Doctari during his DSC seminar made a compelling argument for a new scoring system that he believes would result in bulls which are past their breeding age scoring higher than younger, breeding bulls.

As I understood him, one would take the straight line horn width plus double the boss width to get the total score - placing more importance upon boss width than on tip length around the outside of the curl as the SCI system currently does.

Interestingly, several of the top SCI bulls would not make the grade under this system and those bulls are suspected to still have been in their breeding years when taken.

I like the idea that the good genetics could be left for breeding and the bulls past the breeding age would be the highest scorers.

What do you think?

Allen, I agree but one has to get clients and PH's to get the ball rolling...
What if in an area there is a genetic pool where horns do not drop with age....

Mike

Sounds like a reasonably good idea to me.

But how do you take care of the old high score guys that hunted based on old rules.

Maybe start a new list?

I also attended one of Doctari's seminars at DSC, with Steve. A scoring system which results in taking out the largest bulls before they reproduce is, it seems to me, a bad scoring system. It should be changed.

Horn length reduction is usually explained as a result of the bulls wearing them down over time through use rather than a genetic phenomenon. Is there information to the contrary?

As for "clients" influencing SCI, it seems to me that the PHASA and IPHA would have greater weight in lobbying for a change of this sort. They are also in a position of having African wildlife agencies support their position and making it "official" policy in the countries concerned.

Mike,
As I understand it, drop with age would not have much effect on the score.

This system would measure in a straight line from outside of the widest part of the curve to the same point on the opposite side then add twice the boss width. It places more emphasis on boss width than RW or SCI.

An older bull with worn down tips would likely score higher than a young bull with wider horns because of boss width - thus adding encouragement among some hunters to leave the 7 or 8 year old herd bulls to breed and seek out the old bachelors.

Would that would actually happen? Even if it did not result in fewer herd bulls taken it would be nice to see the top recognition given to those who seek out the old boys.

I am not in favor of any straight line system which fails to encompass the desired (by many)characteristics of exceptional drop and sweep (horn length), resulting in bulls with flat horns at the top of the record books, good bosses or not, just like the RW system. I do understand the rationale here but alteration of the scoring system to offset what's not being handled properly afield is not the answer. Although not perfect, the SCI buffalo scoring system does credit boss width, as well as inches of drop, sweep (horn length)and overall configuration. If I were to alter the system, one of the things I would suggest would be the inclusion of the width of BOTH bosses in the SCI system, as simply doubling the wider of the two may not be suitably accurate. Such would enhance credit for boss size, while retaining recognition of horn length and configuration. If the same care afield in the taking of lion were attributed to buffalo, the taking of immature bulls would not be so prevalent.

As Wink mentioned, we attended the seminar on Friday. I asked so many annoying questions of Doctari that I felt obligated to buy his book and video. He was kind enough to sign the book. Haven't read the instription yet, as I'm afraid of what he wrote.

What he presented was a move in the correct direction, but the idea needs to be vetted out. I wonder if a weighted system in favor of bosses might be workable.

Kevin, also mentioned an informal 'club' of one shot buff kills. I held my tongue but I felt that would end in a lot of dangerous situations as hunters made low percentage shots (neck, head) and promote lack of follow-up shots.

But what the hell do I know. The good doctor has proabably killed more buff than I've seen.

-Steve

hum, sounds to me its again all about "numbers" and who can get the biggest cause they have the most $$. And if that makes me sound jealous, well can't help that either. Sure I would also like a nice big trophy evertime I get a chance to hunt and kill a game animal. Since most of my hunting is for deer Ive shot way more does in the past few years than bucks, and yes Ive hunted Africa 1 time and got some very nice PG animals, none of which "scored " high enough to be in anyones "printed record book" they are all wonderfull trophies chock full of memories to me. And while I would enjoy a crack someday at a DG hunt in Africa, quite frankly, the day rates for most DG hunts are versus a PG hunt are out of this world in my opinion. any hunter should be proud of any mature buffalohe/she were to get regardsless of the "numbers" that come from the horns. Go read anything about hunting anywhere and the "numbers" are always mentioned in the same breath as well "the numbers aren't important", or well we are really looking for something a "little" better than that (this last phrase seems to be especially prevalant in hunting shows that feature whitetail deer hunting here in the USA). Its all just my opinion and we all know what those are worth sometimes.

Doctari's "numbers" of course are all about the big bulls that haven't yet had a chance to breed because they make good trophies under the SCI scoring system. This means they get taken out of the gene pool before spreading those genes around. He thinks the SCI system is counter productive to keeping good buffs in the gene pool and could result in a degradation of trophy size over time. So, the idea is to reward with a different numbers game. The boss gets bigger as the buff ages and the horns get shorter as the buff ages.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Doctari's "numbers" of course are all about the big bulls that haven't yet had a chance to breed because they make good trophies under the SCI scoring system. This means they get taken out of the gene pool before spreading those genes around. He thinks the SCI system is counter productive to keeping good buffs in the gene pool and could result in a degradation of trophy size over time. So, the idea is to reward with a different numbers game. The boss gets bigger as the buff ages and the horns get shorter as the buff ages.

The scoring system is not pulling the trigger on immature bulls ... the "PH" and the client are. The differing numbers game mandates the placing of value on a horn configuration not commensurate with the majority view of what constitutes a quality buffalo trophy. Buffalo bosses may or may not get bigger after maturity is reached and more generally, they wear down, smooth off and disintegrate right along with horn tips. Bottom line, the SCI cape buffalo scoring system is superior to both the RW system and the one suggested here, in rewarding the configuration most often desired. With little or no interest in entering any head of game for the books, many do refer to the scoring systems as a method of assessing overall quality. So long as a buffalo bull is mature, he's a trophy. Folks know what they want in a buffalo trophy and no scoring system that promotes an alternate configuration, to whatever end, will succeed.

I've never been terribly competitive or interested in the biggest or best. While most in this game are, there are many like me who are happy with a "representitive" of the species. The sport could more easily contribute to this breeding selectivity via trophy fees rather than tinkering with the rules. Bulls who lack the potential for top honors - now or in the future - being discounted. An added benefit would be making hunts for non-trophy hunters more affordable and perhaps increasing oportunities and business for the outfitters. This isn't entirely new - its already done with non-trophy elephant!

If a hunter is a true sportsman, there can be no argument that this is a superior system. In the best possible senario the oldest animal would be the highest trophy. Mankind however chooses to put many artifical values upon what makes what the biggest or the best. While I have been fortunate enough to have taken a number of so called book animals, I do not choose to enter them for my glory's sake. I do however understand the driven few who color so tightly inside the lines that it must be book or it isn't interesting... I do feel that that type of hunter misses the entire package.

Here is a mad knee-jerk proposed new buffalo scoring system: It is based on my personal preference for age over anything else as a rating for trophies. Although in the Roland Ward book the longest [most antelope] or widest horns [buffalo and a few others] is the best, in the Andrew McLaren Book, the oldest trophy is the best!

Tooth wear is a very good indicator of age in animals. Why not simply rate buffalo trophies by tooth age? That way the PH will sure as hell not allow a client to shoot young breeding age bulls.

Any attempt to change a scoring system in which the record book entry of some senior SCI, or any other organization, official will be degraded will be strongly opposed by such officials! Not a single record exists of tooth wear age, so no one will be harmed by the proposed new tooth wear age scoring system! Doctari's goal of reducing the number of breeding age bulls with good horn genes will also be met by my proposal. Instead the hunters will over the years select for bulls who do not show outward signs of aging as well as others. Remember only old-looking bulls will be selected, as no PH will actually look at tooth wear before letting his client shoot? Well, seeing some of the postings here, there are probably a few very good DG PH's, or their adoring clients, who will contest this statement?

My "Ranking by Tooth Wear" will make getting to No. 1 in the book a matter of mere luck, and having selected an old looking bull! This is how it should be IMHO, mostly luck, and a little skill. With the present system, and Doctari's proposed system, it is just a matter of the guy who has the most $$ can afford to buy the best trophy.

Least anyone misread my post and take my suggestion as seriously meant, I will here say it is not a serious suggestion! But please let us hear from the experts out there what the negatives, and positives (?), of such a system would be?

In good hunting.

Andrew McLaren.

Andrew - - my ranking allready

quote:

Why not simply rate buffalo trophies by tooth age?

Hey, that would make ME a trophy!
Think we could get women to use this system?

Doctari's scoring system is overall width at widest point plus the width of BOTH bosses.
His point is that the SCI scoring system rewards the taking of bulls that have not yet had the opportunity to pass on their genes.
Whether SCI will change is moot. The point is that we should all strive to take bulls that are past breeding age/ability and his system is "field judgeable" for those that simply must have any entry into a record book.

Is there any sort of scoring penalty for take a buff that is clearly soft bossed and or immature despite horn width?

Regards,
Dave

None.
In fact I think the current Rowland Ward #1 is a cow!

Sounds like that is exactly what is needed....IMHO.

Regards,
Dave

I agree with Andrew, if you are going by how old they are then just use their teeth and forget about the horns.

I guess that I agree with Robertson: in that the older the bull the more the tips are worn down; so,a scoring system should allow more weight to age and less to horn length. I also think that it would be fatuous to assert that if the rules were changed hunters would still drop the hammer on bulls that did not score high within the current scoring system. My experience, with most hunters I know, shows me, at least, that a great number are very interested in "THE BOOK".

"In fact I think the current Rowland Ward #1 is a cow!"

I've heard that, too.

Personally, I like the look of nicely curved horns even though these usually won't be as wide as the straight horns that score better by RW and Kevin's methods.

SCI's method makes more sense to me, but another way to do it would be to combine everyone's ideas: Measure from tip to tip around the curves as SCI does, then add both bosses (measured flat against the horn as SCI does) and the maximum outside width.

Although I'm not in favor of doing it, you could double the boss measurements if you insist on putting more emphasis on them.

Just don't penalize a beautiful head with deep, well-rounded curves by placing too much emphasis on width as RW does.

Tell me, though. Does worrying about trophy hunters removing "good genetics" make sense, when

1. comparatively few bulls are taken from the total population by trophy hunters?

2. trophy bulls have already sired calves during at least one or two breeding seasons, and probably more, before they becme "shootable" by anyone's methods?

Bill Quimby

Doctari mentioned that he will be presenting his lecture at Reno. He has some very convincing photos illustrating this system in comparison to SCI and RW.

quote:

2. trophy bulls have already sired calves during at least one or two breeding seasons, and probably more, before they becme "shootable" by anyone's methods?

Not so according to Doktari. He says that although a bull is sexually mature by 3-4 years old, he never gets to mate until or unless he defeats the herd bull, which is going to be when he is about 8 if he is lucky. Then he has to fight all comers and keep his cows serviced until some younger stronger bull knocks him off the pedestal (1-2 years). Kind of like an elk except it goes on all year instead of just during the rut.