Carcase Quality

[John Doe]

So in other words they are assessing a candidate against prescribed performance criteria.
They are performing an assessment and therefore an assessor.

You can try as you might to make the AW out to be an Assessor but they simply aren’t. An Assessor holds a formal qualification which is hard earned at considerable expense and is very much held accountable. In a perfect world the role of the AW should be performed by a qualified Assessor but that simply isn’t feasible in the current system, there just aren’t enough Assessors. My best mate is an Assessor and from what he tells me it is excruciatingly hard work and pretty hard to ok believe that anyone would want to do it. I think he gets paid about £30 per DSC2 or thereabouts and you are talking several hours work if everything goes well. Have we got any Assessor on here that can comment first hand?

 

[Dan Newcombe]

Yes, of course.

The AW's receive regular briefings on the expectations of their role, how they should witness Candidates, and how to complete the ICR.

You can see the most recent AW Briefing here.

That’s what I think the original comment was getting at.

This accredited witness clearly thought that swilling the carcass out with a bucket of water out of the stream was an acceptable practice - which I would suggest (as a level 2 industry ‘expert’ don’t you know ) isn’t quite drawn straight out of the best practice guide.

I can’t understand why people are so reluctant to accept that people get different rates. Why would they ie about it.

I get £1.50/kg for roe - I might be able to get more than that but I’m too lazy and not bold enough to ask.

 

[willie_gunn]

That’s what I think the original comment was getting at.

This accredited witness clearly thought that swilling the carcass out with a bucket of water out of the stream was an acceptable practice - which I would suggest (as a level 2 industry ‘expert’ don’t you know ) isn’t quite drawn straight out of the best practice guide.

I can’t understand why people are so reluctant to accept that people get different rates. Why would they ie about it.

I get £1.50/kg for roe - I might be able to get more than that but I’m too lazy and not bold enough to ask.

I understood that to be a different point to the one @big ears was asking, though I may have that wrong, so my post was more to explain the formal differences in roles between AW's and Assessors.

To your point, I am not sure why anyone would think swilling out a carcass in a stream constitutes Best Practice, least of all an AW. Doubtless some here will talk happily of drinking from streams (and indeed I've done it myself), but hopefully not without at least a cursory glance first at what might be lying upstream!

There was a time, not that long ago, when even the washing out of the inside of a carcass with potable water in the larder was frowned upon, the preferred method being to use disposable paper towel to wipe out the inside of the rib cage instead. However prior to that I believe water was allowed. But then Best Practice is designed to be updated over time.

Of course there are always the practicalities to be looked at, it being different when stalking on the Hill to outings down South.

 

[Dan Newcombe]

I understood that to be a different point to the one @big ears was asking, though I may have that wrong, so my post was more to explain the formal differences in roles between AW's and Assessors.

To your point, I am not sure why anyone would think swilling out a carcass in a stream constitutes Best Practice, least of all an AW. Doubtless some here will talk happily of drinking from streams (and indeed I've done it myself), but hopefully not without at least a cursory glance first at what might be lying upstream!

There was a time, not that long ago, when even the washing out of the inside of a carcass with potable water in the larder was frowned upon, the preferred method being to use disposable paper towel to wipe out the inside of the rib cage instead. However prior to that I believe water was allowed. But then Best Practice is designed to be updated over time.

Of course there are always the practicalities to be looked at, it being different when stalking on the Hill to outings down South.

Ha right enough - sometimes hard to keep a thread on these discussions. Apologies.

 

[willie_gunn]

Ha right enough - sometimes hard to keep a thread on these discussions. Apologies.

None needed or expected!

 

[big ears]

Other than the Candidate, there are two distinct roles when it comes to DSC2 - Approved Witnesses and Assessors. Formal assessment of the Candidate is only done by Assessor.

Approved Witness:

"The role of the Approved Witness (AW) is to give candidates opportunities to demonstrate their competence and to confirm their knowledge, and record that they have done so in accordance with DMQ set standards. "

So the AW's, who are volunteers, take the Candidate out - ideally on a single stalk - and witness the Candidate's ability to meet the Performance Criteria in the Independent Cull Report (ICR). The AW asks minimal questions of the Candidate, and only where directed to do so on the ICR. Both the Candidate and the AW then submit their respective copies of the ICR to the Assessor.

Assessor:

"The Assessor will check and evaluate the evidence against the DMQ standard and will offer advice to candidates. Assessors carry a professional standing in the area of deer management and also hold a National Assessor Qualification."

So the Assessor reviews both ICR's that have been submitted and then, through questioning of the Candidate and AW, assesses whether the evidence documented in the ICR meets the standard required. The Assessor can question the Candidate about their capabilities and knowledge, and ask for additional evidence as necessary (e.g. to complete another stalk).

Also note that, when it comes to the Assessors, "Internal Quality Assurers are appointed by Assessment Centres. They ensure that assessments are carried out fairly and thoroughly and that all Assessors are working to the same standard. All evidence is reviewed by an Internal Verifier."

You can find more information here.

I’m aware of the DSC2 process as I took it over 10 years ago.
You are missing the point I made that the AW does assess the individual.
You are tied up with terms and names.
The AW witnesses the individual stalking and then measures them up against performance criteria. This is an assessment.
The Assessor reads the portfolio and contacts the candidate and AW and talks through things but does not see first hand the behaviour of the candidate and is reliant on the AW assessment of how they measured up against the criteria.

It’s an assessment process and it’s the skill of the AW to spot bad practice and report it to the Assessor as they are not there at the time.

This is fundamentally flawed on a one stalk assessment as this cannot be done robustly with any practical skill training. This has been shown again and again and why continual assessment and multiple real time assessments by multiple assessors (in this case AWs) are best practice.

I still hold that the reduction to one stalk as an assessment Was driven by the wish to get more people to sign up for DSC 2 and not to do with raising standards of stalking by DMQ

BE

 

[Heym SR20]

The more I read threads on SD and hear and see general practices through the grapevine the more I am convinced there needs root and branch reform of the whole deer stalking / management world.

There are very good stalkers, estates and businesses that are doing a very good job in terms of deer management, welfare and providing good amenity/recreational stalking and food product for the food chain.

And there are those who are not, and who bring the whole system into disrepute.

DSC1 and 2 are in principle good intention, but it needs to be reinforced into a proper qualification that is well recognised and meaningful. It needs to be wider in scope to include all game species. Certainly for DSC1 it should absolutely include all shooting seasons, recognition of all species including deer, vermin, foxes, wildfowl and game and other animals and birds that may be encountered and may with special licences be shot. And those that are protected.

It should also include all guns and other methods including trapping and snaring and their safe and competent handling.

It also needs to include handling of shot animals, putting into the human food chain and disposal of waste products and sick birds and animals.

I am sick and tired seeing phaesants thrown into plastic bags and dumped in back of pickups to get hot and sweaty etc - they need to be carried in open air to cool, and properly hung up etc. even worse is hearing and seeing carcasses just being dumped in pits.

The sooner we are able to say that everybody who has a hunting licence is well trained and qualified the better. And there is less room for the rogues, those who are not serious and those who will just give the rest of us a bad name.

Doesn’t matter really if its the Duke of whatever, or Mr I’m something jolly important in the City or mr pikey or Fifth generation game keeper or stalker on the same piece of ground, in every other walk of life you need to pass good training to do something.

In the old days there was a Wagbi handbook on Wildfowling or a BASC guide to shooting - that sort of level should be the base.

Yet I am constantly asked when are the seasons and can I shoot such and such etc.

Then Level 2 should be a proper series of assessments. The old Level 2 of three cull assessments was good in my view. Ideally it should have needed two different witnesses as well as the assessor.

Yes there will be a cost to all of this, but if its a proper qualification that has the support of shooting industry, police, Defra etc then it should go a long way into establishing shooters as valued members of society rather than arrogant bloodthirsty toffs and red necks whom the general public and media need to be concerned about.

 

[willie_gunn]

I’m aware of the DSC2 process as I took it over 10 years ago.
You are missing the point I made that the AW does assess the individual.
You are tied up with terms and names.
The AW witnesses the individual stalking and then measures them up against performance criteria. This is an assessment.
The Assessor reads the portfolio and contacts the candidate and AW and talks through things but does not see first hand the behaviour of the candidate and is reliant on the AW assessment of how they measured up against the criteria.

It’s an assessment process and it’s the skill of the AW to spot bad practice and report it to the Assessor as they are not there at the time.

This is fundamentally flawed on a one stalk assessment as this cannot be done robustly with any practical skill training. This has been shown again and again and why continual assessment and multiple real time assessments by multiple assessors (in this case AWs) are best practice.

I still hold that the reduction to one stalk as an assessment Was driven by the wish to get more people to sign up for DSC 2 and not to do with raising standards of stalking by DMQ

BE

The DSC2 itself, and the role of the AW, have changed substantially over the course of the last 10 years.

Being an AW is very different now, particularly with the changes from 1 April 2021, when the role of the AW changed significantly and the number of ICR's was reduced from to one.

Call what I do when I am witnessing "assessment" if it makes you happy, but under the new scheme Witnesses witness and Assessors assess. The clue really is in the name! The days when an AW filled out forms saying what a general "good egg" the Candidate is are gone. Now, the AW witnesses the Candidate, completes an ICR, and submits it for assessment by the Assessor. The Assessor then questions both the Candidate and the AW.

 

[308tikka]

The more I read threads on SD and hear and see general practices through the grapevine the more I am convinced there needs root and branch reform of the whole deer stalking / management world.

There are very good stalkers, estates and businesses that are doing a very good job in terms of deer management, welfare and providing good amenity/recreational stalking and food product for the food chain.

And there are those who are not, and who bring the whole system into disrepute.

DSC1 and 2 are in principle good intention, but it needs to be reinforced into a proper qualification that is well recognised and meaningful. It needs to be wider in scope to include all game species. Certainly for DSC1 it should absolutely include all shooting seasons, recognition of all species including deer, vermin, foxes, wildfowl and game and other animals and birds that may be encountered and may with special licences be shot. And those that are protected.

It should also include all guns and other methods including trapping and snaring and their safe and competent handling.

It also needs to include handling of shot animals, putting into the human food chain and disposal of waste products and sick birds and animals.

I am sick and tired seeing phaesants thrown into plastic bags and dumped in back of pickups to get hot and sweaty etc - they need to be carried in open air to cool, and properly hung up etc. even worse is hearing and seeing carcasses just being dumped in pits.

The sooner we are able to say that everybody who has a hunting licence is well trained and qualified the better. And there is less room for the rogues, those who are not serious and those who will just give the rest of us a bad name.

Doesn’t matter really if its the Duke of whatever, or Mr I’m something jolly important in the City or mr pikey or Fifth generation game keeper or stalker on the same piece of ground, in every other walk of life you need to pass good training to do something.

In the old days there was a Wagbi handbook on Wildfowling or a BASC guide to shooting - that sort of level should be the base.

Yet I am constantly asked when are the seasons and can I shoot such and such etc.

Then Level 2 should be a proper series of assessments. The old Level 2 of three cull assessments was good in my view. Ideally it should have needed two different witnesses as well as the assessor.

Yes there will be a cost to all of this, but if its a proper qualification that has the support of shooting industry, police, Defra etc then it should go a long way into establishing shooters as valued members of society rather than arrogant bloodthirsty toffs and red necks whom the general public and media need to be concerned about.

Jagdschein.

 

[Norfolk Deer Search]

Jagdschein.

I have made that Suggestion before!

Proper hunting school, that would out the cat amongst the pigeons

 

[308tikka]

Just look at what a PH has to do.... albeit dangerous game involved, there is substantial learning.

And cost.

 

[gixer1]

The more I read threads on SD and hear and see general practices through the grapevine the more I am convinced there needs root and branch reform of the whole deer stalking / management world.

There are very good stalkers, estates and businesses that are doing a very good job in terms of deer management, welfare and providing good amenity/recreational stalking and food product for the food chain.

And there are those who are not, and who bring the whole system into disrepute.

DSC1 and 2 are in principle good intention, but it needs to be reinforced into a proper qualification that is well recognised and meaningful. It needs to be wider in scope to include all game species. Certainly for DSC1 it should absolutely include all shooting seasons, recognition of all species including deer, vermin, foxes, wildfowl and game and other animals and birds that may be encountered and may with special licences be shot. And those that are protected.

It should also include all guns and other methods including trapping and snaring and their safe and competent handling.

It also needs to include handling of shot animals, putting into the human food chain and disposal of waste products and sick birds and animals.

I am sick and tired seeing phaesants thrown into plastic bags and dumped in back of pickups to get hot and sweaty etc - they need to be carried in open air to cool, and properly hung up etc. even worse is hearing and seeing carcasses just being dumped in pits.

The sooner we are able to say that everybody who has a hunting licence is well trained and qualified the better. And there is less room for the rogues, those who are not serious and those who will just give the rest of us a bad name.

Doesn’t matter really if its the Duke of whatever, or Mr I’m something jolly important in the City or mr pikey or Fifth generation game keeper or stalker on the same piece of ground, in every other walk of life you need to pass good training to do something.

In the old days there was a Wagbi handbook on Wildfowling or a BASC guide to shooting - that sort of level should be the base.

Yet I am constantly asked when are the seasons and can I shoot such and such etc.

Then Level 2 should be a proper series of assessments. The old Level 2 of three cull assessments was good in my view. Ideally it should have needed two different witnesses as well as the assessor.

Yes there will be a cost to all of this, but if its a proper qualification that has the support of shooting industry, police, Defra etc then it should go a long way into establishing shooters as valued members of society rather than arrogant bloodthirsty toffs and red necks whom the general public and media need to be concerned about.

Why would the DSC system cover birds and foxes etc?

I’m still wondering why the DSC system asks people to identify species such as CWD when they are only in a small part of the country, why in gods name does a stalker in the western highlands need to know what a female CWD’s ar*e looks like?

Maybe more detail to suit the intended species would be time better spent.

Regards,
Gixer

 

[willie_gunn]

Why would the DSC system cover birds and foxes etc?

I’m still wondering why the DSC system asks people to identify species such as CWD when they are only in a small part of the country, why in gods name does a stalker in the western highlands need to know what a female CWD’s ar*e looks like?

Maybe more detail to suit the intended species would be time better spent.

Regards,
Gixer

Follow that through to its logical conclusion and you’d end up with species and/or geographic specific qualifications.

Would that really be a good thing for what, at the end of the day, is meant to be “a largely knowledge based qualification which enables candidates to demonstrate their understanding of basic deer management principles and meat hygiene, and to show competence in safety and shooting at simulated targets”?

 

[leeroyjones76]

The FB post that was the original point of this discussion was made by me, I'm Lee and I run the group along with Billy (the tit it would seem). Personally, I think we do a bloody good job of running a group with almost 30k members, helping you guys get a fairer price for you deer and opening up your average person to game and game prep. I would ask any of you if you see something suspicious then let me, or any of the admins know. We try and keep track of it all but some posts get through. We will remove content and members if things aren't above board. With regard to the Muntjac I was presented with, it also hadn't had the anus or bladder removed either and a second carcass from the same guy appeared to have been shot through the lower jaw with a .22 rimfire. Quite how the shot killed it I don't know. He has since been removed and any further profiles blocked. I hope those of you who use the group are having a good experience, but as I said above any problems drop me a message.




Cheers



Lee

 

[gixer1]

Follow that through to its logical conclusion and you’d end up with species and/or geographic specific qualifications.

Would that really be a good thing for what, at the end of the day, is meant to be “a largely knowledge based qualification which enables candidates to demonstrate their understanding of basic deer management principles and meat hygiene, and to show competence in safety and shooting at simulated targets”?

So if the meat hygiene and shooting competence is the focus why bother with all the species identification parts? And a location specific course may allow more time for other areas.

Is that a bad thing?

 

[devon deer stalker]

The FB post that was the original point of this discussion was made by me, I'm Lee and I run the group along with Billy (the tit it would seem). Personally, I think we do a bloody good job of running a group with almost 30k members, helping you guys get a fairer price for you deer and opening up your average person to game and game prep. I would ask any of you if you see something suspicious then let me, or any of the admins know. We try and keep track of it all but some posts get through. We will remove content and members if things aren't above board. With regard to the Muntjac I was presented with, it also hadn't had the anus or bladder removed either and a second carcass from the same guy appeared to have been shot through the lower jaw with a .22 rimfire. Quite how the shot killed it I don't know. He has since been removed and any further profiles blocked. I hope those of you who use the group are having a good experience, but as I said above any problems drop me a message.




Cheers



Lee

So you are Lee Mulcock?

 

[leeroyjones76]

So you are Lee Mulcock?

I am.

 

[devon deer stalker]

I am.

So Lee, I made an error on the site, I advertised antlers for sale, my fault, I missed the bit about not selling antlers on the site, but you jumped on me with a terse message and deleted my post, we all make mistakes my friend, just be nice about it.

Just to advise, prior to the post, and since, many people have advertised antlers for sale, so either all should be treated the same, or maybe change the rules as there is clearly a need for them.

It is an excellent site but that did just grind with me.

 

[leeroyjones76]

So Lee, I made an error on the site, I advertised antlers for sale, my fault, I missed the bit about not selling antlers on the site, but you jumped on me with a terse message and deleted my post, we all make mistakes my friend, just be nice about it.































































































































Just to advise, prior to the post, and since, many people have advertised antlers for sale, so either all should be treated the same, or maybe change the rules as there is clearly a need for them.































































































































It is an excellent site but that did just grind with































































































































So Lee, I made an error on the site, I advertised antlers for sale, my fault, I missed the bit about not selling antlers on the site, but you jumped on me with a terse message and deleted my post, we all make mistakes my friend, just be nice about it.































































































































Just to advise, prior to the post, and since, many people have advertised antlers for sale, so either all should be treated the same, or maybe change the rules as there is clearly a need for them.































































































































It is an excellent site but that did just grind with me.































































































































I don't usually message anyone who's posts are deleted so I suspect the message you recieved was the rule which was breached. I'm sure you'll understand that with just shy of 30k members some posts slip through but I can assure you if I'd seen the posts you are referring to they would have been removed too. I know the way we work with regard to post removal is very impersonal but it'e consuming group to run at the best of times































I don't usually message anyone who's posts are deleted so I suspect the message you recieved was just the rule which was breached. I'm sure you'll understand that with just shy of 30k members some posts slip through but I can assure you if I'd seen the posts you are referring to they would have been removed too. I know the way we work with regard to post removal is very impersonal but it's a time consuming group to run at the best of times so making direct contact with everyone who breaks the rules is just not practical. Please continue to use the group and feel free to message me directly if you have any further concerns.































Best regards































































Lee







So Lee, I made an error on the site, I advertised antlers for sale, my fault, I missed the bit about not selling antlers on the site, but you jumped on me with a terse message and deleted my post, we all make mistakes my friend, just be nice about it.







Just to advise, prior to the post, and since, many people have advertised antlers for sale, so either all should be treated the same, or maybe change the rules as there is clearly a need for them.







It is an excellent site but that did just grind with me.









I don't usually message anyone who's posts are deleted so I suspect the message you recieved was just the rule which was breached. I'm sure you'll understand that with just shy of 30k members some posts slip through but I can assure you if I'd seen the posts you are referring to they would have been removed too. I know the way we work with regard to post removal is very impersonal but it's a time consuming group to run at the best of times so making direct contact with everyone who breaks the rules is just not practical. Please continue to use the group and feel free to message me directly if you have any further concerns.

 

[big ears]

The more I read threads on SD and hear and see general practices through the grapevine the more I am convinced there needs root and branch reform of the whole deer stalking / management world.

There are very good stalkers, estates and businesses that are doing a very good job in terms of deer management, welfare and providing good amenity/recreational stalking and food product for the food chain.

And there are those who are not, and who bring the whole system into disrepute.

DSC1 and 2 are in principle good intention, but it needs to be reinforced into a proper qualification that is well recognised and meaningful. It needs to be wider in scope to include all game species. Certainly for DSC1 it should absolutely include all shooting seasons, recognition of all species including deer, vermin, foxes, wildfowl and game and other animals and birds that may be encountered and may with special licences be shot. And those that are protected.

It should also include all guns and other methods including trapping and snaring and their safe and competent handling.

It also needs to include handling of shot animals, putting into the human food chain and disposal of waste products and sick birds and animals.

I am sick and tired seeing phaesants thrown into plastic bags and dumped in back of pickups to get hot and sweaty etc - they need to be carried in open air to cool, and properly hung up etc. even worse is hearing and seeing carcasses just being dumped in pits.

The sooner we are able to say that everybody who has a hunting licence is well trained and qualified the better. And there is less room for the rogues, those who are not serious and those who will just give the rest of us a bad name.

Doesn’t matter really if its the Duke of whatever, or Mr I’m something jolly important in the City or mr pikey or Fifth generation game keeper or stalker on the same piece of ground, in every other walk of life you need to pass good training to do something.

In the old days there was a Wagbi handbook on Wildfowling or a BASC guide to shooting - that sort of level should be the base.

Yet I am constantly asked when are the seasons and can I shoot such and such etc.

Then Level 2 should be a proper series of assessments. The old Level 2 of three cull assessments was good in my view. Ideally it should have needed two different witnesses as well as the assessor.

Yes there will be a cost to all of this, but if its a proper qualification that has the support of shooting industry, police, Defra etc then it should go a long way into establishing shooters as valued members of society rather than arrogant bloodthirsty toffs and red necks whom the general public and media need to be concerned about.

Exactly this.