Never really cared about them. Never carried a tape on safari. Never measured an animal before. I always figured if he was nice, mature, I was happy. But I took an east African bushbuck that that prompted the PH to measure and now I have inches and SCI score and I'm wondering. Any way to access the top 10 of a species online. I'm an idiot online and can't seem to find anything.

Can't believe I care. Thanks if you have any ideas or thoughts.

It's always pretty awesome the first time you realize that you've taken an animal large enough to be recorded among the largest of it's kind. You buy the book, put it in your trophy room, and look at the entry often. After a few years, you think about it less and less, and simply appreciate the animal for what it is. I have several animals in the books, and several that would have made it had I wished to list them. I value them all equally. Congratulations on a fine Bushbuck, they are one of my favorite African antelope.

10 years ago I took a nice gemsbok in Bots. My outfitter asked me to enter it as a favor to him, so I did. I see it has slipped from #3 to #4.

https://rowlandward.com/minmax-records/


Here is the link to Rowland Ward record book.

Congratulations on a once in a lifetime trophy.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Never really cared about them. Never carried a tape on safari. Never measured an animal before. I always figured if he was nice, mature, I was happy. But I took an east African bushbuck that that prompted the PH to measure and now I have inches and SCI score and I'm wondering. Any way to access the top 10 of a species online. I'm an idiot online and can't seem to find anything.

Can't believe I care. Thanks if you have any ideas or thoughts.

Hope you are drying out. Any chance you could post a picture?
I have 1 animal in SCI that was completely by accident. I only registered it to give the outfitter the publicity since it was #1.

Thanks Saeed and Kathi, and everyone for their thoughts.

I would add to Saeed that if you are an sci member you do have access to the whole online record book that will show top ten and such if you are interested in that.

I am not an SCI member and accessed the book via Saeed's link.

I've never entered any of my African trophies, but I entered two large whitetails I shot with my bow in Pope & Young. One scored 160 P&Y and the bigger one scored 167 ⅜ P&Y. Here's a picture of the larger one:

crbutler:

That's what I'm trying to find. This animal is well over the qualifying inches and well over "gold". I'd like to see the list of other animals to see if he's in the top ten.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
crbutler:

That's what I'm trying to find. This animal is well over the qualifying inches and well over "gold". I'd like to see the list of other animals to see if he's in the top ten.

Try this link:

http://member.scifirstforhunte...pten.cfm?specID=F083

JJbull:

Thanks, that's what I was I was looking for. My green score, not by a certified measurer,is 53 = to #1. I need to wait 6 months and have someone certified measure it, but I'm guessing it's pretty good.

Wish I could have deleted that last post. misinterpreted my notes. He's not bad, but definitely not top ten. Sorry.

Lavaca,

I was going to say WOW! To tie #1 it must be a monster. I love bushbuck and even if it isn't a super trophy who cares? Any good representative bushbuck is a trophy to be proud of.

Mark

Yeah, back to my old philosophy, leave the tape at home. He's a nice bushbuck and there's nothing wrong with that at all!

Bud Meadows, that buck is a hoss!

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Yeah, back to my old philosophy, leave the tape at home. He's a nice bushbuck and there's nothing wrong with that at all!

Yes. Even the world record bushbuck doesn't know he's a world record. Maybe we should think more like him...;-)

I do take a tape on every big game hunt. I usually have an idea of what I'm after size wise and if I get it good if not well that's hunting but I want to know what I've done or not done.

Mark

Myself and my trackers each have tape measures on us all the time- it is only for measuring elephant tracks!

I have properly measured 3 animals in my life. 15.6ft croc , 64" kudu and a 46" Buff that went 136 SCI points. All 3 would have been in the top 5 in the SCI record book yet I have never entered a single animal. It is of no interest to me!

Always have a tape unless I am hunting on my own place. I want the measurements of my animals to make sure it's my animals that are in the crate.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
Always have a tape unless I am hunting on my own place. I want the measurements of my animals to make sure it's my animals that are in the crate.

+1

This has made a difference in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Wesheltonj:
Always have a tape unless I am hunting on my own place. I want the measurements of my animals to make sure it's my animals that are in the crate.

Its not a guarantee however especially where hides are concerned. Horned species in particular will have some minor shrinkage by the time they get delivered to destination and one of the primary reasons why official measures are accepted after 6 months.

Photographs of skulls and hides showing bullet holes, etc. taken from different angles would be more reassuring.

I'll forget the tape from now on. But there is nothing wrong with a 17 1/2" bushbuck. I thought he was a bit thin, and it turns out he was! Still an old guy and a wonderful trophy. Couldn't be happier with him.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I'll forget the tape from now on. But there is nothing wrong with a 17 1/2" bushbuck. I thought he was a bit thin, and it turns out he was! Still an old guy and a wonderful trophy. Couldn't be happier with him.

Let's see him! I like to see nice bushbuck no matter what they measure.

It is always nice to see a very good specimen of any animal.

Sadly, SCI has made a mockery of this, and turned it into a competition.

The travesty of the SCI record book is that it created it's own taxonomy system to satisfy the competition theme. High fives all around and medals for all so that those who shoot non trophy animals of a species ( size based on regional occurrence ) can also be included.

The intent of RW was not competition though a degree of competition evolved from it especially from visitor trophy hunters mainly from the US. The intent was purely a record of a biometric trait.

I remember back in the early 90s I was helping a friend of mine who had a ranch in Monterey County that had pigs and some Corsican rams on the ranch. The rams were pretty skittish and were somewhat difficult to get on. My friend had two clients from LA who were after this one particular ram we hunted for a day and just could not get a bead on him. Finally the next morning we got to within 200 yards of the ram and this one guy kept asking if the ram was Gold medal. I told him I don't know what Gold medal is but that is one heck of a ram. He turned it down. A couple of weeks later another client came in and made one of the best long range shots I have ever seen. Well over 400 and the ram was in a trot and he rolls him. Ram taped out at 38" on one side and if I remember just under 40" on the other side. Don't know if he was Gold medal but he was a great ram all beat up and made for a great mount.

In Namibia the PH is required to measure all Big Game animals and submit a form to the MET with measurements of all trophies using the SCI scoring system. Both the PH and hunter must sign the form. Almost all of the trophies I've shot while hunting with Sebra Hunting Safaris have qualified for "Gold Medals" under the NAPHA awards program. I've never felt compelled to enter any of my trophies- the memories and a few European Mounts are more than sufficient for me.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The travesty of the SCI record book is that it created it's own taxonomy system to satisfy the competition theme. High fives all around and medals for all so that those who shoot non trophy animals of a species ( size based on regional occurrence ) can also be included.

The intent of RW was not competition though a degree of competition evolved from it especially from visitor trophy hunters mainly from the US. The intent was purely a record of a biometric trait.

Alf:

All these years after the fact, it's impossible to know what motivated Roland Ward to publish his record books. My guess is he used them as marketing tools for his taxidermy business.

Bill Quimby

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
The travesty of the SCI record book is that it created it's own taxonomy system to satisfy the competition theme. High fives all around and medals for all so that those who shoot non trophy animals of a species ( size based on regional occurrence ) can also be included.

The intent of RW was not competition though a degree of competition evolved from it especially from visitor trophy hunters mainly from the US. The intent was purely a record of a biometric trait.

Alf:

All these years after the fact, it's impossible to know what motivated Roland Ward to publish his record books. My guess is he used them as marketing tools for his taxidermy business.

Bill Quimby

Bill,

RW never went to the extreme lengths SCI do to make hunting into a competition.

They single handedly created an obnoxious group of so called professional hunters whose sole purpose in life is to buy record animals, transport them to another location, and get the classless idiot to fly over and kill it to add to his name.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Bill,

RW never went to the extreme lengths SCI do to make hunting into a competition.

They single handedly created an obnoxious group of so called professional hunters whose sole purpose in life is to buy record animals, transport them to another location, and get the classless idiot to fly over and kill it to add to his name.

Although not Africa........

Tajikistan...................no money up front, no nice MP.

And all of the various you missed, you will never be able to get one oh hey, wow. here's (cough) "your" sheep..... switcheroo......

Perhaps a search into the history of modern taxidermmy and RW's position and motivation in this regard would be in order.

It was certainly not a competition by design nor was the book an effort to reward contributors in any way.

For years the RW book was a source of information study for naturalists.

Though the need or urge to display the rewards of the hunt ( and to be seen as a virtue of maleness) is as old as man as hunter itself and one could argue that famous hunters from ancient times on found gratification by 'collecting ' trophies and displaying them; the competition as promoted by SCI is a "modern" phenomenon.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Perhaps a search into the history of modern taxidermmy and RW's position and motivation in this regard would be in order.

It was certainly not a competition by design nor was the book an effort to reward contributors in any way.

For years the RW book was a source of information study for naturalists.

Though the need or urge to display the rewards of the hunt ( and to be seen as a virtue of maleness) is as old as man as hunter itself and one could argue that famous hunters from ancient times on found gratification by 'collecting ' trophies and displaying them; the competition as promoted by SCI is a "modern" phenomenon.

Correction!

A very SICK phenomena!

I like the *idea* of a record book, as in a record of exceptional animals, their locations, dates, and a picture. To me it just represents what an old, been-around-the-block, past his-prime, defended-his-territory animal should be. An animal that you know by looking at it, and without measuring, is as much as he could ever be. An animal that demands respect. That's what I think the record book should be - a recording of these great animals.

I detest what they have become - a competition. It's easy to argue that men have always competed, etc, but men have not always been driven to do so for some supposed benefit foisted on them by an organization purporting to be one thing while being another.

And I very much dislike the "checkbox" mentality that surrounds much of this. Many years ago (maybe 1998) I had a long conversation with a Zimbabwe outfitter, and he had good deals on leopard, "...so you can get started on your Big 5," he told me. 20 years later that phrase has stuck with me as an example of how NOT to get my business. I have no desire to make a list, check it off, and go home early when I'm finished to get my gilt belt buckle. My hands will not be shaking with the tape to see if the horns will make that last 1/4" to determine whether the hunt was a success or failure. Bullshit.

This has turned a bit philosophical, but in terms of record books, I've found that a person's perception of them begins long before they ever have an opportunity to enter an animal in them, and is more a reflection of their general attitudes about hunting than just the *book* itself.

I yield back the balance of my time...

Record books measure checkbooks, not ability. The only record book that I'm interested in contains recipes...

Even State Game and Fish Departments have record books. Is that a bad thing?

I do like the fact that the SCI book is so inclusive, as you get an idea of what a representative animal is. After being told that a runt was a representative trophy early in my hunting, I found if you can discuss book values folks don't try and BS you on how huge your whatever is. I have some sub book animals mounted because they have some personal meaning above and beyond their size, but in those cases I knew what I was doing when I shot.

I could care less if my name is on a book entry, but it doesn't bother me either. I view entering animals as helping other folks, with the lower ranking ones as important as the higher ones.

Frankly, unless one is hunting a put and take area, getting a top ten sized animal is a function of number of days spent, quality of area, and a hefty dose of luck. Your hunting ability falls way down in the equation... and yes I have shot top ten animals.

If you don't like the books, you certainly can avoid them altogether, but to me, RW and the folks who submit to it are no different than the guys with the SCI book. The individuals motivations are theirs and may or may not be mine.

I will agree that the competition gets quite unhealthy though.