Proposals from Deer Alliance for future seasons

Rows Grower

We badly need to organise and have a voice that represents us as hunters.

It’s funding we should be looking for not ways to impose extra costs on ourselves.

Sheep breeder

Looking at this for the land part, it is basically saying they want the right to roam land like in the uk with out the owners consent, can’t see that getting by The ifa and any other farming bodies and not a requirement to get a licence to have land to shoot. Basically open season on shoot wherever you want in Ireland. What will be next the duck and pheasant and fox shooting will have do hacp type courses and can shoot any where

Sika98k

Sheep breeder wrote: »

Looking at this for the land part, it is basically saying they want the right to roam land like in the uk with out the owners consent, can’t see that getting by The ifa and any other farming bodies and not a requirement to get a licence to have land to shoot. Basically open season on shoot wherever you want in Ireland. What will be next the duck and pheasant and fox shooting will have do hacp type courses and can shoot any where

I think people are misconstruing this part about dispensing with the letter of permission. It’s already in the law that entering onto a persons land with a firearm is illegal. It’s called “armed trespass “.
You will still need permission to hunt deer on someone’s land. You need permission to hunt anything, pigeon, duck,rabbits,pheasants etc,etc on someone’s land. Otherwise you are a poacher.
You do not have the right to roam in the U.K. with a firearm. You may have the right to walk wherever you want but that was the Labour Government having a dig at the Tories. Let’s leave that sinking ship across the Irish Sea out of it.
Much as I disagree with what is proposed by The Deer Alliance as a barrister he is not really one to get his facts wrong.

cookimonster

Sika98k wrote: »

I think people are misconstruing this part about dispensing with the letter of permission..

Absolutely, it seems that some lads are interpreting the lack of 'land permission' as carte blanche to enter onto any land. This is a ridiculous interpretation.

The proposal actually suggests to remove the current necessity to provide land permission for your deer hunting license. It does not suggest or even hint at the thought of DHL holders been able to enter onto land without permission. This is just pure b#llocks'olagy on behalf of some here.
The proposals again do not suggest that individual firearm owners don't need 'land permission' to obtain thier centre fire deer legal firaearms license. Think about it, one legislative work covering firearms requires you to have suitable land permission for said license. So if the Authorities grant us a centre fire licence for the purpose of deer hunting we must have 'land permission' for that process. Why on earth double up on this process when applying for a deer hunting licence ?

So apply for a DHL, receive that DHL, apply for your centre fire as per normal, with DHL in hand, land permission (as per FCA1) and all the other information as needed.

We whine about bureaucracy and the mounting paperwork, such as resubmiting photographs that are never used, yearly applications, repeating the same old details yet when some suggest something towards streamlining the system we have a hissy fit. We can't have it all ways.

cookimonster

From the Deer Alliance Blog -
Point 3 of thier Proposal- reference land permission-

3: Landowner permissions should be dispensed with and replaced by evidence of competence to HCAP standard. Landowner permissions have been dispensed with for the current 2020-2021 Season, so the precedent has been established. By way of comparison – when a citizen obtains a driving licence, having undertaken the appropriate training and passing both the theory and practical tests, he or she is not limited to driving on highways but not on secondary roads. A person is either trained and competent (and certified as such) or is not. In the same way, the trained, competent and certified hunter should not need to prove access to 100 acres (out of 17.36 million acres). It is an irrelevancy where the hunter is deemed safe to use a deer-legal firearm (and is in any event assessed as such by the Garda Siochana) and competent in his or her knowledge of deer management practices. It is not suggested that landowner permission is not required for hunters entering private land, such permission remains an absolute necessity, but the necessity for the hunter to renew permissions every year, and each permission having to be validated by NPWS, would be eliminated.

Lads need to start reading the written word!!!

Grizzly 45

Much as I disagree with what is proposed by The Deer Alliance as a barrister he is not really one to get his facts wrong.

Talk to any solicitor or junior counsel on that one for a seriously differing opinion!:p

We whine about bureaucracy and the mounting paperwork, such as resubmiting photographs that are never used, yearly applications, repeating the same old details yet when some suggest something towards streamlining the system we have a hissy fit. We can't have it all ways.

We are having a hissy fit as this proposal has more holes in it than Joe Biden's short term memory,and its being proposed by an organisation that is far from trustworthy with its mission creep over the last decade out of its original remit.
It has the following problems;
1
] WADI /IDS doesnt speak for me and the majority of Irish deer hunters.So who asked Mr Nolan and gave him a remit to speak for the majority ,who simply want to go and get their liscenses in a timely manner for the 2020 season?

2]WADI/IDS has a bad track record of this kind of collusion with NPWS in trying to make THEIR organisation the be and end all on Irish deer hunting.They only seem to pop up is when there is a crisis or opportunity to push their agenda to monopolise the field.

3] There is no grauntee that this 80 euro PA will stay at this level unless it is fixed by law ,like the gun liscenses,and needs ministerial and dail debate to change this.80 euros this year 800 next year.Belive me,it can and will happen if this is allowed.

4]There is no saftey cut out for the landowner/farmer in this proposal if they have a problematic stalker or hunter.They[stalkers] are automatically entitled to a 3 year lockdown of permission then to do as they please hunting wise.You could get rid of a problem with the annual permission as it stands by refusing it.With this you are stuck with them for three seasons or years.NO sane land owner or farmer is going to accept this.I wouldn't accept those terms as a landowner.

5] Collateral mission creep in these proposals.As said before foreshore liscenses for duck hunting are obviously going to be automated as well.It would be ridicilous not to,as they are going to be more every year than deer liscenses.Be stupid to have a dept half modernised,one half issueing liscenses by computer and doing it online ,and the other half still scratching them out by biro and mailing envelopes.So why are the deer hunters going to carry the cost of this soley?

6] The proposed timeframe is ridicilous.In less than 6 months in the middle of a Global pandemic?In Ireland? What colour is the sky on the planet these people are on?Or could we try some of the stuff they are popping or smoking:rolleyes:

7] Making it cumpulsory for everyone is just a money spinner.Like the kid teaching old hands how to drive a JCB from a book for some H&S requirement.
Also brings the question of EU recipority of documents.Will all foregin hunters have to take an Irish der hunting course?

8] Who has trained the trainers?And what recogniseable qualifications will anyone who will be teaching these courses ctually have? Have they even sat and qualified in their own course syllabus just for a starter? It brings up another can of worms on course standardisation between all teaching organisations,and oversight and all the rest..Who pays for all this on 144K PA in NPWS

Those questions are the reasons we should be really bitching and moaning about..VERY loudly.

Uinseann_16

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Talk to any solicitor or junior counsel on that one for a seriously differing opinion!:p



We are having a hissy fit as this proposal has more holes in it than Joe Biden's short term memory,and its being proposed by an organisation that is far from trustworthy with its mission creep over the last decade out of its original remit.
It has the following problems;
1
] WADI /IDS doesnt speak for me and the majority of Irish deer hunters.So who asked Mr Nolan and gave him a remit to speak for the majority ,who simply want to go and get their liscenses in a timely manner for the 2020 season?

2]WADI/IDS has a bad track record of this kind of collusion with NPWS in trying to make THEIR organisation the be and end all on Irish deer hunting.They only seem to pop up is when there is a crisis or opportunity to push their agenda to monopolise the field.

3] There is no grauntee that this 80 euro PA will stay at this level unless it is fixed by law ,like the gun liscenses,and needs ministerial and dail debate to change this.80 euros this year 800 next year.Belive me,it can and will happen if this is allowed.

4]There is no saftey cut out for the landowner/farmer in this proposal if they have a problematic stalker or hunter.They[stalkers] are automatically entitled to a 3 year lockdown of permission then to do as they please hunting wise.You could get rid of a problem with the annual permission as it stands by refusing it.With this you are stuck with them for three seasons or years.NO sane land owner or farmer is going to accept this.I wouldn't accept those terms as a landowner.

5] Collateral mission creep in these proposals.As said before foreshore liscenses for duck hunting are obviously going to be automated as well.It would be ridicilous not to,as they are going to be more every year than deer liscenses.Be stupid to have a dept half modernised,one half issueing liscenses by computer and doing it online ,and the other half still scratching them out by biro and mailing envelopes.So why are the deer hunters going to carry the cost of this soley?

6] The proposed timeframe is ridicilous.In less than 6 months in the middle of a Global pandemic?In Ireland? What colour is the sky on the planet these people are on?Or could we try some of the stuff they are popping or smoking:rolleyes:

7] Making it cumpulsory for everyone is just a money spinner.Like the kid teaching old hands how to drive a JCB from a book for some H&S requirement.
Also brings the question of EU recipority of documents.Will all foregin hunters have to take an Irish der hunting course?

8] Who has trained the trainers?And what recogniseable qualifications will anyone who will be teaching these courses ctually have? Have they even sat and qualified in their own course syllabus just for a starter? It brings up another can of worms on course standardisation between all teaching organisations,and oversight and all the rest..Who pays for all this on 144K PA in NPWS

Those questions are the reasons we should be really bitching and moaning about..VERY loudly.

That is the point I cant get over any tom dick and harry can make a course and say theyre qualified to say I'm not qualified.
Its hilarious

cookimonster

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

4]There is no saftey cut out for the landowner/farmer in this proposal if they have a problematic stalker or hunter.They[stalkers] are automatically entitled to a 3 year lockdown of permission then to do as they please hunting wise.You could get rid of a problem with the annual permission as it stands by refusing it.With this you are stuck with them for three seasons or years.NO sane land owner or farmer is going to accept this.I wouldn't accept those terms as a landowner.

Firstly I'm not discussing the other parts of the proposals, I am mearly pointing out assumptions been made here as to point 3., by my own assumptions. But I freely offer them as 'assumptions' not facts.

Please explain to me how in Gods name this particular proposal entitles an individual to entry a person's land if that permission is withdrawn. This is not a legal binding contract whether by gentleman's agreement or written word.
Are you seriously saying that the standard run of the mill permission given out by farmers will legally bind. No way.

Even contractual agreements with monies paid and licences issued as seen with Coilte and others has an out clause.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but individuals here have called for DHL to run in line with the firearms license renewal so explain the difference. In fact the current system of firearms licensing could be construed as the same as what you have purported this proposed system to do-
'Lock landowners into a three year agreement they can't break'

Chiparus

why cant they extend the deer hunting license over a number of years like they do with the foreshore license?

Vegeta

I read it the same as cookimonster on that point.

In general though this very much looks like the wolf trying to convince the sheaprd to let him mind the flock.

Just so much wrong with the proposal e.g. why oh why propose a fee? That's starting any discussion already bent over with your pants down.

Grizzly 45

Please explain to me how in Gods name this particular proposal entitles an individual to entry a person's land if that permission is withdrawn. This is not a legal binding contract whether by gentleman's agreement or written word.
Are you seriously saying that the standard run of the mill permission given out by farmers will legally bind. No way.

How will officaldom know that permission is withdrawn/ Yeah ring AGS,but unless they return,there is no "armed tresspass",which BTW could also be construed as someone entering your propety with a walking stick under the current law.It was more intended for house breaking than actual things happening out in the fields...But thats a different point.NPWS are still in the dark that there is a problem for the X remaining time,unless there is some offical way of reporting it,and I can tell you all this WILL be a problem if it comes in. Someone I bet you will try this very scenario on And yes ,it must have some sort of legal meaning as otherwise why would officialdom look for it?

Even contractual agreements with monies paid and licences issued as seen with Coilte and others has an out clause.

Might be a very pertinent point in the next few weeks,once people start realising they are losing money thru no use of their leases because of these liscense fuk ups!! We'll soon see some finer points of contracts being discussed ...In legal terms.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but individuals here have called for DHL to run in line with the firearms license renewal so explain the difference. In fact the current system of firearms licensing could be construed as the same as what you have purported this proposed system to do-
'Lock landowners into a three year agreement they can't break'

The difference is this; You do not necessarily have to use your non deer hunting firearms specifically on the land you hold permission to shoot on.You can also go to a clay shoot anywhere else or join a rifle range,and dispense with a landowners permission.Or own your own land and shoot there. There is nothing wrong with this 3 year liscense concept at all.I'm just saying it needs refinement from a Landowners /Farmers perspective,as well as a good way of keeping some chacters on better behaviour.

cookimonster

I some what get your jist.

But, again, what is the difference between the firearms cert 3 year permission and the 3 year DHL permission. After day one of being issued your firearms license the landowner could withdraw your permission and the GS are non the wiser until 3 years later.

Many people like myself have a DHL licence granted on private permission, but rarely if ever hunt on it, most of my stalking is done on either Coilte Woods or club lands or other private permissions for which I don't use to secure my DHL. There is no illegal act there.
So in reality the NPWS could issue me a license as by the conditions of my FAC I have landowners permission to hunt..
Now if I were to apply for a DHL and use a licensed rifle that has been only granted to the individual for target shooting based on the relevant application then this is not legally compliant.
It is not up to the NPWS to insure legal compliance in this area. This like many other areas in our society is put upon the individual to ensure compliance.

Cass

garrettod wrote: »

Hi Cass,

Assuming it wouldn't get you, or your friend, in trouble, is it not time for hunters to make it very clear to the Minister that they have not been consulted on this and that they do not support it, for X, Y, Z reasons?

It won't get anyone in trouble. I only mention my friend as to how i came across this topic. He rang me asking if i knew of any changes to the Deer hunting laws, to which i said no. He then proceeded to tell me about a "list" of what he thought were new laws.

But absolutely people can and should write to the same departments voicing their opposition.

Sika98k wrote: »

Much as I disagree with what is proposed by The Deer Alliance as a barrister he is not really one to get his facts wrong.

That is an argument from authority and is asinine in my opinion. He mentions the removal of the 100 acre issue, yet as a barrister he should know there is no law about needing 100 acres. Its something the NPWS stuck in themselves.

cookimonster wrote: »

Absolutely, it seems that some lads are interpreting the lack of 'land permission' as carte blanche to enter onto any land. This is a ridiculous interpretation.

Maybe its due to to the fact he begins that particular section with:

Proposal #3 wrote:

Landowner permissions should be dispensed with and replaced by evidence of competence to HCAP standard.

Dispensed with. Done away with or got rid off. He then cites this year as an example which he is wrong about again. Permissions had to be supplied this year, just people could use last years permissions if they were not in a position to obtain new ones.

We whine about bureaucracy ............... yet when some suggest something towards streamlining the system we have a hissy fit. We can't have it all ways.

The problem is not just the proposals themselves it's the case of one person deciding to write to the PTB and offer up new procedures for a system that while flawed is working, and more importantly one that will greatly benefit the author financially as they run the hcap that they are demanding be used.

cookimonster wrote: »

Firstly I'm not discussing the other parts of the proposals, I am mearly pointing out assumptions been made here as to point 3.,

You cannot pick one point, complain people are not reading it right when it's written poorly, and ignore the other 5 points as its an entire proposal/document, not a single point.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but individuals here have called for DHL to run in line with the firearms license renewal so explain the difference. In fact the current system of firearms licensing could be construed as the same as what you have purported this proposed system to do-
'Lock landowners into a three year agreement they can't break'

Firstly land owners are not locked into any agreement to allow anyone to hunt on their lands for any period of time. A land owner can terminate that privilege at any time, so one year or three years is irrelevant.

Secondly some people have problems with all of the proposals and some with only a point or two.

The main issue once again is how one person has taken it upon themselves to decide to write to the authorities and ask them to do this by next year, without conutling anyone or any group in the process, and ask the authoritiesONCE AGAIN to provide legislative enforcement of a law that would financially benefit them.

It was the same with the pistol grab, the sports coalition's proposals on mandatory training.

Look at the thread i posted in about 4 weeks ago. One man wrote to the DoJ to complain about other RFDs selling the same item cheaper and the end result is he has kicked a Hornet's nest and now he has lost the ability to sell the very ite he wanted to have complete control over.

cookimonster

Cass
Maybe its due to to the fact he begins that particular section with:

Originally Posted by Proposal #3
Landowner permissions should be dispensed with and replaced by evidence of competence to HCAP standard.

But he finishes point three with-

It is not suggested that landowner permission is not required for hunters entering private land, such permission remains an absolute necessity, but the necessity for the hunter to renew permissions every year, and each permission having to be validated by NPWS, would be eliminated.

Cass
You cannot pick one point, complain people are not reading it right when it's written poorly, and ignore the other 5 points as its an entire proposal/document, not a single point.

Yes I can, because in this instance based on point three of the proposal individuals are blatantly misrepresenting what is said.
As you have said to me 'You cannot pick one point.....' , then I will argue that you can not partially read that point and ignore the complete paragraph it covers.

Cass
Firstly land owners are not locked into any agreement to allow anyone to hunt on their lands for any period of time. A land owner can terminate that privilege at any time, so one year or three years is irrelevant.

...and this is my very point or counter argument to others who claim this will some how lock landowners into a 3 year period of land permission. Now if you have misinterpreted what I have said or I have not made my self clear then this is what I am talking about in the over all interpretations of parts of this statement.

cookimonster

By the way this is the full statement:


http://deeralliance.ie/blog/blog/

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

But he finishes point three with-

So its contradictory or incompetence?

then I will argue that you can not partially read that point and ignore the complete paragraph it covers.

I did not partially read anything. It's either dispensed with and replaced by the hcap or its not and still requires land owners permissions. Cannot have it both ways.

cookimonster

As a matter of curiosity, is there something wrong with the site, are posts disappearing?

Regardless back to the discussion:

1. Cass, your original post is not word for word perfect as per the statement realised on the Deer Alliance Blog. So in fairness why not refer to the original document.

2. How is point 3 either 'contradictory or incompetence'

3.

I did not partially read anything. It's either dispensed with and replaced by the hcap or its not and still requires land owners permissions. Cannot have it both ways.

Okay, and I freely admit this is my interpretation, one more time....
Point 3 would seem to indicate that an applicant would not have to provide details on thier official application form (because it would be amended under these proposals and no longer there) of thier land permissions for deer stalking.
It does not anywhere state as per your original post with the outline of the proposal -

Meaning once you have done the course you can shoot as you like.

But it does say, for clarification, that -

It is not suggested that landowner permission is not required for hunters entering private land, such permission remains an absolute necessity,...

This is neither contradiction nor is the second part, that further explains the rational behind, is it incompetence.

but the necessity for the hunter to renew permissions every year, and each permission having to be validated by NPWS, would be eliminated.

Sika98k

Uinseann_16 wrote: »

I personally am not a fan of the mandatory courses its just a money racket:rolleyes:

There is nothing you will learn in them that is anything special

Maybe not but to a newcomer to the sport there is a lot to learn. Presumably you’ve been stalking for a number of years? Has your skill set improved with your experience ?
I have no connection to the Deer Alliance.

Grizzly 45

The comparison to driving is redundant and asinine. You pay tax on the car, the fuel, actual road tax, insurance which all go to the exchequer and that pays for the roads you drive on and the constitution gives you the freedom to travel unmolested within the state.

Not to mind incorrect. You can pass the drivers test here,but you still aren't qualified,as you have to display an N plate for 3 years?to show everyone you are a newbie,and might suddenly do something daft,and are limited FIK to more restrictions than an experianced driver:rolleyes:

Applying it to deer liscensing ,it would mean there would be a newbie class of deer hunters for X number of years,who can only move on no doubt ,if they do XYZ courses and fill someones bank account to become "qualified" to be able to go out by themselves or whatever...Noice little earner if that ever comes in.

Cass

cookimonster wrote: »

As a matter of curiosity, is there something wrong with the site, are posts disappearing?

My one did because i was editing it and deleted it by mistake then logged off without checking. Back up now.

1. Cass, your original post is not word for word perfect as per the statement realised on the Deer Alliance Blog. So in fairness why not refer to the original document.

My post is a personal summarisation of the list of points without directly copying them for the same reason i've just edited your post.

Copyright laws.

Which means we cannot copy and paste any text, full or partial, from another source without the author's permissions. You show me permission from the Author and i'll reinstate the post, otherwise the best we can do is link to the article/content.

As for the rest, I don't care enough to this anymore. I really don't. Year in and year out someone sticks their head up, claims to speak for the whole community, and ends up f**king up everything.

You get so caught up in nuances you fail to see the larger problem.

So have at it. Sit here and go back and forth about the finer points of what was actually meant in a single point in a larger document and ignore the other 5 points and the much bigger picture of the cheek of someone to ONCE AGAIN dare to stick their oar in.

The deer alliance runs the hcap, the hcap makes on average €250 per person for the course (the two days), and he wants this made mandatory for not just beginners, but everyone. He started this three years ago and managed to get the mandatory course introduced by doing the exact same thing, secret proposals. That backfired because it opened the door for anyone and their Mother to run a course, and with no regulation all of them had to be accepted.

So yeah, the real interest of the sport in mind there.

If you still believe that arguing over the subtleties of a single point is important, then do as you please.

I'm out.

Kramer

cookimonster wrote: »

But he finishes point three with-


not suggesting landowner permissions are not required entering private lands, permissions remain absolutely necessary

You probably don't realise he has edited his "blog", by adding in that now, in point 3, after the pushback . That wasn't there before..............good job people screenshotted it wasn't it .
I wonder which version he submitted? His first version or his new, amended version?

It's absolutely gas, isn't it .

ps. no copyright issues, text changed......;)

cookimonster

Kramer wrote: »

You probably don't realise he has edited his "blog", by adding in that now, in point 3, after the pushback . That wasn't there before..............good job people screenshotted it wasn't it .
I wonder which version he submitted? His first version or his new, amended version?

It's absolutely gas, isn't it .

ps. no copyright issues, text changed......;)

Please put up the screen shot of the original content.

tudderone

Just reading about all this now and i have to say i am maddened, but not surprised. Its SCOVI all over again, but with deer shooting. Why do the Irish have to behave like this, money i suppose, but its a complete lack of professionalism. I wonder how many people that were supposed to be working for us, did solo-runs with recommendations over the years that we never heard about ?

Grizzly 45

Ah shure , there must be no money at all in that barristering lark that he does as a profession.Otherwise,why would he be pushing this along with his book on sika deer? Man's gotta earn a living somehow:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The deer alliance runs the hcap, the hcap makes on average €250 per person for the course (the two days), and he wants this made mandatory for not just beginners, but everyone. He started this three years ago and managed to get the mandatory course introduced by doing the exact same thing, secret proposals. That backfired because it opened the door for anyone and their Mother to run a course, and with no regulation all of them had to be accepted

Yup,it wasn't the smartest move,as now everyone and his Mum can put together a course,and it will be a copy of the HCAP manual,and nauseum,as I dont belive there is a copyright on the manual,if someone has a copy they might check to see please?So this will be diluted down to a possible 30 quid at the "Johnny Fuksticks school of deer stalking" course,and with that a Pandoras box of other problems will be initated like standards of the courses are taught,who is teaching them,and all the rest.....Not the sharpest tool in the box busisness,or political wise this plan.

Kramer

cookimonster wrote: »

Please put up the screen shot of the original content.

I don't want to infringe copyright but I'm sure he'll confirm he changed it, surreptitiously, for whatever reason.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Ah shure , there must be no money at all in that barristering lark that he does as a profession.Otherwise,why would he be pushing this along with his book on sika deer? Man's gotta earn a living somehow:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:



Yup,it wasn't the smartest move,as now everyone and his Mum can put together a course,and it will be a copy of the HCAP manual,and nauseum,as I dont belive there is a copyright on the manual,if someone has a copy they might check to see please?So this will be diluted down to a possible 30 quid at the "Johnny Fuksticks school of deer stalking" course,and with that a Pandoras box of other problems will be initated like standards of the courses are taught,who is teaching them,and all the rest.....Not the sharpest tool in the box busisness,or political wise this plan.

Between our own crowd of shooting orgs, the buffoons we currently have in the dail, and the crap from the eu, its getting to a point where you wonder if its worth the trouble of being involved in shooting sports at all.

Cass

I'm asking for a check on this issue.

As far as i'm aware if the "content" is posted on social media without a "don't use this" warning then i believe it's fair game. The problem is using it from their own website is a definite no no without consent/permission. l

I have a screenshot of the original point #3 which ended at the word "practice". Its what i based my opening post and subsequent posts on. The piece about getting permission is not in it. So when i get a reply, and if its the go ahead, i'll post it here and perhaps then we can see why there was no confusion as to the author's original meaning, before he amended it.

Grizzly 45

On a more practical POR...
Where do we go with this from here as deer hunters?We've had our cage rattled with this and have jumped all over it.So now what do we do about it?

Do we chose another organisation to repersent us and our views and put forwad counter proposals?
Seems the main sticking points are;
Fees,cumpulsory course attendence with no grandfathering, permissions.

At this stage,we have to accept that now some sort of idea will germinate in the ministerial office and NPWS on this issue, and if there is no dissenting voice with counter-proposals,we will be lumberd with these proposals ,or worse,if we dont have an input.
Thoughts?

Rows Grower

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

On a more practical POR...
Where do we go with this from here as deer hunters?We've had our cage rattled with this and have jumped all over it.So now what do we do about it?

Do we chose another organisation to repersent us and our views and put forwad counter proposals?
Seems the main sticking points are;
Fees,cumpulsory course attendence with no grandfathering, permissions.

At this stage,we have to accept that now some sort of idea will germinate in the ministerial office and NPWS on this issue, and if there is no dissenting voice with counter-proposals,we will be lumberd with these proposals ,or worse,if we dont have an input.
Thoughts?

My thoughts would be that just between the people that post on this forum alone there is the nucleus of a proper organisation that can properly and honestly represent all ordinary genuine deer hunters and more importantly promote and develop the sport.

kunekunesika

Npws or the Depts didn't ask or request this submission. There is nothing stopping us from making our own submissions as individuals. In my submission I would highlight that the views are mine only, but would ask that any submissions from groups on the topic be checked against verified members numbers. I like the 3 year licence idea. I'm happy to apply using an email as per existing. Happy to provide a landowner permission once a while. Happy to email in returns once a year. No happy to pay. Not happy to have course rolled out any further than present.
Think that's it?