sako751sg
Well-Known Member
Stopped buying it around the time they were running write ups on stalking chickens. Could you tell me what issues they have with the CIC fella?
BASC Head Measuring?
- Thread starter flytie
- Start date
Stopped buying it around the time they were running write ups on stalking chickens. Could you tell me what issues they have with the CIC fella?
flytie
Well-Known Member
Thanks again Dom, My email from CIC came this morning too and I thought that is was very apt especially the part you highlighted, but I must spend more time reading the links.
S.
I too have stopped taking the magazine and would quite like to hear what issues they have with CIC?
Simon
al4x1
Well-Known Member
flytie
Well-Known Member
It seems strange when Peter Carr infers that CIC had problems producing new heads to be included in the 2012 list as one notable gent on this site had the 13th largest roe head ever measured, and it was done by Richard Prior for CIC. There have been others on this site who have been to Mr Priors too in the same time period, and he is not the only authenticated CIC measurer. But I will leave it to people better qualified than me to say whether CIC were still measuring new heads or not, I am sure they are well able to defend themselves!
I cannot read the full article, and refuse to buy the "chicken hunters gazette" anymore, so I will wait and see if I can borrow a copy from a deluded friend.
Simon
I cannot read the full article, and refuse to buy the "chicken hunters gazette" anymore, so I will wait and see if I can borrow a copy from a deluded friend.
Simon
al4x1
Well-Known Member
I missed that but can only imagine bearing in mind their latest effort on the shooting show, coots with a HMR
cookingfat
Well-Known Member
[SUB] meddle chicken head that would be interesting......!!!![/SUB]
Ian - spot on!!
SCI have beaten us to it - well not for chickens but turkey's
http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/media/images/view/mediaid/556
David
PS hottopic - have you missed the fact that the majority of our measures are free?????-So how can we do this to make money if in most cases we do not charge????
http://www.scifirstforhunters.org/media/images/view/mediaid/556
David
PS hottopic - have you missed the fact that the majority of our measures are free?????-So how can we do this to make money if in most cases we do not charge????
Last edited:
snowy
Well-Known Member
PS hottopic - have you missed the fact that the majority of our measures are free?????-So how can we do this to make money if in most cases we do not charge????
So all basc members are only going to shoot one, I thought I'd read the first one is free so are any further measured for the same member free David ???
So all basc members are only going to shoot one, I thought I'd read the first one is free so are any further measured for the same member free David ???
6pointer
Well-Known Member
I feel that for BASC members its a good idea but has no real meaning. For any one else or for some one who values there trophy and wants to see it judged against the best that's out there the CIC is the winner for me. DG has however done a good job of hurting the cic in the pocket by involving BASC in his one up manship.
sako751sg
Well-Known Member
Cheers for that fella. The missus has bought one so will have a read of that too.
Usual crap from PC,because someone takes in a few heads from through the years it means,"it seems that a lot of loft searching and rattling around in sheds was done last year to provide heads for the CIC measurement list".
He always comes across as very bias and his bit aboot it not being an appendage contest reeks as every bit he does regarding the BASC system is that my cock is bigger than yours.
I don't know anyone personally that would rather BASC measures their heeds but obviously many others do so the two will just have to get on with their systems and hopefully quit bitching. One thing I do agree with is there is a reluctance or inability for the higher ranks in the CIC to communicate with the recreational stalker when questioned on subjects they don't like. At grass root scoring level things are a lot better and the judges take a wee bit time now to speak and answer queries which can only be good for knowledge of the system.
Time for both parties just to get on with things.
Last edited:
sako751sg
Well-Known Member
Also had a gold and silver scored by the CIC last year and seemed to have plenty of heads to score lying about at both game fairs but can't so if they were up or doon.
Good afternoon Snowy,
If a BASC member comes to see us at any of the shows or events with a head we measure it for free.
If they bring two or more heads, we measure the first one free and then charge £15 each for the 2nd, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP], 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and so on…
If a member brings one different head to each show we are at, then it’s free each time we measure, so they could get as many measured for free if they want to spread them over different shows.
Six pointer – as you say it’s a benefit for members, and that’s exactly what it was aimed at and as long as members want it we will deliver it.
David
If a BASC member comes to see us at any of the shows or events with a head we measure it for free.
If they bring two or more heads, we measure the first one free and then charge £15 each for the 2nd, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP], 4[SUP]th[/SUP] and so on…
If a member brings one different head to each show we are at, then it’s free each time we measure, so they could get as many measured for free if they want to spread them over different shows.
Six pointer – as you say it’s a benefit for members, and that’s exactly what it was aimed at and as long as members want it we will deliver it.
David
I'm a good example of a BASC member who benefits from this service. If I shoot a decent Buck on our ground I can take it to the Catton Fair and get BASC to have a look at it for free. I live down the road, so its no hassle. I can get it looked at on the day and if it makes a medal I can get one there and then if I want one, although I probably won't.
The data is made public, so it goes into the mix. I'm not taking money out of CIC's pocket cause I'm not that bothered about trophies and wouldn't go to the trouble of getting one measured by them anyway. I know that it's not an internationally recognised medal, but I don't care because I've had a bit of fun getting it measured and its cost me nought.
I can't see why people think any of the above is wrong or harmful to any other organisation.
Cheers,
Bob
The data is made public, so it goes into the mix. I'm not taking money out of CIC's pocket cause I'm not that bothered about trophies and wouldn't go to the trouble of getting one measured by them anyway. I know that it's not an internationally recognised medal, but I don't care because I've had a bit of fun getting it measured and its cost me nought.
I can't see why people think any of the above is wrong or harmful to any other organisation.
Cheers,
Bob
Last edited:
When this thread started I was firmly in the CIC camp, now I am not quite so adamant, would I use the BASC scheme
probably not but that is only because all my clients are European and as such BASC measurements are of no interest to them , so will continue to use CIC which is international.
If you are a UK resident and only interested in deer shot in the UK then the BASC measuring scheme should be adequate for your needs.
If you are more interested comparing a species across their range then possibly CIC is the one for you
The previous poster mentions a reluctance for the higher ranks of the CIC communicate with the recreational stalker, and that would seem to be so, however the same could also maybe be said for those involved in the BASC scheme , I have tried but so far have been unable to get the BASC formula for measuring Roe , may be wrong but I am starting to get the impression they don't want us measuring heads our selves, why not if there is no charge for heads that don't make medal status what have they to loose if we have a head that will make medal we have to get it officially measured if we want the certificate.
Where as the CIC formula is readily available, maybe to readily available a point that I am just coming to with a feeling of some embarrassment.
Now I will measure heads for my clients that would appear to be a medal they can then decide to whether to have them officially measured or not, I always err on the side of caution which may be fortunate in light of the following
Now when I measure a head I always refer to the formula (a) probably because I don't measure enough to remember it of by heart and (b) my memory is not that good.
So imagine my surprise the other night when span was mentioned on this thread I picked up the first book that came to hand and quoted the figures, only to get a couple of replies telling me I was wrong.
And of course they were right I quoted 30-35%
35-40% =2
40-45%=3
45-70% =4
less than 30% and more than 70% = nil
Where as it should have been 30 -34.9% =1
35 - 39.9% =2
40 - 44.9% =3
45- 75% = 4
less than 30% and over 75% equals nil
Now my first thoughts were I had taken my original figures from a misprinted publication but then I find the same figures in another publication taken from Game Trophy's of the World , International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation(P. Parey Verlag, Hamburg 1981) so two publications with misprint unlikely, so the formula had changed told no it has always been the same, so decided to do a little research on CIC
1930 International Council for game and Wildlife registered in Paris
1934 CIC put into practise
1937 Some improvements made to the formula
Some disruption during the war years as you would expect
1952 an agreed system of measuring put into place
1954 further changes to system
1955 again more changes
1971 a complete International system set up but took until 1977 before a unified system was established
2011 statement made that red and blue books to be revised as they are outdated
Present time talks about revising the system doing away with beauty, penalty, span points as they are now thought to be irrelevant.
What changed in the formula's which species were affected I have been unable to find out
What does it mean nothing much other than CIC is also constantly changing and has not stuck to exactly the same formula's for the last eighty years as I had thought.
One final thought maybe one day CIC will recognise BASC measurements in the same way they recognise those of Boone & Crockett especially as it seems that both BASC and CIC arrive atmore or less the the same destination though taking a different approach.
probably not but that is only because all my clients are European and as such BASC measurements are of no interest to them , so will continue to use CIC which is international.
If you are a UK resident and only interested in deer shot in the UK then the BASC measuring scheme should be adequate for your needs.
If you are more interested comparing a species across their range then possibly CIC is the one for you
The previous poster mentions a reluctance for the higher ranks of the CIC communicate with the recreational stalker, and that would seem to be so, however the same could also maybe be said for those involved in the BASC scheme , I have tried but so far have been unable to get the BASC formula for measuring Roe , may be wrong but I am starting to get the impression they don't want us measuring heads our selves, why not if there is no charge for heads that don't make medal status what have they to loose if we have a head that will make medal we have to get it officially measured if we want the certificate.
Where as the CIC formula is readily available, maybe to readily available a point that I am just coming to with a feeling of some embarrassment.
Now I will measure heads for my clients that would appear to be a medal they can then decide to whether to have them officially measured or not, I always err on the side of caution which may be fortunate in light of the following
Now when I measure a head I always refer to the formula (a) probably because I don't measure enough to remember it of by heart and (b) my memory is not that good.
So imagine my surprise the other night when span was mentioned on this thread I picked up the first book that came to hand and quoted the figures, only to get a couple of replies telling me I was wrong.
And of course they were right I quoted 30-35%
35-40% =2
40-45%=3
45-70% =4
less than 30% and more than 70% = nil
Where as it should have been 30 -34.9% =1
35 - 39.9% =2
40 - 44.9% =3
45- 75% = 4
less than 30% and over 75% equals nil
Now my first thoughts were I had taken my original figures from a misprinted publication but then I find the same figures in another publication taken from Game Trophy's of the World , International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation(P. Parey Verlag, Hamburg 1981) so two publications with misprint unlikely, so the formula had changed told no it has always been the same, so decided to do a little research on CIC
1930 International Council for game and Wildlife registered in Paris
1934 CIC put into practise
1937 Some improvements made to the formula
Some disruption during the war years as you would expect
1952 an agreed system of measuring put into place
1954 further changes to system
1955 again more changes
1971 a complete International system set up but took until 1977 before a unified system was established
2011 statement made that red and blue books to be revised as they are outdated
Present time talks about revising the system doing away with beauty, penalty, span points as they are now thought to be irrelevant.
What changed in the formula's which species were affected I have been unable to find out
What does it mean nothing much other than CIC is also constantly changing and has not stuck to exactly the same formula's for the last eighty years as I had thought.
One final thought maybe one day CIC will recognise BASC measurements in the same way they recognise those of Boone & Crockett especially as it seems that both BASC and CIC arrive atmore or less the the same destination though taking a different approach.
Similar threads
