heard today on Radio NZ that the Mountain Safety people will be dropped out of the safety lectures...seems a silly move to me...maybe I missed the point?!?
Printable View
heard today on Radio NZ that the Mountain Safety people will be dropped out of the safety lectures...seems a silly move to me...maybe I missed the point?!?
Nope it would be very silly, but the poly techs will pick it up:sick: you'll end up with a student loan, but should get you qualified in 5 yrs.
I think this has been on the cards for a long time. :wtfsmilie:
So who does it?
From NZDA President via email
Restructure of Mountain Safety Council threatens Firearm Safety Programme
I need to inform you of the recent and completely unexpected sacking by the Mountain Safety Council of the well-known Firearm Programme managers Mike Pyatt and Nicole McKee, and the termination by MSC of the Firearms Technical Committee. The NZDA National Executive believes this undermines the long standing firearms programme.
As you already know, that programme has for many ears been delivering safety instruction and administering the licence test under contract to the NZ Police. This delivery is actually done by volunteers, many of them members of the NZDA as is consistent with our position as the premier hunting organisation in New Zealand. The instructors remain fiercely loyal to the programme and the managers and believe MSC is jeopardising all the goodwill built up between these willing volunteers and the organisation charged with directing them. Instructors all around New Zealand are discussing a walkout, which would likely spell the death knell of the whole programme.
Nicole and Mike had the pivotal job of Programme Managers for this work. They liaised closely with instructors to conduct training, collate firearm incident reports and carry out other firearm-related tasks, and to ensure consistency of training standards throughout the country. The Technical Committee was made up of nominees from national hunting and shooting organisations, firearm instructors, Defence and police. It provided advice to the Programme Managers and helped to develop training programmes.
All this is now in jeopardy despite the MSC’s assurances over the past year that the firearms programme would be unaffected during the disestablishment of the other MSC outdoor disciplines and the regional committees.
The police had been given vague assurances that the programme would continue and the quality would be unchanged, but as a result of restructurings that were made, the National Executive believes we must ask the police to cancel their contract with MSC for delivering the service. We cannot remain confident in an organisation that has made pointless changes without consultation – not even the police! Meanwhile, the police have moved to ask their Arms Officers to reassure instructors that police value their services and will ensure that the provision of resources and resolution of any issues will be a priority.
But without the leadership of credible programme managers and an expert technical committee, the consistency and quality of instruction will inevitably degrade across the country.
So where does NZDA stand on this?
• NZDA is the largest shooting organisation in the country and has a vested interest in maintaining a credible firearm safety programme.
• We have a particular interest in hunter safety and the current safety lecture and licence test emphasise safety in a hunting context.
• It is from the ranks of our membership that many (perhaps most) of the current firearm instructors are drawn.
• We ask firearms instructors to stay with the programme and work with the District Arms Officers to continue providing the services that licence applicants and the general public need for their competence and safety.
• The NZDA National Executive will ask the police to cancel their contract with MSC, take over the direct management of the programme, employ managers with relevant qualifications and reinstate a standing Firearm Technical Committee.
The new CEO of MSC is gutting the place, they have dropped all the outdoor courses that were run by volunteers, going to replace it with online info & pamphlets. Have laid most of the staff off.
Initially they said there would be no changes to the delivery of firearms training, MSC are contracted by the police to carry out the lectures, etc. now it looks like that is changing too, they have sacked the two firearms coordinators & disbanded the firearms technical committee. There's been no consultation with the police, firearms instructors, etc
Today NZDA have called for the police to cancel the contract with MSC & give it to them along with the volunteer instructors.
Sanity hopefully will come to the fore! These volunteers do a great job
Nothing quite like a new CEO coming in and reducing costs. Usually it ends up in reducing income as well
Sent from my workbench
Computer screens and pamphlets are a poor substitute for a human being with knowledge and experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by outdoorlad
wow, wasn't expecting that, cause for concern...
Definitely, sounds like a Night of the Long Knives at MSC. One must question, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by distant stalker
nooooooooooooooooo......................did you not know "that moving forward we hope to have a positive outcome with win-win situations for all involved stake holders"Quote:
Originally Posted by kmak
I'm afraid I'll never be a "Suit" as soon as most of the ones I have met in the course of my job open their mouths my "bullshit meter" goes of the scale.
I hate to say it but is this what happens when people bitch publicly about the licensing system?
Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk
People bitch about stuff publicly all the time. If that is the reason why this particular system has fallen away, then we have far bigger problems to contemplate.Quote:
Originally Posted by veitnamcam
Like when our right to hunt is taken away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan
That's an irrelevant slippery slope fallacy. If someone has legitimate and clearly communicated concerns with the licensing system, why shouldn't they bring them up ("bitch")?
If they have legitimate concerns then they should.
So, that new CEO ditched the firearm safety program ( he might be anti hunting or anti gun?) ;so what is the mountain safety council is all about now?
Safety around tramping in nz?
You remember that excellent post the other day about the river crossing and the bridge?
Maybe that CEO has decided that complicated and risky stuff for the MSC ( i.e. Him ultimately , crossing the river...) should be avoided, and the MSC is gona be dedicated to building bridges? So bye bye firearm safety program... Let somebody take care of that shit....
Don't see the problem. Just absorb it into the clubs. Might improve the quality of the lectures.
And modernise them
The whole process is too hunting-centric
all the questions about "what would you do if hunting on private land" etc
"well I wouldn't because I'm applying for my license to shoot targets on a range so that's irrelevant"
Pretty sure I'll be called a jackass and other names again :D but I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing.
The current testing system (as described by several volunteers on here) is primarily based on getting the 7 rules across. I do not see how a computer based system is any worse. It WILL most likely deal with the very real issue of "instructors" providing answers (read the other thread carefully if you still think this isn't happening) and inconsistencies in content delivery.
Personally, I think that the focus on initial licensing training needs to move away from the hunting bias (some people do use firearms for things other than hunting). In terms of hunting specific training (especially the continuing issue we have with target identification), I feel strongly that those training issues need to be addressed as part of the hunting permit application process.
DoC doesn't have the resources for that and is also pretty keen on making hunting access as easy as possible for free "pest" control so that's not likelyQuote:
Originally Posted by ebf
The 7 rules are pretty redundant. There's really like 2.
Don't put your finger on the trigger unless you want it to go bang.
Don't point it at things you don't want to shoot.
e: I doubt I could name all "seven rules" if pressed. It's bollocks
The problem with an online test would be you could get anyone to sit it for you, Re some instructors helping, I think it's not so much about providing the answers to them but ensuring they understand the rules, etc. you don't want someone passing but only understanding 80% of the content?Quote:
Originally Posted by ebf
If the licensing course was expanded & a practical module put in then there would be a cost which would have to be passed on, are people happy to pay $500... Then it could only be held where there are ranges, etc that would disadvantage a lot of rural folk, shift workers etc
It will come down to an online course of information but you will have to sit a multi choice test at a police station under supervision, just like the drivers licence. Can't see it ever having a practical component.
The main reason of the hunting emphasis in the old lectures is because that is where most people get shot.
Don't see why some established, reputable clubs can't be accredited training institutions.
E.g. pass test, go to <nearest club> for proficiency instruction / test. Any new shooter would be surrounded by experienced shooters, likely in multiple disciplines and would also probably increase club membership and help to promote shooting as a sport.
Competitive rifle shooting is I believe, the oldest organised sport in New Zealand. It's not only the tradition which is worthy of being maintained, it also promotes other desirable character traits such as responsibility, self discipline, and attention to detail. The camaraderie is pretty cool too.
So why do we need a licence that's renewed every 10 yrs? Explain it again?
People can change a lot in ten years, I have to think that it's a good thing that people have to renew itQuote:
Originally Posted by Maca49
My appearance changed so much between 16 and 26 that the photo on my license was not really obviously me... that'd be one reason.
Because the theory is you might go bat shit crazy in ten years. Problem is you could go bat shit in 5 years or a few months after getting your license.
Oh yep Beavis I forgot the licence has taken over from the Sanitoriums, because they were cruel! Why do we never look at the root causes, oh cause there's to much PC crap to allow it through, licences it is, cause they fix it:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
No-one looks like their ID unless its fake...... None of my photos look like what I think I look like..............Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
Did my FAL Safety test 3 weeks ago and it was still done by MSC guys
Yes, still is.Quote:
Originally Posted by keneff