BASC Head Measuring?

[bogtrotter]

I always thought CIC maximum for span was 4 fella. Did it change or am I confused?

you are correct max 4 less than 30% or more than70%nil.

 

[eggy s]

I always thought CIC maximum for span was 4 fella. Did it change or am I confused?

I expect I am wrong on that it was from a conversation a year ago.

But a system that goes 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 0 is wrong in my opinion.

 

[sako751sg]

you are correct max 4 less than 30% or more than70%nil.

Have they changed the span then?It was always 75% that was the cut off.

 

[BenC]

Eggys have you considered using the CIC provisional scoring service which is available before the 90 days for roe?I appreciate from your last post that you have other reasons for using the BASC system though. Also despite being a member of BASC and having a good friend who is a measurer for them i don't use their system as for me it doesn't measure up to the CIC system. I remain a member as i think they do good work in other areas.

I would also point out that Peter Carr is wrong in his statement that all last years significant heads were measured under BASC as i know of a few that weren't but went before the CIC. i am not supposing that this doesn't also apply to the CIC system as well and many of the best heads leave the country before being measured by either system unfortunately. Surely better to be recorded by either system than neither?

On the subject of costs i think i am right in saying you only pay for measuring if the trophy achieves medal class with the CIC, not sure whether this is the same with BASC. I really can't see the problem with having more than 1 system, just pick the one that works best for you or if it makes you feel good to have 2 medals on a trophy why not use both.

 

[Hebridean]

Eggy,
regardless of your opinion, and as a matter of fact, in relation to span, the CIC system scores as follows
0-1-2-3-4-0
0= less than 30% of average length of beam ( considered very narrow)
1= 30 to 34.9% of average length of beam
2= 35 to 39.9% of average length of beam
3= 40 to 44.9% of average length of beam
4=45 to 75% of average length of beam
0= more than 75% of average length of beam. ( considered abnormal )
​

 

[bogtrotter]

Why, it does not actually go 1-2-3-4-0 The span is a % of the mean average length its measured at the widest point on the inside edge of the antlers this measurement is taken as a % of the average length of the antlers.

less than 30% very narrow nil
30%-35% = 1
35%- 40% = 2
40% -45% = 3
45%- 70% = 4
over 70% very wide nil

However as the max number of points is 4 its not very important in would really only matter where a head was border line.

 

[bogtrotter]

Sorry mate you got there before me.

 

[sako751sg]

Why, it does not actually go 1-2-3-4-0 The span is a % of the mean average length its measured at the widest point on the inside edge of the antlers this measurement is taken as a % of the average length of the antlers.

less than 30% very narrow nil
30%-35% = 1
35%- 40% = 2
40% -45% = 3
45%- 70% = 4
over 70% very wide nil

However as the max number of points is 4 its not very important in would really only matter where a head was border line.

​Still wrong,try again fella.

 

[bogtrotter]

Sorry giving my age away there you are correct it is 75% was 70% in the dim and distant past

 

[David63]

Benc,
I am 100% sure the CIC do not charge if the head does not make medal standard, neither does BASC

David

 

[Hebridean]

Sorry giving my age away there you are correct it is 75% was 70% in the dim and distant past

No. The formula has remained unchanged, so all trophies evaluated by CIC judges have used the figure of 75% as the maximum for span, to receive a credit of 4 points. Therefore trophies recorded in the international data base use this figure.

 

[BenC]

Benc,
I am 100% sure the CIC do not charge if the head does not make medal standard, neither does BASC

David

Thanks for clarifying that for me David.

 

[bogtrotter]

Silly me quoted from International formula, I knew it was quite old , just checked the date 1959

 

[flytie]

Simon

It is worth signing up for the CIC e-letter, as they issue some quite interesting stuff now and again.

They publish, for example, a free document on the evolution of the CITES regulations. Maybe not of interest to everyone (though there have been a few threads on the Site recently about the import/export of trophies) but in respect of one of my lines of business (global trade compliance) very useful indeed. They also tell you about other new publications that might be of interest - last year for example I found out about a publication of an analysis of all the CIC roe measurements across Europe. Again, something of a specialist publication, but if your interest is broader than just shooting deer then often of value.

Their quarterly newsletter is also helpful in understanding hunting in a broader context - they recently published an article on the development of bowhunting in Europe.

To be fair, the BASC Deer Stalking (Fast Track) e-letter is also excellent. For example the issue this week included the dates for Arran and details of the latest FC deer permissions in Scotland.

It would just be so much better if all the different organisations spent more time on stuff that really adds value and less on the inter-necine conflict.

willie_gunn

Dom,

Thanks for that, I have signed up for their email letter, it should be very interesting!

​Simon

 

[eggy s]

Eggy,
regardless of your opinion, and as a matter of fact, in relation to span, the CIC system scores as follows
0-1-2-3-4-0
0= less than 30% of average length of beam ( considered very narrow)
1= 30 to 34.9% of average length of beam
2= 35 to 39.9% of average length of beam
3= 40 to 44.9% of average length of beam
4=45 to 75% of average length of beam
0= more than 75% of average length of beam. ( considered abnormal )
​

Well it is not regardless of my opinion as that is exactly what my post was about. My opinion and why I use the BASC system.

Thank you for adding the percentages but that had nothing to do with my post.....

 

[cookingfat]

If 200 point monster makes platinum with the BASC system, I wonder what meddle would be given to this chap as it was judged by a CIC judge and made 289 point ?

 

[eggy s]

If 200 point monster makes platinum with the BASC system, I wonder what meddle would be given to this chap as it was judged by a CIC judge and made 289 point ?

Thats a Baillie Monster CIC dont recognise it

 

[cookingfat]

only because they couldn't remeasure because it was full of body filler

 

[willie_gunn]

Dom,

Thanks for that, I have signed up for their email letter, it should be very interesting!

​Simon

Simon

Just had an email from CIC with a link to their new report on "Guiding Principles on Trophy Hunting as a Tool for Creating Conservation Incentives", see https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_ssc_guiding_principles_on_trophy_hunting_ver1_09aug2012.pdf

Only had a quick skim through it, and obviously it is focused primarily on Africa, etc. but the principles themselves are interesting:

• biological sustainability
• net conservation benefit
• socio-economic-cultural benefit
• adaptive management: planning, monitoring and reporting
• accountable and effective governance

Which I would guess are principals we could all go along with?

willie_gunn

 

[al4x1]

Its quite apt that sporting rifle dropped on the doormat today with a 2 page piece about why they are doing it and the issues they have with CIC some is actually dare I say it quite appropriate.