Do You Get Your Deer Scored

M

mdndeer

Member
Messages
52
Wondering if you guys get your deer scored? I got my deer of a life time and I did measure it and it should make the books(award) but trust me it was exactly what I wanted that was a large typical and score had nothing to do about what I was after. My buddies are saying to get it officially scored(which I am fine with) but there is a part of me that want to tell people "it should make the books but did not have it measured".

Not loosing sleep over this but just wondering what you deer killers do.

Take Care

MDNDEER
 
You can Score it Yourself & See about what He Scores!

If He's a Book Buck & You want Him in the Book Have Him Officially Scored by a B&C Scorer!

But I'm Warnin You!

The BAKO Kid Has made a Few Guys Mad in His Day!









She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
I don't think it really matters.

If you can score him effectively then all is good.

Unless you want a podunk certificate.

I'm not scoring mine this year because I had radio assistance.

But, that is how they are all killed anymore.

The score is just a number. You are either happy or you aren't.
 
I have multiple deer and elk and my family has a bunch of deer and elk that we have had officially scored. We have many that make the books, all time and honorable, we have never entered a single one.

I say get it scored, you don't have to enter it. But the ifficial measure is what matters to your friends.

Personally score means less to me than the experience. The smallest deer and the second smallest bull I have ever killed mean more to me then the largest of either..... I had my boy and my father present for both of those kills and score means S**t compared to those
Memories,
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-01-17 AT 06:10PM (MST)[p]B&C official measurers volunteer their time to measure trophies for people that are interested in participating in B&C's records program....please don't waste their time just so you can tell your buddies it has an official score with no intention of entering it.


497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
I don't score anything anymore. I think it has begun to ruin the sport. Killing deer/elk/big game for score demeans the animal, and many times leads to illegal activities.

A big animal is big, and I don't need to tally inches to determine whether it's good or not.

Just my opinion.
 
Scores are like fast Trucks!

There's only one Guy in the World that's got the Biggest or the Fastest!









She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
So my take on all this is, a B&C score has nothing to do with the hunter, and everything to do with the animal itself. An official score compares the animal against it's kind.
If a hunter has to brag about numbers to his buddies, his motivation for hunting may be more about boosting his own ego than it is about honoring a big/old/smart animal.
To me hunting is about outwitting a challenging animal, not outscoring your buddies.

Score him if you want to know how he compares, but don't use it to massage your ego.
 
I measure my own bucks, mostly to see how good or bad I was at guessing his score when he was on the hoof (I like testing my skills at things). I don't care about a record book entry, and wouldn't pay whatever it costs to enter one anyway. Maybe I'd feel different if I killed a 280 buck, I don't know....????

People ask about score, so it's a reason to know. It does mean something, but doesn't always equal the impressiveness of one buck compared to another.
I'd much rather someone share 3 or 4 pics at different angles of a big buck here on the site, rather than a single photo and a score. Impressiveness is what excites me, not the number a club puts on it. You know???

Brian Latturner
MonsterMuleys.com
LIKE MonsterMuleys.com
on Facebook!
 
What Homer said.


As a B&C official measurer I have found one thing to be true most of the time, guys who don't have animals that will make book think the book is nonsense. those who do think the book is cool.


A big buck can be anything from a dink to a slammer depending on your standards. a 190" buck is a 190" buck. some people don't want a score .








Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Go to the Boone and Crocket web site. Look for score your own trophy. You can print it out and keep it for your records. It's a good way to learn about scoring. I may pull down a buck and score with my kids . Then if you think it's good enough then take it to a official score person.
 
This intrigues me because I haven't shot a buck big enough that would warrant even thinking of having it scored. That being said, I have killed 2 bucks that I am proud of and that I really enjoyed hunting and everything that involved that/those deer. I think they may go mid 150's to low 160's. Maybe one of these days I'll get my tape and measure them. I'll need to look up exactly what measurements to take. :)

Now, if I killed a deer that I feel may be a "big" deer, I'd post him here and ask for a consensus on what he'd score and just go with that. I don't think I'm in the area where there'd be many official scorers.

Steve

Cancer doesn't discriminate...don't take your good health for granted because it can be gone in a heartbeat. Please go back and read the last line. This time really understand what it says.
 
I've never had anything officially scored and likely never will. Certainly not if all scorers are like those on this thread with the ?don't waste my time? attitude. If you don't enjoy scoring animals then you should do something else in your spare time.

Ochoco, I know many more people who kill animals that would go in the books who don't enter than those who do. Myself included. Face it. The only people who buy and look at record books are those who pay money to put their names in there. Think about that for a minute. And the whole idea of deductions is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. I don't know about the rest of you but I dig every inch of antler, who really cares about symmetry?

To the OP, measure the buck yourself following the instructions on the BC score sheet. You will be within 2% and that's close enough for all practical purposes. Don?t waste your time dealing with an official scorer.???SS
 
Well!

Post # 12 should get a Reply!:D

One more thing!

The BAKO Kid is FAIR and Precise!

But He Doesn't Run an MM Measuring Tape!

If Your Guide Tells You He's a 220" Type Buck or a 400" Type Bull Be Prepared for the BAKO Kid to Re-Adjust those Scores!








She Don't Just Rain She Pours!

That Girl Right There's The Perfect Storm!


90087hankjr.jpg
 
I have a buddy scores animals from 1-10. It takes a lot to get a 10 but can be size of antlers of character, whatever makes him happy. 7 or above he shoots. I actually like this system....he is concerned on what makes him happy not how many inches of antler he is carrying!
 
If I ever kill an animal that I think has a chance at making the all time book, then heck yeah I'd have it scored and entered. B&C is a great organization, and I'd be honored to have one of my animals in their books.
Not interested in any honorary mentions tho.

Killing a net book mule deer has to be about the most difficult thing to accomplish in the hunting world, imo.

Don't let other people's misuse or obsession with scores ruin a great accomplishment.







2a0fcsk.gif
 
I have no desire to ever have any deer put in the books. It is just something that I have zero interest in. nothing against B&C though. Actual score doesn't mean so much to me as does the experience, character, circumstance, etc... My wife drew a LE tag this year. She'd never killed a deer before. She wanted to know how big of a deer she should shoot. I told her that we need to hold out for a "solid" 4X4 and that when we find that buck "we will know". we looked over probably 50 different bucks before finding one that fit the bill. She put him on the ground and witnessing my wife kill her first deer was an absolutely amazing experience that I wouldn't trade for anything. To me, that's what it is about. I do like to know approximate scores just for reference and I did measure my wife's deer myself.
 
Never had one scored. I've done it myself, just to get an idea and comparison. Is it perfect? No, but I'm probably within a few inches.

The experience is what makes the deer. My first deer was a 100# doe. Absolutely thrilled to get her! My first buck was an 8 pt whitetail. Absolutely thrilled with him too! 15 years later, I found a B&C sheet and scored him - about 100". They were both DIY's by myself. Very vivid memories, and still hanging on the wall after 20 years.

Now if I somehow stumble onto a 200" deer, I might enter him in the book!

Shoot what makes you happy.
 
My only interest is gross score. I want to know the inches. I don't agree with Ochoco that those with record book animals enter them and the rest are talkers. I know five people, including myself, that have all-time book pronghorn and they were never entered. These are valid scores, no question. In 2009 I killed a Mountain Caribou that would be top 15 all-time, he has been scored twice and won the award in the Yukon for best bull that year because the outfitter entered him. I haven't even considered entering him in B&C. Not to mention my largest typical mule deer and many P&Y animals.

I have nothing against those that do enter their animals, but record books are meaningless to me.

Like others have said, do your own score and decide for yourself.
 
"My buddies are saying to get it officially scored(which I am fine with) but there is a part of me that want to tell people "it should make the books but did not have it measured".

Apparently you are somewhat more concerned with "people" think, about you, not your deer. If you've measured him yourself, within an inch or two, you know what he scores. If your not going to list him, I agree with Tog and Homer. It seems the only reason for an "official score" is to participate in the Boone and Crocket or SCI system. In the end, it should be your call not a vote by a bunch of other hunters, and what "they" like or dislike.

Be our own man, to hell with other people think about your standards. You are what you do, not what others think of you.

DC
 
What Homer is saying , and I agree with is we volunteer our time to the Boone & Crockett club and if hunter doesn't desire to enter the animal in the book should it meet the minimum don't waste our time.

Speaking for myself and I assume Jeff would agree, I've scored many animals I knew wouldn't make book at first sight. I don't have a problem with that as long as the hunter respects the club and hopes to have an entry .

I never said everyone who has a book animal wants to enter it. I said most guys who make book enter the trophy. most who don't, and that's the vast majority pretend they don't care.


I urge hunters to learn about B&C , what it stands for and why the scoring system was developed in the first place. it's not what you think. it's a very positive story and one hunters should be proud they had such a major role in. without TR and the B&C hunting as we know it today would not exist that is an absolute fact. every time an entry goes in the book it's confirmation of that continuing success. that is what I get out of entering my trophies as well as scoring others success stories.


Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
As an OM for both Clubs (B&C and P&Y) I have measured many critters over the years. I usually ask the hunter from the beginning, if it makes the minimum are you going to enter it? If they say yes, we set up a measuring date/time immediately (after required drying period). If not and they are just curious, I let them know the next time I'll be at a specific archery shop, etc., when I can run a tape over it for them. Difference being, they have to get there on my schedule.

As for myself entering animals in the records program.....I have and will continue to do so. Obviously NOT for recognition, but for statistical data needed for each respective Club to use and to support the Clubs in a day and age where everyone is challenging our way of life.

Honestly, for those naysayers who have looked in a record book, do you actually look at the hunter's name OR the animal's score, and location it was taken? I don't think I have ever, during specific research, looked at the hunter's name......so recognition, often times, is a myth, IMO.

Lastly, I get get a kick out of those 'all about gross score' posts complaining about the unfair rule of deductions and 'if the animal grew it it should count'......oh the irony involved when inside spread (air) is measured. If we took that away there would be an uproar. :) Let's be honest, many people who are 'all about gross scores' do so for the higher number and their egos. JMO of course.

BOHNTR )))---------->
 
Well said BOHTR .

If making B&C were easy it wouldn't mean anything. it's the best of the best, it tells us how the species is doing and where they're doing it.

Originally the system was set up to preserve documentation of species that were expected to be extinct by now. the fact we're still posting entries and even new records is something we should all be thrilled with.

B&C was never intended to be a pee pee measuring contest and it still isn't. if that's what you're looking for Safari Club is your thing , or just tell everyone it's big but don't verify it that's good too.











Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
>LAST EDITED ON Dec-01-17
>AT 06:10?PM (MST)
>
>B&C official measurers volunteer their time
>to measure trophies for people
>that are interested in participating
>in B&C's records program....please don't
>waste their time just so
>you can tell your buddies
>it has an official score
>with no intention of entering
>it.
>
>
>
497fc2397b939f19.jpg

One in Oregon that doesn't mine wasting his time.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-17 AT 11:22AM (MST)[p]BOHTR

You had a great post until you decided to bash those that talk "gross score". What makes you think gross score is any less valid? Symmetry? BS! I also take into account the flaws involved with most all the scoring systems. Mass is not nearly accounted for enough in antlers. In fact, it's a total joke. I have personally seen giant, heavy framed deer and elk that score equally in comparison with thinner, longer tined animal of much smaller proportions. And please explain to me why typical frame symmetry has anything to do with non-typical animals. Tell me about that giant mule deer buck with a typical main frame that net scores 193, but is keep from all-time B&C because he has two matching kickers coming off his back forks. That buck earned the recognition just the same as his twin without those kickers.

I could care less about the pomp and circumstance surrounding B&C, probably the biggest reason my giant caribou is not entered. I have nothing against the B&C Club, I'm sure they do good things for hunting, but don't criticize those who choose to compare animals based on a gross scoring rather than net, and not enter animals in the book. Truth be told, many entries in all record books are questionable and illegal(Kurt Darner for example) as competition breeds those would would cheat the system.
 
We all have our Teddy Bears. I certainly have mine. What I don't understand is why there has to be such hostility, one to another, over our differences, when it comes to this kind of stuff in our hunting community?

B & C established it's standards to recognized and record what they wanted to recognize and record, for specific reasons which they believed were significant.

SCI did the same, with an entirely different set of standards, based an a different objective, for reasons they believed were significant.

Both have viable standards, based on their reasons for setting them and for recognizing and recording the histories of these big game animals.

Why do we have to hate one or discredit one, to enjoy and or support the other?

Seems we should be grateful there are two, so we can, if we choice, to support and participate in which ever we prefer.

Personally, I like both. I love the idea that we recognize and give credit to the full mass of the antler/horn an animal has produced. Sure seems like a worthy thing to honor, respect and recognize to me. On the other hand, I love symmetry and I believe symmetry is what creates beauty. Typically, abnormal features on a creature distracts from its beauty, at least it does for me. For example a horse with a long thin neck, a strange gate, a disproportionate sized head may be the best cutting horse on the ranch, but you certainly can't call him a thing of beauty, but you can still appreciate and speak highly of his talent.

Why must we always worry so much about what the other guy thinks is important?

DC
 
Jm77:

First off, you need to compare apples to apples....which is what the system in place does. Remember everything ever measured up to this point has been equally measured under the same system. So would your Bou, if entered.....what's unfair or wrong about that?

If ?score? is truly NOT relevant to you, then honestly, why would you care about gross score at all? It is what it is......under the same system that has been in place for years.

You know I was drafted out of high school for baseball.....had some home run power in high school. Then came the minors and wooden bats.....I suddenly had warning track power.....I didn't try and petition MLB to move the fences in so I could hit homers again. I knew the rules going into the game and accepted them as such.

I would love to see your Bou and measure and have it entered.....sounds like the animal deserves the recognition. JMO


BOHNTR )))---------->
 
>Jm77: sounds like the animal
>deserves the recognition. JMO
>
>
>
>BOHNTR )))---------->


^^^^This always creeps me out when I hear someone say this. Really? Putting some arbitrary numbers in a book is recognition? And who is recognizing this?

Pass!
 
Entering animals in the book does give "recognition" to our conservation programs and "recognizes" the overall health of a population. Fact is, declining, unhealthy herds produce few, if any, trophy animals. Remember the anti's are always claiming we are killing the last whatever, and documenting the trophy animals out there is one way to keep track of a herd's overall health.

I am also an official measurer. Well over 90% of the animals I score do not make the book. Very few animals killed each year make the all time book. Many reach these magical numbers without regard to deductions, etc. But an entry score that meets the minimum is pretty rare in most areas. Yes, many talk gross score, whether for their own ego or just to recognize all the antler that grew. This is the rationale for the non-typical category.

Few people really respect the cheaters out there who are concerned over the last 1/8" of the score, or who break the rules / get obsessed with comparing their bucks to others. But way less than 0.1% of hunters actually kill B+C animals each year. Recognize the animal, and even the hunter, who may be lucky or skilled, when a true trophy buck is killed.

If hunters are killing animals that meet the entry scores with regularity, they are undoubtedly skilled, may also be spending a small fortune for quality tags, or have access to high quality habitat (private land?) where pressure is limited. Or are just hunting their butts off and out hunting their peers. It doesn't matter to most. Let's celebrate the quality animals that exist thanks to the North American Conservation model.

Bill
 
>As an OM for both Clubs
>(B&C and P&Y) I have
>measured many critters over the
>years. I usually ask
>the hunter from the beginning,
>if it makes the minimum
>are you going to enter
>it? If they say
>yes, we set up a
>measuring date/time immediately (after required
>drying period). If not
>and they are just curious,
>I let them know the
>next time I'll be at
>a specific archery shop, etc.,
>when I can run a
>tape over it for them.
> Difference being, they have
>to get there on my
>schedule.
>
>As for myself entering animals in
>the records program.....I have and
>will continue to do so.
> Obviously NOT for recognition,
>but for statistical data needed
>for each respective Club to
>use and to support the
>Clubs in a day and
>age where everyone is challenging
>our way of life.
>
>Honestly, for those naysayers who have
>looked in a record book,
>do you actually look at
>the hunter's name OR the
>animal's score, and location it
>was taken? I don't
>think I have ever, during
>specific research, looked at the
>hunter's name......so recognition, often times,
>is a myth, IMO.
>
>Lastly, I get get a kick
>out of those 'all about
>gross score' posts complaining about
>the unfair rule of deductions
>and 'if the animal grew
>it it should count'......oh the
>irony involved when inside spread
>(air) is measured. If
>we took that away there
>would be an uproar.
>:) Let's be honest,
>many people who are 'all
>about gross scores' do so
>for the higher number and
>their egos. JMO of
>course.
>
>BOHNTR )))---------->

I actually disagree about the value of width. I think it is almost universal that we are impressed with how much space a rack takes up on an animals head. I? think that spread is a worthwhile measurement as would be some way to measure the width between the tip of the MB and the tip of the G2 from the side profile.

Anyway. I get the uniform standards for measuring and I also get that many people dig uniformity. Hence the reason so many young 4 points get killed while older 3 points gett passed.

I don't really buy into the whole ?do it for the animal? way of thinking but I can understand the collecting of data for management reasons.

Best thing BC has ever done in my opinion was to establish the idea of fair chase. ??-SS
 
I measure them myself. I know I would be a little off from an official scorer, not that I care to much I won the chessmatch on those animals. IMO a score sheet is just as worthless as most college degrees you buy a piece of paper for someone to sign it that isn't worth what you payed for it to be printed on. If I had a friend that was a scorer i would like to watch him tape it to see how close I was to him. More or so for field judging purposes.

"We don't have a gun problem we have prescription drug problem."
 
>Entering animals in the book does
>give "recognition" to our conservation
>programs and "recognizes" the overall
>health of a population. Fact
>is, declining, unhealthy herds produce
>few, if any, trophy animals.
>Remember the anti's are always
>claiming we are killing the
>last whatever, and documenting the
>trophy animals out there is
>one way to keep track
>of a herd's overall health.
>
>
>I am also an official measurer.
>Well over 90% of the
>animals I score do not
>make the book. Very few
>animals killed each year make
>the all time book. Many
>reach these magical numbers without
>regard to deductions, etc. But
>an entry score that meets
>the minimum is pretty rare
>in most areas. Yes, many
>talk gross score, whether for
>their own ego or just
>to recognize all the antler
>that grew. This is the
>rationale for the non-typical category.
>
>
>Few people really respect the cheaters
>out there who are concerned
>over the last 1/8" of
>the score, or who break
>the rules / get obsessed
>with comparing their bucks to
>others. But way less than
>0.1% of hunters actually kill
>B+C animals each year. Recognize
>the animal, and even the
>hunter, who may be lucky
>or skilled, when a true
>trophy buck is killed.
>
>If hunters are killing animals that
>meet the entry scores with
>regularity, they are undoubtedly skilled,
>may also be spending a
>small fortune for quality tags,
>or have access to high
>quality habitat (private land?) where
>pressure is limited. Or are
>just hunting their butts off
>and out hunting their peers.
>It doesn't matter to most.
>Let's celebrate the quality animals
>that exist thanks to the
>North American Conservation model.
>
>Bill

Could you cite any sources regarding B&C score to the health of a ungulate population?

What about animal species that we do not score for B&C? We must come up with a scoring system to guage the health of the population!
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-17 AT 08:00PM (MST)[p]If you take a volunteer scorer's time, I think you have an obligation to enter it should the animal break the threshold. That is what the volunteer signed up for, to score on behalf of an organization, not just to placate the curiosity of successful hunters that have no intention of entering the animal regardless of the outcome.

I have been lucky enough to take two book deer and a book bear... none of which I had officially scored, but I'm pretty sure they'll make it.

My wife has a B&C moose that we did have officially scored and entered into the book.

There really isn't a rhyme or reason as to why I had some scored and some not, just kind of what I did at the time.

PS. I understand the idea of entering it for the animal as its the best historical account we have of an animal that reached a status attained by an extremely small minority of its species. I believe that over time it does begin to paint a picture of genetics/management/habitat that produce top-quality animals.

Good discussion.

Grizzly
 
>We all have our Teddy Bears.
> I certainly have mine.
>What I don't understand is
>why there has to be
>such hostility, one to another,
>over our differences, when it
>comes to this kind of
>stuff in our hunting community?
>
>
>B & C established it's standards
>to recognized and record what
>they wanted to recognize and
>record, for specific reasons which
>they believed were significant.
>
>SCI did the same, with an
>entirely different set of standards,
>based an a different objective,
>for reasons they believed were
>significant.
>
>Both have viable standards, based on
>their reasons for setting them
>and for recognizing and recording
>the histories of these big
>game animals.
>
>Why do we have to hate
>one or discredit one, to
>enjoy and or support the
>other?
>
>Seems we should be grateful there
>are two, so we can,
>if we choice, to support
>and participate in which ever
>we prefer.
>
>Personally, I like both. I
>love the idea that we
>recognize and give credit to
>the full mass of the
>antler/horn an animal has produced.
> Sure seems like a
>worthy thing to honor, respect
>and recognize to me.
>On the other hand, I
>love symmetry and I believe
>symmetry is what creates beauty.
> Typically, abnormal features on
>a creature distracts from its
>beauty, at least it does
>for me. For example
>a horse with a long
>thin neck, a strange gate,
>a disproportionate sized head may
>be the best cutting horse
>on the ranch, but you
>certainly can't call him a
>thing of beauty, but you
>can still appreciate and speak
>highly of his talent.
>
>Why must we always worry so
>much about what the other
>guy thinks is important?
>
>DC

This reminds me of Rodney King; "can't we all just get along?" Yeah, I don't know, I guess lots of hunters have lots of opinions lumpy. Maybe we're on a forum?
 
>Jm77:
>
>First off, you need to compare
>apples to apples....which is what
>the system in place does.
>Remember everything ever measured up
>to this point has been
>equally measured under the same
>system. So would your
>Bou, if entered.....what's unfair or
>wrong about that?
>
>If ?score? is truly NOT relevant
>to you, then honestly, why
>would you care about gross
>score at all? It
>is what it is......under the
>same system that has been
>in place for years.
>
>You know I was drafted out
>of high school for baseball.....had
>some home run power in
>high school. Then came the
>minors and wooden bats.....I suddenly
>had warning track power.....I didn't
>try and petition MLB to
>move the fences in so
>I could hit homers again.
> I knew the rules
>going into the game and
>accepted them as such.
>
>I would love to see your
>Bou and measure and have
>it entered.....sounds like the animal
>deserves the recognition. JMO
>
>
>
>BOHNTR )))---------->

Now you see him and he is recognized. No record book could change the memory of this hunt or the meaning to me.

38777yukon2009077copy.jpg
 
Yeah, JM77, we all have opinions, and we all differ, some differ slightly, others differ greatly. I have no problem with different opinions, I'm a married man with five kids, their spouses and a dozen grand children, believe me, I understand differences of opinion.

I thought my question was, in this discussion: Why do we need to be controversial over these two scoring systems? Why can't we see both for the enjoyment and or value they provide folks with differences of opinion? Where's the harm if one guy likes symmetry inches and a different guy like total inches? What is so frustrating or whatever it is that seems to annoy folks in one camp, with folks from the other camp?

My hell, it seems like we have enough significant issues that divide us, without nit-picking ones score system preference.

But I'll shut up before I'm as guilty as those I'm questioning.

All the best.

DC
 
I solely archery hunted from 1985-2007. Have 10 plus mule deer that would make the bottom end of Pope & Young. Didn't have any of them scored. Killed the Texas state record non-typical P&Y buck in 2007 and knew it would crush the old record. Had it officially scored and glad I did.
Like most of you, I really only care about gross. Deductions are for income tax, not deer horns.
 
>>Killed the Texas state
>>record non-typical P&Y buck in
>>2007
>
>Congrats! Pic?
>
>Grizzly


Yep a pic is due!

That caribou wow!
 
I was always one of those "why bother" guys until this year. Now that I have a buck that will make B/C I'll definitely enter him. I think its just pretty cool recognition and confirms that he's the buck of a lifetime. To me its a sign of respect for a truly regal animal. I would agree that those who look down their nose at people who enjoy the record book process have never had the opportunity to participate. I'd also agree that deductions are frustrating - much less so with the SCI system vs B/C.
 
I admit I am a B&C cheerleader. and for good reason. if you don't already know the B&C story and if you're unwilling to learn about the club you're not a very dedicated sportsman. and your comments on this subject are uninformed at best.

A brief history.

https://www.boone-crockett.org/about/about_history.asp?area=about


SCI has it's place I suppose. but the fact you can kill a zoo animal in a squeeze chute and enter it disqualifies them from any consideration in my book. pun intended.



I run into he debate on if to score and who to score now and then. why some people say they don't care about scoring and wouldn't ever score their animals get butthurt by the subject can only lead me to one conclusion. and it's not simply their humble nature.


That is a very nice caribou by the way. looks like it would score well to me.



Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
"I admit I am a B&C cheerleader. and for good reason. if you don't already know the B&C story and if you're unwilling to learn about the club you're not a very dedicated sportsman. and your comments on this subject are uninformed at best."

Dean, I wish you would rethink that comment, especially about the B&C story and being a dedicated sportsman.

I'll leave it at that.
 
Calm down Ocho. I was talking about the SCI scoring method. Thats it. I don't necessarily agree with their qualifications but to say that you could "kill a zoo animal in a Squeeze chute and enter it" is as disingenuous as saying that someone isn't a dedicated sportsman if they don't know the story of the BC club. For the record I know the story and its a good one. You should be proud to be a scorer but insulting others to make your point won't get you anywhere.
 
Obviously, based on my handle, I score the animals my family, friends, and I kill. I do this for a couple reasons:

1. I choose to hunt for more mature animals. Typically (obviously not in all cases), that means bigger antlers, i.e. higher score. It's a challenge. If someone chooses to shoot the first legal buck/bull they see, hey, more power to them. That's just not how I prefer to hunt. Personally, I'd rather eat tag soup, but I'll never dog on anyone that has different goals than I do. It's all about personal satisfaction and what you want to get out of your hunting experience. Me personally, I don't have to kill something to call it a successful hunt. In fact, I rarely shoot anything, but damn I love the pursuit!

2. Considering this is an online forum, a scoring system really helps people to understand the true size of the animal. As is often pointed out on this site, camera angles and body positioning can play a HUGE part in how an animal is perceived. Take these pics for example. These bulls (gross) score 310", 321", 329", 344", and 385". None of them are being "long-armed", but it would be really hard to tell there's a 75" difference from the smallest bull to the biggest bull just from these pics. However, seeing them in person is a whole different story...the 385" bull dwarfs the rest of them (would have netted book if he wasn't broken).

Do I think the scoring system is perfect? Not by a long shot. Mass definitely gets shortchanged in scoring. And not to go down a rabbit hole, but I wish there was some sort of displacement scoring system that would truly account for the total amount of antler (think dunking a set of antlers in water and the score is the amount of water displaced). But that's another debate for another day, lol! As for the gross versus net debate, I don't understand why there is a net score. That doesn't mean I won't play by the rules, but I'm not a fan of deductions. I understand that's the way it's been done for 100 years, but that doesn't mean it's the best way (just my 2 cents).

310"
82928img0886a.jpg


321"
90613img0851.jpg


329"
62201img0504.jpg


344"
27017img2729a.jpg


385"
72590img2863.jpg
 
This is a great set of pictures. I only wonder if you had posted the pictures, with just a list of scores, how many could have placed the correct score with the correct picture? You have made your point very well.
Bill
 

Similar threads

punchy
Mule deer potential
Replies
43
Views
3k
DBLung
DBLung
N
What would you do ???
Replies
46
Views
2k
notrace
N
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
1k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

PXL_20240308_224716626.jpg
IMG_4307.jpg
IMG_5115 copy copy.jpg
09B65123-B555-4E6B-81B5-1154DB51FF70.jpeg
Cool Wyoming Cheater Buck
217D8693-30F2-4F4D-A2A1-B2366A799CE2.jpeg
C02C6539-5902-4172-8044-33110695644C.jpeg
20221105_125323.jpg
tempImageheNob6.png
5978F653-88A8-43EB-91F5-6EEABD98471A.jpeg
Big Buck
BA7F02CA-53CC-4EF0-9D89-E295A5F47528.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom