Non-Symmetrical Trophy Game Measuring.,

[dazza]

NON-SYMMETRICAL TROPHY GAME MEASUREMENT.
I, with Greg Coyne, here set out a Non-Symmetrical Game Measuring System, to be used in conjunction with the Douglas Score and the Creighton-Mitchell (ABA) System, which is also derived from the Norman Douglas System. It does not require any re-measuring, only using the figures and measurements taken via the two Systems above, leaving out some and including some to make a more Non-Symmetrical measurement, which we believe is more representative of Trophy Game in Australia.

Many years ago, I was trained and qualified in the Norman Douglas Measuring System, and this, along with most systems world-wide, put the very human values of symmetry ahead of the actual fighting ability of the trophy animal..

I would refer you to an article by Mr. Greg Coyne in Bowhunting Down Under Magazine , which I quote (with permission) , in part, hereunder;
“Although I believe that the various different measurements that are taken with the Douglas Score do give some indication as to the size of our trophy animals, I conclude that on the whole, the Douglas Score is primarily based on the concept of beauty and symmetrical perfection rather than focusing on the true fighting value of the weaponry that the animal possesses. The greatest fault that I find with the Douglas Score is with its recording only double the smallest measurement of each coinciding factor, rather than adding both the true values together.
Some folk will argue the case for symmetrical perfection but I believe that although pefection is pleasing to the eye, it is not a beauty contest but more so the evaluation of weaponry that is designed to intimidate, inflict serious injury and sometimes even kill opponents. Also, many times it can merely be the case where one side of the trophy has been damaged in a fight, or simply worn down short over the years which in itself penalizes the trophy when it is measured. It is simply ludicrous to double that penalty just because the trophy is now “not quite perfect”.

I must say that I, and a lot of others, agree with Greg on this, although it should be recognised that most Systems in the world do also prefer, and measure, symmetrical, in preference to natural. A human failure. But most systems also allow trophies to be measured and recorded as Non-Typical or Non-Symmetrical, something the Douglas Score and the ABA System do not.

The Douglas Score, as designed by Mr Norman Douglas, is “A salute to Nature’s Symmetry”, as noted by Mr. A.E.Frampton, New Zealand Deerhunters Association (who own the Douglas Score), in the Second Edition of the Douglas Handbook. It “rewarded balance” and “penalised imperfection”.

Why Is This So??!!!! And what are we referring to as ‘balance’ and ‘imperfection’. Can we really speak for nature? Humans seem to have been fighting against nature through all of our existence, instead of working with nature. And always, in the end, losing!

As someone said to me, generally, one of a man’s testicles hang lower than the other. One of a woman’s breasts usually hangs lower than the other. One of a human’s legs is generally longer than the other. In other words, “perfection” in nature is not normal! Someone also said to me of this example, ‘But what has this to do with an animal’s fighting abilities’? I would say that propagation of a species is what all fighting abilities and equipment is about, and certainly a man’s testicles and a woman’s breasts have a lot to do with propagation of the human species. Symmetry is not a requirement, (although it may well be a benefit), in these instances, nor should it be. What should always be counted towards any trophy is the efficient use of that provided ‘equipment’ towards the sexual advantage of the animal. Some symmetry is certainly essential, gross discrepancies in any instance would count heavily against the proponent, but ‘perfection’? This so rarely occurs in nature, perfection, (other than perhaps in ice chrystals), itself would be un-natural.

As Mr Coyne also states in his articles, in the case of horns and antlers, the spread and span of the horns or antlers has absolutely nothing to do with the fighting abilites of the animal, and in some cases, may actually hinder it. Size, not symmetry, can make an impressive showing, which can be a benefit, so long as it is not extreme. Of course, gross deformity, where one tusk, antler or horn is much shorter (or longer ) than the other would not be a benefit, as in most cases this would throw the animal off balance. Broken horns or antlers, where they are such that they would actually detract from an animal’s fighting abilites, should be penalised to the extent that the item is not really a trophy, and should not be measured as such. I will say more about this later.

There are those who will disagree with this idea vehemently, as an aspersion on the Douglas System, and the derived ABA System, and it is partly true. Once, way back, I was as deeply tied to the Douglas System as anyone, as an Officer of the Trophy Bowhunters of Australia. and later, the ABA, deeply imbued with the Douglas values. I read them as “gospel”. However, over time, as I hunted and observed with fascination the antics of animals in the wild, I came to see what I perceived as deep imperfections with these Systems. I came to be a non-believer in the values put forward, of “balance and perfection”, and wanted to make some changes. I now say that we should facilitate an avenue for the trophies to be properly and fully measured, recorded, awarded, and the details kept for posterity, AS THEY ACTUALLY ARE, not totally as WE want to see them! . To do this, we may have to set up a Recognition System beside the already existing Systems, to allow hunters to record trophies as ‘THEY wish, AS THEY (the trophies) HIT THE GROUND!’ (Compton Traditional Bowhunters).

Already, most if not all measuring forms for both Douglas Score and ABA hold all necessary measurements, to allow hunters to gain scores for both the normal score, and the Non-Symmetrical Score.

Where they are not already, forms can be altered. If any hunter wishes, they can go back into records and access the information to record the Non-Symmetrical Score for any Trophy already recorded, in addition to the traditional one.

Any Trophy measured and scored in future can have both Scores noted and recorded, from the same form, on the same form or an altered one.

Quite a few overseas recording Systems already do this. I am at a loss to explain why the Douglas Score and consequently the ABA Score has not allowed for this also. Probably again, the human value system of ignoring reality in favour of some imaginary symmetry to please our own sense of the aesthetic has been superimposed over the actuality. The actuality being that the animal was given by nature the implements to survive and procreate, and although they may not be perfect in our eyes, if the animal has performed as nature intended, what he has is what he lived with and what he died with.

I would like, as encouraged by Mr. Greg Coyne and his articles, to do something about this.


GOATS.
I was always very annoyed by the spread measurement of Goat horns.

Way back, here in Australia, what we were generally taking in areas I hunted in were NOT Angora-type goats, they were what are now Officially (Govt. agencies) referred to as Australian Wild (Feral) Goats. They were, and still are more Cashmere (Kashmir) goats than Angora, although back then, you could still find an Angora type occasionally, and when you did, if you took it, if the beast was of equal age and body size with the Australian Wild Goat, the trophy always beat the Australian Wild Goat by use of the spread measurement. Man, this really annoyed me! Surely you also must remember with chagrin those excellent swept back Billy horns, a beautiful trophy, but without the spread required for an ANGORA measurement, not even making Trophy Class. ONLY ANGORA GOAT horns are fully recognised by Douglas and ABA Systems.

The Angora goat originally came, it seems, from Tibet. Around the world, it was used for hair production, mainly. Cross with Cashmere (actually, Kashmir, from it’s area of derivation), and you improve the hair production. Other type goats are better for milk and meat. In Australia, Angora and Cashmere went wild, by escaping from farms, or by being released when a farm went ‘belly-up’.

The resulting Australian Wild (Feral) Goat, after nearly 200 years of evolution and survival in the bush, has properties of both animals, and has the wild animal vigour, giving it much better survival aspects. It also is a tougher and better goat, giving good hair, meat, milk etc. Crossing it back with Angora, and presumably Cashmere, add to the original with this ‘wild vigour’.

In the wild now, it is almost impossible to find a reasonably pure Angora goat, they are almost all cross-breeds, with the Kashmir predominating. The Angora type horn has evolved into a swept back, more rubust horn, with better species survival aspects, in the conditions in which they live. I am informed by one Member that he has never seen an Angora goat in the wild in approx. 35 years of hunting in north western and central western NSW.

Despite this, the Douglas Score measures Angora Type Horns. Nothing else! The ABA System just measures ‘goats’, but retains this quite ridiculous, in Australia, hang-over from the Douglas Score book, the spread measurement.

After many years of watching, in fascination, billy goats fighting, I note that the boss of their horns is the primary weapon of offence and defence. They rear up and crash the front part of their horns, the ‘boss’, together in an apparent mind-shattering collision. And do it again and again. Very rarely, in passing, will they use the points of their horns in a side sweep at an opponents belly. They also press their horns boss’ together and put all their weight and strength behind the push, with generally the larger and stronger animal winning the day, and the harem. The idea in NOT to kill the opposing animal, but to overpower it., to drive it off. So spread of horns is very definately NOT a requisite of a defenside/offensive weapon in this case. Evolution has proved that the wide horn is NOT superior in a survival and procreative sense.

A heavy, well formed ‘boss’, with horns swept back out of the way, is. I am sure that the healthy feral billy with a good set of ‘trophy’ horns, large boss, good strong large swept back horns with good ‘mass’, is going to have more and better progeny than the Angora with the often rather puny, wide, easily broken horns. Natural Selection and Evolution over near 200 years has proved that, if nothing else.

I last year submitted this idea to ABA, to bring in a Measurement for Australian Wild (Feral) Goats, totally leave out any spread measurement, and also, measure and record the trophy AS IT HITS THE GROUND, with no penalties for non-symmetry. All measurements to be added together to get a score. NO doubling of smallest. This could be recorded as a Non-Symmetrical Trophy at this stage, but I would be hoping for the dropping of a spread measurement in goat horns, totally, in future. The present system very unfairly gives advantage to (and heavily penalises the prevalent types), a non-typical, rare-in-the-wild Angora type goat horn. Fair enough, where the wild goats may still be Angora type, and all Angora type, (Kiwi-land?) let them keep the present system, but it is NOT suitable to Australia. Has not been for a long, long time.

I would also argue that “typical”, the word, is totally inappropriate to any present trophy system, as in reality, nature is more typical when it throws up slightly non-symmetrical fighting tackle. The perfect (symmetrical) set of horns, antlers or tusks would be an aberration (non-typical), if they existed.

PIG.
I submit that when measuring Pig Tusks, that all measurements be added together for a total score, with no subtracting of length or other measurements. Again, I can see no sense in reducing a score by penalising a length of good fighting tusk. If both tusks have clean grinds, meaning that the latest grind on a tusk be at the fighting end of that tusk, and that a reasonably sharp point be on that tusk, even though one tusk may be up to, say, 10% longer, or a grind (or series of clearly joined and overlapping grinds) be any length longer than the other, that each of these measurements be carried forward, as is, to be part of the final score.

Bracelet tusks, with no fighting capabilities at the time of taking, shall not be counted as a trophy, and shall not be measured for a Trophy Score. Where one tusk, or even both are broken off near the tip, but there is still a good grind, it may be measured, but the Measuring Officer must satisfy him or herself that such broken tips remain as efficient, (if slightly less efficient), fighting weapons for the pig. Where one tusk is broken back to a blunt tip, it shall not be measured, but the other good tusk may be, if required by the hunter, but of course, this resulting score will be heavily penalised, and not a good Trophy. By this means, the score, (and, in effect, the living animal) shall be penalised for reduction in fighting capabilities, as with any broken or slightly shorter tusk.

Remember, we are measuring and scoring the Trophy as an efficient fighting and survival weapon for the pig, NOT for any human attributes of perfection. This must be the ultimate arrogance, always second-guessing nature.

On Page 29 of the ABA Measuring Manual, it shows a tusk with a grind which does not come to the tip of the tusk, although the tip appears to have a sort of grind. I would be very reluctant to treat this measured grind as the operative one, as it really does nothing for the fighting capabilities of the pig. If the two grinds were joined or overlapping, I would measure the whole grind as one, IF THEY CAME TO THE TIP, but if there was a clear break between grinds, I would only measure the tip one, and ignore the other grind.

Greg Coyne has also put forward a new method of measuring and scoring pig tusks, which entail two further measurements which would give a higher score to the straighter tusks e.g. furthest from being bracelet. However, I do not wish to propose this at this stage, as it does entail a whole new aspect, and could not be made retrospective without re-measuring old trophies, as the required measurements have not previously been recorded. This method could perhaps be considered by measuring bodies at some later stage, as it does have merit. Greg can be contacted for further information on this.

BUFFALO.
As in the ABA Measurer’s Handbook, excepting that when adding up measurements, the Score is the total of all measurements, NOT any shorter measurement doubled. Again, spread is NOT a Trophy factor.

ANTLERED SPECIES.
Again, as in the Douglas Score Booklet and the ABA Measurer’s Handbook, excepting that when the totals are added up, there are no penalties for extra tines or longer lengths. The Trophy is measured, and scored, AS IT HITS THE GROUND! Not as we humans would prefer to see it. No shorter measurements doubled, no tine ignored because there is no matching tine on the other antler. The animal has to use what it has for purposes of survival and survival of species, and does not have the choice of ignoring reality, in preference to a supposed ‘symmetrical’ form of fighting tackle.

As for Span and Spread Measurements for Antlered Species, I doubt very much that they serve any good purpose for a Fighting Trophy. I would strongly suggest that they could be dropped for a Non-Symmetrical Measured Score.

Totally deformed antlers in a living, active animal would be incredibly rare, as they would cause imbalance, and detract from fighting abilities. Such animals would not, by nature, be allowed to breed. However, if a good antler were to break, or a tine break off, when falling after being hit with a killing arrow, if the broken piece/s could be found, it could be re-affixed for measuring purposes. Photos before and after would have to be presented to the Measurer. If pieces can not be found, or if the set are slightly damaged when taken, then the Trophy may be measured as is.

The animal must have had two good antlers of at least reasonable fighting capacities, otherwise the trophy should not be measured for scoring.

In line with tradition, I give this addendum to established game measuring in Australia a name, the Perrett/Coyne System for the Non-Symmetrical Measurement of Game Trophies. If some body wants to take it up and run with it for Trophy Recognition, then I am sure that they can re-name it.

So if any hunter out there wants to see how his trophy would stack up as a Non-Symmetrical Trophy, try it out. This idea is NOT copyrighted. Maybe someone one day will actually get around to forming a body to recognize such Trophies, or perhaps an established recognition body will include it in their Systems. All welcome!

[jamie]

i believe i may have a far easier solution to the problem, don,t measure any trophies just admire them for what they are. i was once caught up in the measuring game, but i think alot of the time it,s just an ego trip. to me the trophy is the memory of the hunt and i keep the horns etc as a reminder of the hunt.i believe there is far too much importance placed on how big the animals "trophy" was and not enough on the journey it took to harvest the animal. i have lost count of how many times a person was all smiles because they thought they had shot a world beater until it was measured and when the score wasn't to there liking they had the ****'s a few even taking it else where to be scored hoping to get the score they wanted ,then there's the type who will use any method whether it is legally or morally correct just to shoot a bigger "trophy" than the next guy. by not measuring we remove the ego's and the ******** from hunting and we can concentrate on what hunting was meant to be FUN.

[jaab]

I'm with jamie,the trophy is a personal thing,if size is all you need for satisfaction ???????
cheers Jaab

[Xtfreak]

I too agree with jamie.
I have measured none of the heads of the deer Ive taken...
Bill

[losty]

It can happen too that the score doesnt represent a better hunter but a lucky hunter. Whose to say that a billy with practically no rack on him who was in dead hard country and gave you hell trying to get to him was any less of a trophy than the record class goat that walked straight through camp. Not saying it happens all the time, but its nature and its unpredictable. But i do agree that if your going to measure them, a shorter more robust fighting rack should score higher. The
larger racks with the really wide spread are totally impractical to even just geting around, everyones at least seen footage of billys with really wide spreads having to turn their head sideways just to get past trees in the bush. I know if i was a goat id rather a short sturdy rack that i coul controlin a fight.

[Luke]

Freedom of choice IMO.

If people want to measure and compare, let them.

If people don't then fair enough.

If they want to use this new proposed system or the Douglas System, it's up to them.

Each to their own.

Interesting to note that I have never heard those who do want to measure and record their game bashing those who don't... only the other way around.

cheers,

Luke

[Coach]

Perhaps those that dont measure their game and want to "Compare" are really into hunting for huntings sake ,rather than make it a "competition " and dont need to justify why they hunt . Especially when these Trophy hunters only hunt for the "horns " Why cant the "reward " for going hunting , is the satisfaction of grounding something , just be for the personal satisfaction of going out hunting , rather than be for "beating" someone else ?
Too much emphasis , has been put on the Trophy thing of late , thats why people hate it !
Remember when species of animals , such as the Elephant was hunted into near extinction just for the Trophy?
Maybe some of the real hunters are sick and tired of this.
And it goes both ways , I have been ridiculed by the Trophy hunters , saying I am not much of a hunter because I havent shot a "Trophy Class" goat , also been called a loser because I havent shot a PIG , by people who havent even shot a Deer , yet pigs are pretty easy from what I have been led to believe , and Deer are the hardest , by all who sprout about it !
The reason those that dont measure their game , bash those that do , is because they are sick and tired of hearing the same old crap , "mine is better than yours because it is BIGGER " What a load of crap !
Is that 108 DP boar that walked up to you over a water hole better than that Sow that I stalked for 2 hours ? I dont think so !!!!!

[Jeffro]

Is that 108 DP boar that walked up to you over a water hole better than that Sow that I stalked for 2 hours ? I dont think so !!!!!

108 DP boar man that'd be huge or did you mean goat?


but yes the boar would be better .after shooting a few sows you'd know that boars especially good ones are harder

[Coach]

Is that 108 DP boar that walked up to you over a water hole better than that Sow that I stalked for 2 hours ? I dont think so !!!!!

108 DP boar man that'd be huge or did you mean goat?




but yes the boar would be better .after shooting a few sows you'd know that boars especially good ones are harder

OK , so I was exaggerating a little

[Xtfreak]

Freedom of choice IMO.

If people want to measure and compare, let them.

If people don't then fair enough.

If they want to use this new proposed system or the Douglas System, it's up to them.

Each to their own.

Interesting to note that I have never heard those who do want to measure and record their game bashing those who don't... only the other way around.

cheers,

Luke

Not me. I couldnt care less who measures thier heads and who doesnt.
I just stated that it is not for me.
And it also isnt because I have no heads that would score because I do...
Bill

[jamie]

I'm sorry if you thought i was "bashing" people by voicing my views on a subject,maybe i'll just write sterile answers in the future so as not to upset anybody.i always thought these forum's where here to voice our opinion but i must be wrong sorry about that

[Luke]

Not me. I couldnt care less who measures thier heads and who doesnt.
I just stated that it is not for me.
And it also isnt because I have no heads that would score because I do...
Bill

That would make 2 of us Bill.

[Axe]

i always thought these forum's where here to voice our opinion but i must be wrong sorry about that

I wouldn't be apologising Jamie, you are 100% right, it's just that some people are that consumed by their own self installed importance that they convince themselves that no one else is entitled to an opinion unless it agrees with their point of view or it is sanctioned by them first...although this appears fairly obvious as you go around the traps, it is just another opinion