big ears
Well-Known Member
Is that relevant?
Carcase Quality
- Thread starter kieran222
- Start date
Yes, since AW’s are the ones who are entrusted to witness and sign off Candidates, so would be directly responsible if quality is falling.
big ears
Well-Known Member
Not really. As I say I’ve assessed practical skills for years. There are two factors at work. Firstly there will be a minimum criteria to pass. This should be written so all are assessed the same however inevitably this is open to interpretation by the assessor. Things like,” the candidate must show competency in …”
Assessing competency in practical skills on a one off assessment is completely flawed. There is so much educational evidence to support this. Practical skills need to be assessed on multiple times in different scenarios to be robust and valid and ideally by more than one assessor.
The second is the ability of the AW. Human nature is such that when faced with a weak candidate they will give them the benefit of the doubt, again this can be rectified by observing the action multiple times by multiple assessors, if weak every time it’s easier to fail. Do DMQ post their pass rates? I am struggling to find them. Without a failure rate then it’s not a valid assessment.
For DMQ to say that the new system works laughs in the face of all educational theory and assessment evidence. For DMQ to say a one visit assessment is as valid as a three visit portfolio assessment is just a joke and shows arrogance.
If DMQ wanted this to be a valid assessment then they would ask for multiple visits and at least two AW assessments so as to remove bias. The AW would also be revalidated regularly. All of this would mean that no one would volunteer as an AW and the cost to obtain DMQ would go up as many would be paying high AW fees to get the assessment done.
From a DMQ point of view less would put forward to get level 2 so less revenue coming in.
So I ask again as I acknowledged the old DMQ 2 was not perfect. Do you acknowledge that as it stands DMQ have lowered the standards by which they assess candidates?
BE
devon deer stalker
Well-Known Member
Including permissions?
Agreed.
I give no benefit of doubt.
I did this as a candidate, three AWs, different species, different parts of the country to prove to myself I was at the standard.
Agree
Not true
So ? Maybe it needs to go up. There are a lot of stalkers doing not very much, sitting on leases but allowing the deer population to explode.
Do they even make a profit? Im fine with less L2 around which is why I would re-assess stalkers every X years.
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
If you are assessed and know something and can show it - either practically a la Level 2 or theoretically a la Level 1 I would argue that you have shown that you have the ability - if you then don’t keep that up it’s your own fault, the assessors can’t be held accountable for that, is the driving license system flawed because people crash / speed / drink drive despite having qualified in the skill. The theory of assessment is more to do with people who struggle - in essence dulling it down.
Being assessed as a one off shouldn’t be an issue because in essence every carcass is a one off assessment that you should be getting right as per your ‘qualification’, if you can’t get it right as a one off then quite simply you can’t do it right, if you can then why the need to repeat? It’s like the level 1 shooting test - in my opinion there shouldn’t be re takes on the day or zeroing opportunity - you should be ready as if you were off to shoot a deer, if you can do it as a one off then you can do it and if you can’t or your ride isn’t set up then your aren’t competent.
Reducing the Level 2 from 3 beasts to one is maybe not as thorough but if you go and take the AW for a stalk, kill a deer, gralloch, transport and larder it perfectly and can answer all of the questions about what you would do if the deer had run etc - why do they need to see more? You only really need the additional if you struggled with any elements. Even shooting 3 deer - there will be elements that won’t be assessed such as following a wounded deer or identifying a Notifiable disease so some of it will always be theory.
Re-assessing regularly would be a pain in the arse.
Being assessed as a one off shouldn’t be an issue because in essence every carcass is a one off assessment that you should be getting right as per your ‘qualification’, if you can’t get it right as a one off then quite simply you can’t do it right, if you can then why the need to repeat? It’s like the level 1 shooting test - in my opinion there shouldn’t be re takes on the day or zeroing opportunity - you should be ready as if you were off to shoot a deer, if you can do it as a one off then you can do it and if you can’t or your ride isn’t set up then your aren’t competent.
Reducing the Level 2 from 3 beasts to one is maybe not as thorough but if you go and take the AW for a stalk, kill a deer, gralloch, transport and larder it perfectly and can answer all of the questions about what you would do if the deer had run etc - why do they need to see more? You only really need the additional if you struggled with any elements. Even shooting 3 deer - there will be elements that won’t be assessed such as following a wounded deer or identifying a Notifiable disease so some of it will always be theory.
Re-assessing regularly would be a pain in the arse.
Last edited:
I guess the DSC 1 and 2 is like a driving test - you demonstrate the basics and then do the real learning afterwards…very similar to many training initiatives.
The issue I have is with people assuming their way is correct and everything else is not - there is more than one way to skin a cat (deer)…I have picked up different points from many people over the years and tried to combine them to what works for me….
Think of the variety of options in shooting, gralloching and lardering - there are thousands of ways and none are the absolute right way, just different.
I have seen people with bags of zip ties, double gloving, using 3 different knives during gralloch, suspended gralloch, or n the ground, splitting all the way from stem to sternum, people doing what seems to be keyhole surgery, people doing green grallochs…leaving legs on, inspecting head in the field….there are so many options.
As with anything else - you learn with time, just this year I observed someone doing something new and thought “that’s a neat trick”…and adopted it…
The original carcass was poor to say the least, but hopefully the person is pulled aside, educated and moves on to improve.
I know for a fact that we have all made mistakes over the years…it’s part of the process.
Regards,
Gixer
The issue I have is with people assuming their way is correct and everything else is not - there is more than one way to skin a cat (deer)…I have picked up different points from many people over the years and tried to combine them to what works for me….
Think of the variety of options in shooting, gralloching and lardering - there are thousands of ways and none are the absolute right way, just different.
I have seen people with bags of zip ties, double gloving, using 3 different knives during gralloch, suspended gralloch, or n the ground, splitting all the way from stem to sternum, people doing what seems to be keyhole surgery, people doing green grallochs…leaving legs on, inspecting head in the field….there are so many options.
As with anything else - you learn with time, just this year I observed someone doing something new and thought “that’s a neat trick”…and adopted it…
The original carcass was poor to say the least, but hopefully the person is pulled aside, educated and moves on to improve.
I know for a fact that we have all made mistakes over the years…it’s part of the process.
Regards,
Gixer
big ears
Well-Known Member
This is the key. Revalidate stalkers AND assessors regularly and remove trained hunter status if those found wanting.
Then the qualification means something and maybe we would reduce carcass contamination.
I would be happy to do this but I bet there will be a lot on here who will sadly disagree.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
big ears
Well-Known Member
So would you believe that should be the same for all people and all jobs? Teachers, nurses, airline pilots, doctors?
Let’s not keep standards up because it’s a pain in the arse?
big ears
Well-Known Member
Absolutely 100%. The key here is having a structure to educate those who are not up to standard.
My issue is that the base line examination is set too low.
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
So
Human nature being what it is, if there is no enforcement or checks, the standard will decline.
Somewhere along the line the standard needs to be enforced, the professions you mention all undergo regular checks and refresher courses.
Human nature being what it is, if there is no enforcement or checks, the standard will decline.
big ears
Well-Known Member
Agree that is my point and why I made it.
It is a pain in the arse to revalidate but we do it to maintain standards. Why then is it not applicable to trained hunters putting things in the food chain?
Out of curiosity - are we aware of many cases on contamination due to poor handling?
I could find several cases where contamination occurs in the butchery or food prep but there doesn’t seem to be many in gralloching and lardering as quite frankly when you put a hole or too in something and it falls on the ground…it’s hard not to say it’s contaminated!
I could understand the call for higher standards if things are slipping through but are we just adding more hurdles to a job/hobby that already has people looking for reasons to stop it?
I could find several cases where contamination occurs in the butchery or food prep but there doesn’t seem to be many in gralloching and lardering as quite frankly when you put a hole or too in something and it falls on the ground…it’s hard not to say it’s contaminated!
I could understand the call for higher standards if things are slipping through but are we just adding more hurdles to a job/hobby that already has people looking for reasons to stop it?
big ears
Well-Known Member
A trip to a game dealer would tell you. Out with a chap yesterday who works in one and also stalks and I hate to say it’s more prevalent than you think.
What is also worrying is the stuff not seen in a GD and sold privately.
You would think it would be more publicised if people were getting ill or contamination was found.
big ears
Well-Known Member
Fair bit goes to pet food. There are cases of contaminated meat causing harm in pets.
Quick search found this
www.foodsafetynews.com
Quick search found this
Cat TB cases linked to raw pet food; people also sick
Raw pet food has been linked to an outbreak of feline tuberculosis that has infected dozens of cats and two people in the United Kingdom. One hundred
www.foodsafetynews.com
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Theres no need to re validate formally if theres no legislative change or change in the standards provided you are continually assessed.
Stalkers and game shoots are no more likely to self regulate than builders, bankers or the stock exchange.
If the registered game dealers regularly audit a representative sample of carcasses and reject sub standard offerings, which they should be doing, after all, its their reputation and liability at risk, then the problem wouldn’t exist.
Purely as an aside, the standard would appear to be set unnecessarily high, given the numbers of poor quality presentations making it into the food chain without adverse consequences to the consumer.
Sorry hadn’t read post 134.
big ears
Well-Known Member
But what about carcasses not put into GD?
Who sets the standards for reassessment? Clearly we cannot expect the GD to do that. If you did they will drop their rates as more time will be taken up with admin and having to employ carcass checkers as well as processors.
The responsibility of delivering clean well checked carcasses has to be with the stalker. We cannot shirk our responsibility and say it’s up to someone else to tell us.
Having a formal revalidation to maintain your trained hunter number makes sense and supports your view if continual assessment.
As with anything there are some slapdash individuals who try to get away with the minimum. Delivering shoddily gralloched deer which have been dragged through cow **** is not acceptable and you should not have to be told by a GD that is the case.
BE
One thing that a lot of you are missing is the fact that AWs aren’t even assessors, the assessor comes along later and has to piece it all together and, from what I hear, that is the biggest problem. One assessor recently told me that almost every portfolio that he deals with is a complete mess and it is very hard work to make good all the mistakes, most of which are administrative rather than practical. I can’t say that doing one stalk or three is better or worse but it is pretty clear that the system in general is pretty weak and always has been.
Similar threads
