Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75

Thread: Boone & Crockett vs SCI

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    7

    Default Boone & Crockett vs SCI

    Does anybody know why most of the mounts I see around Alaska (in airports) are SCI scored instead of B&C? I know there are little differences in the measuring of trophies but SCI accepts animals in high finced areas and that alone is reason enough for me to never have a trophy measured by them.

    Just woundering what the thoughts of others were on this topic.

  2. #2

    Default

    There are actually some big differences between B&C and SCI measuring methods. Go to their respective websites and get both measuring forms for caribou and you'll see the big difference. SCI's scoring system results in a greater number score because it measures each and every point. B&C has a different philosophy which puts a greater value on symmetry. I wont argue which one is better. However, SCI makes it much easier to make their book, they probably make quite a bit of cash off the book entry fees.
    Mark

  3. #3
    Member Stickeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE AK
    Posts
    90

    Default

    I think SCI has a scoring method to get your house cat entered!

  4. #4
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    The reason you see so many SCI animals displayed around is that it is easier to get in their book than B&C.
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  5. #5
    Member shphtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Chugiak
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    I have heard it stated that approx 10% of animals will qualify for SCI while approx 1% might qualify for B&C. I can not verify this but it is prob at least in the ball park.

  6. #6
    Member Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool, NY (a suburb of Syracuse)
    Posts
    494

    Default SCI

    As far as the mounts are concerned, the SCI score is always higher. It is also easier to get an animal in the record book. Motives - I'm not aware of the motive.

    SCI aslo scores imported trophies, animals shot within game fences, and foreign trophies. B & C limits their scoring to native, North American game animals. That is the reason the reindeer of Kodiak are recognized by SCI and not B & C.

    As for what they do that with their money, I suggest that you do a search of each organization - especially before condemning one of them.

  7. #7
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    I believe one of the biggest whitetails in B&C was a road kill also a bear skull I know of was a pick-up from a walk in the woods so high fence ain't that bad.

  8. #8
    Member AKDoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Talkeetna
    Posts
    5,714

    Default

    Both the grizzly bear and black bear records are held by "picked up" skulls. They are listed as such by Boone and Crockett. B&C claims to want to honor the animal not the hunter so that is their reasoning for allowing "picked up" skulls. That's a far cry from grow your own record behind a fence.
    Bunny Boots and Bearcats: Utility Sled Mayhem

  9. #9
    Member AK145's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wack n stack View Post
    Does anybody know why most of the mounts I see around Alaska (in airports) are SCI scored instead of B&C? I know there are little differences in the measuring of trophies but SCI accepts animals in high finced areas and that alone is reason enough for me to never have a trophy measured by them.

    Just woundering what the thoughts of others were on this topic.
    With all due respect, you need to do some research on SCI and what they do for hunter's world wide. This is an organization that is dedicated to preserving hunter's rights and they push big muscle in D.C. when comes to hunting and conservation issues in this country and over seas.

    Yes....you can score high fence game taken using SCI scoring systems. Usually you can always tell when a big buck is killed and it it's behind fence because the score is SCI and not B&C or P&Y.

    But that being said there is much more to that organization than scoring game.

  10. #10

    Default

    Both encourage head hunting. Although i believe it is your choice to take the best animal. What i don't think is right is that when you have to one up someone to meet your ego. Although they both play a key part in supporting hunting.

  11. #11
    Member Phil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Liverpool, NY (a suburb of Syracuse)
    Posts
    494

    Default Some Thoughts

    I plan on addressing the "more money than brains" issue on the General Discussion forum - as soon as I'm done with this one.

    I am a member of SCI and not a member of B & C or P & Y so my thoughts may be slanted. There is a LOT of politics today (sad but true IMO) in hunting. It is my "gut feeling" (no facts involved) that SCI is more politically involved than either of the other two. They push the hunting agenda in the "rich & powerful" area where it does some good.

    Wherther or not you approve is of no consequence - it's the way life is at this point in time (and will continue to be until someone changes the political arena).

  12. #12

    Default SCI, B&C and Church

    I hope by me saying that getting an animal into the SCI book is easier than getting into B&C didn't give the impression that that I'm slamming SCI. I'm both an SCI member and a B&C Club "associate member" (pretty difficult to become an actual member).

    However I don't agree with some of SCI's positions; that's o.k., they do a whole lot of good for hunting around the world.

    It's kind of like that old saying about joining a church: "Don't wait until you find the perfect church, or you'll ruin it". I other words, be happy with the good stuff about the organization, and try to be a positive influence on things that might need improvement.

    Mark

  13. #13
    Premium Member Wyo2AK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Spenard
    Posts
    1,232

    Default

    If it were up to me, I’d close the book on record books right now. The best thing we can do for the future of hunting is do away with scoring systems and record books. I know it's not really realistic, but it's still my vote.

    Don't get me wrong - I have no problems with organizations that promote hunting (SCI, B&C, P&Y, Rowlands Ward, CIC, whoever) and keep on fighting for the rights of hunters, and I’ll keep on thanking them and sending them my money - but scores, records, and trophies are threatening to destroy hunting as we know it.

    Scoring systems and record books came about as away to categorize wild animals and show the top potential for each species. Hence B&C/P&Y allowing for pick-ups and established a set of fair chase principles. Unfortunately, the goal has transcended to one dominated by ego, money and success determined by numbers.

    “The goal of the SCI Record Book is to provide an accurate and complete natural history of the world’s game animals.” -R. Douglas Yajko, MD, Chairman, SCI Trophy Records Committee

    Where exactly do game farms, imported animals, bioengineered feed, high-fence hunting, artificial insemination, etc. come into the “natural history of the world’s game animals” ???

    Scores and records have become the priority for far too many hunters, and in a very bad way. What used to be the basis for recognizing a truly impressive animal has turned into a tool for stoking ego, bragging rights, and a sense of self-accomplishment. True, they may still be the majority of hunters, but they also tend to be the most public and recognized in our current society. Do away with scores and records - the ability to say “I killed the #7 non-typical whitetail” or “I just got back from bagging a 415 elk in Alberta” or “I’ve got six animals in the SCI record book” or “I won’t pull the trigger unless it’s going to make B&C” - and you take a major step in getting rid of canned hunts sold on ebay, multi-thousand acre game “ranches,” outrageous guiding/outfitting fees, scouting parties waiting around for a photo op and a lot of the other BS that has come to define hunting these days.

    We’re raising a generation of hunters that understands the value of a hunt by the numbers you can tack on it at the end, and not the thrill of the stalk, the humility of being outwitted, the bittersweet taste of success, and the value of respect. Ethics are taking a backseat to ego and pride. And money is exchanging hands at an alarming rate to satisfy that ego. Magazines like Trophy Hunter, Eastman’s Journal, and Racks are doing nothing but emphasizing the importance of numbers and records. (Eastman’s is even worse in my opinion as now you’ve got people bragging that they’re even better hunters because they’re killing huge animals on public land, but I’m getting too far off the point.)

    “Trophy hunting” has become a bad word, and we’re only making it worse. Don’t get me wrong – I have no problems in trophies (that is taxidermy, photos, videos, etc.) as mementos of memorable hunts and celebrations of worthy opponents who were outwitted for a second too long. I’ve got several heads on the wall, and I’ve come back from hunts empty handed as a result of holding out for an old mature animal I felt worthy of my arrow or bullet. But the tides are changing.

    As hunters, we’re a dying population. For now, non-hunters tend to approve of hunting as means for managing wildlife and putting meat on the table. But “trophy hunting” and its glorification is a quick way to turn non-hunters into anti-hunters. Today's obsession with trophies and records will be the downfall of hunting.

    I love hunting, and I wish everyone the best of luck. I love seeing pictures of happy hunters at the end of a successful hunt. Take pictures, show them to your friends, take some measurements if you want, but let’s stop this obsession with scores and records.

    “The reduction of the individual and very personal value of hunting trophies to score sheets with numbers is deplorable. In fact, trophy mania destroys our hunting culture and makes mockery of our traditions. I state this as President of CIC, an organization which gained acknowledgement over many decades through its formulas for trophy scoring.” - Dieter Schramm, President CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation

    Maybe establish a record book based on age. That'd be something I'd stand behind. I shot a cow elk once that was 21 years old. I’ll admit, I thought I was shooting a calf her head looked so big compared to her body. Nothing but skin and bones when I got up close. Coincidentally, I was 21 at the time – we were born the same spring. I’ve still got her cracked and shrunken old whistlers. Now that’s a trophy I’ll brag about and a hunt I’ll remember.
    Last edited by Wyo2AK; 12-30-2008 at 21:02. Reason: removed hyphen from Mr. Schramm's quote
    Pursue happiness with diligence.

  14. #14

    Default

    Very well said Wyo2K,

    Although I am a *horn* hunter, I'm not obsessed with taking a trophy. I like taking mauture bucks and bulls that are *better than average* because it is satisfing to shoot such animals and also challanging to hunt them. It was also satisfying when I shot a cow elk a week and a half ago, quartered it and drug it out 3 miles myself. It's not hard to shoot a 3x3 mulie, but to find and shoot a wise old 4x4 or better is a challanging and rewarding thing. Also, my philosohy is to let the small bucks grow into big bucks and I will shoot a cow or doe before shooting a small buck. I was fortunate enough to draw a sheep tag in a good area in Montana years ago (89) and I was hoping for a *nice* ram. I did a lot of researching and searching, covered a lot of miles and was eventually blessed with B&C ram that I ironicaly shot about 200 yds from my truck on the way back from a morning hunt. I passed up several others before shooting him. I also was blessed with taking a *nice* 324 (316 net) bull which I am very happy with. It's a representative mature bull elk, but not trophy class. Once again, ironically, he was a fairly easy kill after many days of hard hunting. He basically ran toward my bugle which doesn't happen very often. The hunt and the experience make it worth while for me whether or not I shoot an animal, and taking game is icing on the cake. I have seen many sunrises and sunsets, beautiful country and wildlife and have a ton of stories to tell.

    I agree that the obsession and preoccupation with "trophy hunting" is detrimental to the sport and this is teaching our children to feed their egos and puts hunting in a bad light to many who look on as well adversly affecting hunting for ourselves.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    257

    Default

    I'm with WYO2Ak,

    I have taken a caribou the taxidermist told me would make the SCI record book but not B&C because it's atypical and the deductions would prevent its entry. I haven't gotten it scored because as much as I enjoy hunting and taking large animals of any species, for me its not about "makin the book" it's about getting an animal. Lest you think I'm just a meat hunter, I do love to shoot big animals and show off pictures of big racks.

    I am wholeheartedly in favor of any organization that supports and lobbies on behalf of hunters. It's what we need if we are to continue the hunting tradition in this country. The number of hunters continues to decline with each passing generation and we need all the help we can get.

    I am an Outdoor Channel junkie and of all the shows on that channel, the only one that routinely talks about actually eating the meat from the big game animals he just killed is Ted Nugent. Everybody else is all about the score. While there is nothing wrong with killing an animal for it's score. IMHO it paints the wrong picture for the non-hunting community.

    It is much easier for me to talk with an anti-hunter or better yet a person who hasn't formed an opinion about hunting when I talk of how we cook the meat. How it tastes great in spaghetti is healthier than beef with less fat, no hormones, no anti-biotics etc. I think many people find hunting more palatable when they see it as being done primarily for feeding your family rather than simply for bragging rights.

    I recently watched a show on the Outdoor channel where a cowboy action shooter shot an allegedly free range bison on a ranch in the lower 48. He and the owner/guide rode up to a small herd of bison on horseback. You could clearly see the fence in the background. He got off the horse, set up the shooting sticks and shot the large bull the owner wanted him to shoot. The other bulls stood around in the background while the proud hunter posed with his trophy. Now, that is not hunting to me. That is culling a herd of bison. To call it a hunt is offensive to me. He might as well stroll over to a cattle ranch and bust himself a nice Black Angus bull while he's there. Canned hunts do not paint a favorable image of hunting and just provide anti-hunters with more propaganda ammo to fire against us.

    So, while I am in favor of both SCI and B&C because of potential lobbying power, I personally believe hunting is more than shooting a bigger bull than your huntin buddies. It's the whole experience, the camaradiere during the trip, and the breakfast sausage I get to eat in the mornings long after the hunt is over.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Ditto Wyo2Ak.
    Hunting magazines give bad impressions of hunting to non-hunters, give away some of the last best places to people that would have never found them on their own, and give an unrealistic view of hunting for most of us. Kind of like porno compared to the real thing if you know what I mean.

  17. #17
    Member markopolo50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Fenton,Michigan
    Posts
    838

    Default SCI scoring

    I am a member of our local SCI. One thing I like about the scoring of SCI is tha there is no deductions. The antlers, horns that the animal produces is scored fully, giving the animal the credit. I know there are things about SCI I don't fully support, like the NRA (member also), they do alot of good for hunters and gun owners rights. Mark

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default Wyo2AK

    I agree whole heartedly with you. Sometimes it seems like most hunters have forgotten what hunting is really about, providing food for your family. When we don't remember why we really hunt, how can we get non hunters to understand hunting? We make it easy for the anti's to turn non hunters into more anti's.

    Many so called hunters have lost their souls. I hear a lot of trophy hunters say they trophy hunt for the "challenge" it presents, but then I see them skip the challenge and try to buy their success by Hunting private leases, hunting farmed animals behind a fence, hiring guides, setting up automatic feeders beside stands that are nicer than people in most third world countries live in.

    Here's a novel idea, take the time, put in the effort, hunt public land, and really challenge yourself. If you want to put any credence to the idea that you've accomplished something great, there has to be a real challenge. Not something you can buy with money.

    I admire a large mature animal as much as the next guy, but one of my pet peeves is people who dismiss younger animals as "raghorns" or say "I won't shoot a spike, or doe" as if there is something inherently inferior with an animal that won't make "the book", any book. Many times, those so called "inferior animals" are better eating. And that is the reason we have the hunting gene in the first place, because our ancestors learned to hunt to survive.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    2,085

    Default By the way

    By the way, I keep hearing about all that SCI and B&C etc have done for hunters.

    Tell me what they have done for me? Because I don't believe their agenda is about helping me or the average everyday hunter. Maybe they started that way, but now I believe they are about money and power and protecting the "Hunting Industry". And that is a big difference from helping hunters. As far as every day hunters, these organizations care about the donations they can get, but that's about it.

    You can tell me I have to overlook the high fence hunting trophy book because they support hunting, but that's the same as telling me I have to overlook the vice perpetrated by the Mafia because they gave money to the local orphanage.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    257

    Default

    Twodux,

    That's a fair question. I'm not a member of either organization so I went to their websites. It appears SCI chapters are raising money to help a variety of species in Italy, Africa, Asia, and North America. Here's the link to their website:

    http://www.safariclubfoundation.org/...nt_Menu_ID=227

    Apparently, B&C are also into organizing conservation efforts within the U.S. Here's the link for their site:

    http://www.boone-crockett.org/conser...a=conservation

    I'm glad there are some organizations out there trying to sustain the future of wildlife populations and continue the hunting tradition.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •