Interesting Conversation

sikadog

Well-Known Member
I have been shooting since the age of 7 been stalking for 20 years DSC 1&2 One day I thoughI would like to become an accredited witness to put something back into shooting. So I ring DMQ this is how the conversation went. ME Hello I have a lot of experiance as a stalker and I would like to know how to become an accredited witness. Lady at DMQ Do you know an assesor Me No im sorry I dont. DMQ Then you cant become an AW. ME Pardon DMQ If you dont Know an assesor you cant become an AW. ME This sounds like jobs for the boys. DMQ NO no no its not give your adress and I will send you the forms. ME If I dont know an assesor what is the point. So I didn't Bother and said goodby and put the phone down its there loss.
 
I see your point mate, but it is all about to change so don't lose heart. It has always been the case that someone like yourself has had to have an assessor to take them on as the lady said. This was firstly to ensure that you are up to the required standard to do the job properly and to brief you on exactly what is required as well as keep you updated with any changes. Just because an individual has been doing it for years doesn't necessarily mean they are good enough. (That is not a 'dig' at yourself by the way! ;) ) It was up to the assessor to establish this.
However, it could be argued that not all assessors have the same level of competance or standards! :confused: What if the assessor then packed it in or died for instance? The AW would have to find a new one! :eek: The idea was sound in some respects though as it tied AW's to assessors in the same areas which made geographical sense for briefing updates etc.

Under the new system, the new AW's (Approved Witnesses) will have to have recommendations from two referee's. They will all come under the same DMQ umbrella too, as well as having to attend regular briefings which should hopefully standardise procedures. You may also have heard that CW's will be no more as posted in a recent thread by myself.
I'm sure someone will now ask who will qualify as a referee, and to be perfectly honest, I don't know! :confused: I'm sure someone on here will know though (mr Standbuck! :lol: ), or if not I will find out soon.
 
Sounds like a load of nonesense to me just like all these quango based incarnations:confused:
I have always thought the whole thing is a pointless load of rubbish and this type of incident just strengthens my resolve to avoid it if at all possible.. :eek:
I would much rather someone like Sikadog show me the ropes as he seems a genuine guy that loves his sport, Stone, Wadas, Phil, Jayb & Malc all taught me a great deal more out in the field and mooting points over dinner and the odd bottle of wine than some muppet with a bit of paper ever could :lol:
 
Waddas now wasnt he the one who didn't even know which way to drag a deer and posted the debarcle on youtube?

That is just the kind of 'expert' being sponsored by an assessor was intended to weed out.

The whole credible witness thing has fallen down as the 'in'credible witness's portfolio entries are generally poor, and need re-doing.

You need to be sure the person witnessing is up to the job otherwise the system is worthless, I have even heard of credible witness's being asked by the assessor why they had asked a certain question only for them to answer I copied it out of 'my' DSC2.
 
Well it's funny you should say that he was a very credible witness really knows his onions sure any of the admin team will back that :lol:
What a video still crying with laughter everytime I see that, this is what makes the difference betweeen someone with a real knowledge of the sport combined with great a sense of fun, cf the stuffed shirt full of blustering hot air knows sweet fa that isn't in his little red book sorry DMQ :D
 
How can you ‘nonesense’ and ‘rubbish’ something you have avoided and therefore clearly know precious little about? :confused:
Sikadog probably could show you the ropes but can you be sure of that if you don’t know him? If I were a novice paying out my money to someone to learn the ropes I would want to know for sure that he was capable of doing just that. The ‘muppet’ with the piece of paper didn’t just find it on the floor! He has been through a process to ensure he is up to a required standard. The process has had its flaws but is dynamic and seems to be improving all the time. It will be further strengthened by only allowing ‘appoved witnesses’ in the future. I would suggest to any newcomers that the ‘Muppet Show’ will be found elsewhere. ;)
 
I have seen all I need to see of that bunch mate, you have your views I have mine based on what I have witnessed myself
 
legaleagle69 said:
based on what I have witnessed myself

But you are not a 'Witness' though? - not even a credible one! :lol:
Based on the fact that you only started stalking yourself just last year, I seriously doubt that you have actually 'witnessed' that much at all to be airing such strong views about an organisation which you know very little about? :rolleyes:
 
i hav a question
what is the process you hav to go through to be a credible witness or an AW
what qualifacations do you need????
 
I'm sure you know this already Stone and this is leading somewhere else, but here goes:
A 'CW' has to hold the level 2 qualification himself. He needs nothing more than that!
An 'AW' must also hold the level 2 Qualification. He must also be 'sponsered' by an assessor who's responsibility it is to ensure that the AW has enough experience and knowledge to do the job correctly. This normally involves going out stalking with the assessor. The assessor is also responsible for thoroughly briefing the AW on exactly what is expected of him in accordance with the DMQ guidelines.
This is why the system has had its problems previously as many CW's didn't really appreciate what was expected of them.
The forthcoming changes should rectify these shortfalls. I'm not suggesting it will be all that is required to restore peoples confidence in the system, but it is certainly a step in the right direction! :)
 
sounds like the DMQ are aligning themselves (and rightly so) with the NVQ process, which requires an assessor and a verifier, with the possibility of evidence from a credible witness.

As someone who runs NVQs, I would say that the system does work, and the product is someone who can prove what they know. At the end of the day, you can have been a stalker for 30 yrs, and have been doing it wrong for 30 yrs. I can only think it adds to our sport/ pastime/job if we can show the outside world that we are able, competent and certificated to do what we do.

Just my 2p
 
Monkey Spanker said:
an assessor who's responsibility it is to ensure that the AW has enough experience and knowledge to do the job correctly. This normally involves going out stalking with the assessor.

And that really is the rub, isn't it? An AW may be the world's most experienced, professional stalker that ever walked the face of the planet, but they are not actually qualified as assessors. My understanding is that, under the current system, the final assessment decision is made by the 'assessor', who probably wont have ever seen the candidate in action. They are signing off a candidate on the say so of somebody who may be vocationally competent themselves, but have never evidenced their ability to make assessment decisions? To further devalue the process the AW will often have been paid directly by the candidate for their testimony.

While I welcome the current changes I think there is a long road ahead until the DSC framework comes anywhere close to being well regarded as a credible qualification. Are there any plans for assessors to observe Approved Witnesses in action with a candidate on a regular basis? To make such a quality audit even more robust I would suggest AWs should be observed, say twice a year, by another assessor - not the 'sponsoring' assessor?[/u]
 
hughsurrey said:
sounds like the DMQ are aligning themselves (and rightly so) with the NVQ process, which requires an assessor and a verifier, with the possibility of evidence from a credible witness.

As someone who runs NVQs, I would say that the system does work, and the product is someone who can prove what they know. At the end of the day, you can have been a stalker for 30 yrs, and have been doing it wrong for 30 yrs. I can only think it adds to our sport/ pastime/job if we can show the outside world that we are able, competent and certificated to do what we do.

Just my 2p

The DSC is an NVQ you cannot assess the portfolio of evidance without being a NVQ (A1) assessor.
 
Thanks for setting me straight on that, I got the (obviously wrong) impression on speaking to one of the guys when doing my DSC1. Although it may be that he was not the assessor, as I had offered to assist him with his A1.
 
Stand Buck said:
The DSC is an NVQ you cannot assess the portfolio of evidance without being a NVQ (A1) assessor.

Is there any other NVQ that you can achieve where the candidate doesn't get observed at some point by the assessor?

My understanding is that, at present, the candidate compiles a portfolio of evidence (cull records) that the AW countersigns and sends it off to the assessor, who makes the final assessment decision. While the assessor will be A1/D32/33 qualified they don't actually observe the candidate in a practical vocational setting. So the assessment decision is based on a desk top review of a file. Not really credible for a vocational qualification?

Just to be really pedantic, you can assess a portfolio without being an A1 assessor. You may be an candidate assessor under assessment yourself. Obviously in such circumstances, as a 'trainee' assessor all your assessment decisions will be ratified by an appropriately competent assessor. :) (We really do need an icon for 'Smug git')[/i]
 
I started down the road of becoming an AW by doing a few CW stalks with candidates from there i was put forward to become an AW . I was asked to accompanied an Assessor for a couple of stalks to make sure i understood what was required i then had to take and assess the assessor and after that i had to take an unknown assessor out.The last one i got paid for. Now i keep in touch with my assessor on a fortnightly basis to see if anything has changed or if there is any feed back from portfolios i have supplied. We are to go out together twice a year once to my area were he will stalk and i will watch and assess and then once to his ground were he will watch me. Now if any one thinks that's not enough i think they are in the wrong (sport) ;)
under the watchful eyes puts the pressure on some can cope some cant.
allanlev2.jpg
 
Nice post L.D.G. which I think highlights your professionalism as an AW. However, I also note from the 'Stalking - late availability' section that although you take clients out, you do not charge for the AW side of it. Good on you mate! You have to 'jump through a lot of hoops' to get to AW status and maintain it with such a level of credibility as I hope some people on this site now realise. The practical side of Level 2 is a 'Quantom leap' from the theory side of level 1. It would be good if some of the more cynical types on this forum went up to stalk with L.D.G. and learn how to do things properly.
But then, I doubt that will happen as they appear to know everything there is to know about stalking already, and L.D.G. is just another 'Muppet with a piece of paper' eh??!! :rolleyes:
 
So what you are saying LDG is that you are not a qualified assessor and that you aren't ever observed by a qualified assessor conducting an AW stalk with a real live DSC candidate? Within an NVQ context that is close, but no cigar I'm afraid. ;)

The only way you can have a credible vocational qualification is for a vocationally competent assessor to undertake observations of a candidate in a real world situation. The competency of the assessor is then also periodically checked by the Internal Verifier who carries out observation of the assessor in a real world assessment situation. That seems to work for the rest of the NVQ fraternity - what is so different about deer stalking?
 
Bandit Country said:
Stand Buck said:
The DSC is an NVQ you cannot assess the portfolio of evidance without being a NVQ (A1) assessor.

Is there any other NVQ that you can achieve where the candidate doesn't get observed at some point by the assessor?

My understanding is that, at present, the candidate compiles a portfolio of evidence (cull records) that the AW countersigns and sends it off to the assessor, who makes the final assessment decision. While the assessor will be A1/D32/33 qualified they don't actually observe the candidate in a practical vocational setting. So the assessment decision is based on a desk top review of a file. Not really credible for a vocational qualification?

Just to be really pedantic, you can assess a portfolio without being an A1 assessor. You may be an candidate assessor under assessment yourself. Obviously in such circumstances, as a 'trainee' assessor all your assessment decisions will be ratified by an appropriately competent assessor. :) (We really do need an icon for 'Smug git')[/i]

In most NVQ's the portfolio of evidence is compiled without the input of the A1 Assessor though, as in this case, the evidence (particularly if of a practical nature) is supported by a workplace assessor/ accredited witness. Then the whole process is overseen by an Internal Verifier and to an extent by an External Verifier from the Awarding Body. As the witness and the Assessor actually combine to make the competence decision (the witness being the Assessors' eyes/ ears) they should both be at least Occupationally Competent in the subject matter (preferably holders of the award they are assessing for). The verifiers are essentially auditing the process and so have, generally, no requirement to be competent, though it is unusual for the IV, at least, not to have a working knowledge.
 
Back
Top