was looking through some brochures the other day, and one outfitter listed most of his heads with SCI scores (that's coues, mulies, antelope, and elk), but listed a few a P&Y or B&C. does the SCI use a different scoring system for deer/antelope/elk than B&C, or do these scores convert pretty closely?

I don't know how well they convert, but one reason he mighed have used SCI instead of B&C is the animals might not have been free ranging. SCI counts fenced animals where as B&C does not.

tcencore,

SCI minimums are, to my knowledge, lower than B&C minimums just as they are lower than Rowland Ward minimums for African game. Getting some animals into B&C is pretty damn difficult. Shooting a free ranging bison, for example, that scores better than the required 115" (length, bases, and some quarter measurements), for example, is quite a feat but shotting one under "controlled conditions" that makes the SCI minimum of, I believe, 64" (length and bases) is quite a bit easier. As you can see this is one example of measurement systems differing between the two organizations.
B&C also deducts points for asymetry which makes the task of making "the book" doubly difficult. you must shoot a large animal that is also aesthetically pleasing!

Hope this helps!

Best Regards,

JohnTheGreek

[ 01-10-2003, 23:24: Message edited by: JohnTheGreek ]

SCI reminds me of numerous other "Books",in that their focal point is to allow EVERYTHING that hits the ground,to attain lofty recognition. Without doubt,B&C employs much tighter guidelines and has the bar raised higher(for Species that fall within it's guidelines).

The bottom line is that anything that meets the B&C All Time minimums,is worthy of attention. In my opinion,their system is the definative yardstick of evaluation.

The rest of the "Books" pale in comparison(excepting P&Y)..........

The B&C and P&Y systems also deduct inches of measurement for "symmetry violations", so the scores are net -- numbers will be smaller. Outfitters like to advertise larger numbers.

I am a master measurer in the SCI measurement system, and I prefer it to both Boone & Crockett or Pope & Young and Rowland Ward. B&C/P&Y cover only North American animals, while RW covers only African animals. The SCI system is world wide, and is based on crediting the animal for what it grew.

SCI divides the record book into categories so that for example game hunted behind wire can be compared to other similarly-hunted animals. It is up to the hunter to enter the animal into the appropriate category, and to certify the conditions of the hunt.

I don't buy the argument that the SCI measurement system is somehow inferior to B&C because the latter record book has higher minimum scores. Think about it.

I don't get paid for measuring trophies, I do it for the money it raises for projects that facilitate conservation, education and defense of the hunter.

If you compare the actions of SCI in these areas to those of B&C, P&Y and RW, you will see that they do not rise to the standard set by SCI. If you think you are also superior to SCI members, what have you done to protect hunting?

jim dodd

[ 01-14-2003, 23:06: Message edited by: HunterJim ]

Jim,

I don't want to start a flame war with you but Rowland Ward does, in fact, cover North American, Pacific, and Asiatic Game as well. These trophies are published in a volume that is separate from the African trophies.

You mention in your post above that the SCI system is based on crediting the animal. I couldn't disagree with you more on this point. Both RW and B&C definitely seem to place the emphasis on the animal while SCI seems to have turned hunting into a way for people to exhalt themselves via their wallets . . . with their "diamond level" this and "gold level" that and "inner circles". The emphasis is clearly on the hunter and his/her status within the organization rather than the animal. I do agree, however, that SCI does a lot for outdoorsmen (and women) and for that I credit them but the ability to fund such projects has been costly, I think, to the spirit of out beloved sport in the way I mentioned above. Further . . . yes, lower minimum scores yield higher revenues which allows greater contributions to be made to preserve hunting in general but, again, at the cost of devaluing the concept of a "record book". If everyone makes the book, what is really the point?

To be more technical for a moment, I can think of one perfect example of how SCI's measuring system is just outright inferior to RW's and it is in the measurement of cape buffalo. RW's use of outside spread as the ONLY criterion for buffalo allows hunters to take MUCH older specimins with worn down horn tips and still make the book (or even rank highly in it). SCI's system of measuring around the curve can create an incentive to take an immature animal when faced with the option because it may "score" better. This is just plain wrong. This is, of course, but one example but it illustrates my point.

Again , I respect what you do as a master measurer and don't want this to blow up into a huge personal conflict but I guess I just see things a little differently.

Best Regards,

JohnTheGreek

Their is no deduct on the B&C skull measurements. Their minimum entries are much higher than SCI.

SCI and RW are for making all parties warm and cozy,as it takes a much lesserr specimen to be acknowledged within their ranks. If that toots your horn,that is great.

B&C simply raises the bar to an upper level. For those that can't get over that hump,there are the other "Books".............

Big Stick,

I have never looked at RW minimums for North American Game but with respect to their records of African Game, it is quite an accomplishment to "make the book" in my opinion.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

Johnthe Greek,

If you think so little of SCI, what pro-hunting group(s) do you belong to, and suggest we support?

RW also accepts one-horned animals because of their "measure only the longest horn" rule. I think they are deformed, but some like them.

If you have a record book and allow fewer entries, is the book necessarily "better"?

SCI's buff scoring method gives credit to drop and hooks, and bosses as well as spread.

jim dodd

[ 01-15-2003, 05:27: Message edited by: HunterJim ]

Jim,

I don't think I ever said I "thought little" of SCI only their scoring system. As a matter of fact, I will be submitting a few trophies this year as a favor to my PH so, in this way, I suppose I am supporting SCI as well. I stand by my assertion that SCI's measuring system, particularly of buffalo is inferior. Yes, SCI's measurement around the curve certainly correlates with outside spread but the boss growth is going to be eventually more than eaten away by the loss in inches from horn tip wear. A buffalo will, obviously, maintain his/her outside spread for much longer than he/she will maintain total around the curve inches so the SCI measurement system simply creates a disincentive for hunters to take mature trophies. This is wrong.

To be blunt, I think a "record book" that allows fewer entries is a "better" book in the sense that inclusion of a trophy actually means something and people (whether they be submitters of trophies or more casual observers) can look at the book and think to themselves "these are all truly the biggest specimins of all time". The opposite is like being a member of a club that will accept anyone. There is simply less appeal.

With regard to Rowland Ward's acceptance of one-horned trophies . . . I have two questions. If you saw a one-horned 70"+ Greater Kudu in the bush, would you shoot it? Would it be one of the greatest trophies to ever come out of Africa? I believe the answer to both questions is an emphatic "HELL YES". Would it make SCI's book? Nope.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

[ 01-15-2003, 23:04: Message edited by: JohnTheGreek ]

JohnThe Greek,

I like the SCI record book for "shopping" for a region to hunt for a particular animal. With a relative abundance of entries, you can judge where people have taken trophies of what quality. This is useful to me, perhaps not to you.

I didn't know anything about the SCI record book before my first hunt in Africa. The PH and outfitter asked me to enter the animals I shot because they were all very nice trophies. After the exposure to the book, I decided to qualify as a measurer as one way to support SCI's programs. I am active in the local San Diego Chapter, and am one of the two master measurers we have. I am underwhelmed with the other awards myself, but they do raise money for SCI. I expect the organization would be open to suggestions to improve the system.

If you don't like the buff scoring method, please submit your recommendation to the record book committee. They do change things from time to time.

I would not shoot a one-horned kudu unless I was doing culling.

jim dodd