First, let me say that I am not much of a true trophy hunter. I rarely put a tape to a pair of horns and honestly could not tell you how most of my trophies score under either system. That said, I know that others do pay attention to such matters and I certainly respect and appreciate their interest in doing so. I guess my question is for those that pay attention to such matters, why would anyone really care how a trophy scores in the SCI system? Given the existence of and history behind the Rowland Ward system, why would anyone really pay attention to the SCI system? Moreover, given that the SCI system seems to be designed with minimums that are much more liberal than Rowland Ward, why would it even be considered something worth mentioning that a trophy made SCI?

For whitetail we have Pope and Young for archers and Boone and Crockett for shooters. If another "trophy system" developed that allowed someone "in the book" for a 120" whitetail, no one would take such a system serious. If that is the case, why if something does not make Rowland Ward will someone hasten to add that it is SCI Silver or Bronze or whatever?

Is the relevance of the SCI system solely for those that want some SCI trophy or ring for accomplishing a slam of taking all of a particular species? Seems like that is about the only thing the SCI system could possibly be relevant too since most everyone already knows that one of the only reasons someone would enter a trophy in SCI is that it could not make Rowland Ward.

For those that have entered trophies in SCI (or know someone that has), what was the rationale?

IMO

To develop a system that would be universal for all game species and countries around the world, not region specific.

The animal is credited for the trophy that it had or grew, with no silly deductions.

The low minimums are more inclusive - allowing more hunters to enter their trophies and providing more hunters with information about trophy size from different areas, operators (in the case of commercial hunting) and changes over time.

That is the way I see it. I respect (most of) the record book for what it is... just a shame that more members dont use it - but hey...it's a free world!

It isnt without its deficiencies though.

Thanks for the feedback, I had not considered the benefit of being able to track trophy quality across different areas/outfitters.

Mike:
My opinion is that RW is the true "book" for great trophies. SCI has such low requirements and plays on one's ego for "slams," "circles," and "gold medals" it is a revenue producing system only. I have listened to so many gents whose animal "made the book" and of social status collectors who must kill a certain number of animals of a certain size to reach a level of importance. I honestly feel the quest for size and numbers has given rise to so many canned hunts and taken away from the true meaning of what hunting is supposed to be. I've been to too many game auctions and watched deals made where the trophy is to be released the am the hunter begins his quest. One of my darkest memories was gent in Zim whose PH estimated a kudu at a certain size and when the tape was about 1/2 inch less he threw an absolute childish tantrum.
I never read of Roosevelt having to shoot a critter to best Selous.
As stated, just my opinion so be gentle, fellas.
Cal

I suppose to those who care one way or the other, the above is a fair question. In my case I couldn’t care less what a trophy I take measures, simply because when I saw it, it was what I wanted or I wouldn’t have shot it. I can honestly say the only place I carry a tape measure is when fishing and that is only to make sure what I catch is legal to keep if I choose to. The only measurement on any of my trophies I was made aware of where measured by my PH which I promptly forgot.

I think either measuring system is valuable to find where the best of a particular species is most abundant. This gives a hunter with a limited time frame a much better chance of seeing an animal that he will find to his liking in a short hunt. As far as knowing who took the most of those animals matters not to me.
.......................................................................

AS THE SCI minimums are so ridiculously low, the only reason that book exists is as a money making tool. it costs $25 or so for very entry and every ego driven hunter will end up spending a lot to enter his "great" trophies... let's see- i need XYZ book entries to get a ring/plaque/circle/ bronze sculptor, etc., etc., etc.,- AD NAUSEUM!

Right on cue...

Bear in mind that relatively few members who have entered trophies in the record book chase such awards. Mikes question was about the record book not the awards, which are entirely separate.

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
I honestly feel the quest for size and numbers has given rise to so many canned hunts and taken away from the true meaning of what hunting is supposed to be. I've been to too many game auctions and watched deals made where the trophy is to be released the am the hunter begins his quest. One of my darkest memories was gent in Zim whose PH estimated a kudu at a certain size and when the tape was about 1/2 inch less he threw an absolute childish tantrum.

Cal

Do you criticise the outfitters who are involved in such practices?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
Right on cue...

Bear in mind that relatively few members who have entered trophies in the record book chase such awards. Mikes question was about the record book not the awards, which are entirely separate.

and exactly how do you know how many members are or are not chasing awards? have you ever bothered to look at the annual SCI Magazine issue devoted ENTIRELY to awards- specially to the dozens of entrants in the dozens of categories for this and that? EACH ENTRY COSTS MONEY AND MULTIPLY THE INDIVIDUAL FEE BY LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF ENTRIES- well, it adds up quickly. the SCI "RECORD" book is a fund raising tool- nothing more, nothing less. if you doubt it, look at the the minimums for book entry versus ANY other record keeping system... it's a joke.

Matt:
I have questioned many on my trips there and while I disagree and have voiced my opinion I understand the PHs perspective--if they don't produce the hunters will go elsewhere and they will take a loss or revenue. The whole system is failing, on both sides, but it's the world we live in. Kind of like the kid who sits on the bench and gets a varsity letter. Get as much as possible with as little effort as possible.
Cheer, mate.
Cal

I think the only joke is you old chap - I gave the reasons why the book is different above. I know the uptake on the 'awards' challenge is low... because SCI told me so!!!!!!

Plenty of SCI member hunters hunt with me and NOBODY shows up in camp and says... "I don't care what I shoot, as long as it is in the book".... nobody!!!

As per Matt's comments, I've always thought the main interest in the record books, any record books for that matter, is to keep track of what quality of animal a specific area is likely to produce and in what frequency. For example, if you want to shoot a 45" buffalo (or buffalo of a certain score), go to the book and see where the most 45" or better buff have been taken lately, then determine who hunts those areas (usually listed along with the book entry) and begin your research there.

Concerning SCI compared to B&C for NA game, I prefer the SCI system as I like to know the true size of the animal. I disagree with the method of deducting points for asymmetry. If he grew it, count it!

Of course, there are folks that run in different circles than guys like myself. I'm speaking specifically about the guys that concern themselves with outdoing the next guy as if hunting were a competition, seeking awards, recognition, and generally pumping their egos. I suppose seeking the circles and slams encourages the more wealthy guys (and gals) to spread the "conservation through hunting" dollars into more remote and less "glamorous" game animals' areas of habitation and therefore serves a purpose, but it is something I would never find any interest in.

I've got a small stack of SCI book forms filled out on about 1/2 of the animals on my wall. They were all filled out by the outfitters and taxidermists. To date, I've never submitted any of them but I may at some time in the future. As mentioned in my hunt report from October this past year, I took a Klipspringer that would go into the SCI book as No. 15 if I submit him. I may or may not; haven't decided just yet. But one thing I've never understood is that there are numerous ties at several of the other numbers 1-14 ahead of him. Quite a few other Klippies that measure the same as mine, so he wouldn't hold the #15 spot alone. Why does he still count as #15? If you have 3 trophies in the book that measured in the top spot, wouldn't the next one down the scale be number #4 instead of #2? That seems the correct way to keep the records IMO. Under that scenario, my Klippie would actually be about #80, not #15. This is one of the reasons I'm in no real hurry to submit even that trophy as it doesn't seem to truly reflect his position among the lot.

Cal has some valid points as well concerning the scoring system and canned hunts. Just open the latest "Safari" magazine for the upcoming show in Reno. Look at the adds for places like "The Sanctuary" for whitetail deer. It's all about the score = $$$'s for those places with no consideration for the hunt. For those types of outfits, the SCI score simply tells you how successful they've been with their artificial insemination program. It certainly doesn't tell you what the area is capable of naturally producing in terms of trophy game animals. Off topic I know but I wouldn't pay a plug nickel to shoot one of those whitetail freaks.

Mike,

I know my take might not be what you were thinking, but one of my thoughts supportive of a more inclusive set of measuring standards, such as SCI, is that it provides incentive or encouragement for some people to more zealously support the shooting/hunting sports than they otherwise would. I've noticed from the conversations of hunters (also called collectors) across North America, including Canada and Alaska, as well as African countries that the drive to achieve a certain measurement or score is what seems to be the ultimate purpose of their interest in being there. At a time when we have a federal government hungry to take away our individual liberties and the freedom to hunt and keep the firearms we choose, I'm thinking we need all the support we can get from as many segments of society as possible. I might not agree with the goals or intentions of the tape measure hunters, but I want them and their political connections and discretionary economic power on our side when we line up for these coming political fights.

I'm not a sporting clays shooter, but that sport brings new faces and political clout to the table. I see those who have measurements as a goal of hunting in a similar light. I also think it is human nature, even manly, to be competitive and many competitions are driven by a scoring system. Again, this brings new hunters to our side of the political table. There is room for all hunters and if a more inclusive measurement system expands our clout, count me as a supporter.

SCI gives info on the hunter as well as PH/outfitter. The African trophies I entered in the SCI book was to give other hunters the chance to see what was taken where and with who.

BigB

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Matt:
I have questioned many on my trips there and while I disagree and have voiced my opinion I understand the PHs perspective--if they don't produce the hunters will go elsewhere and they will take a loss or revenue. The whole system is failing, on both sides, but it's the world we live in. Kind of like the kid who sits on the bench and gets a varsity letter. Get as much as possible with as little effort as possible.
Cheer, mate.
Cal

Cal - outfitters MUST take the high-ground in this respect and lead by example...

cheers to you!!

People enter their trophies for many different reasons like Matt said. Some are even good reasons. I have SCI Top Ten, Top Twenty, Top Thirty animals and some are entered and some are not. Most were put in to acknowledge the area, ranch, outfitter, etc. Several are very good RW animals. That being said, I have P&Y or B&C heads which have never been officially measured or entered which are down in the basement or out in the garage!

I love to be able to see when and where certain trophies were taken, and if all the big ones are from the 70's or 80's, then I don't go with high expectations of a monster. What I do want is the oldest, smartest and hardest to hunt one. This AR hunt with Charl this summer will be such a hunt; I want it to be memorable for both of us and trophy score be damned.

I've got one of the biggest housecats (African Wildcat) ever taken, and I entered it 'cause it was one of the most enjoyable hunts I have been on with a very good friend. How's that for biggest of the little?????????

Ther sole purpose of the SCI scoring system is to create a "me too" brigade who can bragg about it.

That is why it has developed into all the silly circles.

Have you ever heard of anyone breaking any laws to shoot an animal to get into the RW record book?

How many have SCI "record"holder have done that?

Basically I am like yourself. I have never entered any trophy in any record book.

I would rather shoot an old animal with broken horns than try shooting a younger one so I can enter him in some fancy trophy book.

Gents:
I think record books are a great in themselves, but there is so much dishonesty today. A PH I know very well is SA stated to me over half of his bow hunters shoot with a rifle put pose with a bow. This has been voiced by Zim PHs as well and many from SA. Is the PH at fault? Of course and shares the shame equally with the hunter. The hunter is doing this for his ego and glory and the PH for income. The Sanctuary is one of many. About 1999 or so I was offered a record book elk on a ranch in the west of 10 1/2 acres! It would have scored well in the SCI book.
Cheers, gents,
Cal

I've put a few of mine in SCI. Have a few that make RW also, but have not bothered to put them in there, mainly because I can't be bothered to look up how...

I have personally had a few reasons for doing so, but not to collect SCI slams/circles/whatnot.

A large amount of it was to pay back what researching in the book for the areas I hunted gave me. Going in to my Lukwika hunt knowing that no one has ever gotten even a low end "book" impala out of there have no worries over whether or not I should hold out for a good one or shoot the animal for the pot and bait. It also helps, as Matt said, give the outfitter some recognition.

SCI's minimums are pretty low. Pretty much so that I kind of look at it as being where one would want to start considering the animal as a mature representative of the species at that point.

One thing that was pointed out to me by a couple PH's was that the Rowland Ward system actually has quite a few cows/females high up in the book. SCI's system at least has some consideration of mass/boss size involved.

RW is the old "classic" book, and has a certain cachet because of that; but SCI is probably the better "tool" for a trophy hunter to know what he is looking for.

As an aside, why have either book (or B&C or P&Y) if all you are wanting to know is "the record" for whatever. Just listing what is #1 gets that taken care of. At some level, all record books are "ego" Kind of makes me think the guys who say "I" don't enter my stuff in SCI because the minimums are too low are really even more conceited that the folks who do.

As to the SCI bashing because of the books and the low floor for entry, near as I can tell all the books are trying to make some dough off of them. While SCI is making $$ there, it isn't like anyone (especially me) is being forced to enter anything in them. Heck, there is no reason that you can't enter an archery kill in B&C is there? So why have P&Y? Ego? Nah...

I also deplore that hunting has become such a competitive endeavor for so many, but quite frankly, I think its better that we do it this way than the old way of "he who shoots the mostest is the bestest..." So what if they buy their #1 in the book. Some folks have more money than sense. Folks with money tend to get better stuff than the rest of us anyhow. Its life, deal with it.

quote:

The hunter is doing this for his ego and glory and the PH for income.

And that is a fact!

One is a gong hunter in search of accolades and publicity while the other is out to secure a living without paying much attention to scruples.

The SCI measuring system allows the hunter easier access achievement to make the book and IMO it was created to give more hunters the possibility of attaining recognition in the hunting circles.

Back in the heydays of hunting when clients were few and far between the trophy quality was much higher than it is today; there are more hunting clients readily available on the market all clammering for trophies from every corner of the world and they ALL want the biggest and the best!
Try getting a trophy by RW standards today.

Unfortunately the stock of the biggest has dwindled and to secure that 45" buffalo today is not as as easy as it was 30 years ago.
The SCI mesasuring system however does make it somewhat "easier" for today's hunting client to achieve his goal - a quick example is the measurement of the african buffalo in which RW looks at the external width across the curves and SCI is tip to tip along the countours: so much easier to have your name printed in the book a having a framed certificate hanging on the wall with a # rating though that number as Todd has already outlined, is likely to be shared with umptee others.

Some of the SCI measuring criteria DO have something worthwile about them as well, again using the buffalo as an expample: where a RW 45" buffalo is actually a smaller trophy than one measuring 40" or even less!

The same could be said about measurements related to the cats where the skull of a large bodied may be slightly smaller than one which by comparison has a remarkably smaller body.

Lastly what differentiates one hunter from the next is the chest-thumping gong chaser who is not particularly bothered how he secures his trophy and the one who goes to hunt for the pleasure and experience, whose goal is to hunt a mature shootable animal in an ethical manner; if it happens to be a record that's a bonus!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Ther sole purpose of the SCI scoring system is to create a "me too" brigade who can bragg about it.

Are you saying that anyone who enters an animal in the record book is a braggart?

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Ther sole purpose of the SCI scoring system is to create a "me too" brigade who can bragg about it.

Are you saying that anyone who enters an animal in the record book is a braggart?

Matt,

What I am saying is SCI has taken the notion of "trophy hunting" to silly new hights with their inner circles.

Maybe another way to get at the issue is to consider the possible reasons one would enter a trophy in the first place. Some on this thread have suggested that there are many different reasons. Honestly, I struggle with the notion that there are "many different reasons". I started to make a list and got stumped pretty quickly. Obviously I must be missing something. Here is what I could come with up:

- To bolster their ego or out of vanity.
- To establish a record to assist future hunters.
- To establish a record to assist an outfitter.

Of the reasons listed, I think the second and third feel more like rationalizations of the first than standalone reasons. Nothing wrong with the first (I have three trophies in Rowland Ward from early hunts, and I did them for just that reason), but I wonder why folks are reluctant to concede that fact.

Leaves me to believe that the SCI system was made more liberal to raise money on trophy entries and to allow more folks to have something in the book to brag about. Again, nothing wrong with either reason and as Kelly points out allowing more people in creates a greater sense of inclusion but it is interesting that there is a reluctance to just concede that is the case. Also seems like it cheapens the value of a true trophy just like grade inflation in school has cheapened the value of good grades in many cases. If everyone gets a trophy just for participating, what is the real value of a trophy in the first place?

I don't find anything wrong with someone wanting to show off their trophy. I was told that one of the buffs I took on a hunt scored the minimum SCI requirements.That made the whole hunt more interesting.I was glad my trophy qualified.

That is one of the main problems with the SCI scoring system: the minimums are too low but on the other hand it keeps a lot of people happy.

If the minimum on buffalo was raised to 110 it would make it more interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
That is one of the main problems with the SCI scoring system: the minimums are too low but on the other hand it keeps a lot of people happy.

If the minimum on buffalo was raised to 110 it would make it more interesting.

Why is that a problem?What is it with all this SCI bashing anyway? No one is forcing anyone to go by any scoring system.

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
That is one of the main problems with the SCI scoring system: the minimums are too low but on the other hand it keeps a lot of people happy.

If the minimum on buffalo was raised to 110 it would make it more interesting.

Why is that a problem?What is it with all this SCI bashing anyway? No one is forcing anyone to go by any scoring system.

Your answer by courtesy of JDollar:

"EACH ENTRY COSTS MONEY AND MULTIPLY THE INDIVIDUAL FEE BY LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF ENTRIES- well, it adds up quickly. the SCI "RECORD" book is a fund raising tool- nothing more, nothing less. if you doubt it, look at the the minimums for book entry versus ANY other record keeping system... it's a joke".

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Originally posted by shootaway:

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
That is one of the main problems with the SCI scoring system: the minimums are too low but on the other hand it keeps a lot of people happy.

If the minimum on buffalo was raised to 110 it would make it more interesting.

Why is that a problem?What is it with all this SCI bashing anyway? No one is forcing anyone to go by any scoring system.

Your answer by courtesy of JDollar:

"EACH ENTRY COSTS MONEY AND MULTIPLY THE INDIVIDUAL FEE BY LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF ENTRIES- well, it adds up quickly. the SCI "RECORD" book is a fund raising tool- nothing more, nothing less. if you doubt it, look at the the minimums for book entry versus ANY other record keeping system... it's a joke".

What is wrong with raising funds?

I have had two PHs ask me to please enter trophies I shot, a leopard and a kudu. Both indicated it is important to provide their name and location to prospective clients.
To those who feel the minimums are too low add 25% and set that as your personal goal.
I see people criticizing entries yet I read how many buffalo they shot or what their elephants tusks weigh in their posts. Don't see much difference other than the SCI fee cost.

No system is perfect , but one thing I have observed is that the SCI record book and the awards provide a " hunting map " as to say for hunters , it seems to provide a way for hunters to plan trips instead of going to the same country and same place year in and year out , an example is the African slams , the hunter can see what is available where and have a plan , he can learn he needs to go to quite a few countries to hunt the various wildebeest , hartebeest , bushbuck as an example. The awards and record book are just a way then to evaluate the success of the hunting trips into some kind of order, this need for order is a human trait , the human then as he will do contaminates it with ego.
That said I believe for all it's faults the record book and awards program benefits hunters and outfitter alike .

There is only ONE thing wrong with the SCI Record Book. It gives those who wish to bash SCI for their own personal reasons an avenue to do so. Plain and simple as proved over and over here on AR. Record books are for those who wish to use them, for whatever purpose, and they force nobody to use them who choose not to.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Sellers:
There is only ONE thing wrong with the SCI Record Book. It gives those who wish to bash SCI for their own personal reasons an avenue to do so. Plain and simple as proved over and over here on AR. Record books are for those who wish to use them, for whatever purpose, and they force nobody to use them who choose not to.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

That is a little overly simplistic isn't it? The original question was why would someone choose to enter a trophy in the SCI record books when the more traditional, more historic Rowland Ward record book exists and the Rowland Ward record book, by having higher minimums, is more meaningful to the trophy hunter. Same example as before, if there was a record book that allowed someone to enter a 120" whitetail versus the Boone and Crockett standard, why would someone ever choose to use the former?

personally always felt that Boone & Crockett honoured the animal more..and the hunter a bit less. That is why one sees pick-up/found heads listed alongside with shot heads.
SCI seems to be all about "Honoring" (glorifying) the hunter. They have separate catagory for "Pick up" heads.Its also all about making money, so much $$$$ per each entry. IMO: SCI should not allow high fenced animals (like deer) in same listing with wild ones. I remember a couple years ago seeing an(an obviously rich) dude in the SCI awards mag. He got "hunting awards" for #1 & #2 NT whitetail. both score over 300" Quite obviously raised farm animals (read: genetically altered freaks). Really tics me off. So if its about glorifying the hunter, (as they seem to be) why lump huge fenced $$ deer trophies with wild ones?
I have clients who couldn't care less about any record book (they are the ones who usually shoot the monster trophies!!) and refuse to enter them. and a couple who were far too obsessed with it (but they fortunately not at all the norm). One of my clients would run up with his tape measure in hand while the animals were breathing & kicking their last actually trying to measure the horns!! (kinda nauseating really).
I like client who have a healthy balance: When good luck smiles on them, to be happy they shot a big trophy; appreciate it, and enter it.
The record books are informative, good to get a general idea of where the big ones of that specie come from and who is producing them.
I feel the bottom of the book (silver) should reflect decent (representation of the specie) type trophies. Bronze very good, and Gold ought to be right close to exceptional (like RW)
You may agree or disagree; but that's my 2 cents.

Other than the latent purpose of identifying where the animals came from and generating funds, both record books (now) work on the symbolic interactionist view of the world. In MJine's world, because Rowland Ward has higher minimums and a longer history, that means it is better and SCI is not worthwhile. But to a person who has taken an animal that will not qualify in RW, SCI is good enough to make him feel as though he has accomplished something. It is all about ascribed meaning and value, nothing more.

I don't even know what a 120 inch whitetail looks like, haven't a clue, but it must mean something to those who know and that is the same mentality as why someone would go for the easiest book they could find, to give themselves (not necessarily the animal) clout.

Generally speaking, people strive to be the biggest fish in the smallest pond, not the biggest fish in the biggest pond. That is why we constantly segregate ourselves into smaller and smaller groups that suit our needs so that we can be closest to the top. She wasn't just a human that climbed Everest, she was the FIRST woman, of NIgerian nationality, with ONE leg, ONE eye and a SORE tooth that climbed Everest. You can make clubs so small that you are the only one in them, "I killed a buffalo with a HAND made spear with a CHERT head on it..therefore I win!" It's arguable that SCI does the opposite by lowering the minimums as to allow MORE people in, but that is looking from the top down...when you look at it from the bottom (hunter) up, you see that it feeds this need for people to be in an elite club, closest to the top (because their friends haven;t yet made it). There are 2 major record books for African animals, SCI and RW, to be in either is considered an 'achievement', even if self-defined.

Why someone would enter an animal in SCI is simple, because they can, why they would CHOOSE SCI over RW, is a slightly different question and why they would choose RW over SCI is yet another question. In all three cases it still basically comes down, once again, to symbolic interactionism. The original question as posted is an excellent example of SI, which is essentially how our modern world works for a lot of people.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

Matt,

What I am saying is SCI has taken the notion of "trophy hunting" to silly new hights with their inner circles.

I think you are confusing the record book with the awards system... they are different things. Lot of members use the record book but have nothing to do with the awards.

quote:

Originally posted by TANZ-PH:
personally always felt that Boone & Crockett honoured the animal more..and the hunter a bit less. That is why one sees pick-up/found heads listed alongside with shot heads.
SCI seems to be all about "Honoring" (glorifying) the hunter. They have separate catagory for "Pick up" heads.Its also all about making money, so much $$$$ per each entry. IMO: SCI should not allow high fenced animals (like deer) in same listing with wild ones. I remember a couple years ago seeing an(an obviously rich) dude in the SCI awards mag. He got "hunting awards" for #1 & #2 NT whitetail. both score over 300" Quite obviously raised farm animals (read: genetically altered freaks). Really tics me off. So if its about glorifying the hunter, (as they seem to be) why lump huge fenced $$ deer trophies with wild ones?
I have clients who couldn't care less about any record book (they are the ones who usually shoot the monster trophies!!) and refuse to enter them. and a couple who were far too obsessed with it (but they fortunately not at all the norm). One of my clients would run up with his tape measure in hand while the animals were breathing & kicking their last actually trying to measure the horns!! (kinda nauseating really).
I like client who have a healthy balance: When good luck smiles on them, to be happy they shot a big trophy; appreciate it, and enter it.
The record books are informative, good to get a general idea of where the big ones of that specie come from and who is producing them.
I feel the bottom of the book (silver) should reflect decent (representation of the specie) type trophies. Bronze very good, and Gold ought to be right close to exceptional (like RW)
You may agree or disagree; but that's my 2 cents.

High fenced deer are not lumped in with wild deer in the same SCI record book. African animals are however...

quote:

Originally posted by cal pappas:
Mike:
My opinion is that RW is the true "book" for great trophies. SCI has such low requirements and plays on one's ego for "slams," "circles," and "gold medals" it is a revenue producing system only. I have listened to so many gents whose animal "made the book" and of social status collectors who must kill a certain number of animals of a certain size to reach a level of importance. I honestly feel the quest for size and numbers has given rise to so many canned hunts and taken away from the true meaning of what hunting is supposed to be. I've been to too many game auctions and watched deals made where the trophy is to be released the am the hunter begins his quest. One of my darkest memories was gent in Zim whose PH estimated a kudu at a certain size and when the tape was about 1/2 inch less he threw an absolute childish tantrum.
I never read of Roosevelt having to shoot a critter to best Selous.
As stated, just my opinion so be gentle, fellas.
Cal

Cal,
I be gentle, just a +1 and amen!

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
First, let me say that I am not much of a true trophy hunter. I rarely put a tape to a pair of horns and honestly could not tell you how most of my trophies score under either system. That said, I know that others do pay attention to such matters and I certainly respect and appreciate their interest in doing so. I guess my question is for those that pay attention to such matters, why would anyone really care how a trophy scores in the SCI system? Given the existence of and history behind the Rowland Ward system, why would anyone really pay attention to the SCI system? Moreover, given that the SCI system seems to be designed with minimums that are much more liberal than Rowland Ward, why would it even be considered something worth mentioning that a trophy made SCI?

For whitetail we have Pope and Young for archers and Boone and Crockett for shooters. If another "trophy system" developed that allowed someone "in the book" for a 120" whitetail, no one would take such a system serious. If that is the case, why if something does not make Rowland Ward will someone hasten to add that it is SCI Silver or Bronze or whatever?

Is the relevance of the SCI system solely for those that want some SCI trophy or ring for accomplishing a slam of taking all of a particular species? Seems like that is about the only thing the SCI system could possibly be relevant too since most everyone already knows that one of the only reasons someone would enter a trophy in SCI is that it could not make Rowland Ward.

For those that have entered trophies in SCI (or know someone that has), what was the rationale?

+1, but I will concide one point. Not all species are in Rowland Ward. In most cases RW list the country and/or area so one can compare areas and times easily.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by TANZ-PH:
personally always felt that Boone & Crockett honoured the animal more..and the hunter a bit less. That is why one sees pick-up/found heads listed alongside with shot heads.
SCI seems to be all about "Honoring" (glorifying) the hunter. They have separate catagory for "Pick up" heads.Its also all about making money, so much $$$$ per each entry. IMO: SCI should not allow high fenced animals (like deer) in same listing with wild ones. I remember a couple years ago seeing an(an obviously rich) dude in the SCI awards mag. He got "hunting awards" for #1 & #2 NT whitetail. both score over 300" Quite obviously raised farm animals (read: genetically altered freaks). Really tics me off. So if its about glorifying the hunter, (as they seem to be) why lump huge fenced $$ deer trophies with wild ones?
I have clients who couldn't care less about any record book (they are the ones who usually shoot the monster trophies!!) and refuse to enter them. and a couple who were far too obsessed with it (but they fortunately not at all the norm). One of my clients would run up with his tape measure in hand while the animals were breathing & kicking their last actually trying to measure the horns!! (kinda nauseating really).
I like client who have a healthy balance: When good luck smiles on them, to be happy they shot a big trophy; appreciate it, and enter it.
The record books are informative, good to get a general idea of where the big ones of that specie come from and who is producing them.
I feel the bottom of the book (silver) should reflect decent (representation of the specie) type trophies. Bronze very good, and Gold ought to be right close to exceptional (like RW)
You may agree or disagree; but that's my 2 cents.

High fenced deer are not lumped in with wild deer in the same SCI record book. African animals are however...

+1

And, Silver is not the bottom of the SCI book; Bronze is.