stage of HCAP assessments is currently held.

Deer Alliance HCAP itself runs on a break-even, not-for-profit basis and apart from administrative expenses, all revenues are utilised to ongoing improvement and development of HCAP and to keep cost to candidates at the lowest possible level. Deer Alliance HCAP publishes its quarterly management accounts to its representative stakeholder groups at each meeting of the HCAP Assessment Committee and its accounts are independently audited annually in compliance with best practice.

The cost of HCAP compares favourably with other assessment models internationally, including the UK’s DSC1, Germany’s DJV and all other European models of training, assessment and certification. While Deer Alliance HCAP regrets this increase, it is necessary and unavoidable at this time.

Applications received between date of this announcement and midnight on 28th February 2018 will be honoured at the existing rate of €150.00.

Cass

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

“That the IDMF recommend to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the Minister for Agriculture, Food & the Marine that Certification of Competency from an accredited source in knowledge of wild deer species, disease recognition, management, culling and safe methods of control, together with marksmanship and safe usage and storage of firearms, be a mandatory requirement before the grant of a licence to hunt wild deer;

Dunno about you, but ASFIK that last point is pretty confidential info to be handing out to a quasi NGO, who aren't even DPA registered and is really only your and AGS business.

Gotcha now. From three months ago:

Cass wrote:

Point 5 - A lot to cover here. These "stakeholders" decided to propose a mandatory hcap for everyone that wanted a DHL. They talk about marksmanship and safe storage handling of firearms. Marksmanship is proficiency, not competency. We discussed this at length and how making proficiency a prerequisite for a firearms license is a dangerous precedence and something that cannot be judged on a single act. It is also something that can increase or decrease over time. So it'll be a constant process of evaluation. Safe handling and storage of a firearm is done when you apply for a firearm and has nothing to do with hcap or the "stakeholders" that run it. It's a matter for An Gardaí and cannot be given to private groups.

OK proposal...Couldn't think of what it's or to call it.

Small and pedantic point, but the less the word legislation or law is used with these ridiculous proposals the batter. Up until two weeks ago people were still under the impression this course was still mandatory so you see how dangerous the wrong word can be.

It's not the DOJ's remit.

Nope, not really. They have the legislation sorted as far as they're concerned. I suppose they look at it from the point of view that if another dept. want to allow another group to access that information it's up to them to govern it.

However as a "quai NGO" and the fact they cannot have access to data protected information, etc. he may find the DoJ getting dragged in.

Lastly, the man said himself back in the live meeting that he was not familiar with firearms. Now add that to a Minister saying she could ban firearms without the need to recompense anyone, a Minister that unintentionally outlawed zeroing yet never fixed it, a TD that used road signs from a different country, a Chief Super using airsoft in a seized gun photo shoot, Garda figures showing gun safes as stolen firearms, the CSO removing certification from Garda figures, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

They [the TDs, committee members, etc] need to be educated at times even on maters they were put in office to govern. My point being Mr Stanton might find the DoJ being dragged into this whether he believes it to be related to the DoJ/working group or not.