quote:

Really what the F*ck does it matter to you what I do in my home or office. Nuff said!

DOJ:

Matters none - YOU brought it up and who the FUCK cares what BS you spin to you friends in your home or office!

Another SCI Gong Hunter gets his knickers in a twist!

Take a chill pill old boy!

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Matt,

I honestly think that using the SCI Record Book for conservation is dubious at best.

The entrance requirements for the book are low not to make it "more inclusive" for the average hunter to get their name in the book. The real reason is to have a greater pool of potential hunters who will PAY to get their name in it.

As far as using the record book to support the definition of a new species, look at the Cape Kudu. There isn't the scientific evidence to support the notion that is a different species but SCI lists it as being separate. Why? Because it is a new category that they can make money off of.

In my opinion the SCI Record Book is one of the worst things that has happened to hunting. It has created competition where competition shouldn't exist and has lent an air of elitism to the sport. PHs have pressure put on them by clients and bosses to make sure the trophies "make the book" and hunters can feel inadequate if their trophy doesn't.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum. Some outfitters even offer than if the first animal doesn't meet the minimum then they can shoot another animal.

What conservation purpose does this serve?

It conserves the over size egos of the non hunters who claim to be hunters

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Matt,

I honestly think that using the SCI Record Book for conservation is dubious at best.

The entrance requirements for the book are low not to make it "more inclusive" for the average hunter to get their name in the book. The real reason is to have a greater pool of potential hunters who will PAY to get their name in it.

As far as using the record book to support the definition of a new species, look at the Cape Kudu. There isn't the scientific evidence to support the notion that is a different species but SCI lists it as being separate. Why? Because it is a new category that they can make money off of.

In my opinion the SCI Record Book is one of the worst things that has happened to hunting. It has created competition where competition shouldn't exist and has lent an air of elitism to the sport. PHs have pressure put on them by clients and bosses to make sure the trophies "make the book" and hunters can feel inadequate if their trophy doesn't.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum. Some outfitters even offer than if the first animal doesn't meet the minimum then they can shoot another animal.

What conservation purpose does this serve?

It conserves the over size egos of the non hunters who claim to be hunters

I have no internal concept of "record book". The Guinness Book of World Records is a listing of silly stunts. The baseball "record book" includes cheaters and does not include Japanese players.

For most hunters, I want to believe that a "record book" anything is superfulous to the hunt experience. At best, you were lucky to bump into an animal with over sized horns or aged. I just do not get it.....

It is kind of like a woman with massive cosmetic surgery - it looks real but is not.

Same with "I shot a record book whatever". Looks good but means absolutely nothing....

I quit joining any organziation that offers a "record book" anything that focuses on the hunter. That includes Boone and Crockett as well as Rowland and Ward. IF DSC goes to this - I will quit them as well.

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
What conservation purpose does this serve?

It serves to provide ammo to the antis and alienate the hunting community from even mainstream conservationists, not to mention adding to the negative impression much of the general public already has.

I hate to keep following this thread,but I do out of sheer fascination. Few of us cannot jump off the back of the truck and shoot 2 Buffalo that we had not prepared for many months to shoot scrimping and saving. And then to think of it as inconsequential. Few of us have shot so many buffalo we can't count. Most of us can say the number immediately at anytime. Show me a single town/city in the US of any size that does not have a golf course and show me any golf club that does not give trophies. Usually the same group of people win the top awards year after year simply because they place importance on being in the 'few'. They are also usually among the wealthiest as this gives them the time and finances to become good enough to do so. The Heisman trophy is a significant football trophy but it is won not totally by skill on the playing field but by votes of sportswriters of their 'opinions'. It is usually financially valuable to the winner. It is also a rather narrow trophy , when was the last time a guard,tackle, or center won it. Trophies are an American way of life and while some are good and some are obviously bad they are a fact in all facets of life. While we can debate the value or significance of trophies this is merely the bashing of a single club for some really poorly stated reasons. I ,after following this for years on these forums, still don't really understand the reasons why this is so.

Back to Dallas this year for me. I had a damn good time when I went this year (for the first time). And I have been to the SCI in Reno. SCI concentrates more on the glitz and glamour, awards and such. Dallas was just more down to earth between the two. Much more relaxed, (except with their liquor laws and firearms booths). At least to me it was a much more friendly atmosphere. And it was the first time I had been to the AR supper. I got to meet a lot of the people here. It helps to put a name and a face together.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
I hate to keep following this thread,but I do out of sheer fascination. Few of us cannot jump off the back of the truck and shoot 2 Buffalo that we had not prepared for many months to shoot scrimping and saving. And then to think of it as inconsequential. Few of us have shot so many buffalo we can't count. Most of us can say the number immediately at anytime. Show me a single town/city in the US of any size that does not have a golf course and show me any golf club that does not give trophies. Usually the same group of people win the top awards year after year simply because they place importance on being in the 'few'. They are also usually among the wealthiest as this gives them the time and finances to become good enough to do so. The Heisman trophy is a significant football trophy but it is won not totally by skill on the playing field but by votes of sportswriters of their 'opinions'. It is usually financially valuable to the winner. It is also a rather narrow trophy , when was the last time a guard,tackle, or center won it. Trophies are an American way of life and while some are good and some are obviously bad they are a fact in all facets of life. While we can debate the value or significance of trophies this is merely the bashing of a single club for some really poorly stated reasons. I ,after following this for years on these forums, still don't really understand the reasons why this is so.

Zim,

The way I see it is that the essential difference is that the difficulty of hunting does not factor into whether an animal rates as a "trophy" or not.

I'm new to the international hunting scene and I don't have a ton of experience. What I do have is the ability to see SCI through the unbiased eyes of a newbie. I can tell you that after attending two SCI conventions and observing its members it is certainly a club "preoccupied with size".

I think many people are turned off by the obsession SCI displays towards awards, medals, etc.

If you want to use the golf analogy there are those of us who play to feel the sun on our face, the wind at our back and the joy of swinging a club. To see that all put aside simply to acquire a trophy or log an entry into a book is stomach turning.

This year I have decided to go to DSC for the first time and see how they compare. Hopefully nobody is going to packing a ruler.

rxgremlin - I wish you good times on your visit to DSC and hope you find the congenial atmosphere you desire and don't see or hear of a single tape measurement. As to the difficulty of the hunt I would like to know exactly how you quantify that and your standards for measurement. I tried for 8 safaris to shoot a lion and none were shot. It took me 5 safaris before I took a duiker, yet I killed many Kudu a couple of Leopards and shot 3 Elephants during these 8 safaris. Which was most difficult, I think probably my second Wildebeest which I shot poorly (bullet was actually deflected by a mopane which we found shot In two) and we tracked over 16 hours in two days before we finally got him. His left rear leg was broken causing him to twist his hoof on that leg making him easily identified from tracks. I don't play golf so I can't evaluate you satisfaction level from being out side,etc. I understand the object of the game is to see how few number of shots it takes to complete a round and you do keep score. Football and baseball games are also games in which you keep score, even weight lifting is judged on 'how much' you lift therby 'keeping score'. I cannot think of a single pastime in which 'score' is not kept and the numerical value of that score is a judgement as to how well you perform.YOU can ignore your scorecard but be assured others measure you by it whether you wish them too or not. I just cannot understand the vitriol surrounding trophies and SCI that is displayed in this forum. It just puzzles and saddens me.

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Matt,

I honestly think that using the SCI Record Book for conservation is dubious at best.

The entrance requirements for the book are low not to make it "more inclusive" for the average hunter to get their name in the book. The real reason is to have a greater pool of potential hunters who will PAY to get their name in it.

As far as using the record book to support the definition of a new species, look at the Cape Kudu. There isn't the scientific evidence to support the notion that is a different species but SCI lists it as being separate. Why? Because it is a new category that they can make money off of.

In my opinion the SCI Record Book is one of the worst things that has happened to hunting. It has created competition where competition shouldn't exist and has lent an air of elitism to the sport. PHs have pressure put on them by clients and bosses to make sure the trophies "make the book" and hunters can feel inadequate if their trophy doesn't.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum. Some outfitters even offer that if the first animal doesn't meet the minimum then they can shoot another animal.

What conservation purpose does this serve?

So more people are shooting kudu because there is an extra 'species' in the record book... that is a bad thing, why? Isnt that the whole point - getting more people hunting, more often. Theres your conservation benefit.

Cape kudu is a sub-species - like many of the other animals in the record book. SCI supports species 'splitting', which seems to follow a current trend with IUCN and others. There are conservation benefits to splitting - as detailed in my earlier post about Molluccan rusa deer.

"It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum." So you dont think SCI should be 'more inclusive'... interesting thoughts!!

The rest of your post, about who SCI hunters are and what they do - is just your own opinion. You are entitled to that opinion even if it is just a generalisation.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
For most hunters, I want to believe that a "record book" anything is superfulous to the hunt experience. At best, you were lucky to bump into an animal with over sized horns or aged. I just do not get it.....

It is kind of like a woman with massive cosmetic surgery - it looks real but is not.

Same with "I shot a record book whatever". Looks good but means absolutely nothing....

So when you go on a guided hunt you just shoot the first mature animal that comes along... right?

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

I quit joining any organziation that offers a "record book" anything that focuses on the hunter. That includes Boone and Crockett as well as Rowland and Ward. IF DSC goes to this - I will quit them as well.

I guess you'd better start preparing that DSC resignation letter. DSC supports the SCI record book and they have their own trophy awards and such at the convention and other times.

quote:

Originally posted by SteveGl:

It serves to provide ammo to the antis and alienate the hunting community from even mainstream conservationists, not to mention adding to the negative impression much of the general public already has.

Screw the antis - I am not going to hide from them!!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Matt,

I honestly think that using the SCI Record Book for conservation is dubious at best.

The entrance requirements for the book are low not to make it "more inclusive" for the average hunter to get their name in the book. The real reason is to have a greater pool of potential hunters who will PAY to get their name in it.

As far as using the record book to support the definition of a new species, look at the Cape Kudu. There isn't the scientific evidence to support the notion that is a different species but SCI lists it as being separate. Why? Because it is a new category that they can make money off of.

In my opinion the SCI Record Book is one of the worst things that has happened to hunting. It has created competition where competition shouldn't exist and has lent an air of elitism to the sport. PHs have pressure put on them by clients and bosses to make sure the trophies "make the book" and hunters can feel inadequate if their trophy doesn't.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum. Some outfitters even offer that if the first animal doesn't meet the minimum then they can shoot another animal.

What conservation purpose does this serve?

So more people are shooting kudu because there is an extra 'species' in the record book... that is a bad thing, why? Isnt that the whole point - getting more people hunting, more often. Theres your conservation benefit.

Cape kudu is a sub-species - like many of the other animals in the record book. SCI supports species 'splitting', which seems to follow a current trend with IUCN and others. There are conservation benefits to splitting - as detailed in my earlier post about Molluccan rusa deer.

"It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum." So you dont think SCI should be 'more inclusive'... interesting thoughts!!

The rest of your post, about who SCI hunters are and what they do - is just your own opinion. You are entitled to that opinion even if it is just a generalisation.

Matt,

I thought we hunted to enjoy the hunt, be out in the bush, and generally enjoy being in nature.

Never in my mind has hunting been just a method of "collecting" trophies just because they are separated in a silly record book.

I learnt something today, thank.

Now I know how the SCI mentality works

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Matt,

I thought we hunted to enjoy the hunt, be out in the bush, and generally enjoy being in nature.

Never in my mind has hunting been just a method of "collecting" trophies just because they are separated in a silly record book.

I learnt something today, thank.

Now I know how the SCI mentality works

Don't misrepresent my words Saeed, that is not gentlemanly. If you dont understand it or have made an error - I can explain it to you in other terms.

quote:

2014 will be my first time attending...about when do they post the exhibitor list w/ booth numbers & related info on their website? or is there a seperate website? Thanks.

A gentleman makes a simple post to start this thread & now look what it has turned into.

quote:

Originally posted by zimbabwe:
rxgremlin - I wish you good times on your visit to DSC and hope you find the congenial atmosphere you desire and don't see or hear of a single tape measurement. As to the difficulty of the hunt I would like to know exactly how you quantify that and your standards for measurement. I tried for 8 safaris to shoot a lion and none were shot. It took me 5 safaris before I took a duiker, yet I killed many Kudu a couple of Leopards and shot 3 Elephants during these 8 safaris. Which was most difficult, I think probably my second Wildebeest which I shot poorly (bullet was actually deflected by a mopane which we found shot In two) and we tracked over 16 hours in two days before we finally got him. His left rear leg was broken causing him to twist his hoof on that leg making him easily identified from tracks. I don't play golf so I can't evaluate you satisfaction level from being out side,etc. I understand the object of the game is to see how few number of shots it takes to complete a round and you do keep score. Football and baseball games are also games in which you keep score, even weight lifting is judged on 'how much' you lift therby 'keeping score'. I cannot think of a single pastime in which 'score' is not kept and the numerical value of that score is a judgement as to how well you perform.YOU can ignore your scorecard but be assured others measure you by it whether you wish them too or not. I just cannot understand the vitriol surrounding trophies and SCI that is displayed in this forum. It just puzzles and saddens me.

Zim,

Thanks for your well wishes. I think you bring up some valid points about keeping score and competition.

Hunting unlike the other pursuits you mentioned isn't (or at least shouldn't be) a competition against others. There is no objective way to measure the difficulty of hunting a particular animal. How large the animal is in terms of its SCI score does not correlate with the skill of the hunter. That is a very important distinction. There is a huge variable in the equation called luck and as we all know luck is a fickle mistress.

If I played against Tiger Woods in golf I would lose every time. He is simply more skilled than I am and luck nothing to do with it.

Finally in contrast to true competition you don't have to "lose" in order for me to "win". We can both hunt and take animals and each enjoy the experience and the friendship.

Just noticed that three of the SCI bashers on this thread don't/won't even post where they are from or there real names. That's kinda suspicious, huh? Maybe they are actually in some of the record books and don't want to be discovered?

Larry Sellers
SCI (International) Life Member

"So more people are shooting kudu because there is an extra 'species' in the record book... that is a bad thing, why? Isnt that the whole point - getting more people hunting, more often. Theres your conservation benefit."

What I see instead is the promotion of collecting animals instead of hunting them. If there is another category separate from "Southern Greater Kudu" it reenforces the collector instinct to shoot one in order to cross it off the list. I guess that does get "more people hunting more often" but is that the mentality we as sportsmen want to promote?

"Cape kudu is a sub-species - like many of the other animals in the record book. SCI supports species 'splitting', which seems to follow a current trend with IUCN and others. There are conservation benefits to splitting - as detailed in my earlier post about Molluccan rusa deer."

The problem is that the scientific community doesn't recognize the Cape Kudu and neither does Roland Ward.

Furthermore there was a recent article in the journal Nature that warns that splitting species actually is detrimental to conservation.

"It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum." So you dont think SCI should be 'more inclusive'... interesting thoughts!!"

Matt it was your contention that the SCI bar was set low to be 'more inclusive'. It is my assertion that the bar is set so low that the very title "Record Book" is meaningless. I firmly believe that the bar was set low so SCI could get more hunters meeting the minimums and thus eligible to pay to enter their names.

"The rest of your post, about who SCI hunters are and what they do - is just your own opinion. You are entitled to that opinion even if it is just a generalisation."

The rest of my post is my opinion. However considering that many people here voice their dislike of SCI I don't think I am the lone voice in the wilderness.

Consider this, if I as a member who strongly supports hunting sees SCI this way what would the rest of the world think if they walked into the SCI convention? I don't think they would have a positive impression either. Perception IS reality...

Didn't Bill Quimby help edit the SCI record books? Possibly he can chime in, but I doubt he wants to step in this mess. I wouldn't.

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
Didn't Bill Quimby help edit the SCI record books? Possibly he can chime in, but I doubt he wants to step in this mess. I wouldn't.

I don't think we can point a finger at Bill.

All he did is EDIT it as instructed by higher authority.

He did not decide what to include and what to exclude.

He did not create the silly "circles" that create nothing but friction between normal hunters and the "me me me" crowd!

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by DCS Member:
Didn't Bill Quimby help edit the SCI record books? Possibly he can chime in, but I doubt he wants to step in this mess. I wouldn't.

I don't think we can point a finger at Bill.

All he did is EDIT it as instructed by higher authority.

He did not decide what to include and what to exclude.

He did not create the silly "circles" that create nothing but friction between normal hunters and the "me me me" crowd!

Oh, I wasn't trying to point a figure at all. I don't know him outside of AR, but his posts seem logical and impartial. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

quote:

So when you go on a guided hunt you just shoot the first mature animal that comes along... right?

Matt:

Not necessarily but neither does it mean that you are in any way obliged to do so. If you are happy with a respectable representative trophy you shoot it and if you want to take a chance and look for something better that too is fair game.

Your PH is or should be qualified enough to let you know if the animal is a shooter or not, if it is an average, above average or exceptional specimen - based on that, the decision to break the sear is yours to make.

BUT - to purposely turn down an animal because your judgement tells you it will not make a Gold is BS and your sense of hunting is no longer associated with sport but more towards competition and that IMO is not what hunting is about.

I think some of our friends here are missing the point.

Go and hunt, and shoot whatever trophy you wish.

It is no one's business as far as I am concerned and it legal.

The trouble starts once all the cheating is brought in by unscrupulous crooks.

Both clients and professional hunters.

Last month we were hunting wildebeest.

Alan, my PH knows I only wanted the skin, rather than the head.

We looked at a herd, and he said "You don't want the head, do you?"

"No, I just want the skin."

"There is a very nice trophy there, but may be we should leave him for someone else, and you shoot that older one?"

"Sounds good to me"

I feel the same way shooting whitetail deer here. Meat and whatever is good for me. I've likely shot the biggest deer I want without breaking the bank. However, the deer with broken antlers may be something different next year. A broken horn is typically just that and will always be that.

However, I do have some African game still to be put on the wall. More specially, a representative buffalo and kudu.

Oh I get it Saeed and fujo - you blame SCI for hunters seeking big trophies... what a laugh!!

Fujo - if you think your PH doesnt have trophy benchmarks in their mind, for most animals, you are delusional.

Most of my clients want to know what a good benchmark for any particular species is. Most of them dont enter their trophies in the SCI record book although most ARE members... maybe one in fifty ever mentions medal standards. Invariably though the common benchmark for a species is around the gold medal standard mark.

Matt,

I find so silly to read about anyone hunting where the only criteria is how big it is what prize it gets from SCI.

Shooting an exceptional trophy is great, as far as it goes. And most of it depends on luck, nothing else.

Paying crooked professional hunters in South Africa to buy them and keep them for you to fly over and shoot them is a far cry from what I would classify as hunting.

THAT's what SCI has encouraged with their holy grail of silly inner circles.

I KNOW they know about it, and they are keeping a blind eye to it.

quote:

Oh I get it Saeed and fujo - you blame SCI for hunters seeking big trophies... what a laugh!!

I'll try again just for your sake:

"Your PH is or should be qualified enough to let you know if the animal is a shooter or not, if it is an average, above average or exceptional specimen - based on that, the decision to break the sear is yours to make".

Now then, seeing you are advocating biggest is better/best, I'm with you on that one if you are a gong hunter!
What benchmark medal standard do you offer clients who are simply not interested in the gold medal class; to those who don't give a shit about a plaque or a medal? ... would your next benchmark be silver... or maybe bronze? ... in the lines of "Average, Above Average, Exceptional"

Could you please tell us then (no obligation) why everyone gets up tight if the slightest negative comment is made regarding the quality or size of a posted trophy?

The typical answer on the lines: "If you don't like it don't read it" - kind of answer coming from a cretin seeing one can't know unless the post is viewed ...... and once viewed, if the article is not appreciated, any comment bordering on the negative is not permitted.
The diplomacy here is to move on and allow that individual to continue being showered with praise - I sometimes wonder how that poster must feel about all those well wishers and their bogus compliments once he discovers his trophy was sub-standard?

The same well-wishers, who know what they are seeing, are the ones that should refrain from faking the compliment, view and move on.

Can't win can you!

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:

quote:

Oh I get it Saeed and fujo - you blame SCI for hunters seeking big trophies... what a laugh!!

I'll try again just for your sake:

"Your PH is or should be qualified enough to let you know if the animal is a shooter or not, if it is an average, above average or exceptional specimen - based on that, the decision to break the sear is yours to make".

Now then, seeing you are advocating biggest is better/best, I'm with you on that one if you are a gong hunter!
What benchmark medal standard do you offer clients who are simply not interested in the gold medal class; to those who don't give a shit about a plaque or a medal? ... would your next benchmark be silver... or maybe bronze? ... in the lines of "Average, Above Average, Exceptional"

Could you please tell us then (no obligation) why everyone gets up tight if the slightest negative comment is made regarding the quality or size of a posted trophy?

The typical answer on the lines: "If you don't like it don't read it" - kind of answer coming from a cretin seeing one can't know unless the post is viewed ...... and once viewed, if the article is not appreciated, any comment bordering on the negative is not permitted.
The diplomacy here is to move on and allow that individual to continue being showered with praise - I sometimes wonder how that poster must feel about all those well wishers and their bogus compliments once he discovers his trophy was sub-standard?

The same well-wishers, who know what they are seeing, are the ones that should refrain from faking the compliment, view and move on.

Can't win can you!

I cant compete with you two twits - anyone who puts forward a decent argument just gets shouted down with this anti-SCI rhetoric. I can keep the high ground here because I know the vast majority of my clients are hunting for the right reasons and I will defend them. So too the guides and PH's who I employ or I know (and call my friends) are all hunters themselves and not just chasing dollars. They do not push the biggest-is-best attitude to clients - and I dont see that on AR either. You two smart alecs can look down your noses at the majority of hunters that want to go out and have a good time AND HUNT for the best quality animals an area has to offer - but I will not be party to that nonsense. Your disdain for the average hunter, who just wants to get the most from his or her hunt (be it trophy size or whatever) is just revolting.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:
anyone who puts forward a decent argument just gets shouted down with this anti-SCI rhetoric.

Nothing new there Matt.......

Brett

PS. SCI is the cause for global warming, inflation, the JFK assassination, and the reason why pandas don't mate in captivity. Just ask the haters.....

Wow - I must be really special!! Now I get an unsolicited PM from Mr fujotofu, calling me an asshole!! Venomous bile-spitter...

quote:

I cant compete with you two twits

So if we don't agree with you we are called twits ha?

Is SCI paying you to insults those who object to some of their ways?

Man this is old. The man ask about DSC and zip bang the SCI bashers come out swinging like it is a knife fight. I thought the purpose of the AR forms was to share information and this string has no new information. I have been on and off (booted) for many years and this SCI bashing is an ongoing melodrama!

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Matt,

I honestly think that using the SCI Record Book for conservation is dubious at best.

The entrance requirements for the book are low not to make it "more inclusive" for the average hunter to get their name in the book. The real reason is to have a greater pool of potential hunters who will PAY to get their name in it.

As far as using the record book to support the definition of a new species, look at the Cape Kudu. There isn't the scientific evidence to support the notion that is a different species but SCI lists it as being separate. Why? Because it is a new category that they can make money off of.

In my opinion the SCI Record Book is one of the worst things that has happened to hunting. It has created competition where competition shouldn't exist and has lent an air of elitism to the sport. PHs have pressure put on them by clients and bosses to make sure the trophies "make the book" and hunters can feel inadequate if their trophy doesn't.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum. Some outfitters even offer that if the first animal doesn't meet the minimum then they can shoot another animal.

What conservation purpose does this serve?

You are entitled to your opinion, just as SCI is entitled to their opinion that Cape Kudu are significantly different to warrant their own subspecies.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

I cant compete with you two twits

So if we don't agree with you we are called twits ha?

Is SCI paying you to insults those who object to some of their ways?

You will never agree with me one bit because you are closed-minded on the topic of SCI. I on the other hand readily admit SCI's faults ... and no they do not pay me. Some of us have to have the balls to offer an opposing view in this place. I gain nothing financially by doing so....

Yo, Matt you are going to be joining me in the banned section.

quote:

Die Ou Jagter

your right the pissing contest gets old fast. it is two different clubs totally get the F%$#K over yourselves....... come to DSC have fun meet a lot of good people.. as i seem to remember the gentleman asked about DSC convention!!!!!!not SCI....

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
Yo, Matt you are going to be joining me in the banned section.

Can you tell me why you were banned?

I don't remember ever banning anyone for having an opposing view on this forum?

I had a serious disagreement with the former administrator on the Political board and was banned. My friend Frank Beller got me reinstated as I was the planner etc of the DSC Friday dinner and the Sat party. I needed to be on here to communicate with people planning to attend etc. That was about 4 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Die Ou Jagter:
I had a serious disagreement with the former administrator on the Political board and was banned. My friend Frank Beller got me reinstated as I was the planner etc of the DSC Friday dinner and the Sat party. I needed to be on here to communicate with people planning to attend etc. That was about 4 years ago.

Ah the truth is finally out!

Thank you very much.

Carry on being the SCI cheerleader, I promise you that no one is going to ban you for that

I too have issues with SCI, but they are minor & I will leave it at that.
The record book or medals mean nothing to me, but for those that it does, go for it, I just don't care!
Just like some threads here on AR, there are those that I follow & participate in & those that I don't because they don't interest me.
I respectfully ask those that are in this argument to please let it rest, this is an old worn out topic & nobody ever wins anyone else over to their side.

"Ah the truth is finally out!"

What does that mean? It was the Political Board what does one expect there, civility?

Lets start another diatribe.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Graham:

quote:

Originally posted by rxgremlin:
Matt,

I honestly think that using the SCI Record Book for conservation is dubious at best.

The entrance requirements for the book are low not to make it "more inclusive" for the average hunter to get their name in the book. The real reason is to have a greater pool of potential hunters who will PAY to get their name in it.

As far as using the record book to support the definition of a new species, look at the Cape Kudu. There isn't the scientific evidence to support the notion that is a different species but SCI lists it as being separate. Why? Because it is a new category that they can make money off of.

In my opinion the SCI Record Book is one of the worst things that has happened to hunting. It has created competition where competition shouldn't exist and has lent an air of elitism to the sport. PHs have pressure put on them by clients and bosses to make sure the trophies "make the book" and hunters can feel inadequate if their trophy doesn't.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs that a first time hunter can have 90% of their trophies meet the SCI minimum. Some outfitters even offer that if the first animal doesn't meet the minimum then they can shoot another animal.

What conservation purpose does this serve?

You are entitled to your opinion, just as SCI is entitled to their opinion that Cape Kudu are significantly different to warrant their own subspecies.

It isn't my opinion Matt it is the consensus of the scientific community including IUCN. SCI recognizes 5 subspecies whereas everyone else recognizes 3. I think that speaks volumes about the emphasis SCI puts on its own trophy book.