This is a conversation probably better had over a pint in a pub, as we are diverting away from the original subject matter.
However to answer your question, personally I don’t acknowledge that standards have been lowered. Then again I speak as someone who has witnessed under both the old and new schemes, and so I have seen from a practical perspective how the new scheme works. But I have no reason to lie, and can only speak as I find. I also know there are current AW’s who will disagree with me, which is fine too. If any AW’s feel strongly enough about it, it is easy these days to retire from being an AW. I’m not aware of many who have, but the number of AW’s I personally know can be counted on the fingers of both hands, so hardly representative either.
The old DSC2 scheme did not teach competence. Nor was it designed to. It was there to assess competence, through observation and questioning. In this it did a fair job, but was far from perfect.
Just as with the old scheme, Candidates under the new scheme should only be witnessed once they have reached the required standard. They still require training to become competent, and indeed this is emphasised in the briefing notes to both the Candidates themselves and AW’s. But Witnessed stalks are now just that - witnessed. If the Candidate isn’t observed reaching the required standard, the PC cannot be signed off. I tell every Candidate that I am there as an AW simply to observe - not to train, not to coach, and not to advise. That is way different from the old scheme and, to my mind, makes the Witnessed stalk far more objective.
One positive I do see from the new scheme is that there is now less reliance on the individual capabilities of the AW and more rigorous questioning of the Candidate by the Assessor. The AW is now there just to witness, and the Assessor to assess - but assess both the candidate and the AW, as the Assessor also now contacts the AW and subjects them to far more questioning than under the old scheme. I accept that many AW’s might not like this, as it puts them under direct scrutiny, but I believe it should help make the performance of AW’s far more consistent and reliable.
Let’s go back to the definition of DSC2:
“DSC2 is a practical based qualification which enables candidates to demonstrate their knowledge and competence in legally, safely and humanely culling deer and dealing with carcasses hygienically.”
Answer me a question. Why does it require three deer to do that? Why not 10, or 6 (one of each UK deer species, as some here propose), or 100? What is it about three that makes it the magic number, other than the fact that three was the number that DSC2 started with?
If I think of other courses, I recently took both my food hygiene course and my EFAW+F course, and I wasn’t required to take the temperature of the chiller three times, to wash equipment three times, to dress a wound three times, or to perform CPR three times. Yet I passed both qualifications. Why was showing competence just the once good enough for those courses, but not for DSC2?
Or how about the courses that you teach? Do you require students to sit the exam three times, just to make sure they have taken everything in and can demonstrate competence effectively? Or instead, do you perhaps teach, observe, assess and then pass or fail accordingly? What makes DSC2 so different?
If we consider the objective again, i.e. “legally, safely and humanely culling deer and dealing with carcasses hygienically”, we are hardly talking rocket science or flying a jet aircraft. Whether the Candidate is seen meeting the standard once, thrice, or a dozen times should be immaterial. If you think otherwise, then we can journey down the rabbit hole of having Candidates demonstrate competence in every eventuality they might encounter during their stalking lifetimes. I’ve read on here too many times about how DSC2 should cover everything from shooting peri-urban muntjac sown South, to reds on the Hill, to sika in the forest. The experiences are completely different, so surely the required “competence” should be different to? But honestly, what would be the point, when all we are asking Candidates to demonstrate is that they can legally, safely and humanely cull deer and deal with carcasses hygienically? Why overly complicate what is actually a pretty straightforward process?
The comments you make about AW’s and Assessors are justified as much under the old scheme as the new. I quite agree that, in the ideal world, AW’s would be re-assessed every few years to ensure they are still competent and up-to-date with the changes, but personally I doubt that will happen. It would be administratively onerous, undoubtably expensive, and likely reduce the number of AW’s willing to take part, none of which are desirable at a time when, as a stalking community, we are being encouraged to shoot more deer. That’s before we look at the impact on the cost of achieving DSC2 itself. I very much doubt the benefits would outweigh the efforts and costs involved. Remember, AW’s are volunteers, and do the job more for the love of it and a desire to put something back than for any financial recompense. Being an AW is in no way a money spinner, despite what some might suggest.
The old DSC2 was not perfect, and neither is the new DSC2. However what gets my goat is the implication that Candidates under the new scheme are somehow less competent than those who qualified under the old scheme. This is not my practical experience, and both conveniently ignores the known failings of the old scheme and denigrates those who are making every effort to demonstrate competence under the new scheme.
gotta say it’s a wee bit damp underfoot, but all the delve ditches and river ways are full up again and not just mud
