I have to say that I respectfully disagree with some of what I read above.
In fact I expect my comments below might put the cat amongst the pigeons, but so be it! Discussion and debate is always healthy. On that basis.......
There are plenty of stalkers out there who have never, and indeed may never, stalk red or sika. Of course it is a different type of stalking, but I can't see why every DSC2 Candidate should be required to show competency in stalking a red on the Hill, for example. Similarly there are plenty of stalkers who may never see a live muntjac, so I'm not sure of the value of insisting on a DSC2 Candidate having to stalk one.
I know from many years experience that getting a red off the Hill is different to carrying out a muntjac, but to be honest if I was a Candidate in the South of England and 99.9% of my stalking happened to be for roe and muntjac, why would - or should - I care? Similarly if I lived in Scotland and stalk red and sika, why should I have to demonstrate that I can also cull a muntjac? Given that DSC2 is there purely to enable Candidates to "demonstrate their knowledge and competence in legally, safely and humanely culling deer and dealing with carcasses hygienically" I personally can't see any reason to over-complicate it by introducing some higher bar - notional or otherwise - based on species or other criteria.
Turning to the number of stalks, if you're competent with one stalk and you can successfully demonstrate you meet the criteria, why should that not be good enough? The objections seem to be along the lines of "but with just one stalk a Candidate won't have experienced everything that could happen when you stalk deer". Candidates will NEVER experience everything that could happen when you stalk deer!
We don't have to take our driving test three times to show we are competent. If it turns out you're not competent and can't meet the standard, go away, practice some more, and take the driving test again. Why should DSC2 be different? Indeed why is three stalks somehow now held up as being the "correct" number? If we think about the difference in stalking, why not six - one per UK species?
Personally I can't see why DSC2 would be better as somehow being positioned as the UK equivalent of bagging "the Big Five". Nor do I see any appetite in introducing various grades of DSC2, as that is surely the alternative? So a bit like a moped, motorcycle, car and HGV license - a Candidate would have to qualify for region-specific, species-specific, or stalking-specific levels of DSC2. Sounds expensive, and hardly a way forwards IMHO.
With regards to training and experience, the latest newsletter from DMQ states that:
"DMQ anticipates that the change will lead to more scrutiny of the candidate by the witness which may result in a number of pre-assessment stalks where guidance can be freely given to prepare the candidate for the qualification. Witnesses play an important role here and DMQ will provide strong support for such initial scrutiny of the candidate, particularly where the witness is not confident the individual is ready for final assessment and recommends preassessment stalks. With this in mind, stronger guidance to candidates wishing to undertake the qualification is to be drafted which will emphasise the need for them to adequately prepare themselves through training and tuition prior to their assessment ideally with their chosen witness."
Isn't that exactly what is being asked for above? If the Candidate demonstrates competence, sign off their one ICR. If they don't, don't. If you think they need more experience first, tell them. The problem with the old model was not just the inconsistency of the Candidates, but also the inconsistency across AW's, particularly with regards to the level of questioning. Some were great, some were not. So I can see how concentrating the questioning with the Assessors rather than the AW's now helps in that regard, as all Candidates get questioned the same way.
Most objections I read on social media from AW's seem to be along the lines of "with three Witnessed stalks we could train Candidates in the right way (i.e. our way) of doing things, now we can't". But that was never the intention of the Witnessed stalks! A Witnessed stalk is there to provide an objective way to observe and record competence, end of. One stalk should do just fine.
So having looked at the new guidance objectively, I don't see that the changes cheapen DSC2. Rather I see that they are designed to enable consistency, scalability and affordability. If I was a Candidate again, I might quite like that.
For any AW out there that doesn't like the changes, DMQ sent out a Voluntary Retirement Form along with the recent changes. I very much doubt that was a coincidence. The changes are here, and I don't anticipate they will be reversed. So AW's can either adapt to the new changes and make them work, or print out that form, complete and sign it, and send it back to DMQ. No-one is forced into being an AW.
Does that say then that you are grade 1 Gold star 
