Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
I think you will find it’s the principle, also there are or was a lot of AW’s who don’t take paying clients and do it to give something back so why pay for work, they should be paying the AW in my opinion.
Approved witness payment
- Thread starter sikamalc
- Start date
Thats sound - i have no issues with that
Im well into cutting my own nose off to spite my face when principle comes into play
As i say im really not familiar with it - so i just wondered why the person wanting the certificate would not pay you see
sikamalc
Administrator
Yes.
I charged what I would normally charge per outing. But then it is/was my full time job and income. But I never charged for the extra time or phone calls to give advice. Never will either. Unlike those running DMQ (or attempting too) they get income from it. Every Assessor gets paid for taking on an ICR. AW's don't. And I will say some Assessors have not the experience that many good Aw's have. Shooting 1000 deer, is not all about experience, through different environments, and arranging deer management across large estates.
Yes all Aw's have to pay £65.00.
Yes to attend a refresher course, all of which are a good 3 hours drive from me, which will also cost everyone money to attend in fuel and time, possibly an overnight stay, depending where they live, and you cannot get that back. But DMQ expect us to pay.
Frankly I can afford the money, but its the principle really. To ask money from those that freely give their time to keep those in DMQ in a position of running an organisation that cares little for all the Aw's who have given so much, for nothing. They can stick it where the sun don't shine. They have shot themselves in the foot in my opinion.
As a side note, I had an acceptance from DMQ this morning via Email. The ONE and only time they have EVER responded to any Email I sent to them. And you are correct, in that I do not want to be involved with DMQ anymore, due to the way its run, and the ignorant attitude. Like I say, it will I believe come back and bite them hard.
HOWEVER
If anyone wants to come stalking with me to undertake a stalk to see if they are up to obtaining Level 2, I will gladly take them out and advise. And I don't count how many deer I have shot across some 45 years. It is always something I treat with caution, when someone mentions how many deer they've shot, like its something you must achieve to prove your worth as a stalker.
So, chucking in my tuppence worth...
DSC1 has a worthwhile value as a baseline of knowledge, weapon safety etc, and as a 3 day course is an excellent concept.
However, I struggle to see value in DSC2 as a 1 stalk assessment. As a punter, you pay for registration, probably have to pay for the stalk itself (quite rightly), possibly have to pay the AW, and the only practical thing that you get out of it is trained hunter status (THS).
I appreciate that some will also do a series of paid stalks running up to the assessment and there by gain a lot of knowledge and experience on the way.
I suspect that when THS was awarded with DSC1 that not many people went on to do DSC2 unless they needed it for access to land or syndicates etc. Removing THS from DSC1 so you had to do DSC2 in order to be able to ticket animals for the food chain was a canny move, but THS can be achieved by doing the Large Game Meat Hygiene course, which is a full day of learning. It might be my imagination, but LGMH courses seem to be far more available in the last few years, and are a lot cheaper than DSC2.
So, if you already have DSC1 and LGMH, what is the point of taking DSC2? What extra do you gain?
As an aside, if you already have THS through the Large Game course, do you need to bother speaking to the Assessor at all, and can you just do the witnessed stalk?
In our cull group, you must have DSC1 and THS (via whatever route), but you still won't be out on your own until you have been accompanied several times by an experienced group member and they are happy that you are competent and safe, regardless of whether you have DSC2.
DSC1 has a worthwhile value as a baseline of knowledge, weapon safety etc, and as a 3 day course is an excellent concept.
However, I struggle to see value in DSC2 as a 1 stalk assessment. As a punter, you pay for registration, probably have to pay for the stalk itself (quite rightly), possibly have to pay the AW, and the only practical thing that you get out of it is trained hunter status (THS).
I appreciate that some will also do a series of paid stalks running up to the assessment and there by gain a lot of knowledge and experience on the way.
I suspect that when THS was awarded with DSC1 that not many people went on to do DSC2 unless they needed it for access to land or syndicates etc. Removing THS from DSC1 so you had to do DSC2 in order to be able to ticket animals for the food chain was a canny move, but THS can be achieved by doing the Large Game Meat Hygiene course, which is a full day of learning. It might be my imagination, but LGMH courses seem to be far more available in the last few years, and are a lot cheaper than DSC2.
So, if you already have DSC1 and LGMH, what is the point of taking DSC2? What extra do you gain?
As an aside, if you already have THS through the Large Game course, do you need to bother speaking to the Assessor at all, and can you just do the witnessed stalk?
In our cull group, you must have DSC1 and THS (via whatever route), but you still won't be out on your own until you have been accompanied several times by an experienced group member and they are happy that you are competent and safe, regardless of whether you have DSC2.
First, a disclaimer: I am not part of DMQ and I like others would personally wish that their communication would be better, their website kept up to date and that there had been clearer message about re-briefing.
So, my understanding is that the £65 being quoted is a one-off fee for a DMQ re-briefing session to maintain AW currency; this is not an on-going annual fee. I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of whether its unfair to charge, whether its too much to charge etc, but the point no-one explicitly seems to be picking up on are the comments I made back on the original thread, that this is a periodic "refresher" as many of the AWs have been on the DMQ book for decades without having any refresher, top-up, re-briefing (call it what you may). In my original post, I drew parallels to EFAW+F training; I have now done that 5 times, each at greater personal cost that the DMQ charge, and the content of those courses has changed minimally. However, its mandated policy that EFAW+F must be refreshed every 3 years. Similarly, I understand in the last DEFRA consultation over the revision of the Wild Game Guidance that one of DEFRA's main concerns with Trained Hunter qualification is that it is similarly a "once for life" qualification and not subject to refresh. In my professional career, I am required to complete mandatory annual CPD and annual refresh about 12 courses; something I detest, BUT its is the accepted standard that training/qualifications need to be kept current.
Back to DMQ AW. This is why the re-briefing only applies to AWs appointed before 2021 as all those since have already had face-to-face briefing from the DMQ Team on what is required to complete DMQ's forms (not the clearest IMHO in parts, but they are the forms that have to be used) and current policy. I personally do not see it therefore as unreasonable that DMQ want to brief AWs periodically, and I personally accept this as an on-going obligation of being an AW. Like many, I do not charge for AW work and see it as a way of giving back the support, knowledge and tuition given to me as I set out upon my deer stalking sojourn. I take great pleasure seeing other learn and develop and that is reward enough. To those worried by the repeated thread that the system's going to implode and that you won't be able to find an AW when needed, all I would say is look at the list of AWs provided and compare that to the number of withdrawals posted.
So, my understanding is that the £65 being quoted is a one-off fee for a DMQ re-briefing session to maintain AW currency; this is not an on-going annual fee. I'm not going to get into the rights and wrongs of whether its unfair to charge, whether its too much to charge etc, but the point no-one explicitly seems to be picking up on are the comments I made back on the original thread, that this is a periodic "refresher" as many of the AWs have been on the DMQ book for decades without having any refresher, top-up, re-briefing (call it what you may). In my original post, I drew parallels to EFAW+F training; I have now done that 5 times, each at greater personal cost that the DMQ charge, and the content of those courses has changed minimally. However, its mandated policy that EFAW+F must be refreshed every 3 years. Similarly, I understand in the last DEFRA consultation over the revision of the Wild Game Guidance that one of DEFRA's main concerns with Trained Hunter qualification is that it is similarly a "once for life" qualification and not subject to refresh. In my professional career, I am required to complete mandatory annual CPD and annual refresh about 12 courses; something I detest, BUT its is the accepted standard that training/qualifications need to be kept current.
Back to DMQ AW. This is why the re-briefing only applies to AWs appointed before 2021 as all those since have already had face-to-face briefing from the DMQ Team on what is required to complete DMQ's forms (not the clearest IMHO in parts, but they are the forms that have to be used) and current policy. I personally do not see it therefore as unreasonable that DMQ want to brief AWs periodically, and I personally accept this as an on-going obligation of being an AW. Like many, I do not charge for AW work and see it as a way of giving back the support, knowledge and tuition given to me as I set out upon my deer stalking sojourn. I take great pleasure seeing other learn and develop and that is reward enough. To those worried by the repeated thread that the system's going to implode and that you won't be able to find an AW when needed, all I would say is look at the list of AWs provided and compare that to the number of withdrawals posted.
Wingers243
Well-Known Member
Would you be able to share the correspondence? I have only received the update as to new dates and venues for re-briefing..
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
sikamalc
Administrator
There is none to share. Only the request to pay and attend a refresher course 
none of which are any where near where I live.Its at least 3 hours drive for me.
I have resigned, and its been accepted. As Iv'e already said, one client/site member has been trying to find an AW nearby, all have refused to do it. There are a number resigning, and no doubt will continue to do so. I have never turned anyone down for their Level 2. In fact I was given a commendation by one Assessor for asking such searching questions, when the old paper portfolio was being used.
Again, never had ANY communication from DMQ. Quite ignorant of them to be honest.
There response this morning was to the point, polite, thanked me for my input as an AW, and wished me well.
Life moves on, I don't need to be an AW, but I will still help people out, without DMQ.
none of which are any where near where I live.Its at least 3 hours drive for me.I have resigned, and its been accepted. As Iv'e already said, one client/site member has been trying to find an AW nearby, all have refused to do it. There are a number resigning, and no doubt will continue to do so. I have never turned anyone down for their Level 2. In fact I was given a commendation by one Assessor for asking such searching questions, when the old paper portfolio was being used.
Again, never had ANY communication from DMQ. Quite ignorant of them to be honest.
There response this morning was to the point, polite, thanked me for my input as an AW, and wished me well.
Life moves on, I don't need to be an AW, but I will still help people out, without DMQ.
sikamalc
Administrator
Checking companies house DMQ.
58 officers. Most resigned some time back.
13 officers remaining.
One that I can see is declared as in Deer Management as a profession.
One in woodland management.
One in property management
One Civil servant
One Lecturer.
Plenty of full time experienced deer stalkers then.
Oh well, off to relax in the garden with a glass of wine.
58 officers. Most resigned some time back.
13 officers remaining.
One that I can see is declared as in Deer Management as a profession.
One in woodland management.
One in property management
One Civil servant
One Lecturer.
Plenty of full time experienced deer stalkers then
.Oh well, off to relax in the garden with a glass of wine.
Malc - better change your footerChecking companies house DMQ.
58 officers. Most resigned some time back.
13 officers remaining.
One that I can see is declared as in Deer Management as a profession.
One in woodland management.
One in property management
One Civil servant
One Lecturer.
Plenty of full time experienced deer stalkers then
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Didn’t expect anything differentChecking companies house DMQ.
58 officers. Most resigned some time back.
13 officers remaining.
One that I can see is declared as in Deer Management as a profession.
One in woodland management.
One in property management
One Civil servant
One Lecturer.
Plenty of full time experienced deer stalkers then
Oh well, off to relax in the garden with a glass of wine.
Norfolk Deer Search
Well-Known Member
Won’t be far behind you, just about to whack the chiller on got 2 cases of Cornish larger in 1/2 litre bottles arriving shortly that will go down a treat in today’s weather
sikamalc
Administrator
Thought you would bite. Don't know where the emojis are so can't use them.
I was not and would never denigrate the young lady's achievements and if you remember I offered early on to take her out. Distance was the problem. I was purely and simply pointing.out the fact that being on the training side at BDS she is somewhat involved with this shinnanikins regarding AWs.
The more I think about this, the more absurd it seems.
DMQ currently obtain the services of skilled and experienced individuals, who are providing expertise that DMQ has not contributed to developing. In fact, because AWs have to hold DSC1 and DSC2, they have already paid DMQ to be where they are.
Candidates then pay DMQ for access to the specialists that DMQ are obtaining for free. It's very hard to see as anything other than a scam.
It is like school teachers having to pay an exam board in order to teach. It's bonkers.
DMQ currently obtain the services of skilled and experienced individuals, who are providing expertise that DMQ has not contributed to developing. In fact, because AWs have to hold DSC1 and DSC2, they have already paid DMQ to be where they are.
Candidates then pay DMQ for access to the specialists that DMQ are obtaining for free. It's very hard to see as anything other than a scam.
It is like school teachers having to pay an exam board in order to teach. It's bonkers.
All good mate. Off for a nice bit of crow shooting this weekend (well hopefully) . No issues with silly ranges or the head shot vs head shot debate 
Take care and have a good weekend.
Tilhill and Fountains both asking for level 2
Similar threads
