I love dogs and would fill the house with them if I had the chance but, unfortunately, my "lifestyle," by which I mean that the work I'm forced to do to make money to pay for doing the things I enjoy, just doesn't suit having a dog. I am away for long periods, I work long shifts and strange hours plus I live in a largely urban area and it would be unfair to keep a dog under these circumstances.
While I appreciate and understand the utility that a dog can bring to stalking when a deer runs on and location proves difficult I would be very much opposed to the imposition of rules requiring stalkers to have access to a dog. I am also aware that everyone in this thread is taking a very moderate view on the subject and no one here is insisting that stalkers MUST do anything and I'm with the people who consider a dog nice to have.
In stalking, despite what may appear to be the case, few rules are actually required beyond the common sense, morals and ethics of the stalker on the ground. In the end my morals and ethics are my own business, as are yours, and we should not be asserting that another stalker MUST have X or by law needs to have Y. Stalking is, despite what some might have us believe, a simple sport that is about enjoying yourself in the countryside free from the encumberances of rules, regulations and interfering busy-bodies and I think we should strive to keep it that way, we are not short of rules and interfering busy-bodies as it is. I would draw a parallel, if a somewhat flawed one, between those who want "testing" and "exams" and so on for stalkers and those who want dogs to be a legal requirement.
Each of us has a unique set of personal circumstances which may preclude dogs, or DSC1, or whatever the next regulation that will come our way will turn out to be. The last thing we want is yet more red tape and regulation and I suspect that a legal requirement for us to have access to a dog would put many of us out of stalking as, quite simply, such a dog is not available.
Before such a situation is to be considered a "good reason" (to use a shooting term) for requiring a dog must be established and to do that it would be necessary to find how many deer are lost that might otherwise be found by a dog. I believe it would also be necessary to establish that a dog would lead to reduced suffering - that is to say it would be necessary to prove that a substantial proportion of those deer would be wounded and found alive by a dog such that they can be dispatched to reduce suffering. My little experience with such things is that a deer hit in the body by a modern deer legal rifle bullet is going to die, no matter how bad the shot, within a few hours and one hit in the chest is going to die within a very few minutes. I suspect that a dog is very unlikely to find such a deer before it dies and, therefore, that any insistance on "HAVING" to have a dog available is not based on a deer welfare issue.
Personally I'd love to have a dog to take stalking with me, even if it did reduce my already pretty slim chances of shooting a deer, but I would also object to yet more rules and regulations relating to my sport. We have all seen how the DSC 1 training is not a legal requirement but, in many areas, if you don't have it you will not get a deer legal rifle on your FAC. It is easy to see how dogs might go the same way. Trust me, once a dog became a legal requirement it wouldn't be long before some lentil munching communist would be telling you what colour it must be and what length its left front leg must be and...