I can't quite believe that I've risen to answering yet another DSC1 training thread, but here goes.
"DSC1 is a basic qualification for deer stalkers and managers. It is 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 shooting at simulated targets."
Anyone recognise that? It's from DMQ's website. The DSC1 doesn't pretend to qualify you as a stalking ninja, nor does it somehow perform a vulcan mind-meld and magically impart the combined knowledge of Messrs Prior, Carne, Whitehead, De Nahlik, Smith-Jones, Griffiths, et al.
Instead, as DMQ admit, it is basic. In fact it's not just basic, but it's largely a knowledge based qualification, so anyone who can study the questions in the question bank, remember the answers and then regurgitate them in exam conditions should be able to pass. Providing, that is, they can also pass the visual recognition, safety and shooting tests.
Gaining your DSC1 is not like gaining membership of some private and exclusive club, and nor should it be. That's not to downplay the achievement of those who gain it - in fact all credit to them - but if you meet the criteria you pass, it really is that simple. Everyone is being measured against the same standard, whether they've spent a lifetime shooting deer or never had one in their sights. What could be fairer than that?
Leaving aside some legislative changes, the questions haven't changed a great deal over the years. But if I compare the current situation to when I sat my DSC1 over 10 years ago, there is far more choice of training available, using far better material, delivered in what seems to be a far more professional manner. If you want to see a perfect example of being able to teach to a defined curriculum, the DSC1 is it. So is it a surprise that the pass rate has improved - absolutely not.
From my own, albeit limited, experience the people who have most difficulty with DSC1 are from the "been doing this for years, nothing you can tell me about deer" camp. Every individual works within the confines of their own knowledge and experience. The problem is that, working in isolation, you just can't tell if your knowledge is right or wrong and your experiences good or bad.
As for those who deny the need for any training, I've yet to hear them come up with any realistic proposal as to how new entrants into deer stalking would start on their journey of knowledge and experience if training wasn't available. Would we prefer to see everyone have a mentor clause on their ticket - that's always supposing there were enough mentors to go around - and how would we then police the mentors? Or do we think that it's as simple as "if you've got a deer-legal calibre on your FAC you should be allowed to shoot deer"? So that's deer welfare and hygiene out the window then?
Or is it, as the cynic in me supposes, that really we'd prefer to restrict the number of people getting into deer stalking in the first place, and offering training like DSC1 only encourages them?
willie_gunn
