I live in Europe, hunt mainly in Europe.
CIC like any other measuring system has pros and cons.
From hunters perspective: I hate it. because pricing for best trophies is prohibitive to me.
On the other hand, high quality CIC trophy score system is measuring stick for quality of managed hunting area (fenced, or free range alike), and it gives incentives to various owners to maintain their activities and profit, and make return to animals habitat. Giving the value to animals.
CIC is not perfect.
Social problem from history is: if hunting is perceived as rich man activity, or ruling class activity, it can easily bee banned. This happened in Kenya and India for example.
So, making extreme prices for top trophies, for rich clientele can be very counterproductive in long term. Hunting as rich mans game, is very difficult to sustain in public perspective of democratic country.
In my country (Croatia) average salary is about 1322 EUR.
Gold stag (red deer) will go easily over 8000 EUR and highest CIC gold medal over 10k.
I am not sure this is reasonable pricing, but thats how it is. With that pricing blue collar worker will never in a lifetime get a gold stag.
So, in order to make it workable, it is not CIC system by itself, but pricing that needs some dose of realistic leveling that in a long term would need revision.
I was in Africa, 4 times on hunting safari. Namibia.
The level of quality of hunt (lets consider PG hunt) is incomparable for PG hunt of 5 to 7 animals to one single red stag trophy in golden CIC medal. Incomparable!
Finally all that being said I do not see the reason to implement CIC system to non hunting country such as India. But most probably I am missing something, hoping that our new member
@Bhraaz Kashyap might shed some light to this initiative.
