Honestly folks you'd think we were all ten years old. Atleast no one has mentioned their dad could beat up someone else's dad....yet. Shakari et al.........

Skulls can't be fudged although people can lie like anything else you could posibbly measure, so they are as good as or better a thing to measure than anything else. That said not many hunters talk about skull size regardless the reason (sorry Steve, but that's the reality). When's the last time you Steve let alone any other PH in the field when asked by the client how big the leopard is says "that's about a 17 incher"?????? Nobody does that! They might say it has a big head or a big body or a big track or a long body. You can't even see the skull. Why would they reference it??? This isn't a unique phenominon Steve. It's the same damn thing with bears. People ONLY talk about skull measurements on a dead animal. No one says they are going out after a 30 inch skull. They go out after a 10 foot bear. Just like no one goes out after a leopard with a 17.5 inch skull. They may have shot one, but they don't go after them. They go after a 7.5 foot leopard or a 150lbs leopard (even if yes weight can be subject to lots of variables).

Brett

Shakira.... errr shakari
I never met anyone who shot a leopard based on skull size BEFORE the shot, its always been about body size or some other aspect. I own a rather large skull collection and over the past 2-3 years there been probably no less than 60-70 people view them, many of them African hunters with several hunts under their belts. Only one in the whole group that I can recall asked about skull size but many others asked about weight. SCI record books are about egos and inches. SCI = Socialites Counting Inches. If'n you like pattin' yourself on the back measure the skull but I'll take a big bodied leopard with a small skull over a small bodied leopard with a big skull and day and I'd bet most would agree with that.

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:
Honestly folks you'd think we were all ten years old. Atleast no one has mentioned their dad could beat up someone else's dad....yet. Shakari et al.........

Skulls can't be fudged although people can lie like anything else you could posibbly measure, so they are as good as or better a thing to measure than anything else. That said not many hunters talk about skull size regardless the reason (sorry Steve, but that's the reality). When's the last time you Steve let alone any other PH in the field when asked by the client how big the leopard is says "that's about a 17 incher"?????? Nobody does that! They might say it has a big head or a big body or a big track or a long body. You can't even see the skull. Why would they reference it??? This isn't a unique phenominon Steve. It's the same damn thing with bears. People ONLY talk about skull measurements on a dead animal. No one says they are going out after a 30 inch skull. They go out after a 10 foot bear. Just like no one goes out after a leopard with a 17.5 inch skull. They may have shot one, but they don't go after them. They go after a 7.5 foot leopard or a 150lbs leopard (even if yes weight can be subject to lots of variables).

Brett

Brett:

In all honesty I would firstly judge a Leopard by its size (body length) and hope my word gets taken for the declared measurement - I would measure the skull for my own interest and that of the client should he so desire to know how it would score among the "elite circle".
Quite frankly the body weight doesn't say much other than it being a well fed Leopard.

Now when it comes to Marlin....well that's another ball game altogether!

Brett & Darkside

You two might like to re-read my posts carefully and think about what they say rather than jump to conclusions after only half reading them at best.

Steve,

Too many posts too little time. I understand what you're saying about skull size. Point taken. What I'm saying is none of the clients think that way and I don't think that's ignorance. Skulls aren't visible. Body size is in any of it's measurments/dimentions. Hence people refer to what they want or what a live animal/unskinned dead animal is by outward physical dementions. Again I've only ever heard of someone referring to skull size on a dead animals (sparingly) and almost always in conjunction with a very fine animal making book(hence the even had it measured).

Brett

I think Steve has a point but it got clouded when he added subjective opinions like "chest thumping & marketing hype" in the same post......

Yes the record books focus only on skull measurements. But that penalizes younger animals that might be bigger but do not live long enough to become "broad & thick skulled" (pun intended).

To make a generalization....(please don't post or send me PMs disagreeing on this one)... in most species the biggest animals are usually really long & a bit taller. The body weight seems to go up a lot higher with longer animals (even in the case of pigs, deer etc).

I do think you can get younger animals that are bigger but do not have a bigger skull only because they were shot & killed before their skulls could become broad & thick.

I am sure most of us on this site have become as broad & thick skulled as we are ever likely to become!!

Brett,

I'm very surprised that an educated man who has received the training you have would comment (erroneously) on something he hasn't read properly and has therefore misunderstood.

My point is quite simple. Where ALL THE VARIOUS RECORD BOOKS are concerned, the ONLY criteria they apply is the ONLY measurement that cannot be fudged either by accident or deliberately and CAN ALWAYS be easily proven at any time in the future and/or that cannot be temporarily altered by factors such as recent food intake etc or a hosepipe down the gullet.

ALL other criteria such as weight and body length CAN be easily fudged and CAN be altered by factors such as recent food intake and can NEVER be proven at any time in the future.

The problem is that weight (esp) and to a lesser extent length sounds so much more impressive and that's why so many people like to use them........ ask yourself why they would choose to use terms that sound more impressive but have no scientific basis whatsoever and can never be proven etc?

To me, the only reason they would choose to use those terms is because they want to impress others and either don't know or don't care that the criteria they're using has no REAL relevance to anything.

Quite simple really.

If I'm wrong, perhaps someone/anyone can name a SINGLE record book agency that uses weight and/or length as their criteria for trophy rankings?

Or conversely, a single one that doesn't use the measurements of length of skull plus width of skull across the zygomatic arches?

Steve,

We totally agree on record book measuring. Look at my first post. Anyone can lie, but you can't fudge the skull itself. What I'm saying yet again is that clients don't look at that unless an animal is already dead and it might be big enough that they think it will make book......so they measure it. I agree a 7.5 foot leopard/180lbs leopard sounds a lot sexier than a 17.5 inch leopard, but I don't think that's all of it. When you see a live leopard you talk about how big its head is. You talk about how big it's body or length is. You don't talk about skull measurements because you have no clue. When you shoot a leopard and it's lying in front of you, you talk about how much you think it weighs and how long it is straight or over the curves. You don't likely talk about the skull unless you measure it back in camp, but honestly how many people measure their lion's or leopard's skull in camp. I'm sure some do, but I'd guess most don't. So when you come home what do you tell your friends and AR? You tell them about the 7'8" leopard that you measured or the 160ish lbs PH estimated cat you shot. If you measured the skull you'd probably tell them that, but you probably didn't, so you don't. When the trophy comes home you MIGHT get it measured if you care or if it's a big cat. Then those people tell you about their cat's skull size...........along with it's weight and length. For clients I don't think it's ignorance as much as availability. On an outfitters note I do agree that quoting leopards in weight is probably due to sex appeal. A 17" skull just doesn't sound sexy. A 180lbs leopard.......SEX APPEAL!!!!

Brett

With leopard trophy judgment the best indicators are the body, head, neck, pad size and thickness of the tail at its base, the amount of meat it consumes at each sitting is another determining factor to its probable size.
Trophy size is dictated by skull measurements.
Overall length of a cat is the more acceptable indicating factor confirming the size of the animal.

Weights of the cats fluctuate greatly and are often exaggerated by hunters. You may have a 7'8" tom weighing in at approx. 170lbs. on an empty belly and the same cat after a meal will be close to 200lbs.

Which outfitter sells Leopard hunts according to weight?
All I have seen so far are photos showing large cats and never a mention of weight or length - final judgment of the trophy is left to the beholder.

I have never witnessed nor heard of a PH or outfitter weighing the Leopard back in camp.

After all this stone throwing about weight and skulls did anyone notice what awesome cats got posted?

I for one would like to congratulate all the hunters and taxidermists who posted pictures of their Leopard trophies and mounts

Brett,

I said that as well..... see my reference to sizing marks and the link to explain how it works in a previous post..... and you might also like to check my comments about trophy quality and how it relates to quality of the hunt whilst you're about it.

As for measuring the skull, I'll guarantee you that the vast majority of PHs and ALL wise ones will measure the skull of every cat their clients shoot. They might not do it when the client is around or even mention it to the client..... but they will measure it.

As for why people talk about the length or weight of their cat, I can really only refer you to my previous comments..... the reason people do it is because it sounds impressive and they want to impress others.

The ones who really know what they're talking about won't be impressed because they know it's totally meaningless at best and hyperbole and/or BS at worst. - I'm sure you'll be able to work out which it's likely to be when someone selling the cat hunt trots out such snippets of information.

Frankly, it's not sex appeal it's bullshit. Nothing more and nothing less. I understand why people do it but it doesn't make it any more right than wearing a hookey Rolex watch and hoping to impress someone.

quote:

the reason people do it is because it sounds impressive and they want to impress others.

The ones who really know what they're talking about won't be impressed

The reason people do it is becasue big cats are impressive. I notice you aren't posting pictures of small cats. And as for the group of people "who really know what they're talking about", like you, I don't want to rub elbows with a pinkies up club that snobby and abrasive. I'll keep telling people about big cats I've seen, and having fun, and you can keep telling people they are full of "BS" because they didn't buy your trophy skull hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by smarterthanu:
I don't want to rub elbows with a pinkies up club that snobby and abrasive.

Just as well because you'd be blackballed!

Brett,

Look at it another way. You don't hear trophy hunters talking about having shot a 250 lb (or whatever) kudu do you? They talk about a 55 inch kudu etc.

You don't hear them talking about having shot a 5 or 6 ton elephant, they talk about the 80 lbs a side tusks.

With warthogs, they talk about the 13 inch tusks not the body weight.

In all cases, they're talking about a proveable gauge of an unchangeable part of the animal.

So why should a leopard be any different?

Dam I hate it when I miss a good whinner thread. from what little I just read that what this one turned into my two cents. Steve could never be thought of as one of the PINKY UP crowd unless it was sticking your pinky up some place to scare the bejesus out of someone and from personal knowledge I know Steve knowith what he speakith of when it comes to leopards.now when I have time and the energy I will go back and read some of the GRAND poptiffications of others on here

And we all like to shoot big bodied Buffalo of course...

This talk about Leopard weight v scull size came up in Reno earlier this year in a discussion between PH's when we were having drinks in the Rambullions one night. We were from all over but the general consencus were that a heavyset, big cat, will have a scull bigger than 14"

quote:

Brett,

Look at it another way. You don't hear trophy hunters talking about having shot a 250 lb (or whatever) kudu do you? They talk about a 55 inch kudu etc.

You don't hear them talking about having shot a 5 or 6 ton elephant, they talk about the 80 lbs a side tusks.

With warthogs, they talk about the 13 inch tusks not the body weight.

In all cases, they're talking about a proveable gauge of an unchangeable part of the animal.

So why should a leopard be any different?

Every single client I know talks about the body size of thier trophy if it is not a horned or antlered animal. Plus I haven't had a client not talk about his elephants body size and many of them do talk about thier warthog's body size.

As a general rule of thumb, the headgear of horned and antlered animals is usually considered the trophy. With most predators, bears, leopards, lions, coyotes, the skin is usually the trophy that hunters keep. A bigger body translates to more skin and a bigger mount or rug. I know this logic will make blood start running out of your ears but you may want to try it.

yeep and if the skins a little small stretch the dam thing to fit

I think head size over body is way overrated. Which would you take?

Justin,

I am sure the girl in the second picture won't help our arguement once Shakari lets us know how much meat 2 or 3 of his staff members can pack into her in twenty minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by shakari:

Frankly, it's not sex appeal it's bullshit. Nothing more and nothing less. I understand why people do it but it doesn't make it any more right than wearing a hookey Rolex watch and hoping to impress someone.

Steve you are arguing both sides. First you say what makes a trophy is totally up to the hunter then you call BS on him if he doesn't judge his trophy the way you do.

He could make a bulimic look like Oprah after one feeding. The question still begs to answer, "whats wrong with a little head"?

BTW, great taxi work on the leopards. Very nice.

Howard & Justin,

I can't understand why you fail to get my point. It's actually VERY simple indeed.

Take another look at my posts....... especially my quote of Sher Jung to see how I feel about PERSONAL trophy values etc.

The comments about skull measurement refer to the TROPHY BOOKS and why skull measurements are the ONLY thing that CAN'T be fudged. The comments about weight and length are the other side of that coin because thay CAN ALWAYS be fudged.

If you check the old record books, you'll find some of them originally used criteria such as 'measurements round the curves' or sometimes 'between the pegs' for some species and the reason they abandoned that and changed to skull measurement alone is that the other systems were so commonly abused.

BTW, I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with a small head at all....... but the facts are that a small headed cat WON'T GET INTO THE RECORD BOOKS BECAUSE OF THE MEASUREMENT CRITERIA.

It actually couldn't be much simpler!

quote:

The question still begs to answer, "whats wrong with a little head"?

Answer: Nothing. Nothing at all.

That may be American English and Steve didn't get the joke.

Ah sorry, I was thinking in English, English not American English.

Point taken.

quote:

Whenever the subject of leopards comes up, an awful lot of people start waffling about body weights but in reality, body weight means absolutely nothing because it can vary so much depending upon when the animal last mated or ate etc.

Frankly, (IMO) all the talk of weight is either from gullible hunters who have been told it means something or sales hyperbole.

Steve, you are full of shit. As seen above you first replied to this thread by stating that the only thing that "means anything" is skull measurement. After being bitch slapped repeatedly by consumers on this thread that they don't give 2 shits about skull size but do care about body size and mass, you have changed your story to all that matters to the record books is skull size. I am simply amazed that you have any customers as much time as you spend telling the consumer that they are "gullible", "impressed..with utter bollocks", "fixated with nothing more than sales BS", degrading the quality of their trophies because of the reason they think it is a trophy, and the list of insults goes on and on. This thread has shown that you are truly deceptive and an ass.

505,

I haven't changed my story at all and everything I've said is completely, 100% true.

I don't do sales BS and I do know my trade very well indeed...... and that is exactly why the type of clients we want, come to us...... often again and again and again.

They know they won't be lied to or misled, they know they'll get exactly the product that was described and they know they won't get flattered, bullshitted, flim-flammed or conned.

Frankly, that's exactly the kind of client we want. We have no interest in people who feel the need to have their ego stroked......... No matter who they are or who or what they think they are. - I judge all men by their real values rather than by rank, title or fortune which incidentally, are of no interest to me whatsoever.

BTW, the point I repeatedly keep trying to make isn't that the only thing that means anything is skull measurement, it's that the only thing that means anything IN THE RECORD BOOKS is skull measurement.

There's a BIG difference between the two things but it seems some people are either too lazy to read the posts properly, or too dim to see that difference OR are so keen to have their ego stroked they choose to fall for the sales pitch.

As I've said before...... It's quite simple really.

But hey, if you're so sure I'm wrong, why not name me a single record book that uses weight or size as a criteria for entry?

This thread is beginning to remind me of something that (I think) Jack O Conner wrote:

"There is something about an African safari that makes everyone who goes on one an expert on all things Africa from that time on. – climate, geology, politics, ethnology, anthropology, ecology and natural history. And in particular everyone who has ever gone on safari is an expert on all African game and what rifles and cartridges should be used on it.

It is by no means unusual for these one safari experts to sit down when they get home and write books on the subject. Both Ernest Hemingway and Robert Ruark did so. I have seen several others. If you want all the answers about Africa and African hunting you’ll find them there. These answers are absolutely pat because the minds of the authors were not gummed up with surplus knowledge.

My wife, who completed her sixth safari in 1969, says it is a shame to go to Africa more than once because at the end of the first safari everyone knows everything and subsequent safaris simply puzzle and confuse the expert and make him doubt his own omnipotence. I agree with her. In 1953 I hunted for a couple of months from central Tanzania to the Northern Frontier District of Kenya. When I came back I knew not only about the countries where I had hunted but all about African countries where I had not hunted. Since then I have been on safaris in northern Tanzania, in southern Tanzania, Chad, Mozambique, Angola, Botswana and Zambia. I have learned that Africa is a very large continent with different conditions, different climates, and a bewildering variety of people and animals. I should never have gone back after that first trip".

When it comes to Africa, the world is full of f****ng instant experts.

quote:

When it comes to Africa, the world is full of f****ng instant experts.

If you haven't noticed this isn't about africa. Its about hunters and thier preferances and what people judge Their trophies qualities by. Sounds like you are bitter because someone dares to disagree with the pinkies up club. The more you talk the more you sound like a snot. Take your Ruark quote and stuff it. I hope your poor attitude never runs into a would be client waiting to discover and enjoy the wonders of africa.

quote:

But hey, if you're so sure I'm wrong, why not name me a single record book that uses weight or size as a criteria for entry?

By the way, you complain about nobody reading your posts fully, but if you went back and read I have allready explained why the skull measurement system is still used.

quote:

I haven't changed my story at all and everything I've said is completely, 100% true.

I don't do sales BS and I do know my trade very well indeed...... and that is exactly why the type of clients we want, come to us...... often again and again and again.

They know they won't be lied to or misled, they know they'll get exactly the product that was described and they know they won't get flattered, bullshitted, flim-flammed or conned.

Frankly, that's exactly the kind of client we want. We have no interest in people who feel the need to have their ego stroked......... No matter who they are or who or what they think they are. - I judge all men by their real values rather than by rank, title or fortune which incidentally, are of no interest to me whatsoever.

BTW, the point I repeatedly keep trying to make isn't that the only thing that means anything is skull measurement, it's that the only thing that means anything IN THE RECORD BOOKS is skull measurement.

There's a BIG difference between the two things but it seems some people are either too lazy to read the posts properly, or too dim to see that difference OR are so keen to have their ego stroked they choose to fall for the sales pitch.

As I've said before...... It's quite simple really.

But hey, if you're so sure I'm wrong, why not name me a single record book that uses weight or size as a criteria for entry?

Steve "Shakari" Robinson

Yet another deceptive BS post.

quote:

Originally posted by 505 gibbs:
Yet another deceptive BS post.

As I've said elsewhere, childish insults don't win debates. Scientific facts do and I guess your response means that you still can't name me a single record book that uses weight, size or for that matter, even full body volume measurement as a criteria for entry then?

The reason you can't is that there isn't a single one.

quote:

As I've said elsewhere, insults don't win debates. Scientific facts do and I guess your childish response means that you can't name me a single record book that uses weight, size or for that matter, even full body volume measurement as a criteria for entry then?

The reason you can't is that there isn't a single one.

I have never stated that there is or I could and you pretending like that is the issue is more of your deception. This thread was started by Bearhunter asking about some prime areas to kill big leopard, Mark Young then answered that the Lowveld consistantly produced big leopards. That was followed by you posting that the only thing that mattered in Judging a leopard was skull size and those who considered anything else are gullible fools. That was followed by an entire plethera of hunters informing you that they didn't give 2 shits about skull size, all they cared about was overall body size. That was followed by you gradually changing your argument to all that record books considered was skull size but you agreed to each his own as far as what they want in a "trophy". Muddying the waters would be much easier and tollerated if you weren't so offensive and bullheaded on the front end.

I wonder how many of the people who have posted opinions on this thread have hunted Leopard for 25+yrs????????????????????????? it's come to Jesus time boys fessssss up????????

quote:

I wonder how many of the people who have posted opinions on this thread have hunted Leopard for 25+yrs????????????????????????? it's come to Jesus time boys fessssss up????????

I don't care how many years someone has hunted anything, that doesn't give them the authority, right or expertise to tell the consumer what they want, much less call them names or degrade their intelligence because they are not willing to conform. Based on your logic, if Steve has been laying pipe longer than you, I guess you would let him tell you what kind of Women you sleep with? Just keep doing as you are told hook.

505 Gibbs
I just asked a question you can stick that little wagging finger where the sun don't shine.along with your condescending do as your told statement.

quote:

along with your condescending do as your told statement.

it was actually "just keep doing as you are told...", and you are letting your pride get in the way of the message.

another wanker for the ignore list

quote:

another wanker for the ignore list

you might want to run that by Steve first.