Do you or have you thought about having your trophies measured for recognition by Rowland and Ward? A friend came by the house, that hunts in Africa, and saw some of the animals we took on our two hunts and said he thought3 or 4 would qualify for Rowland and Ward recognition.

Is this worth doing or is it an ego thing?

Rowland Ward was just one guy I'm pretty sure. Can you measure them yourself to get reasonably close to their score, then get a book just for your own interest to compare with others? The "entering" thing has always seemed too much of an ego trip IMO.

If I hunted for the purpose of the record books I'd give up hunting.....learn to enjoy the outdoor experience and screw the record books.....It's a poor reason to do anything.

I have a number of trophies that would make Rowland Ward, including a lion that would go #5 in the books. However, I have no interest in record books, plaques, etc. etc.

I kinda-sorta disagree.
Rowland Ward and B&C are supposed to be records of the ANIMAL, not the hunter. SCI is a different deal. An average animal will score at least silver in SCI. I've never entered any animal in SCI.
I've got a few animals in B&C and Rowland Ward, I'd enter them even if my name wasn't mentioned. To me it's kinda the final respect to the dead animal.
It's not about me, it's about the animal. Lets face it, it only takes money and time to take a record animal. Very little skill is envolved.

Thats a curious response Use Enough Gun... If no interest, then how do you know what place they make or that the lion is #5? I suspect this isnt the first time that has been mentioned, thus it matters. Either you do care and measure them or you do not care and do not measure them, you can't do both...

Record books have in large part tainted the activity and reduced the effort to the outcome of a tape measure. Pretty pathetic way to waste all that money, effort, time etc. as I see it.

_Baxter

BaxterB: The taxidermist measured them as they are master measurers, and routinely do that sort of stuff and they told me. Up to that time I had no idea and didn't care and still don't or some of them might be in the books. Simple as that. As stated by others, I don't hunt by the tape measure.

On my first safari, I had a tape measure in my pocket, and measured everything as soon as it touched the ground. I stopped doing that. Maybe just a process you go through?

I personally do not hunt with a tape measure in the hand, for me it is all about the hunt. But I eventually do measure it for interest sake. By entering trophies that qualify, there is a rocord of speceies all over the world. One of the things hunters are accused of is that we shoot out all the good specimens, which is not true if you look at the various record systems. Every year animals are entered that do qualify.

It is about the animal. If you are hunting and you hunt a animal that qualify, I do not see a reason not to enter it. If your reason for hunting is only to get top scoring animals, well that is another discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by vapodog:
If I hunted for the purpose of the record books I'd give up hunting.....learn to enjoy the outdoor experience and screw the record books.....It's a poor reason to do anything.

Just because you enter an animal in any of the books does not mean that is the reason you hunt. I don't have any in any book, but if I did kill any that qualified I'd probably enter it. Especially from a guided hunt, Africa or otherwise.

I think the animal deserves it.

I think the area deserves it.

I think the PH or Guide deserves it.

It is human nature to be fascinated by statistics.Man will always want to know what is biggest,fastest,tallest,longest etc.The first thing most people do when they catch a fish is to measure it in some way.It does not have to be for personal glory and from a zoological point of view it can be quite useful.One of the largest selling books in the world is The Guiness Book of Records,testament to our insatiable appetite for statistics.
Even here at AR the number of posts by each individual is counted.

i have to more or less agree with TJ - the books should be just the animal - leave out the human parts. right now it's just a big pecker pulling contest. ego ego ego

Records or what ever is a personal thing. I personally have a plaque by every trophy in my collection, some are from SCI other that do not qualify still deserve recognation. SCI makes plaques the list species, where, hunter, year and calibre. This I do in honor of the animial. As to Africian species or other foreign trophies, the SCI score helps hunters appreciate the quality of the trophy, i e this equals an x scored whitetail which they can relate to. If people don't care why is it during the whitetail season people say I got a X# point and the spread. Let's be honest about this whole thing.

A couple months ago on safari in Tanz my PH mentioned the previous clients measured everything as soon as they approached it; a cuople of times while the animal was still in the dying throes. We both agreed it is not about the tape and he told stories about a few animals he guided hunters to that would be well into the top ten if they were entered.

I agree with DPhillips that any entry into the books should be about the animal, the area, and the PH. That said, we took an exceptional Sitatunga that scores high for the area and I may enter it for the above reasons. Can you enter an animal and leave the hunter anonymous?

Posted 30 November 2006 08:59 Hide Post

"Just because you enter an animal in any of the books does not mean that is the reason you hunt. I don't have any in any book, but if I did kill any that qualified I'd probably enter it. Especially from a guided hunt, Africa or otherwise. I think the animal deserves it. I think the area deserves it. I think the PH or Guide deserves it."

Agreed! However, the last time I looked, Rowland Ward did not list the names of PHs, and the descriptions of the areas listed were pretty broad -- such as simply "Chad" or "Namibia." I think Boone & Crockett does not list the names of guides for North American game, either. As far as I know, only the SCI book does.

Bill Quimby

dogcat

I do hunt with a tape and I think Rowland Ward and at least the gold level in SCI is a big deal. The record books gives you a frame of reference for your own hunting. It lets you know not only what a great trophy is but what makes a dink also. I think a hunter as a smart consumer should have some realistic expectations of trophy quality. Without that info how would you know if an unscrupulous PH is having you shoot all the culls on his place. It happens.

As for entries in the book I see no reason if you are proud of a particular animal you have taken to not enter it. For me I'm not competing against anybody but myself and I could care less about diamond levels etc. but it is a nice feeling to know that with a lot of luck and a little skill you took an animal worthy of entry.

I'm not talking about meat hunting here which I've done lots of or the annual deer hunt with the boys. The record books come into play when you've put serious bucks into a hunt and you want good value for the dollar. For me I don't care about shooting just another buffalo or whatever. I want a bigger one than I've shot before or I'm not really interested. I can go and have gone on hunts and not pulled the trigger. I got to hunt which is the important thing but if I kill something I want it to be a trophy at least in my mind.

Mark

From a biological POV, trophy measurements can be quite valuable -- gives a good indicator of population health, habitat, etc. If you don't want to be in record books/don't want to hunt for I understand, but it is useful data.

AMEN Mark!

I too have come home empty handed when trophy hunting.

I'm with Mark.

Though the books can lead to the worst excesses in the world of hunting, they themselves are not to blame!

Boghossian, I agree like most "bad" things in this world it is not the fault of some inanamated item but the humans involved.

I agree with most of the comments here. I want to shoot trophy animals and I don't know of a PH that I have been associated with who won't put you on to the biggest and the best as well, but as far as entering the same into the record books, I am not of that persuasion, and I have seen too much emphasis placed on that by SCI and others. Thus, although my taxidermist (Life Form) gives me the measurements on my animals I have chosen not to enter them into the books where applicable. I too, feel that we should honor the animal, but the emphasis has been on the hunter instead. Hunting should not be a competition, it should be enjoyed as hunting. I have stopped hunting with some because it became a competition as to who would or could shoot the biggest and the best. I have no interest in that.

I have only entered one animal, and that was a Woodland Caribou. My African mounts never have been.

That being said, I think that this is another of lifes situations where the important thing is to find a happy balance. On one end of the debate you have a guy that runs up to a dying animal with a tape measure. Most hunters including myself would find that distasteful to the extreme.

The opposite opinion comes from the hunter that says he couldn't care less about the trophy potential of an animal and is purely in it for the sport/experience, whatever. That's fine, but I find that a bit hard to believe on the face of it. Does that mean that hunter will take a below average animal after a long and difficult stalk simply because of the experience? And if the trophy potential of an animal doesn't matter, how does that hunter decide which animal to take on an overseas hunt?

My guess is that all hunters, even the ones that swear they never consider trophy potential, still takes great pride in taking an animal that is at the top of it's species. And that's a good thing. Otherwise, we would all be stepping into the woods/bush and shooting the first mature animal we see. That would be pretty dull. The thought of running into the monster (you fill in the blank) is what keeps me in the woods when I'm tired, cold/hot and beat. And while the records keeping mentality can be taken too far, I for one am glad past hunters have entered their mounts in the books, especially during my African hunts. Without those records, how the hell would I ever know what I should look for in a good Defasso Waterbuck or Lechwe? So keep those entries coming!