Plus 1 Matt!!

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

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 Todd Williams:
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.

If that were truly the case, then why list the hunter's name along with the measurements?

It would be interesting to see how many fewer entries SCI would get if they decided to omit hunter's names from the record book.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
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.

If that were truly the case, then why list the hunter's name along with the measurements?

It would be interesting to see how many fewer entries SCI would get if they decided to omit hunter's names from the record book.

Well, I suppose we all take different things from the books. For me, I don't care a rats ass about who shot what. I do enjoy reading where certain animals were taken and during what timeframe, and the trends thereof; ie. are big buffalo coming from the same place today as 20 years ago, when was the last 100 pounder shot and where, etc. Here is an example for you; I've made two trips to hunt Brown Bear in Kamchatka Russia. After the second trip, I spoke with an outfitter on the plane ride home that made statements to the effect that the 10 footers have all been shot out on the peninsula. Following the record book for that area over the last few years gives some idea of the truth of his statement. Anecdotal at best but better than third hand word of mouth. And yes, I fully realize bears go into the book based on skull measurement not squared hide measurements, but if the skull sizes are remaining the same, I'll assume the overall size of bears is as well.

That is "truly the case" as you put it regarding my interest in the record books. If your interests in the book lie elsewhere, so be it.

Todd

I misunderstood your statement.

I wasn't speaking of your interest in the record books. I thought you were asserting that hunters enter their trophies because their "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."

I have no doubt that the main reason most of us look in record books is to see where and when certain species were taken.

OTOH, it is clear that "seeing their name in the record book" plays a role in motivating hunters to enter their trophies. What else would motivate anyone to enter a very average warthog in the SCI Book. It's not like anyone needs to know where they can find a 10.5" warthog.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Todd Williams:
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.

If that were truly the case, then why list the hunter's name along with the measurements?

Because the animals dont have names!!!

In truth - aside from the recognition to the hunter, some of it would be to keep a track of who is doing what to whom. I know of plenty of cases where entries have been moved from one book to another (the correct one) on information supplied post entry. Principally from the free range books to the game ranch books - but no doubt where some illegal activity has been identified later. Some may question that SCI would remove entries known to be taken outside the rules and wildlife regulations - but I know this to be fact!

I have taken the classes and been certified as an Official Measurer for both SC and RW. Some of the silly-assed comments that appear whenever this issue is brought up are simply hilarious. I have also entered approximately 60 - mostly all african - animals in the SCI book. I have not entered all that would qualify. I have some that ranked new #1 when taken, although they have all, I believe, since been surpassed. And that is one of the key reasons to participate; not to get an award, but to contribute to a searchable data base that provides information to hunters, conservationists and scientists. The book is a research tool, not a braggarts file. At least IMO. In fact, whenever I am asked about the score of one of my trophies I simply reply truthfully that I do not know, but that you can look it up if you are really interested.

Firstly, the SCI record book is the largest and most widely accepted register of animals in the world, and is recognized as such by professional associations and conservation organizations. Much larger data base than RW.

Secondly, the methods of measurement in SCI were established to better define the individual animal. While there maybe problems with some SCI methods, so too are there inherent problems with RW methods - measuring distance between tips can actually have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the animal.

BTW, one can submit trophy measurements for the record book by paying a minimum fee without participating in the awards program. Apparently many of you don't even know that much about the book.

Personally, I have not entered an animal from anywhere since 2005. I also haven't had any taxidermy done since well before that, with the exception of two #1 small antelope I had done as full body mounts strictly for family historical reasons - I want my 3 year old grandson to know his grandfather was a helluva hunter and hope it inspires him to do likewise (I may not be around by the time he is old enough to understand). I have a huge Lion that was #1 in Zambia and #11 in SCI that I never had done - see my avatar.

One thing I did particularly like in the SCI classifications is the African 29. I set my sights upon completing it, not knowing if I ever would be able to do so, early in my african hunting days. It was attractive to me because few people have achieved it and because it requires a true commitment to african hunting while size of trophy has no bearing. It is not easy to complete. I've had 28 of the designated animals since 2004. I hope to take the required 29th animal this June while hunting another Elephant with my son-in-law, who will be on his second safari and after his first bull Ele. If I'm not around to take my grandson on his first safari, my hope is his father will, because I have prepared him to do so.

So those of you who can find no redeeming value to the SCI record book, and who speak with such derision about something you really know so little about, can now continue to bash SCI to your hearts content. Just know that all your blather has no impact upon those of us who understand the dynamic. Let the contest continue.

As someone who was closely involved early on in the SCI record books and World Hunting Awards (Grand Slams/Inner Circles/Rings), I find it interesting how some people who know little about these things are so quick to criticize them.

First, the SCI record books, unlike other books, are records of the hunting of a club's members and not hunters-at-large. They were created by SCI founder C.J. McElroy back when the club had a membership of only a couple thousand or so. Even today, one must be a member to record an entry. There was no anticipation of making money from selling books and charging for entries. In fact, the early editions lost money.

Members of the young club were hunting all over the world, but at that time, there was no international record book. There also was no universal system for measuring similar animals from one continent to another.

Mac personally created SCI’s measuring system, hoping to improve what he viewed as flaws in other record books. He deplored the fact that Boone & Crockett measured what he called “air” (span between antlers) and Rowland Ward measured only the length of the longest horn of African antelope, and only the maximum outside width of a buffalo's horns and “between the pegs” for big cats and bears.

He also didn’t like the CIC giving points for "beauty" and not listing the names of hunters or where animals were taken.

He took some of the best things (as he saw them) from other systems, added other things, and created systems that mostly still survive today. (An exception would be antlered game, which are measured today much like B&C does.)

Mac created the World Hunting Awards in response to medal programs that honored hunters in Europe. What he didn’t expect was the negative reaction SCI members (and others) would have for the CIC-like sashes. He dropped them a couple of years after the program began.

As Matt pointed out, the SCI record books and the Inner Circles/Slams/Rings are separate programs. With a very few exceptions, a member does not need to have record book entries to participate in the Circles/Slams programs, or vice versa. One program did not "evolve" from the other.

It didn’t take long for the club's Trophy Records Committee to realize that Mac had set minimums too low. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at SCI’s huge record books that the program could be more profitable if minimums were raised to eliminate one third of the entries, resulting in at least half of the number of pages needed per book.

However, when minimums for a couple of categories were raised and methods were modified or changed in the 1990s, the complaints came pouring in from members, professional hunters and outfitters from all over the world.

It was immediately obvious that members wanted no changes. Once members paid their entry fees, they expected their entries to be published year-after-year. Outfitters and professional hunters saw removal of clients' entries as a threat to their livelihoods.

And, finally, in response to just two of the things mentioned in this thread:

It is not true that hunters enter trophies in SCI books because they could not make Rowland Ward. Many entries in the SCI book also qualify for Rowland Ward, and some entries in Rowland Ward’s books will not make SCI’s book because of the differences in measuring methods .

As for hunters breaking laws to enter the SCI record book, but not Rowland Ward's or Boone & Crockett’s, well, anyone who believes that every entry in every record book except SCI’s was taken legally is badly mistaken. One Rowland Ward entry was taken in a closed area by a “prominent” international hunter. I also would not be surprised to learn that many of the early measurements were "stretched." If there is one bad entry, there will be others.

Face it. Some people cheat and not all cheaters are caught.

Bill Quimby

Bill:
It's always good to hear from one in the ring.
Cheers,
Cal

Bill,

Thanks. That was a great post.

Bill-

Thanks for your input. You were there.

I only got to meet Mac once, but I'll always remember something he said to me when I commented about my positive feelings for SCI and what it had done to promulgate african hunting, he said "I never imagined it would become as large as it has." He had only a few years left when he made that statement following a SCI convention in Las Vegas in the mid-1990's.

If somebody said this sorry for being redundant but I thought it important to point out a few issues. First, RW is only for African Game, second B&C is only for NA game. Therefore, as far as I know it with the exception of DSC, SCI is the only international method of recordkeeping. So, when we ask for why here and not there, this is one of the reasons and SCI has filled the void of how small the globe has become which was not the case in the days when RW and B&C were established. I agree with Todd completely as well that I think symetry and thus deductions on B&C mean little to me and I think the greater trophy gets credit for what he grew. I have some SCI entries and like another poster, virtually all of my SCI sheets were because of the outfitter or taxidermist doing a measurement for me whether I asked or not. Of course, never a charge. Some rank high in the record book and some are bronze, I really do not care. I think the prior point that the SCI record point allows for a hunters map of sorts is a good purpose. I also think we gain nothing but bashing other hunters as we all do it for various reasons and who is to say what is right and wrong. What I have never participated in and never would are the awards or circles. I personally hunt to hunt and for that reason have left many animals with the outfitter and or donated the trophy, but never to reach an award level but that being said, if it trips your trigger, go for it. We all need to stick together as there are more of them than there are of us, and sadly there are more of them being born every day. Just my 2 cents.

Good point.I remember my PH measuring boss size as well as tip to tip and drop to determine SCI score on my buff.I believe we should stick together too but some people don`t have that in them(jelousy rules).Them telling others to cut out because they have not been on as many safaris.

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
Therefore, as far as I know it with the exception of DSC, SCI is the only international method of recordkeeping.

I thought DSC uses SCI's record book and scoring??

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
If somebody said this sorry for being redundant but I thought it important to point out a few issues. First, RW is only for African Game, second B&C is only for NA game. Therefore, as far as I know it with the exception of DSC, SCI is the only international method of recordkeeping. So, when we ask for why here and not there, this is one of the reasons and SCI has filled the void of how small the globe has become which was not the case in the days when RW and B&C were established. I agree with Todd completely as well that I think symetry and thus deductions on B&C mean little to me and I think the greater trophy gets credit for what he grew. I have some SCI entries and like another poster, virtually all of my SCI sheets were because of the outfitter or taxidermist doing a measurement for me whether I asked or not. Of course, never a charge. Some rank high in the record book and some are bronze, I really do not care. I think the prior point that the SCI record point allows for a hunters map of sorts is a good purpose. I also think we gain nothing but bashing other hunters as we all do it for various reasons and who is to say what is right and wrong. What I have never participated in and never would are the awards or circles. I personally hunt to hunt and for that reason have left many animals with the outfitter and or donated the trophy, but never to reach an award level but that being said, if it trips your trigger, go for it. We all need to stick together as there are more of them than there are of us, and sadly there are more of them being born every day. Just my 2 cents.

Well unless RW changed everything in the last couple of years and I missed it, their record book is NOT just for African game. Their Records of Big Game is global in perspective.

Skyline, thanks and I stand somewhat corrected. I think the principle of RW initially was for African Game and if you look on their current website, the do list other regions such as Europe and NA. I was not aware of this until you pointed it out. It seems they do not list as many species in all those regions and do have most if not all of Africa species so I guess the Rest of World maybe new to them. I think their is a resurgance interest by RW and last year I met them at Las Vegas and the main focus at that time was dealing in hard to find books on Africana, Guns, etc.

Matt, I frankly am not sure what DSC is doing as to measurements but I think they had started their own method of measurement for recordkeeping within DSC. Whether they use the SCI methods or not I do not know, just that they had started a diffferent book.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
Therefore, as far as I know it with the exception of DSC, SCI is the only international method of recordkeeping.

I thought DSC uses SCI's record book and scoring??

I was just on the Rowland Ward web site and they have DSC listed as a supporter, so there must be some type of relationship there. Doesn't really answer your question, but that is all I know about it.

The Rowland Ward record books were launched in the last century by a British taxidermist by that name for customers who were hunting in Africa and Asia.

Interesting to me, at least, is the fact that when the Rowland Ward record book was struggling to survive in the early 1980s, C.J. McElroy could have bought it and included its data in the SCI books, but decided against it.

Since the 1990s, the RW books have been published by a for-profit publishing company in Johannesburg that acquired rights to use his name and data.

Over the last couple of decades, the company has expanded the focus of its record book to include trophies from North America and elsewhere. I've not seen a RW book for at least 10 years, but I've been told that some problems many hunters found with its original measuring methods have been improved.

Rowland Ward also publishes other high-quality hunting and shooting titles, and is well respected in the trade.

Bill Quimby

I am for any scoring that does not include deductions. The animals cannot control how their horns grow.

quote:

Originally posted by Lhook7:

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by BigBBear:
Therefore, as far as I know it with the exception of DSC, SCI is the only international method of recordkeeping.

I thought DSC uses SCI's record book and scoring??

I was just on the Rowland Ward web site and they have DSC listed as a supporter, so there must be some type of relationship there. Doesn't really answer your question, but that is all I know about it.

No mate - DSC uses SCI measurement.

I agree with Mike J. The RW standards are higher and harder to meet.I have always felt that the SCI standards are like the "Who is Who in America " doctors, lawyers, Ph.D.s or whatever--there are a number of them. I know several graduate students who were caught up in that scam. Almost anyone with the entry fee can be see their name in print and be considered special by the casual and naive observer.
I have never put anything in the books although I think that several of my trophies might qualify. It is entirely too ego driven for me and might demean some of my hard earned and most treasured trophies.

Dick