While this is not something I have ever previously given any thought to as I generally prefer the best looking representative, or the one you can get , I have recently thought about trying to bag a "book" gemsbok in Namibia next year.

I am not looking for the world record, or even gold, I am just curious what the minimum would be to make the SCI or the Rowland Ward Book?

I looked back through the threads here in the AR Africa section and the threads showed some examples of 80 inchers, and even bigger, then all the what is hunting, what is not discussion. But besides all that, I am just looking for the size it would take to make the book. We can extend our hunt for a long enough time to look for one. I am going to join so I can get a book copy, or order one.

Anybody here make the Namibia Gemsbok book and when ? Is it just length, or length and circumference and ridges or what is the scoring criteria? Thanks in advance.

This might help:

http://www.shakariconnection.com/oryx.html

Thank you Shakari for that.

So essentially it starts at 40 inches huh? I will have to get the books to see the measurement method #7 and #1.

Thank you again. It is not the top priority, but I might get a chance to just concentrate on one animal so it was a thought. Still got to get lucky some to get on a book trophy.

So how does the SCI system get up to 80 or 90 inches if it's horn length plus circumference at the base (Method 1)?

And max horn length is less than 50"?



: : :

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:
So how does the SCI system get up to 80 or 90 inches if it's horn length plus circumference at the base (Method 1)?

And max horn length is less than 50"?

You measure both horns.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomasjohn:

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:
So how does the SCI system get up to 80 or 90 inches if it's horn length plus circumference at the base (Method 1)?

And max horn length is less than 50"?

You measure both horns.

Oh right.

Well, in that case, I've got two. Never measured them before.

And a cow that goes about 100 (first trip + young PH).

SCI minimum is 80" for Kalahari Gemsbok (Namibia). Combination of length and base circumference of both horns added together. There is a separate classification for "Kalahari Gemsbok (Namibia)".

Rowland Ward minimum is 40" but it's a bit more involved. First, the horns must be allowed to dry for 30 days. Measure as above and then include the tip-to-tip measurement between horns. Classification is simply "Gemsbok". Minimum is based soley upon the length of the longest horn.

Measurements for the book must be taken and signed by an official measurer and placed upon the official entry form of respective clubs. These were the methods and minimums for both SCI and Rowland Ward circa 2005.

Hope this helps.

And SCI has just announced a shiney new entry category for those that wish to compete with each other on Oryx! Isn't that a grand idea....or a money making idea???
Meanwhile , they still encourage the taking of soft head buffs....

quote:

Originally posted by Tom In Tennessee:
And SCI has just announced a shiney new entry category for those that wish to compete with each other on Oryx! Isn't that a grand idea....or a money making idea???
Meanwhile , they still encourage the taking of soft head buffs....

Please provide your reference information for your soft Buff comment.

Compare Rowland Ward requirements to
SCI requirements...big spreads, usually younger BREEDINg bulls whose genes we wished passed on are what SCI apparently looks for....I guess you are also aware that certain unnamed folks in E Cape have imported Kudu and let loose on their concession so SCI record book E Cape Kudu can be "harvested"...I suspect the same shall follow for the Southern Kalahari Oryx...

Hey, Shakari, Kruger's longbow hunt for Ele has been put off....he thinks you and I should sponser him next year. I told him he should pay for us to go along---you to video and me to be bow bearer!
It is all about the money---WTF is the genetic difference between a Kirks and a Damarland Dik Dik????

Thank you very much Mike.

So it looks like maybe 36" length and maybe 4-5" in circumference would start to reach the book level. Sounds more reachable. Although from what I have read of it the Gemsbok starts losing some length as they reach their oldest age.

TEX, they lose length by rubbing or fighting or breaking off...I have an old MoFo among my Oryx that is only 38 1/2 yet would make the Book, if I was so inclined, because of bases. Trust your PH and tell him what you want! Females are longer but thinner, pinus sacks are darn near invisible even with good glass. Females may have a little more white on their face. Tell the PH what you want. If you want Record Book min, tell him you will NOT settle for anything less even if you go home without one and mean it! Communicate this requirement when you book and before you go!

quote:

Originally posted by TexKD:
Thank you very much Mike.

So it looks like maybe 36" length and maybe 4-5" in circumference would start to reach the book level. Sounds more reachable. Although from what I have read of it the Gemsbok starts losing some length as they reach their oldest age.

hell, a 35 inch cow should make the SCI book and should be doable damn near anywhere!!!! if you want a nicer trophy, shoot a bull- more mass even if somewhat shorter horns. the top 2 entries in SCI are both cows because of the longer length that cows tend to have.

Thank you too Tom. It would be great to get one like yours that is both old and big.

The reason I was thinking of this is that my son and best friend will be off getting their animals in the package. And while I do want to hunt with them some, it would leave me free to go after something a little different like this.

That is after I get the zebra for my duaghters room for a zebra rug. By special request you understand. She will be there too. So now I will probably not get to do the book Gemsbok as I will be trying to get within 500 yards of the nearest zebra. You know how it is - I will spend about 10 days in the dust

Tom In Tennessee-

So, you have 56 posts on AR and who knows how much safari experience and you come here and make silly and blatantly wrong statements about SCI and its record book? Maybe you're Pondoro reincarnated? I don't care.

I notice you did not supply the requested reference material on your allegation that SCI encourages the taking of soft bossed Buff. An allegation I have never heard from anyone before and one which you apparently cannot substantiate.

Your comeback instead,presents more B.S. from you, this time alleging SCI "...apparently looks for..." "...big spreads..." on Buff. What the hell does that mean? SCI and Rowland ward both publish their methods of measurement and they are a matter of public record available online. SCI/Rowland Ward measurers, which includes most PHs, simply follow the instructions. They do not "look for" anything. SCIs system for Buff does include the overall outside length of the horns but also combines these with the measurements of both bosses for the total score. "Big Spreads" as you allege, and I believe you mean to say the width of the horns measured from the outside widest point of each horn, is not considered nor taken into account in the SCI scoring process, although you may include it on the form for informational purposes.

If you don't like SCI or Rowland Ward, don't join. If you don't like the record books, don't enter them. Seems simple enough to me. Just don't come on AR spreading your opinions as fact when you cannot supply references to support your personal statements. The folks on AR are too sophisticated to fall for that kinda crap.

Have a great day and Semper Fi.

Yes JD I knew the cows had the longer and somewhat thinner horns. What I was honing in on is that should I ever want to take a book animal, it should be one from its native area . You know what I mean. I did not want to have one from Texas

And I might have time to just stay on this. Which will probably mean that I will then pass on some others.

So a set of Kalahari gemsbok horns that measure 35" with 7.5" circumference and 34.5" with 7.75" circumference, would make the book?

I just measured mine from my 2008 hunt after reading this thread. The total is 84.75"

this is what a nice bull( 45") from the Kalahari in Botswana looks like. notice the mass in the bases. they were only about 1 1/2 inches apart. posted this before but just couldn't resist!

and no, i didn't give a sh-t whether he was a breeding bull or not. his companion when we found him was within about 2 inches of his size.

Of course that is a great trophy. Yep I will take one like that . I have been over at the SCI site scoping around and reading up a bit.

Congrats on that oryx and thanks for posting.

wowie!

If I read this right, a 36" bull with a 6" base is in. 42"+42" = 84". Width between the tips is added? I'd do that, as long as it doesn't cost more than twenty-bucks...

Seriously, I don't care one way or the other, but it is nice to know he made it.

Rich
Rich

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:

quote:

Originally posted by Thomasjohn:

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:
So how does the SCI system get up to 80 or 90 inches if it's horn length plus circumference at the base (Method 1)?

And max horn length is less than 50"?

You measure both horns.

Oh right.

Well, in that case, I've got two. Never measured them before.

And a cow that goes about 100 (first trip + young PH).

How amazing!

Even in their records for trophies SCI has to play with the numbers to get bigger numbers!

I think there is only ONE record book.

And that is the good old RW!

Non better!

quote:

Originally posted by Tom In Tennessee:
Hey, Shakari, Kruger's longbow hunt for Ele has been put off....he thinks you and I should sponser him next year. I told him he should pay for us to go along---you to video and me to be bow bearer!
It is all about the money---WTF is the genetic difference between a Kirks and a Damarland Dik Dik????

Sorry to hear but I'm not up to much with a video camera, so I'll just carry the beer!

'Fraid I don't know the genetic difference and maybe one of our fundi members could advise. The difference is often (to laymen like me) just a matter of where they live and equally often a matter of disputed opinion between the lumpers and groupers...... you'll even often find that the various record books disagree with each other as to what occurs where and what to call them.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
Tom In Tennessee-

So, you have 56 posts on AR and who knows how much safari experience and you come here and make silly and blatantly wrong statements about SCI and its record book? Maybe you're Pondoro reincarnated? I don't care.

I notice you did not supply the requested reference material on your allegation that SCI encourages the taking of soft bossed Buff. An allegation I have never heard from anyone before and one which you apparently cannot substantiate.

Your comeback instead,presents more B.S. from you, this time alleging SCI "...apparently looks for..." "...big spreads..." on Buff. What the fuck does that mean? SCI and Rowland ward both publish their methods of measurement and they are a matter of public record available online. SCI/Rowland Ward measurers, which includes most PHs, simply follow the instructions. They do not "look for" anything. SCIs system for Buff does include the overall outside length of the horns but also combines these with the measurements of both bosses for the total score. "Big Spreads" as you allege, and I believe you mean to say the width of the horns measured from the outside widest point of each horn, is not considered nor taken into account in the SCI scoring process, although you may include it on the form for informational purposes.

If you don't like SCI or Rowland Ward, don't join. If you don't like the record books, don't enter them. Seems simple enough to me. Just don't come on AR spreading your opinions as fact when you cannot supply references to support your personal statements. The folks on AR are too sophisticated to fall for that kinda crap.

Have a great day and Semper Fi.

Lion Hunter,

You obviously feel strongly about this issue. With all due respect, I have fewer posts than T.I.T and agree with him on the Buffalo scoring issue. It needs to be addressed, just look at the pic's of the top scoring buffalo in SCI's record books over the past 10 years.

John,

The issue here is not wether the scoring systems are good or bad - they are what they are and have been so for many years, like 'em or not.

The issue is that Tom came on here after I gave thorough and specific answers to OPs question, and made some assinine comments about SCI, which he declined to support with documentation when I asked him to provide same. He then came back with another unsubstantiated claim. So when you say you agree with him, perhaps you can provide the reference material so that anyone concerned can look it up?

I am an Official Measurer for both SCI and Rowland Ward and I don't appreciate newbies coming on AR and passing B.S. as fact. I don't defend either method and don't give a damn if hunters choose not to have their trophies measured, although I believe there are many good reasons to do so. SCI has been drug over the coals so many times on AR I don't even comment on those threads anymore. Neither you nor Tom may be aware of that since you're both new posters, but after 20 or 30 times it gets old. This thread was not started about Buff and I do not understand why Tom felt he needed to go there. Now you are doing the same.

Oh, and welcome to AR. You will find some very experienced folks here.

Lion Hunter,

I had no intention of offending you or hijacking this thread. I was simply stating my opinion which I validated with the reference to record book pic's.
Don't judge a man by the number of his posts

Regards,

John

Lion Hunter,
It is the rules of measurement I am taking about for SCI...sorry I upset you so by being unable to express my self adequately. My opinion is I don't like SCI's measuring specifications. SCI realizes there is controversy because their rules committe held long meetings on the subject last year----with no changes forthcoming. My opinion prefers RW method.
Thank you for making the time and effort to become a scorer for both.
TEX, I apologize for high jacking your thread and hope you have an opportunity to get a book Oryx

Tom: But you still haven't answered the question LionHunter asked. I'd like to know the basis of your remarks as well. You write that "they (SCI) still encourage the taking of soft head buffs." What the heck does that mean?

Do you mean that it's easier to reach the SCI Cape Buffalo minimum, my shooting younger wider bulls? "Easier" meaning some PH's feel the younger wider soft bossed bulls are more plentiful. If that's what you mean, you're completely wrong in your assessment. I agree the SCI CB minimum is difficult to reach, but that standard is designed to push the hunter and PH to find a mature buffalo that meets the minimum score, (if you're trying to make the record book.) When you enter an animal into the record book, as you may know, you must submit a photo and SCI wants regional information as to where that buffalo was harvested. Those photos and the regional information are put into a data base, for SCI officials to analyze what kinds of buffs are being taken where. I know with 100% certainty the organization is not encouraging the taking of soft head buffs. If it were a problem, they would put a minimum on the measurement of the boss.

Tom, I like what you've done for John and Dustin and the Greeff family. You're cool with me. I'm just trying to explain some SCI stuff to you. Record books are to record history and provide hunters something of a standard to shoot for. In decades to follow, the future generations will see what the prior hunters accomplished. It's not just a money making racket. Yes it costs money to enter, but I have three 4" (inch) thick publications filled with tens of thousands of entries from hunters, so it can't be all that bad.

Personally, I guess you could define me as a record book hunter, meaning that I want to hunt for the biggest, largest, hairiest, widest, longest, tallest and most mature trophies out there. If it doesn't meet the record book when I walk up to it fine. I shot it, so I'm happy with it. If I don't think it meets the standard I'm looking for, I'll pass it up, and go look for a bigger better trophy. One day when I'm dead my son Ryan will look at the SCI record book and see that his dad shot some very good trophies, and I'll be smiling at him down from heaven. He'll also know that his dad would want him to set out and try to beat my record(s).

quote:

Originally posted by Tom In Tennessee:

TEX, I apologize for high jacking your thread and hope you have an opportunity to get a book Oryx

You must have missed his latest statement:

quote:

That is after I get the zebra for my duaghters room for a zebra rug. By special request you understand. She will be there too. So now I will probably not get to do the book Gemsbok as I will be trying to get within 500 yards of the nearest zebra. You know how it is...

As Gilda Radner's Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, "Nevermind."

quote:

Tom: But you still haven't answered the question LionHunter asked. I'd like to know the basis of your remarks as well. You write that "they (SCI) still encourage the taking of soft head buffs." What the heck does that mean?

On a number of occasions while hunting, we would be glassing a herd of buffalo. We would see one with a wide spread, but rather young, and still a bit soft in the boss. The Ph would say that this would make a good SCI scoring trophy, as they take the spread over the age of the animal.

Further discussion had always lead to the idea that SCI scoring system encourages the taking of animals for their high score, regardless of their age.

Thanks to you guys for joining in. Let me say a thank you to our most gracious host Saeed for joining the discussion as well as for providing this Forum.

While many the inputs here are good, I spent some time checking this out over at SCI and at RW. I certainly did not mean to touch off any other differences about trophy or non-trophy, or about SCI or not. Things just get that way sometimes.

I do see that this is a multi-sided subject with some though. I also believe that SCI and RW do provide an excellent reference and historical perspective to the hunters of both today and tomorrow. And while I happened upon the other SCI thread too, I still believe that SCI is meaningful and respectable, Certainly the members are, the direction, and the services are meaningful and respectable for the hunter, irregardless of how you stand on the differences of where and how much money they charge for the Convention. Same for RW in a different light.

Our problems should be with the anti's, the anti-Nazi's, the politicians, the gun grabbers and haters, the many other ill informed or un-informed, and outright opponents of our sport and our rights and not nearly so much with each other. I have seen this now for about 40 years and while it is better in some ways it is much worse in others. Thank God I am in Texas - or I would get here as fast as I could

Mike- thank you for your straightforward presentation. I have been around AR for about 10 years. Back to the days of Ray, Allen Day, and Jack Belk. I just have never posted. So many of the topics were covered well. Or more than well. Or more than once. Or did not need me in any event. And not to open another can of it, but I delayed joining SCI because I was more toward our Dallas Safari Club or even possibly the local Houston Safari CLub. But I will just belong to both - DSC and SCI - which is a common AR answer !

I guess I could have put 45-70 in the title - but I knew better. Even though it is some truth to it. I was considereing having Turnbull build me a nice open sight 1886 for this hunt - to use on other species. The newb would be rocked LOL. I have only worked, traveled, hunted, fished, or motorcycled in about 50 countries.

Thank you Tom. At this point I do think I am going to give this a go whether I get a book gemsbok or not.

Dave - I was just making fun. I do expect to get after these gemsbok. I was making fun in that my daughters zebra has to come first and you know how hard it is when you "have to" get something. If I am after a trophy gemsbok "only" I will have to kick zebras out of the way while the trophy runs off. But when I have to deliver the zebra, they wont be within 500 yards - and all looking straight at you .

As many of you know and have done, you reach a point in hunting and in your life, that you persue other aspects. I dont remember the last time I raised my rifle for a whitetail but it is great to see my son, my friends, and other young guys enjoy it so much and learn about hunting. I used to be after ALL those ducks and geese. Now I shoot last - unless those big greenies start in or we are having a bad day. Same kind of all around for me now.

But this would be something a bit different.

Thanks again for your inputs. I am now way ahead of the curve compared to yesterday.

Now lets go hunting - whether I get a book one or not!

TexKD,

I intended to say the following to you earlier, but was diverted by people posting FUD.

I wish you and yours good luck on your hunt. I like Namibia and will tell you that, on the whole, Namibian Gemsbok are smaller than those found in other countries. There was a move a few years ago by the Namibian folks to get their Gemsbok changed to the Angolan Gemsbok classification by SCI. It failed, but the result was the now separate Namibian category.

As to the Zebra, I would encourage you to specifically request, in advance, the opportunity to hunt the Hartman's Mountain Zebra. They are found only in specific areas and are one of the rarest Zebras, but not endangered. They are large and tuff and require good shooting, often at distance as they are very wary. I have mine in a rug and enjoy the memories it brings to me.

I do realize post count doesn't mean much and certainly doesn't correlate with safari experience, but it often means folks don't understand that AR doesn't let posters get away with spreading FUD. Let me extend a welcome to your posting what was a good question.

MARC: Good on you, my friend.

Mike your inputs, recommendations, and suggestions are well appreciated by me. The gentlemanly manner of your presentaion, and your obvious experience, should be well received and respected by all. I assure you they are by me.

We will then have to have two zebras on the list for me. I want a pedestal, and my daughters rug. To think I did not want the zebras before.

I have myself, my son, and my best friend hunting. I may have to tone down my own trophy fees to keep the tab in line too . If I had not put this pool in the yard we might be shooting up the woods .

This one is SCI silver, just a hair out of gold. My son shot it in 2007, the longest horn is 39 1/4



This one made bronze just over 36"



I don't actually know how to measure these great beasts, our PH measured and told us where they fitted. I get the impression that Rowland Ward is the equivalent of Boone & Crocket in the exclusivity/difficulty department, but that any mature representative animal makes at least bronze. The difference between a 170 and a 130 whitetail.

Those are very nice gemsbok, book or not, or wherever they fall.

Rich

Very good looking trophies there. Thanks.

Yes. Nice gemsbok, but the upper one could be a cow. No?

Thanka Saeed! That is what I have been rather inadequately trying to say!
Personally, the PH's I have Buffalo hunted with would not allow taking of a "soft head" even tho we encountered some that were record book. I have been "trained" by them to where I would not consider one either.