Thread: Who the hell writes this stuff

Originally Posted by No.3

Ahhh, no - a lot of hunting accident related deaths are, but there are still the odd shot at a hunter carrying an animal, a duckshooter clipping the guy they don't know on the other side of the trees at the back of the pond, the mis-identifying a human as an animal (target fixation where the brain is expecting to see YYY and the brain fits the eyeball signals into this pattern) and the good old shooting the headlamp in the spotlight job. Just about lost a mate a while back where the two parties had no idea the other was there and one shot at an animal that both were stalking in on. The shot missed me mate by a few meters, and both parties got a hell of a shock as neither knew the other was there and it wasn't public land. Both had permission to be on the land, but had come in from opposite access points and met at the middle of the block. Unlikely/uncommon situation but it happened.

Whatever. Still supports "if you cant see him you wont shoot him" as being a fallacy.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Whatever. Still supports "if you cant see him you wont shoot him" as being a fallacy.

But you saying saw colour?

As far as the questions, this was raised as soon as the old MSC people were removed from the training process. The replacement types I think didn't have the experience to understand the confusion they were creating in the questions as they wrote them down.

They probably just missed a word, e.g. 'stop actively hunting until you regain sight...'

These are little language tweaks they may be easily able to fix in the training. Stuff like this happens when heaps of people review things. Make sure you email all the errors you spot to them when you're done with it, make the world a better place - certainly seems there's eyes on this board with the talent for a useful technical end-user review!

Originally Posted by LarryB

They probably just missed a word, e.g. 'stop actively hunting until you regain sight...'

These are little language tweaks they may be easily able to fix in the training. Stuff like this happens when heaps of people review things. Make sure you email all the errors you spot to them when you're done with it, make the world a better place - certainly seems there's eyes on this board with the talent for a useful technical end-user review!

...With the phenomenal quantity of funds they have ploughed into this behemoth one would expect them to have sought such technical end user input prior to launching....but no, lets launch the system with all these poor glitches, and instead lets spend tens of millions of dollars on nice new HQ's and uniforms

80 million over budget and counting.

Also, I don't recall any rules stating you have to be within sight of your mate while hunting.

It almost weakens the basic firearm rules.
Don't hunt if you can't see your hunting mate DOES NOT MEAN if you can still see your mate and something else, that that something else is likely a game animal.

Originally Posted by zeropak

I was at the Hunting outdoor and 4x4 expo in Rotorua over the weekend and the guys from the firearms registry outfit were there, I had a bit of a chat with them and when I mentioned mine and other users frustrations over the used friendliness of their website and the realme bullshit, they kind of smiled and cringed at the same time, they know the issues are there but can't do anything about it.
Anyway a bit later it had a look through some of the online info either on the firearms registry or linked to it. I found a 3 part quiz you could do online to test your firearms safety knowledge. There were some ridiculous answers to some of the questions but the one that really cracked me up was this one.
It asked what you should do if you are hunting with a mate and lost sight of them.
Apparently the correct answer to this is "stop and wait until you regain sight of your hunting partner".
Am I the only one that sees the stupidity of that answer? Assuming your mate is equally safety conscious, then he has also stopped and waited once he lost sight of you. How long do you think this would continue, minutes, hours, days, weeks?
Perhaps next time I go hunting with a mate I should take enough food to last a week or so just in case I loose sight of him??????

That assumes you accept the draft answers. The equivalence of asking the Animal Health board dudes to drink a 1 litre container of soaked 1080 because it is harmless in a water saturated state. The look of disbelief and horror never ever surprised one. Worse is the next question to them...you dont know what you are taking about do you in a loud voice.

Almost like these rules are written ambiguously on purpose. You are then free to interpret them anyway you like when it comes to enforcement.

Maybe we are starting to see the effects of our our much vaunted education system coming to the fore.

It would seem that being able to construct a sentence to be able to convey a precise meaning is important.

It would also appear that having a sound knowledge on the topic of concern would also be useful.

Originally Posted by 7mm tragic

Maybe we are starting to see the effects of our our much vaunted education system coming to the fore.

It would seem that being able to construct a sentence to be able to convey a precise meaning is important.

It would also appear that having a sound knowledge on the topic of concern would also be useful.

The rules under the old ARMS act were not hard to follow but some idiot dreamed up a modern version for the intellectually challenged. The aim of the old firearms regime when getting your licence was to make you think about firearms safety and common sense but apparently that is penalising the new generation.You sat a written test and and then got grilled in an oral test by a hard arse local cop. They were fair but hard.

Originally Posted by 7mm tragic

Maybe we are starting to see the effects of our our much vaunted education system coming to the fore.

It would seem that being able to construct a sentence to be able to convey a precise meaning is important.

It would also appear that having a sound knowledge on the topic of concern would also be useful.

Welcome to the new world of dealing with incompetent government departments, populated by people who do not have much technical experience of their subject matter.

We see it when dealing with MBIE and the ETS (2 months to get them to enter our details into their system) , we see it when we deal with the District and Regional councils (2 years attempting to correct incorrect data regarding our farm), we see it when dealing with NAIT (poorly designed data entry systems)

Attempted to enter data into NAIT recently. Wife spent three hours going around in circles with their poorly setup data entry system. In the end rang their help line:

"Nah, don't follow the prompts on the system, its hopeless, it won't work. do it this way"

This guy should have done the course

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kapiti...OPRXIVFEQBWYM/

Originally Posted by Ross Nolan

This guy should have done the course

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kapiti...OPRXIVFEQBWYM/

His course was probably far more in depth than the one mentioned....obviously no more effective but more in depth as the consultant would want to get paid more....I wonder if it came with any sort of warranty regarding effectiveness...?