Excuse me for asking but I thought that any one taking their Level 2 (3 deer) had to undertake this in wild conditions and not in a fenced area, albeit a very large fenced area? Am I also right in assuming that high seats do not count as a stalk? not that I am saying you will shoot and sign off from a highseat, just interested.
Personally my opinion of taking three deer in a 3 day period just to get the whole affair over and done with does not give the overall experience of stalking, and in a fenced area I would assume it is reasonably easy to know where the deer are going to be, come rain or shine.
Not knocking what you are doing just interested. Good luck.
Interesting points Malc. Clearly the IPC's for the stalk itself could not necessarily be signed off when shooting from a high seat, unless the candidate stalked into the highseat and gave the AW all the information and exhibited all the behaviours necessary to complete the IPC's. To say a kill from a high seat is not a valid method of stalking, clearly isn't right, but I think we all accept that DSCL2 is about showing one's ability in all aspects of deer management - perhaps DMQ should stipulate that the three assessed exemplars are somehow different from each other........
Your point about fenced land is a real tough one - most land is bounded at some point? I'd have thought the 3,000 acres with wild deer (as per earlier OP post that you allude to) would satisfy all but the most severe sceptics. I believe one is able to satisfy the kill criteria in a park environment, but you would be hard pushed to claim and exhibit excellent deer knowledge and stalking skills when they are all but jumping on you!!
I can see your point about wider experience. The issue (which I don't want to start another debate on!) is that the qualifications are being used as a hurdle - or barrier - to stalking. For me and I suspect many others, it is difficult to pull together all the elements to get a signed off AW stalk (hence why so few have converted their level 1 to a level 2) - a scheme such as this therefore makes it so much easier to go and do something I really enjoy. I don't see 'shortcut' written on this - I see 'ease of access/administration' and I admire the fact that Mike and his team are trying to cater for a market that clearly exists - they are a business after all. I do not see someone abusing the DMQ system - on the contrary, it is being upheld in a far more stringent fashion than some.
@Skippy - how do you perceive that this would undermine the DMQ process?
I do not aim this point at you - but all to often we see people highlight the negative of things on this site. While it is absolutely right to look at problems in the round, scoffing at someone because they may not have fulfilled some criteria important from one (sometimes myopic) point of view is not constructive. I can only hope that in choosing to focus on the negative, it means people have already accepted and agreed the positive aspects!!
I think this is a great idea. It perhaps needs shaping so it does not look 'oversold' - but the essence is there and I will be investigating further what prima facie looks like a great opportunity to get all the evidence required together in a simple fashion. I hope part of the DMQ assessment is not the determination, perseverance and stamina currently required to get an AW stalk together....!!!!!
Maybe you could combine the two?
