PDS 1&2 now recognised

[Tim.243]

Maybe. Competition wouldn’t necessarily fix that. Regulation would, but as far as I can see, non of the training is regulated.

In my teen youth early 70's Dads/Uncles passed on a wealth of knowledge in the shooting world from air gun then garden gun .410. .22lr How to load them safely walk with them safely that was very good training which later in life you can spot who knows how to use a gun and those who can't in an instant. Non of that was regulated just a good foundation.

 

[co’den]

In my teen youth early 70's Dads/Uncles passed on a wealth of knowledge in the shooting world from air gun then garden gun .410. .22lr How to load them safely walk with them safely that was very good training which later in life you can spot who knows how to use a gun and those who can't in an instant. Non of that was regulated just a good foundation.

Absolutely. That’s the way it worked for me growing up in the 70’s and 80’s but your dad and uncle and my dad and grandad did it out of a genuine wish to keep you and me and everyone around us safe, so it was self regulating.
These training courses are carried out for money. That’s the difference.

 

[timbrayford]

In my teen youth early 70's Dads/Uncles passed on a wealth of knowledge in the shooting world from air gun then garden gun .410. .22lr How to load them safely walk with them safely that was very good training which later in life you can spot who knows how to use a gun and those who can't in an instant. Non of that was regulated just a good foundation.

A bygone era where commonsense prevailed over jobsworths and the bureaucracy that now prevails. However nostalgia is a fine thing, perhaps we need to pen a folk song about it?

 

[Tim.243]

Absolutely. That’s the way it worked for me growing up in the 70’s and 80’s but your dad and uncle and my dad and grandad did it out of a genuine wish to keep you and me and everyone around us safe, so it was self regulating.
These training courses are carried out for money. That’s the difference.

Quite, but who would write the training manual? Basic First aid courses are quite the same as BLS is the primary goal.

I take the view these days only to shoot with very people and keep right away from the rest.

 

[Tim.243]

A bygone era where commonsense prevailed over jobsworths and the bureaucracy that now prevails. However nostalgia is a fine thing, perhaps we need to pen a folk song about it?

Yes the Tim Brayford Trio are the supporting group for the Isle of Wight 2025 festival

 

[Dickie]

If it matches the required criteria for the organisations to take it onboard the same as DMQ then surely choice for people is good.
When people go on to universities they are studying the same subject at a location they choose and when they leave with their degree then they have a degree be it from Newcastle, London or Bognor.

 

[finnbear270]

If it matches the required criteria for the organisations to take it onboard the same as DMQ then surely choice for people is good.
When people go on to universities they are studying the same subject at a location they choose and when they leave with their degree then they have a degree be it from Newcastle, London or Bognor.

Which one is Oxford, which one is Cambridge then?

 

[finbar]

A can see the swish Tony in him

 

[co’den]

If it matches the required criteria for the organisations to take it onboard the same as DMQ then surely choice for people is good.
When people go on to universities they are studying the same subject at a location they choose and when they leave with their degree then they have a degree be it from Newcastle, London or Bognor.

I suppose for me, that’s the main point. You can go to any choice of uni’s and get a BSc in chemistry for example. All the uni’s deliver the same qualification.
We already have choice in the provider for delivery of the DMQ qualification. Do we really need an alternative qualification is the PDS? Personally I think it would have been more value to spend the effort improving the DSC and delivering it really well.

 

[finnbear270]

I suppose for me, that’s the main point. You can go to any choice of uni’s and get a BSc in chemistry for example. All the uni’s deliver the same qualification.
We already have choice in the provider for delivery of the DMQ qualification. Do we really need an alternative qualification is the PDS? Personally I think it would have been more value to spend the effort improving the D

It's separate private outfit.

 

[co’den]

It's separate private outfit.

The NGO and BASC are separate outfits delivering the same qualification. I’m sure Peter Jones could deliver the DSC, he is/was an approved witness for DSC.

 

[Moray Outfitting]

I think reducing to only 1 stalk was actually perfectly sensible. After all, most other vocational qualifications only require one round of each component. You only need to pass your driving test once. Even the vast majority of academic qualifications only require you to demonstrate the skill to a sufficient level once.

The logic is good: as a witness, you only sign off on each component once you’ve seen it done properly. In practice, either the person clearly knows what they’re doing, and more than one stalk is a complete waste of everyone’s time. Or they struggle, and you take 2-3 goes before they get it right.

It actually provides a level of sensible, pragmatic flexibility that wasn’t there before.

However they totally botched the messaging when they did it, and everyone views it as a watering down.

My big problem with DSC2 is the Assessors, many of whom seem to have absolutely no understanding of the basic principles of rigorous assessment and instead seem to treat the whole thing as a way to assert some form of dominance. Each one has a set of completely irrational, idiosyncratic personal interpretations of the criteria that defy logic or best practice. It just becomes a meaningless hoop jumping exercise entirely at the whim of the Assessor.

If this PDS can avoid this, all credit to them.

Hi Mungo, can you quantify that statement about assessors please. As an assessor I still believe that the old way of the witness asking the questions was better on the spot. Assessors are not allowed to step outside the boxes we are given. Just the same set of questions really. Yes some in certain organizations put on the air of superiority, but if any candidates think this is happening and the questions are not to do with the assessment, then report it. J

 

[Mungo]

Hi Mungo, can you quantify that statement about assessors please. As an assessor I still believe that the old way of the witness asking the questions was better on the spot. Assessors are not allowed to step outside the boxes we are given. Just the same set of questions really. Yes some in certain organizations put on the air of superiority, but if any candidates think this is happening and the questions are not to do with the assessment, then report it. J

Hi John - I always hold you up as a model of how it should be done!

I'll PM you some information.

 

[Dickie]

Which one is Oxford, which one is Cambridge then?

It depends on if your certificate is light or dark blue.

 

[Dickie]

I suppose for me, that’s the main point. You can go to any choice of uni’s and get a BSc in chemistry for example. All the uni’s deliver the same qualification.
We already have choice in the provider for delivery of the DMQ qualification. Do we really need an alternative qualification is the PDS? Personally I think it would have been more value to spend the effort improving the DSC and delivering it really well.

But don't university's use different examination boards so its to the same standard so you get a BSc? Still comes out as recognised by the people that count.
If it leads to matching standards which are recognised by forestry companies and any other organisation that wants proof of competence surely that's good? Up until now you could say DMQ has had a monopoly on what is a commercial venture suppling a qualification and lining their pockets, it's not for the good of us.

 

[co’den]

But don't university's use different examination boards so its to the same standard so you get a BSc? Still comes out as recognised by the people that count.
If it leads to matching standards which are recognised by forestry companies and any other organisation that wants proof of competence surely that's good? Up until now you could say DMQ has had a monopoly on what is a commercial venture suppling a qualification and lining their pockets, it's not for the good of us.

Universities do use different examination boards but they are regulated by a single body in each country to ensure quality and consistency, but the qualification is the same.
For Deer stalking qualifications, we now have the absolute opposite in that we have no regulation (unless you count DMQ verifying DSC tickets) and 2 different qualifications supposedly giving the same result.
So, as a consumer, which one do I choose? Apart from the £100 cash back Peter Jones is offering, what does one qualification give me over the other?
The fact that a £100 cash back is already being offered says to me that it will be a race to bottom based on price, not a race to the top based on quality.
What is being dressed up as a benefit to the consumer is actually only a benefit to those making money out of training.
In time the 2 may amalgamate to form a new single qualification which could be a positive but, at the moment, it seems a bit of a mess and quite petty at its root.
I don’t have any issue with either qualification but I have seen this scenario play out in the past with NPTC and Lantra competing to offer similar qualifications with vastly differing quality. It just caused confusion and the potentially less safe outcomes. Totally unnecessary in my view.

 

[Dickie]

unless you count DMQ verifying DSC tickets
DMQ are DSC tickets are they not?

 

[co’den]

unless you count DMQ verifying DSC tickets
DMQ are DSC tickets are they not?

DMQ verify the quality and consistency of training delivered by the various providers. I did my DSC with BASC but could have done it with any of the providers. My test papers were sent to DMQ for verification before I received my qualification. The reason I used the phrase “unless you count” is that I’m not sure you could class DMQ as a regulator, or even an independent regulator. They are certainly an independent verifier which I can approach if I’m not happy with the quality of the training or wish to query my qualification.

 

[Dickie]

DMQ verify the quality and consistency of training delivered by the various providers. I did my DSC with BASC but could have done it with any of the providers. My test papers were sent to DMQ for verification before I received my qualification. The reason I used the phrase “unless you count” is that I’m not sure you could class DMQ as a regulator, or even an independent regulator. They are certainly an independent verifier which I can approach if I’m not happy with the quality of the training or wish to query my qualification.

Are they not the lets say owners of DSC and farm it out to various providers BASC, BDS, NGO and other linked to organisations or companies who send it to them for marking/verification and then send out the certificate and badge?

 

[big ears]

I think reducing to only 1 stalk was actually perfectly sensible. After all, most other vocational qualifications only require one round of each component. You only need to pass your driving test once. Even the vast majority of academic qualifications only require you to demonstrate the skill to a sufficient level once.

The logic is good: as a witness, you only sign off on each component once you’ve seen it done properly. In practice, either the person clearly knows what they’re doing, and more than one stalk is a complete waste of everyone’s time. Or they struggle, and you take 2-3 goes before they get it right.

It actually provides a level of sensible, pragmatic flexibility that wasn’t there before.

However they totally botched the messaging when they did it, and everyone views it as a watering down.

My big problem with DSC2 is the Assessors, many of whom seem to have absolutely no understanding of the basic principles of rigorous assessment and instead seem to treat the whole thing as a way to assert some form of dominance. Each one has a set of completely irrational, idiosyncratic personal interpretations of the criteria that defy logic or best practice. It just becomes a meaningless hoop jumping exercise entirely at the whim of the Assessor.

If this PDS can avoid this, all credit to them.

I agree with most of what you have put however there has a significant failure rate with the driving test because the assessment is rigorous. I’m not sure a similar retake rate exists with the DSC2. One cull assessment lets quite a few through who if seen doing 3 might not.