Becoming an A/W

[EMcC]

There is no real answer to the question, but to me a AW should be more experienced than the vast majority of their clients, and in a position to get them their 3 kills within a reasonable number of outings, realistically this should potentially be achievable in a day.

I am an AW and was under the impression that the candidate was supposed to lead the stalk and carry it through to it's conclusion where an animal was then fit for human consumption.
If however the candidate is using the AW's ground then one would expect the AW to take the candidate to an area where there were Deer.
It would then be up to the candidate to show the AW the depth of HIS knowledge through example and answers to questions put to him by the AW not the other way round.
From what I have read, it seems that some people think the AW leads the stalk and demonstrates his knowledge to the candidate.
The only way a candidate would get any idea of the AW's knowledge was how he was questioned and if they were relevent to the stalk taking place.
Which brings me to the point raised, in that an AW has to have an in depth knowledge of all aspects of stalking and as far as I can see would take several years over various terrains and involving several different species.

 

[Dickie]

Thanks Eddie nail on the head there cones to mind.
i think the title should be changed to what the job entails Witnessing accessor as that's the way I see it you witness and access and if done correctly the candidate will pass or fail.
cheers

 

[cervus]

I am an AW and was under the impression that the candidate was supposed to lead the stalk and carry it through to it's conclusion where an animal was then fit for human consumption.
If however the candidate is using the AW's ground then one would expect the AW to take the candidate to an area where there were Deer.
It would then be up to the candidate to show the AW the depth of HIS knowledge through example and answers to questions put to him by the AW not the other way round.
From what I have read, it seems that some people think the AW leads the stalk and demonstrates his knowledge to the candidate.
The only way a candidate would get any idea of the AW's knowledge was how he was questioned and if they were relevent to the stalk taking place.
Which brings me to the point raised, in that an AW has to have an in depth knowledge of all aspects of stalking and as far as I can see would take several years over various terrains and involving several different species.

Absolutely the case Ed ! I waited 5yrs after my DSC2 before being a Credible Witness,and 8years to upgrade to Approved Witness with your support,AWs should be very experienced in all aspects as they hold the key to competence in our future DMQ candidates..so no fastrack AWs IMHO to keep the scheme credible.

 

[Monkey Spanker]

I am an AW and was under the impression that the candidate was supposed to lead the stalk and carry it through to it's conclusion where an animal was then fit for human consumption.
If however the candidate is using the AW's ground then one would expect the AW to take the candidate to an area where there were Deer.
It would then be up to the candidate to show the AW the depth of HIS knowledge through example and answers to questions put to him by the AW not the other way round.
From what I have read, it seems that some people think the AW leads the stalk and demonstrates his knowledge to the candidate.
The only way a candidate would get any idea of the AW's knowledge was how he was questioned and if they were relevent to the stalk taking place.
Which brings me to the point raised, in that an AW has to have an in depth knowledge of all aspects of stalking and as far as I can see would take several years over various terrains and involving several different species.

Good reply Eddie, although the result of a DSC2 stalk does not necessarily have to culminate in a situation where an animal is fit for human consumption. A candidate could actually shoot one up the arse (Texas heart shot!) and claim it as a humane shot, but the carcass not fit to enter the food chain. Of course, an AW should have sufficient experience to give them credibility, but this is clearly difficult to quantify. I personally have experience of both sexes of all 6 species, but if I was missing one or two I don't think it would make me unable to be an AW. A deer is a deer and a safe shot is a safe shot no matter where it happens. Not all experienced deer managers will make good AW's either! There is a need for interpersonal skills as well as a full understanding of the assessment process. We work under the 'vocational achievement' umbrella effectively (NVQ) and have to abide by their rules. In reality, the AW carries the eyes and ears of the assessor. The assessor relies heavily on the ability and integrity of the AW as he is not there.
Once you have been through the DSC 2 process you will understand it and hopefully accept it for what it is. I cannot give you a timescale or quantify when you could become an AW as it is immeasurable. Have a look at the DMQ website and you will see that you need 2 AW's as referee's before you can become an AW.
Why do people think that an AW should have a trained deer dog!
The role of the AW is purely to witness the abilities of the candidate, not to advise in any way or to sort any mistakes!
If you have not gained DSC2 yet, I would suggest that you are a 'quantum leap' away from becoming an AW. Most AW's do what they do to give something back. If you want to become an AW to make money with little experience, I'd question your morals.
MS

 

[JH83]

I am an AW and was under the impression that the candidate was supposed to lead the stalk and carry it through to it's conclusion where an animal was then fit for human consumption.
If however the candidate is using the AW's ground then one would expect the AW to take the candidate to an area where there were Deer.
It would then be up to the candidate to show the AW the depth of HIS knowledge through example and answers to questions put to him by the AW not the other way round.
From what I have read, it seems that some people think the AW leads the stalk and demonstrates his knowledge to the candidate.
The only way a candidate would get any idea of the AW's knowledge was how he was questioned and if they were relevent to the stalk taking place.
Which brings me to the point raised, in that an AW has to have an in depth knowledge of all aspects of stalking and as far as I can see would take several years over various terrains and involving several different species.

apologies if unclear, but what I meant was have land at their disposal that could realistically generate 3 likely successful stalks, if all things go well if the candidate is to use the AWs land-obviously this is subject to variables and not least the ability of the candidate! Obviously this would need to extend to all candidates taken on the said AW, which could entail a few beasts. I would think the majority go to the AWs land?

I have seen examples of people becoming AWs that could not do this. Like I say, these kind of people that seem to crop up occasionally are a huge let down, and I have spoken to some that have passed DSC2 at huge expense.

In short my view is that time is not entirely relevent, and certainly not everyone that has been stalking for ages is suitable-and likewise those who are relatively new are not automatically exempt-but access to land and suitable facilities, as well as ability, are more key ingredients, there are some cracking blokes I know that are AWs, with a great chance to take you out and complete the necessary in a day (or allow you to do the necessary). There are also some that are new to stalking looking to fleece people at the drop of a hat, so strong recommendation is the key I believe.

 

[JH83]

And with regard to the initial comment about the difference between the difficulty shooting fox and deer....try a week sika stalking in the highlands in 2 feet of snow!

 

[SussexFallow]

Good reply Eddie, although the result of a DSC2 stalk does not necessarily have to culminate in a situation where an animal is fit for human consumption. A candidate could actually shoot one up the arse (Texas heart shot!) and claim it as a humane shot, but the carcass not fit to enter the food chain. Of course, an AW should have sufficient experience to give them credibility, but this is clearly difficult to quantify. I personally have experience of both sexes of all 6 species, but if I was missing one or two I don't think it would make me unable to be an AW. A deer is a deer and a safe shot is a safe shot no matter where it happens. Not all experienced deer managers will make good AW's either! There is a need for interpersonal skills as well as a full understanding of the assessment process. We work under the 'vocational achievement' umbrella effectively (NVQ) and have to abide by their rules. In reality, the AW carries the eyes and ears of the assessor. The assessor relies heavily on the ability and integrity of the AW as he is not there.
Once you have been through the DSC 2 process you will understand it and hopefully accept it for what it is. I cannot give you a timescale or quantify when you could become an AW as it is immeasurable. Have a look at the DMQ website and you will see that you need 2 AW's as referee's before you can become an AW.
Why do people think that an AW should have a trained deer dog!
The role of the AW is purely to witness the abilities of the candidate, not to advise in any way or to sort any mistakes!
If you have not gained DSC2 yet, I would suggest that you are a 'quantum leap' away from becoming an AW. Most AW's do what they do to give something back. If you want to become an AW to make money with little experience, I'd question your morals.
MS

The best post I have read on this forum for a VERY LONG time !!!

 

[jimmy milnes]

Just a thought having read this thread from top to bottom, how many would want to become an AW to put something back into their sport should the DMQ state nothing is allowed to be charged? ? Maybe that would be the way to cut back on the numbers wanting the status
After all the UKSHA travel the country using their time and funds FOR NO MONEY for the good of deer welfare and the sport
Regards
Jimmy

 

[Mungo]

This discussion, or one very like it, exists in every field that I know of: there are always those who insist that years of experience in every possible context are necessary before you can assess others, and there are always those who say that time served shouldn't matter, and what is critical is demonstrating you've met the required standard.

I think both are equally valid, and different people should be able to come to it via different routes. In multiple fields (stalking, diving, shooting, bush field work etc etc) I have met people who have done it for years and who are frankly a danger to themselves and others - in fact, are disproportionatley dangerous because their 'experience' lends them an entirely unwarranted weight of authority. I have also met people who have done it for a comparative eye blink, yet are utteryly dedicated, professional and astonishingly (often embarrassingly) good. They make up for their lack of experience through sheer hard work and, dare I say it, natural talent. Of course plenty are irritatingly blusterous fools who compensate for lack of experience through loud talking and expensive kit, but there are enough novices who rapidly turn into genuine experts that we lose by creating a system that automatically assumes they have nothing to offer.

As a scientist, it is in fact the gifted novices who usually have the most interesting and transformative insights. They are the ones who bring a new perspective and lead innovation, and who have the outside view that allows them so see where established practice and thinking isn't working as well as it could. There's no reason why this shouldn't be the case for stalking.

 

[6pointer]

I any one wants to be an AW then fill your boots go to a meeting and your done. There is no real requirement to be of any set standard only that you hold DMQ2.
I have been a AW for years and have done many portfolios I have also had the balls to turn them down when standards are not reached. Most that charge will not and will fill in because it is cash in there pocket. In my opinion a fee for AW,s should either be set or none at all. The money has led to many getting signed off in the pub and have devalued a very good qualification.
DMQ are to blame on this as most of the original AW were making shed loads of cash from it and would not quality and more a quantity .

 

[User00001]

I any one wants to be an AW then fill your boots go to a meeting and your done. There is no real requirement to be of any set standard only that you hold DMQ2.
I have been a AW for years and have done many portfolios I have also had the balls to turn them down when standards are not reached. Most that charge will not and will fill in because it is cash in there pocket. In my opinion a fee for AW,s should either be set or none at all. The money has led to many getting signed off in the pub and have devalued a very good qualification.
DMQ are to blame on this as most of the original AW were making shed loads of cash from it and would not quality and more a quantity .

Davie, please can you send me the names of the people, both candidates and AW's, that you know to have 'signed off in the pub'. I will be very happy to take this to the professional standards committee. Thanks.

 

[EMcC]

MS, perhaps I should have said the ideal stalk should culminate in producing an animal fit for human consumption, But as you say it is not always the case and that is where an experienced AW would be able to identify the different circumstances of the stalk.
The AW does not neccessarily need a dog as idealy the candidate would have one, but if not, one of the questions would be, "what action would you take to follow up a wounded Deer" and it may be the usual answer about waiting etc or in the worst case scenario be able to contact a friend that has a dog available.
Whenever I am approached to witness a candidate before we even meet I always ask 'lots' of questions to decide whether the individual is wasting mine or his time, again experience tells me which questions to ask and whether the idividual is trying to run before he/she can walk.
Only when I am satisfied do I arrange to meet the candidate and then, to make the individual feel at ease, I paint the following scenario.
We are old Uni/School mates bumped into each other in a pub and haven't met for over the twenty years.
I have taken up golf and he has taken up stalking and as I am interested in what stalking entails he/she has invited me along to show me what it is all about.
That's when it all starts.
What are we likely to see, what is he going to do etc etc and then as we progress my questions get a bit more in depth, obviously questions that I know the answers to, based on my years of experience and study.
All the time this is going on I am observing his manner of approach and safety aspects of firearm handling and so it goes on.
At no time do I take the lead or offer advice or intimate which is right or wrong, however if the individual does make a right c===up then I call off the AW stalk and suggest more experience is needed.
I have never 'charged' but have suggested a bit of fuel money would not go amiss and leave it up to the individual.
I have yet to meet any other AW that charges a set rate or rips people off.
I have, however, picked up on the age/length of time, years of experience thing that is sometimes bandied about as being needed to become the all singing dancing wise owl.
That is not always the case as I found out recently when, having done a portfolio for a candidate, was contacted by the assessor who was someone I had introduced to Deer stalking not so many years ago.
Both he and I felt a bit embarrassed initially but he was very proffessional and all went well.
I did feel that, as he knew me, the call should not have been needed but, apparently some individuals have, in the past, submitted portfolios having filled them out themselves without contacting an AW.
He had already spent almost an hour previously questioning the candidate at great length over every Q&A that I had submitted, which I thought also questioned my integrity.
This is a bit long winded but, hopefully, I have got across that the relevent questions can only be asked after experience whether that is gained over a few years or many is debateable.

 

[highland stalker]

Being a young worker in an ageing industry I have often heard the saying "I was doing this before you were born". This usually comes from people who are clearly insecure about their own capabilities. After a few times of grin and bearing the saying my answer turned to "and you are still s***e at it".
As has been said already age of person and years doing the job in my opinion has no bearing at all on someone's capabilities.

 

[Beretta cocker]

Being a young worker in an ageing industry I have often heard the saying "I was doing this before you were born". This usually comes from people who are clearly insecure about their own capabilities. After a few times of grin and bearing the saying my answer turned to "and you are still s***e at it".
As has been said already age of person and years doing the job in my opinion has no bearing at all on someone's capabilities.

I'd agree with that, + " He who never made a mistake never made anything "

 

[2130martin]

Being a young worker in an ageing industry I have often heard the saying "I was doing this before you were born". This usually comes from people who are clearly insecure about their own capabilities. After a few times of grin and bearing the saying my answer turned to "and you are still s***e at it".
As has been said already age of person and years doing the job in my opinion has no bearing at all on someone's capabilities.

What they are saying is they are past it......

 

[willie_gunn]

MS, perhaps I should have said the ideal stalk should culminate in producing an animal fit for human consumption, But as you say it is not always the case and that is where an experienced AW would be able to identify the different circumstances of the stalk.
The AW does not neccessarily need a dog as idealy the candidate would have one, but if not, one of the questions would be, "what action would you take to follow up a wounded Deer" and it may be the usual answer about waiting etc or in the worst case scenario be able to contact a friend that has a dog available.
Whenever I am approached to witness a candidate before we even meet I always ask 'lots' of questions to decide whether the individual is wasting mine or his time, again experience tells me which questions to ask and whether the idividual is trying to run before he/she can walk.
Only when I am satisfied do I arrange to meet the candidate and then, to make the individual feel at ease, I paint the following scenario.
We are old Uni/School mates bumped into each other in a pub and haven't met for over the twenty years.
I have taken up golf and he has taken up stalking and as I am interested in what stalking entails he/she has invited me along to show me what it is all about.
That's when it all starts.
What are we likely to see, what is he going to do etc etc and then as we progress my questions get a bit more in depth, obviously questions that I know the answers to, based on my years of experience and study.
All the time this is going on I am observing his manner of approach and safety aspects of firearm handling and so it goes on.
At no time do I take the lead or offer advice or intimate which is right or wrong, however if the individual does make a right c===up then I call off the AW stalk and suggest more experience is needed.
I have never 'charged' but have suggested a bit of fuel money would not go amiss and leave it up to the individual.
I have yet to meet any other AW that charges a set rate or rips people off.
I have, however, picked up on the age/length of time, years of experience thing that is sometimes bandied about as being needed to become the all singing dancing wise owl.
That is not always the case as I found out recently when, having done a portfolio for a candidate, was contacted by the assessor who was someone I had introduced to Deer stalking not so many years ago.
Both he and I felt a bit embarrassed initially but he was very proffessional and all went well.
I did feel that, as he knew me, the call should not have been needed but, apparently some individuals have, in the past, submitted portfolios having filled them out themselves without contacting an AW.
He had already spent almost an hour previously questioning the candidate at great length over every Q&A that I had submitted, which I thought also questioned my integrity.
This is a bit long winded but, hopefully, I have got across that the relevent questions can only be asked after experience whether that is gained over a few years or many is debateable.

Eddie
Thank you for that excellent and informative post

Re: the assessor, I wonder if it is the same one who called me recently? As a relatively new AW I found the assessor thorough, collaborative and courteous - in fact I thought he was a model professional, much as you describe.

From my perspective (and presuming it was the same assessor) I actually find the fact that he dealt with you on a professional basis, separating out that he had known you personally for years, to be very encouraging. I wouldn't see it as questioning your integrity, more applying the same rules to everyone without fear or favour. We're talking about assessing competence, so that's certainly what I'd hope for.

 

[baguio]

Just a thought having read this thread from top to bottom, how many would want to become an AW to put something back into their sport should the DMQ state nothing is allowed to be charged? ? Maybe that would be the way to cut back on the numbers wanting the status
After all the UKSHA travel the country using their time and funds FOR NO MONEY for the good of deer welfare and the sport
Regards
Jimmy

Preventing any charging would not work. Why should an AW incur what are sometimes considerable costs to do someone a favour? Would you pay out large sums in fuel on a constant basis for someone else's benefit Jimmy? Preventing any charging would purely make it even harder for a candidate to get an AW and put more pressure on those that continue to do it. So much so that they would probably stop doing it too.
Baguio

 

[EMcC]

Hi Dom, It could well have been the same one but on reflection rather than me feel affronted it proves, to me at any rate, that all are treated the same and all assessors are 'probably' working from the same crib sheet so therefore showing no favouritism.
That particular assessor was a bit of a nightmare during his initial introduction to Deer, he kept seeing Roe Stags and Does with small 'tails' but after a year he got the hang of it.

 

[223]

how many 20 year old driving examiers do you see ??? answer none

they tend to be highly experienced time served people who have been there seen it and done it for many many years.

after all a aw is just like a driving examier

 

[2130martin]

how many 20 year old driving examiers do you see ??? answer none

they tend to be highly experienced time served people who have been there seen it and done it for many many years.

after all a aw is just like a driving examier

Driving examiners have to have held a driving license for four years before attending a four week course and a 45 minute interview.......maybe if DMQ started insisting on those kind of requirements then AW's may meet those standards but until then,one can only assume that DMQ feel the current requirements are sufficient.........its DMQ who decide not anyone else,including the SD membership......