CarlW
Well-Known Member
But if we just agree to this one change...
DMQ level 1 and 2 changes
- Thread starter Corvid
- Start date
Perhaps AW's have reported that for the majority of candidates that successfully complete one stalk, it is rare for a candidate to fail subsequent stalks and there is not much more to be gained by stalks two and three? Other than increased costs for the stalker?
By comparison, I only had to take one driving test ... not three times to prove my competency?
Perhaps if the first stalk is not entirely satisfactory then there may be a time delay before another attempt?
Anyway, do I feel cheated that I needed 3 stalks for DSC level 2 and in future candidates will need only one? Not at all. There is vastly more learning opportunities available now and hopefully the knowledge of a stalker can be robustly tested sufficiently with one outing.
No doubt the devil will be in the detail when it is all finally published!
By comparison, I only had to take one driving test ... not three times to prove my competency?
Perhaps if the first stalk is not entirely satisfactory then there may be a time delay before another attempt?
Anyway, do I feel cheated that I needed 3 stalks for DSC level 2 and in future candidates will need only one? Not at all. There is vastly more learning opportunities available now and hopefully the knowledge of a stalker can be robustly tested sufficiently with one outing.
No doubt the devil will be in the detail when it is all finally published!
Who’d have thunk it!
After all those years of complaints about DSC2 along the lines of “why three stalks for Level 2?” now it’s morphed into “why only one stalk for Level 2?”
As I recall the argument always put forward was “if the candidate has shown they can do it with one deer, why make them pay for two more?”
You’ve got your wish - you should be celebrating!
After all those years of complaints about DSC2 along the lines of “why three stalks for Level 2?” now it’s morphed into “why only one stalk for Level 2?”
As I recall the argument always put forward was “if the candidate has shown they can do it with one deer, why make them pay for two more?”
You’ve got your wish - you should be celebrating!
CarlW
Well-Known Member
Not my wish. I think L2 was a pretty good scheme, particularly if people waited until they had got a year or two's experience under their belt before completing it. It didn't prove they were experts but it did test the basics with some degree of rigour.
Of course anyone wishing to get "hands on" experience of carcass handling,/ examination should really consider these sort of courses, they are a true investment of a candidates attitude to the DSC awards. Why not have a part of your Portfolio which lists your attendance at such courses, which would assist and show the internal/external verifiers of a candidates achievements., and go towards the awarding of your much valued DSC medal/certificate
I do understand that some site members may think this is another money making exercise, but you owe it to yourself, and also to your quarry, and end users of your successful stalk. Let's face it, there will be a lot of us who have attended these courses, surely they could/should be referred to for anyone assessing a candidate's experience and commitment. Didn't you ( the reader of this post) take extra driving lessons, some sort of tuition, read books etc, it's a full resume/CV of your knowledge/experience. Just a thought
Patrick
It seems to me that it largely depends on whether you view DSC2 as a driving test or a demonstration of experience (of course, one gains more experience by doing more outings and the associated gralloch and so on, so it's a bit circular...)
As far as it see it, you only gain more by doing more ICRs if you come across different scenarios within those different outings (of course every outing is different). But, most of the things the assessors care about seem to relate to what you do after the shot has been taken. For example, if your 3 ICRs are of 3 fallow does, all of which are healthy and you perform a perfectly acceptable gralloch and inspection on the first one, what do you gain from the other 2?
This is where the questioning comes in - 'what would you do if you suspect TB?' 'what would you do if lymph node x was enlarged but the animal seems otherwise healthy?'
I admit to not shooting that many deer in comparison to many on here. However, all of the 15 or so deer I've shot in the last 2-3 years have been healthy and have not had anything sinister to find on inspection. I could have done a DSC2 witnessed gralloch and inspection on all of these and I would not have demonstrated my competence to deal with anything other than a healthy carcass. Of course, you increase the chance of finding other things the more you do. However, maybe doing one ICR with more emphasis on further questioning makes more sense?
I was going to embark on my DSC2 this year - perfectly happy to do 3 ICRs, but not going to complain about doing just 1. I'm doing it just for myself though, no need for syndicates, etc., and therefore, happy to take the time to do multiple ICRs. I suppose those that just want the ticket for syndicates etc are now more likely to go for it. Whether that is good or bad is up for debate.
You are never going to be able to have a fully comprehensive assessment process that covers all eventualities.
Over the years spent training to be a doctor, I've been through more than enough assessments. Some good, some ridiculous. As a result, I'm always an advocate of assessments being altered if not fit for purpose (or just plain silly). In this case, it appears to me that the issue is DSC1 and not 2. Therefore, changing the contents of DSC1 seems more sensible (for example, bring back the older style courses that included a real-life demonstration of gralloching).
As far as it see it, you only gain more by doing more ICRs if you come across different scenarios within those different outings (of course every outing is different). But, most of the things the assessors care about seem to relate to what you do after the shot has been taken. For example, if your 3 ICRs are of 3 fallow does, all of which are healthy and you perform a perfectly acceptable gralloch and inspection on the first one, what do you gain from the other 2?
This is where the questioning comes in - 'what would you do if you suspect TB?' 'what would you do if lymph node x was enlarged but the animal seems otherwise healthy?'
I admit to not shooting that many deer in comparison to many on here. However, all of the 15 or so deer I've shot in the last 2-3 years have been healthy and have not had anything sinister to find on inspection. I could have done a DSC2 witnessed gralloch and inspection on all of these and I would not have demonstrated my competence to deal with anything other than a healthy carcass. Of course, you increase the chance of finding other things the more you do. However, maybe doing one ICR with more emphasis on further questioning makes more sense?
I was going to embark on my DSC2 this year - perfectly happy to do 3 ICRs, but not going to complain about doing just 1. I'm doing it just for myself though, no need for syndicates, etc., and therefore, happy to take the time to do multiple ICRs. I suppose those that just want the ticket for syndicates etc are now more likely to go for it. Whether that is good or bad is up for debate.
You are never going to be able to have a fully comprehensive assessment process that covers all eventualities.
Over the years spent training to be a doctor, I've been through more than enough assessments. Some good, some ridiculous. As a result, I'm always an advocate of assessments being altered if not fit for purpose (or just plain silly). In this case, it appears to me that the issue is DSC1 and not 2. Therefore, changing the contents of DSC1 seems more sensible (for example, bring back the older style courses that included a real-life demonstration of gralloching).
Not sure there is any issue over were the Game Meat Hygiene course goes as you can still take this with the NGO separately and I suppose if you do it will be exempt from the L2 as it is now from L1 if you already have it?
Unless the NGO course is dropped forcing people to do it as part of L2.
Still the issue that you can take this course with no practical experience at any level.
Unless the NGO course is dropped forcing people to do it as part of L2.
Still the issue that you can take this course with no practical experience at any level.
Erik Hamburger
Well-Known Member
Please. Just putting the sarcasm and cynicism to one side, surely most of you agree that the food hygiene module DSC1 qualification is not really sufficient to expect a newly qualified person, who may never have shot a deer or never have done a gralloch, and never had to larder/skin/ a carcass, to expect such a person to be able to safely and hygienically sell a carcass to a Game Dealer which then finds its way into the human food chain?
The Food Hygiene module of the DSC1 is very, very basic. So I am totally in favour of driving up standards, in particular now carcass prices have hit the floor, and more and more stalkers have gone into home-processing and direct sales to the public. There is so much more to handling meat safely than washing your hands after going to the toilet and refrigerating a carcass at 7C or lower. Driving up standards is, surely, in the long-term interest of all of us!?
The Food Hygiene module of the DSC1 is very, very basic. So I am totally in favour of driving up standards, in particular now carcass prices have hit the floor, and more and more stalkers have gone into home-processing and direct sales to the public. There is so much more to handling meat safely than washing your hands after going to the toilet and refrigerating a carcass at 7C or lower. Driving up standards is, surely, in the long-term interest of all of us!?
@Erik Hamburger, I think a lot of that depends on the level of risk presented by people putting 'skin on' carcasses into the food chain.
If I'm correct, this all started because EU regs said that someone had to have a qualification to put meat into the foodchain, 'trained hunter' was devised to satisfy this and allow shooters to continue to supply 'skin on' game. As I understand, 'skin on' is considered low risk.
I'm not against standards for food hygiene where needed, and I wouldn't suggest there is no need for some standard to be set. That said, I think that standard should only be that necessary to secure public safety from serious risks of food borne illness and to help prevent serious disease, e.g. TB, F&M etc not being overlooked when encountered. More than that and we are just looking to make our lives harder.
The DSC1 is relatively straightforward and I found myself a little surprised that it entitled me to put meat into the food chain. If there is justification then I'm not against the proposed changes but I wouldn't endorse them for the sake of 'improving standards' unless there is an identified need to improve.
I am being slightly cynical above. Personally, I think the DSCs serve a purpose and it is regrettable that (a) some people see them as conferring something they do not (particularly Level 1) and (b) that the police have taken what ought to have been voluntary 'self development' and started to treat it as a standard test for firearms ownership. If folk want to do a DSC3 then let them, it's their money. Though I do have a slight fear that making Level 2 more achievable and necessary will lead forces to think that they should mandate it in the way some do with Level 1.
If I'm correct, this all started because EU regs said that someone had to have a qualification to put meat into the foodchain, 'trained hunter' was devised to satisfy this and allow shooters to continue to supply 'skin on' game. As I understand, 'skin on' is considered low risk.
I'm not against standards for food hygiene where needed, and I wouldn't suggest there is no need for some standard to be set. That said, I think that standard should only be that necessary to secure public safety from serious risks of food borne illness and to help prevent serious disease, e.g. TB, F&M etc not being overlooked when encountered. More than that and we are just looking to make our lives harder.
The DSC1 is relatively straightforward and I found myself a little surprised that it entitled me to put meat into the food chain. If there is justification then I'm not against the proposed changes but I wouldn't endorse them for the sake of 'improving standards' unless there is an identified need to improve.
I am being slightly cynical above. Personally, I think the DSCs serve a purpose and it is regrettable that (a) some people see them as conferring something they do not (particularly Level 1) and (b) that the police have taken what ought to have been voluntary 'self development' and started to treat it as a standard test for firearms ownership. If folk want to do a DSC3 then let them, it's their money. Though I do have a slight fear that making Level 2 more achievable and necessary will lead forces to think that they should mandate it in the way some do with Level 1.
Cawdor118
Well-Known Member
Because this would be impossible to prove or police.
Shootgun
Well-Known Member
Number of deer culled probably... but not the time between acheiving level one and registering for level two.
Dan Newcombe
Well-Known Member
I’m just bitter that I signed up under duress for level 2 in January and they are saying o still need to shoot 3 deer with a witness!
jim_allen_uk
Well-Known Member
Now you don’t get trained hunter till dsc2 how will people get lots of experience between dsc1 and 2 when they can’t now sell the deer. Makes no sense to me.
I think you raise a very interesting point.
In DSC2's current iteration the "questioning" role of the AW has, by and large, already been removed. so that it is effectively now only the Assessor who gets to put those type of questions to the Candidate. This was quite a change from the past, where the AW could observe the Candidate over three ICR's and ask questions of the "that's fine, but what would you have done if....." format. The instructions to AW's as to what they can and cannot do are now much more rigorous, effectively delegating any training or imparting of knowledge to stalks outside of those being witnessed. To this end, the role of the AW has shifted over time from tutor and/or questioner, to purely that of observer.
Given this, I can see why DMQ have decided to reduce the number of ICR's from three to one. After all, if the AW is solely there to observe a witnessed stalk - not to question, and most certainly not to train and/or interrogate - what difference does it make whether the AW witnesses one ICR or three stalks?
On the flip side it elevates again the role of the Assessor, to the point where the discussion with the Candidate is now more akin to an exam rather than just an interview to verify what was observed.
Combine this with the new instruction that an AW can now point out a deer to a Candidate, and to me the logical conclusion would be to do away with the AW role entirely and offer DSC2 via a condensed, weekend-long, course where the Candidate spends the Saturday being "trained" with regards to what is expected of the ICR, the Sunday morning actually completing their ICR alongside a spotter/observer, and the Sunday afternoon being interviewed by the Assessor in an exam format. Far easier to manage and in all honesty probably easier, cheaper and quicker for the Candidates themselves.
Would this result in higher quality Candidates who are more independent and experienced than before? Only time will tell.
May I suggest that you attend some of the courses that are offered via BASC, BDS, and other Independent Course Providers in your area. Or maybe one of our kind site members may offer you an experience
Good Luck
Patrick
Much as though courses have their place, they are normally no substitute for real-world experience. This is often best gained by paid stalking or generous offers by a local stalker.
Last edited:
jim_allen_uk
Well-Known Member
So having done level 1, you’re suggested people pay for more courses/experiences before they apply for level 2?
For those people with their own permissions they can’t get stuck into the deer themselves after passing dsc1 to gain the experience required for dsc2 as they can’t sell them
You can do the Game Meat Hygiene course as a stand alone certificate with no need for DSC 1 or 2. Thats not an issue al all.
baguio
Well-Known Member
We're all different. Some may have shot thousands of deer before even attending DSC1. To say that they can't go on to DSC2 until a certain time frame has elapsed is ridiculous and insulting.
Last edited:
Similar threads
