BOONE & CROCKETT, SCI, OR A COMBINATION OF BOTH?
(PART 2)

This article was originally printed in the February / March issue of Deer Tracking
This article is copyrighted and may not be reproduced in any form without permission.

Now that B&C and SCI differences are outlined, let's examine them closely for ramifications to the game-farmer. In many cases, neither system is presently, truly used, not even in association competitions. In most situations, misuse of a system has been purely unintentional. Inaccuracies in the past need only be negative if we now knowingly repeat them. In the grand scheme of things, we're a young industry. It's okay and even expected that we change, modify and even establish our own unique standards and methods of evaluating our stock. It's also important that these standards and methods be commonly accepted and used across Canada.

The last few years have seen a growing debate over which scoring system to use for game farmed animals. Marketing is ever more important and scores are essential to promotion. The common use of B&C terminology is understandable in that most of us Canadians have used it since shooting that first buck when we were 12 years old. The use of B&C (Boone and Crockett) has created controversy though, primarily from wildlife clubs, who declare that farmed animals should not be grouped with wild animals. It's funny how "they" conveniently see our animals as farmed in this case, but define then as wild animals when it best suits them. The fact is, however, that these are not wild animals and avoiding such association, even in terminology, is inarguably prudent. SCI (Safari Club International) recognizes trophy ranched animals in its record books. At a glance, it seems animals will score higher with SCI, given gross score with no deductions, so game farmer favour has swung toward this system. Ahhhh, this is where it gets chaotic!

As often as we've seen "B & C" with our buck scores, we never were really using the system properly. B & C requires a net score along with gross. We've stuck to stating "gross." Now as some switch to using SCI with their scores, further problems develop despite good intentions.

Although B & C and SCI are very similar in scoring methods and SCI generally provides the higher score, there are significant exceptions that we may find ourselves unwilling to accept one day. The "5%" rule with SCI allows for very little non-typical growth and therefore many presently high ranking typicals would find themselves as low-ranking non-typicals. A world class 200" typical rack with only 10" of abnormal growth would instead be a 210" non-typical. There are precious few 200" typicals but non-typicals range up to 300". Many racks would be affected by the 5% rule. SCI does not credit massive circumferences when they occur as webbing. Fewer racks would be affected by this, but some big name bucks certainly would be! A 315" non-typical could quite feasibly be reduced to a 285" SCI and a 180" non-typ. could be a 168" SCI. In competitive markets those numbers are significant. Competition "records" (past to present) would certainly be inaccurate as far as ranking the #1 bucks in various categories. We're left apparently with two systems to choose from, neither of which best suits game farming across the country.

So far we've wanted our cake and tried eating it, too. We've either declared "B&C" scoring while failing to include deductions or we've stated "SCI while re-categorizing "typical" and "non-typical" and maintaining B&C credit on unusually webbed racks. Is it possible to enjoy the best of both worlds with a clean conscience? Absolutely!

Gleaning from many discussions over the last little while, here is a summary and listing of suggestions that seem quite workable across Canada. "Across Canada" is perhaps the key to success. A commonly accepted & published set of simple guidelines would allow fair comparison of bucks across the country. Right now that is not the case. For example, beam base allowances on cut antlers varies from SK to AB. A buck, scoring accuracy maintained, should "officially" score slightly higher in AB. Neither are typical and non-typical category criteria the same across the country. Three provinces marketing to each other and into the U.S. need to be on the same page on seemingly at least five main points in this competitive industry.
1> Simply stating that B&C measuring methods be used allows access to B&C rulings in general (ie/ we don't have to rewrite every fine point) and gives credit to unusual mass or webbing
2> State that all scores be termed "gross typical" or "gross non typical"
3> Define typical or non-typical category standards (5% rule, 7% rule, B&C standard, etc.)
4> Establish the fine points of spread credit and base allowance.
5> Help ensure the credibility of the system by minimizing "score enhancer" opportunities.
B&C's ruling of no score for detached antler parts will hurt sometimes, but we have to be willing to accept some stringent rules. It's been asked, "How can we accept picked up bases and broken tines as credible and give absolutely no credit to a photo-proven, obviously missing beam tip or tine?" It's a good point that I'm sure I'll one day be sorry about, but if we're consistent, I see the value. Perhaps these five points are too concise, but they are probably not far from sufficient either.

We could use the B&C antler scoring system, we could choose the SCI system, or we could establish our own blended system (label gross typ. or gross non-typ. with no "B&C" or "SCI" attached. Whatever our choice, it needs to be standardized between provinces and we need to strictly stick to it through the beneficial rulings as well as the times when a rack seems unfairly or insufficiently represented. Hopefully people would look at the rack, a photo, or additional information to get the complete picture of a rack's size and character regardless of system used. What we can not do is choose which system best suits us at the time and combine with the most beneficial label. Consistency among our 350 or so deer farmers will certainly be an effective way of establishing a system that makes sense, is easy to follow, and gives due credit to our antlers. We could continue to access official Boone and Crockett scorers in order to maintain credibility in declaring scores "official." We could educate our members consistently across Canada. We could, with very few changes and a wee bit of inter-provincial cooperation, know that we're portraying our bucks by identical standards.

Randy Barks

- Back to Library -

Please report any technical problems with this site to the webmaster