Stupid SCI record book question

The Accurate Reloading Forums

This topic can be found at:
https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3411043/m/57110861

21 January 2003, 09:55

John Frazer

Stupid SCI record book question

I'm an SCI member but have never looked at their record books -- in the latest issue of Safari there's a story about a moose hunt where 7 hunters took "Top Ten" moose.

Does this literally mean what it says? That in one whack a single group of hunters displaced 7 of the top 10 record heads? Or does "Top Ten" mean something different in the SCI book lingo?

John

21 January 2003, 10:47

HunterJim

I expect the author really meant something like "all record book moose", rather than all top 10. It is infrequent to see a top 10 animal. I have scored two such in several years of measuring for SCI, and one was in the last month.

Now that I think back, it was three and not two.

jim dodd

[ 01-21-2003, 01:48: Message edited by: HunterJim ]

22 January 2003, 02:11

John Frazer

quote:
Originally posted by HunterJim:
I expect the author really meant something like "all record book moose", rather than all top 10. It is infrequent to see a top 10 animal.

You'd think the editor would catch that.

22 January 2003, 03:26

KevinNY

there are many ties in the book, the top 10 might constitute 40 animals. Also check for what subspecies it was, some are not commonly hunted. Kind of like line class records for fish.

22 January 2003, 07:14

rick3foxes

I believe the article was about a Russian species of moose, so there may have only been a handful in the books to start with.

Rick.

22 January 2003, 07:48

Wendell Reich

I read the article and the same thisng came to my mind. I believe Rick3fox is right. I believe that they are refering to the "Top 10 of Russian Moose"

They were some darn big Moose though ...

23 January 2003, 01:49

John Frazer

quote:
Originally posted by KevinNY:
there are many ties in the book, the top 10 might constitute 40 animals. Also check for what subspecies it was, some are not commonly hunted. Kind of like line class records for fish.

Both good points, hadn't thought about ties (although it depends how you count them -- I notice that B&C gives an actual count, e.g. the top pronghorns are numbered 1,2,3 and a 3-way tie for #4, then they go straight to the 7s -- so there are still not many more than 10 "top ten").

And the subspecies argument makes sense, especially since this was an early hunt into a new area.