POLL: Should bushcraft get professional?

[tobes01]

Folks,

One of the consistent themes here seems to be gaining access to land for bushcraft activities. Landowners are understandably reluctant to have people in their woods, and various chavvy types ruin it for all of us by dumping rubbish, lighting uncontrolled fires or harming wildlife.

I'm struck that there might be some mileage in setting up a 'Basic Bushcraft Certificate,' much in the same vein as the DSC1 for deerstalkers: a qualification that proves you understand the basic rules of bushcraft and 'leave no trace' wilderness camping. This wouldn't be about proving you can get fire from a bowdrill, or make nettle cordage, but instead that you can set up and clear a simple camp; know which wood is appropriate to cut and how to do it without harming the tree; can light, manage and extinguish a fire; and know the basic legalities of knife carrying, fishing and rights of way.

Having a certificate like that would go a long way towards proving you can be trusted with a piece of land, and I'd certainly want to qualify. What are your thoughts?

Tobes

 

[Toddy]

No.


Toddy

 

[Man of Tanith]

had to vote no but training from companies are useful
reasoning behind my vote? well i like the getting training from companies but i think getting certificated to be able to set up camp is a slippery slope which could be more hindreance than help with everyone using one camp set up one method of sleeping etc and prevent the individuality i hold so dear
cheers
Sam

 

[Kerne]

No.

A "certificate" can evolve into a "licence" far too easily.

 

[slowworm]

Having a certificate like that would go a long way towards proving you can be trusted with a piece of land, and I'd certainly want to qualify. What are your thoughts?

Would it? I'm not sure I'd trust a certificate, I think references or mutual friends would count for more. I wouldn't really mind if someone couldn't start a fire from a couple of sticks but I'd not want someone who left litter behind, not sure a certificate would help.

 

[superc0ntra]

I vote no. Who certifies the certifiers?
Also what is worth more, a lifetime in the bush or a weeks certification course which I think will rapidly become a "Look what a badass bushman I am" certificate for young urban men with too much money and too little brains.

 

[Broch]

No, No, No!

I have no difficulty getting access to land. I have been in the woods doing my thing for 40 years. And, although I am still learning, why the hell should I want a 'certificate'?

Broch

 

[w00dsmoke]

So I won't be able to wipe my xxxs in the woods without some certificate ...I don't think so...

This kind of idea just gives politicians and walts an excuse to regulate my freedom of choice for what? Power and control. Sounds like someone from the SCA trying ot get into bushcraft...pmsl

 

[Draven]

No.


Toddy

Only thing I have to add is that I have my own set of standards, and they're good enough for me. I neither want nor need to be judged by someone else's.

 

[myotis]

I've voted no, as I would be concerned, as others have suggested, that it became almost a license to go bushcrafting.

However, I can see some merit in that it labels you as being serious about your hobby, so maybe a half way house would be the formation of a national bushcraft association, that could act as formal voice for bushcrafting and through membership subscriptions, provide public liability insurance for its members. A club magazine, web site, code of practice etc.

Not really thought this through properly, but maybe membership would still provide an indication of bushcraft being a proper a hobby to landowners, without the need for some certification scheme.

Part of me would by far prefer that people were just left to get on with things, but I can see some merits of a recognised association. I am also all too aware of the problems this may bring as well.

Graham

 

[tjwuk]

No. The governement would take control and it would end up as another stealth or (DPM) tax!!

Good idea in theory but as already pointed out, who, if not Mr Brown controls it?

 

[Daegurth]

i'm not so sure; the slippery slope always has to be borne in mind- despite its poor validity as an argument- but i also think something telling landowners that you're trustworthy would be invaluable.

unfortunately, it would be too easy for chavs to get the certificate, then continue leaving litter just the same as before. if they're gone before they're caught, they won't have the certificate taken away, and will continue doing it. i can't see it being a success.

in general, i think just talking to landowners, showing them that you respect their land and rights and that you aren't a crazed survivalist type nor a chav is the easiest way to go. it seems to have worked well enough for 50 or so years, no sense in restricting our freedoms further for dubious or even non-existent reward.

 

[Colin.W]

I voted no, as previously said it would be in serious danger of being hijacked by all sorts of people and being corrupted by politics Any fears that land owners have can be sorted by the same method that some camp sites use by passing the names of undesireable campers to other site owners

 

[Firebringer]

I voted yes.

I think not just a certificate, but also a licence disc you have to wear bit like a road tax, compulsary insurance and also a form yearly of MOT, both of the person holding the licence and their equipment. I don't think it's right that folks can just go out by themselves without having their equipment approved first by a civil servant. I'd also favour having to fill in forms before, during and after we are out so that the government has a record.

 

[stooboy]

I voted yes.

I think not just a certificate, but also a licence disc you have to wear bit like a road tax, compulsary insurance and also a form yearly of MOT, both of the person holding the licence and their equipment. I don't think it's right that folks can just go out by themselves without having their equipment approved first by a civil servant. I'd also favour having to fill in forms before, during and after we are out so that the government has a record.

rofl

 

[sargey]

there are so many different ways of doing bushcrafty things. i am concerned that organisations attempting to liscense bushcraft activities and bushcraft schools with a specific syllabus can only serve to limit and atrophy the giant skills base open to us.

i've been on several different bushcraft courses with different companies, all bar one were absolutely excellent and well worth the money invested in the course. however, a couple of them had very different philosophies, and approached the subject from different directions. both equally valid i should point out. i know the thread is not specifically about schools, but i do see that the same argument applies.

so, no, i'm out.

cheers, and.

 

[BlueTrain]

In addition to being wary of the government trying to regulate yet another aspect of our everyday lives, it is also an example of the first ones out there doing something becoming the gatekeepers. First you do something unusual, like hang gliding, then you become the expert, then you adjudicate anyone else trying to do the same thing. Finally you have to get not only a certificate but a permit.

 

[Karl5]

Absolutely No!

 

[Siberianfury]

sadly i can see our country becoming that way with all these unnessecary rules and regulations. i hope it never happens.

 

[rancid badger]

No, No, No!

I have no difficulty getting access to land. I have been in the woods doing my thing for 40 years. And, although I am still learning, why the hell should I want a 'certificate'?

Broch

Absolutely, totally and utterly agree with the above
As well as: NO, No, no, definitely no and simply cannot see any point at all.

P.S. So what is basic bushcraft anyway??? To me it covers so many different separate areas, it would be ridiculous to try to encompass all 'the basics'

Sorry if this comes across as a rant but you've definitely got me going!

All the best
R.B.