Just had the pleasure of seeing pic of what I would guess to be a big leopard - 180 lbs/17 12/16 skull. Can't say more as have not been given clearance. Was taken recently in Zim. How does this size compare with the norm?

Looking to try perhaps in 2011 myself if the stars all come together soon.

Yes, that is a very nice leopard. For reference, for a leopard to meet the Rowland Ward minimum, I believe it has to be something like 15 1/2 to 16". 180 lbs is very nice as well.

Forget the weight because it has no relevence to anything but the skull is a very good size.

This might help: http://www.shakariconnection.com/leopard.html

quote:

Forget the weight because it has no relevence to anything

brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Anyone who thinks body weight of a big cat is any kind of gauge to trophy quality knows bugger all about big cats. Their weight can vary by well over 30% depending on such factors as when they last ate or last bred etc..... which is why the various measuring systems such as SCI & RW etc all score the trophy by skull measurement alone.

The various systems don't agree on much but they do agree on how to score cat trophies.

What Steve said x 2.

muygrande

I don't care if the leopard just ate the biggest meal of his life if he weighed and honest 180# he is a monster.

The best cat guys that I know refer to their leopard trophy size by weight.

Mark

muygrande, maybe you can say Outfitter and area in Zim ? Hounds or bait ?

I have seen some pics of nice cats taken in Zimbabwe this year.

Thanks

AD

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:

The best cat guys that I know refer to their leopard trophy size by weight.

Mark

some do however it's nothing but cheap salesmanship aimed at those innocents who know bugger all about big cats. Nothing more and nothing less.

Check with any of the scoring measurement methods in any of the record books and you'll find ALL of them score by the length of the skull added to the width of the skull across the zygomatic arches.

Incidentally, another reason they don't use weight or overall length is that both can be very easily abused, whereas skull measurement is a definite that cannot be abused.

Might also like to read Lions & Leopards As Game Ranch Animals published by the South African Veterinary Assoc which is particularly good.

I think trophy as regards to leopard is in the eye of the beholder. I personally would be equally happy with a 150 lb cat with a 17" skull or a 180 lb cat with a 15.5" skull. Honestly, as long as he wasn't a pea head, I think I would rather have a big bodied cat- record books be damned!

Look at all the various entries in RW or SCI books. Above 16.5" is very good, and anything over 17" is exceptional.

Congratulations to the hunter. Very nice cat!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Anyone who thinks body weight of a big cat is any kind of gauge to trophy quality knows bugger all about big cats. Their weight can vary by well over 30% depending on such factors as when they last ate or last bred etc..... which is why the various measuring systems such as SCI & RW etc all score the trophy by skull measurement alone.

The various systems don't agree on much but they do agree on how to score cat trophies.

Steve old man, I will tend to disagree with you on this one. I think last meal not withstanding I and many more who will never measure, would much prefer a large bodied cat over a melon head with a small body.

This goes directly at the measure or not to measure philosophy. Since I don't measure at this point (can't say I never will) a big body is cool with me, head size be damned as long as its a male. I don't know as I've ever even heard of somebody passing on a cat on bait because his head was small. Small cat yes, small head no.

Steve

Mate, you misunderstand me. My point is actual body weight varies immensely depending on when they last ate or if they've been breeding recently. Therefore weight is never a reliable gauge of trophy quality but skull measurements always is..... which is why all the record books ONLY rank by skull measurement.

You can have an immense leopard who's weight could easily vary by 30 pounds or more depending on the factors I mentioned.

I appreciate body size is desireable in a trophy but it's never a good gauge for quality with regard to the record books.

Steve,

I'll bet you 25 billion Zim dollars that if you poled 100 safari hunters that not even 10 would know the minimum skull size for entry into the book and if given a choice would pick a bigger bodied cat over a big head every time.

"some do however it's nothing but cheap salesmanship aimed at those innocents who know bugger all about big cats. Nothing more and nothing less."

Steve do you really mean that you think Barrie Duckworth, John Du Plooy, Zambezi Hunters, Adam Clements, Garry Kelly etc. etc. are "using cheap salesmanship aimed at those innocents who know bugger all about big cats"?

I agree for entry into the record book that the skull measurement is the fairest way to do it but that does not negate the trophy quality of a really big cat as muygrande described.

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
I don't care if the leopard just ate the biggest meal of his life if he weighed and honest 180# he is a monster.

+1

IF he weighed an honest MEASURED 180lbs.

Brett

i always measure the eye teeth before shooting so that i can properly judge the size

Skull size is the same, whether you are talking about Leopards or Lions. Just a factual way to determine an accurate scoring/record keeping system. Other than that, nobody gives a darn about the size of the head/skull. The trophy of a leopard is the SIZE of the leopard (body size), just as the mane is the trophy of a lion, not its head size.

I've got plenty of life-size mounts of lions & leopards, along with some of the skulls displayed too. I never once had someone walk in and say, holy shit, look at the size of those skulls?? But they always say, holy shit, look at the size of those mounts, or what a big mane, etc, etc.

Like Mark Young said, any cat that hits 180lbs, who gives a darn what he's eaten, he's big. And the whole, his weight can vary by 20-30% based on how much he's had to eat CAN also be mis-leading too!! I'd love to know, how folks know that, did they weigh the leopard before he started feeding on bait, then after they shot him??

Generally the ONLY time that's truly a factor is if you are shooting the cat immediately after he's been feeding for the past 2 hours. When was the last time any of us sat there for 2 hours, and watched the leopard gorge himself full of 30-40lbs of meat, then decided to shoot him??? Occasionally it can happen, if you are shooting a cat in the early morning, and he's been at the bait feeding just prior to you shooting him, but other than that, its a lot of BS. I only know this cause I sat right next to Dr. White last year in Zambia, and watched her open up the lion I just shot, the same lion that was feeding the two previous nights on a quarter of a hippo. Trust me, he could eat ALL he wanted to. By the time he came back the 3rd evening to feed again, I shot him at 4:12pm, so he had not a chance to start feeding. After looking through his insides, stomach and such, it confirmed what I thought, and what Dr. White told me prior to us cutting it open. That cats digest & excrete food fairly quickly. He really didn't have a whole lot inside, at least not that I could SEE with my own two eyes.

Now I'll wait for Steve's rebuttal!!!

Mark,

I can only repeat my previous comments.

I don't care who they are. Anyone who thinks weight is a good gauge of trophy quality on big cats either doesn't know what they're talking about or is using cheap salesmanship.

I don't know if you mean hunters or PHs when you talk about knowing the minimums but I'd say the majority of PHs know the minimums and records of the key species at least..... and if they don't, they bloody well should.

Let's try it another way. Can you name me a single current record book publication that ranks big cats by body weight?

To the best of my knowledge, they ALL rank by skull measurement alone.

Some used to rank by length in years gone by but it was agandoned because it was so open to abuse by stretching the trophy.

Skull size may be the end all and be all as far as RW and SCI (and B&C for NA cats) are concerned, but it doesn't come close to telling the whole story.

Count me as one of the ones that would rather have a huge bodied cat than one with an exceptional pumpkin and a smaller body.

Weight doesn't tell you everything either, but it does serve as the simplest surrogate for body size.

IMHO, the size of a cat is best judged by a combination of skull measurement, length from tip of nose to base of tail, circumference of chest and weight.

In leiu of all that, weight and skull size work just fine for me.

I believe the most critical measurement of all has been overlooked, nose to tail tip.



Seriously all trophies are in the eye of the beholder.

Steve,

I agree 100%, and if anyone read, "Into The Thorns" by Wayne Grant you will see that he also agrees with what you're saying. This is a guy who has 30 years experience as a Leopard specialist.

With that said, In my opinion, I would rather kill a huge body cat with a small skull than a smaller cat with a huge skull since the skin will be much bigger and the mount more impressive. More WOW factor.

My 2Cents Fellas.

Steve, by the way, where can I buy that book you mentioned earlier?? Lions and Leopard as Game Ranch Animals.
I googled it...can't find it!

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Mark,

I can only repeat my previous comments.

I don't care who they are. Anyone who thinks weight is a good gauge of trophy quality on big cats either doesn't know what they're talking about or is using cheap salesmanship.

I don't know if you mean hunters or PHs when you talk about knowing the minimums but I'd say the majority of PHs know the minimums and records of the key species at least..... and if they don't, they bloody well should.

Let's try it another way. Can you name me a single current record book publication that ranks big cats by body weight?

To the best of my knowledge, they ALL rank by skull measurement alone.

Some used to rank by length in years gone by but it was agandoned because it was so open to abuse by stretching the trophy.

Steve,

It's the same way up here with bears. All the record books talk about skull measurements and that is a much better/more fool proof way of keeping trophy records. That said few people talk about how big their bear's skull was and fewer talk about looking for a bear with an x" skull. Most people talk about what the hide squared or sometimes even the weight (although like Africa few people ever get the chance to weigh them). People talk about lions for the most part in terms of mane. To a lesser extent they talk about lions in terms of weight or length. And to an even lesser extent they talk about them in terms of skull measurement. Leopards again they talk about in terms of weight and length and then to a much lesser exstent they talk about skull size. Skull measurement is certainly a more fool proof and scientific way of measuring cats and bears, but that doesn't change the fact that most hunters look at a trophy lion, leopard, or bear in terms other than skull size.

Brett

On the subject of length, this is a big leopard but look carefully at this pic and you'll see how it's already started to stretch.



The same cat a few minutes later, we put it on a rock and then tried to push it into a more realistic shape and (IMO) slightly overdid it.

Note the hump about 2/3 rds of the way from the nose.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I'd love to know, how folks know that, did they weigh the leopard before he started feeding on bait, then after they shot him??

Sorry mate. Our posts must have crossed and I missed yours.

It's quite simple if you read the book I mentioned. They just weigh the meat captive and wild (on baits) cats are fed and weigh stomach contents of shot leopards.

Bet you didn't think of that did you?

But you're right when you say they seem to process food quickly but that actually confirms my point about how their weight can vary so much.

Brett,

The problem is a 200 lb leopard sounds sooooo much better to the uninitiated than an 18 inch leopard and that's why the salesmen love that BS so much.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
I'd love to know, how folks know that, did they weigh the leopard before he started feeding on bait, then after they shot him??

Sorry mate. Our posts must have crossed and I missed yours.

It's quite simple if you read the book I mentioned. They just weigh the meat captive and wild (on baits) cats are fed and weigh stomach contents of shot leopards.

Bet you didn't think of that did you?

But you're right when you say they seem to process food quickly but that actually confirms my point about how their weight can vary so much.

Are you kidding me!!! Did you not read my post?? Weighing the stomach contents ONLY works if you shoot the leopard immediately after he fed for 2 hrs!!! Weigh the meat before hand, ya I've seen plenty of PH's considering that in the WILD!!! Just like the last 4 leopards I either shot or watched get shot in Zambia, from hippo quarters. We tried our best to weight it before we hung it, but the 500lb scale broke after all 12 of us let go of the quarter. Damn those pesky scales! Not to mention all the times I saw PH's in Zim, Namibia, SA and Tanzania trying to weigh our baits before hand too?? Let me think back, how many times we even considered weighing the bait, ummmmm, exactly NONE!!! Sounds alot like the the other conversations we have. Lots of great theory and possibilities, but what ACTUALLY happens in the field is much, much different! But hey Steve, I'll just be quiet now. All of my practical cat hunting experience seems to be getting in the way of these darn theories, possibilities, and im-practicalities again. But you're right, I should just read the book.

Aaron,

You're missing my point..... I'm talking body weight fluctuates dramatically and quickly depending on factors such as feeding AND BREEDING when they might not feed for significant periods which because of their fast metabolism will affect weight dramatically and quickly.

Practical experience..... I reckon I've also got a fair bit of that but I'm sure you'll agree that we collectively don't have even a fraction of that collective experience the various record books used when they ALL came to the decision to use skull measurement rather than weight or length.

If weight or indeed length was anywhere near an accurate method of trophy judgement then the various groups such as RW & SCI would use it............ but NONE of 'em do.

Steve,
Just for reference in that photo, how tall are you. Very nice leopard.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
If weight or indeed length was anywhere near an accurate method of trophy judgement then the various groups such as RW & SCI would use it............ but NONE of 'em do.

I suggest that has everything to do with the ability to have an official scorer show up to do the measurements.

With the skull, particularly a 'dry' one, you eliminate all of those 'ephemeral' variables.

Just because its pretty much the only thing on a cat that can be used to measure its size after a 60 day drying period, does not mean skull size is necessarily the best indicator of "trophy quality", particularly to your average person.

Speaking of mountain lions here (but I'd bet it applies to leopards too), there are lots of BIG, OLD cats that will NEVER grow a "book" skull. And similarly, there are lots of "book" cats that may never be the dominant male in an area because they just aren't big enough to defend a territory against the competition.

That's why I prefer to hear weight and skull size if they are both known.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
If weight or indeed length was anywhere near an accurate method of trophy judgement then the various groups such as RW & SCI would use it............ but NONE of 'em do.

Skull measurement is "more accurate". "Less accurate" doesn't necesarily equal "not accurate" or "not meaningful". Never the less we hunters think of leopards in terms of weight or length when we think about what is big and no amount of scientific data or trophy scoring systems change that. We think what we think right or wrong. I do agree that weights are frequently and willingly at times grossly overstated. Never the less a real 180lbs. leopard should be a monster in anyone's book regardless of his stomach contents!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:
Aaron,

You're missing my point..... I'm talking body weight fluctuates dramatically and quickly depending on factors such as feeding AND BREEDING when they might not feed for significant periods which because of their fast metabolism will affect weight dramatically and quickly.

Practical experience..... I reckon I've also got a fair bit of that but I'm sure you'll agree that we collectively don't have even a fraction of that collective experience the various record books used when they ALL came to the decision to use skull measurement rather than weight or length.

If weight or indeed length was anywhere near an accurate method of trophy judgement then the various groups such as RW & SCI would use it............ but NONE of 'em do.

I'm not missing any of your points! Now you're double talking. You mean to dis-credit the weight issue because often these big weights on cats are due to weighing after they ate huge meals, etc. No, fact is some cats weigh a shit load, and some don't. Eating and breeding has ALMOST nothing to do with it, period!! Besides, maybe some guys are just as interested in the weight, as they are the skull.

Now you want to say a cat is gonna lose 30% of its body weight from breeding?? PLEASE!!! A tom-cat weighing 150lbs, after breeding for a week or so is gonna weigh 105lbs, COME ON NOW!!! That's just crazy talk. Not to mention, cats rarely stop eating for long when breeding. Look how often you see both the male & female leopards at the bait, when they happen to be together???

I never said weight, size or mane, was an accurate, or should be, OFFICIAL score or trophy judgment, now did I? In fact, the skull is the only way to make an OFFICIAL score in my opinion too.

I said that when MOST folks look at a trophy leopard, they want to see the size/weight of the cat, because the animal itself is really the trophy! Just as a lion's mane is really the trophy standard by which they are judged and compared. Nobody gives a darn about the skull sizes! Fact is, I long ago forgot the number of clients I have talked to about lion/leopard hunts. They always ask about the size of the leopard, his average weight from the area, length, overall body size, etc. Same with lions, they ALWAYS ask about mane quality from the particular area. But NEVER ONCE have I had a guy want to know about the average skull size they can expect from their trophy cat.

Maybe you can come up with some "theory" on how we can now start to field judge cat skulls, before we shoot em??

Ya, I would love to see all the pictures of leopard/lion you and your clients have shot???? I mean that sincerely, please post???

Well ...lets see....The only way to gauge a trophy woman is by her boob measurements irrespective of any implants....
Who cares about what she looks like or if she is great company etc.

Coming to the subject of cats - I would have thought that someone would have come up with the old measurement of length between pegs! In India up to the 1960's, cats were measured either between pegs or over the curves. Between the pegs of an animal before skinning was the record book method. Some older and private records showed skinned animal, stretched and then measured over the curves. Some people found that you could increase the peg distance by making various incisions in the legs & abdomen!! Some Maharaja's adjutant carried a tape measure that was 11" to a foot!!! Great way to suck up to the royal ego and get good baksheesh!

A 7 foot (between pegs) leopard was a big cat and anything above 7'6" was a monster. The holy grail of leopard in India was an 8' leopard ...like a 10' tiger.

By the way...no silicon implants on those cats!

quote:

On the subject of length, this is a big leopard but look carefully at this pic and you'll see how it's already started to stretch.

That's because you're standing on its tail.

Calm down guys; there are record book parameters and there are nice looking trophies. Sometimes the two are not the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Milo Shanghai:

quote:

On the subject of length, this is a big leopard but look carefully at this pic and you'll see how it's already started to stretch.

That's because you're standing on its tail.

Calm down guys; there are record book parameters and there are nice looking trophies. Sometimes the two are not the same.

Shanghai - Don't worry man, we're all just having a little fun with this. Me, I personally like to have fun with Steve. He seems to take it quite good!!

But you're right, record books, and nice trophies, can be two different things.

Muy, yes, that is a BIG Tom, both in skull size and weight (if actual). As mentioned, they can get heavier if they've just fed and I have pics of a Tom feeding on an Impala ram (mature) all night. He ate all the meat. Came and went 4 times during the night, but he ate it all. What would he weigh? It was a big Tom I was hunting but I chose the wrong blind that night. Our trail cam did the hunting.
Cheers,
David

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
brilliant, absolutely brilliant.

Anyone who thinks body weight of a big cat is any kind of gauge to trophy quality knows bugger all about big cats. Their weight can vary by well over 30% depending on such factors as when they last ate or last bred etc..... which is why the various measuring systems such as SCI & RW etc all score the trophy by skull measurement alone.

The various systems don't agree on much but they do agree on how to score cat trophies.

Yup...

Jeff

quote:

Calm down guys; there are record book parameters and there are nice looking trophies. Sometimes the two are not the same.

You know he makes a really good point, for example we ALL say "I shot a 42 inch buffalo". Does any body use the SCI system when casually throwing buffalo numbers around?

Nope is all about inch's in a safari camp.

Steve

Wow I guess I am in the minority here? I consider most any full grown, adult Leopard a trophy of enormous magnitude. Some areas produce large, by weight cats, othes are known for large skull size. It's just like all the other game out there, certain areas produce larger animals than another areas of a individual species. A small bodied, small skull Leopard may be all certain areas produce, so if you take the largest one from this area is it not still considered a "trophy"? So to argue over body size versus skull size to determine if a person has a "trophy" or not just doesn't compute. I don't measure and I don't weight any animal to determine if it is a "trophy". A "trophy" to me is so much more than these two indicators.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Mr. Robinson (meaning shakari, and not yours truly) is 100% correct.

Diet, recent or otherwise, doesn't make the best leopard.

Age, which is best translated to what we can see and measure by skull size, is the key.

My leopard taken in zim last year weighed right at 180, had a skull measurement of 17-3/8 and I was told this was a monster..... I am fairly strong and it was a bitch to lift!!

When it comes to cats I consider them along the same lines as bears. A big old boar may have a huge skull and be skinny and look like hell but look at a fat ten footer full body mounted and you get the picture. I understand the principle of measuring the skull but to me it is not the only "quality" in the trophy.