Gross score

M

magicmuleys

Guest
So i pickup a issue of muleycrazy magazine the other day at work. Just want to see picts of deer. Start reading some of the articles and trying to match what they say the deer scores to the pict. Turns out im having a hard time. Everything is a Gross why not post the net because after all thats what really counts. Then to top it off, nothing is measured by an official measurer its my brother scored it or my buddy or my guide. Who cares?? Just trying to sell magazines i guess.
 
"Why not post the net because after all thats what really counts."

What?? Maybe it matters to you. There are some of us who really could care less what the net score is, heck I could care lee what the score is all together. I just like seeing big bucks and bulls.

People get so caught up in scores, that it drives people to do things that end up causing a "FIRE" on Monster Muleys.

My attitude is, if you dont like it, dont buy it.

TUFF
 
I too could care less about a net score. I want to know what the deer has on its head, no need to subtract things. I have seen deer that will only net in the 170's but have a gross score over 200. He grew the 200 why not give him credit for that. As people say, nets are for fish.

Saskman
 
Maybe he meant its the only number that officially counts.
_____________________________
Farmers harvest. Hunters kill
 
NO.... I ment a net score after the drying period is what counts in the books. Right or wrong? All these so called scores are taking away from truely huge bucks. Everything is over scored and exagerated to sell the product. Why not say what is officially your just fooling yourself. Nobody complains about nets with sheep, goats, antelope, etc. Nets are there for a reason.
As far as it goes all magazines are just advertisements for guides... and i dont buy or subscribe
 
I agree with the herd- Throw out the term "Net" and in doing so throw out the record books. I hope that doesn't rile up too many guys with heads "in the books." It's fun to be able to put a number to an animal- helps you communicate to other hunters what an animal's like without him seeing it, but who wants to live in a world where an 8" drop tine with a softball knob get's "netted" away.

My Peave is when you see a picture of a nice 160buck with a listed score of 186 3/8. Come on guys! try measuring from the burrs, not the eyeballs!

timberlinebanner2.jpg

http://www.naweoa.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&page_id=15&menu=1500
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-05-07 AT 10:44PM (MST)[p]Gross score is where the true measurement is.
Just like a shirt a buddy got for me from sneekee and saskman said. the quote is:
There is no substitute for gross score, Nets are for fish.




fca2e9e9.jpg
 
NET? A Doe doesn't care about Net score, the more bone the better. At least that's what momma said last night. So one of the boys hangs lower than the other, I shouldn't be deducted in size. It's the whole package that counts, that's what she said. Deer and humans are no different, it's the size that matters. If he can GROW it, let it be measured, No deductions!!!
 
Ok?? If everyone wants to live in a make believe world then thats your choice. Its a black & white issue theres a gross a drying period and a net with all deductions. Maybe everyone hear can start their own organization for record keeping for the deer that are too small for the non typical and too many deductions for typical. you could call it C.A.N.{cheaters against nets} As for magazines it should be offical measurements and not a 150 buck being pawned off as 180 etc. I think that falls under false advertisement.
 
Woah, calm down buddy. If you are looking for a place where all hunters care about is net score, you may be on the wrong site. Seems to me that a make believe world would be one where you subtract antler that exists from a deer's head when you talk about the "official" score. Screw the book, when I read an article all I care about is total inches of antler, if they give a score at all. "Cheaters"? what does that mean....

Andy

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.trophyblogger.com/Andymansavage
 
I belive SCI counts them all, don't they? I'm having a hard time getting "Cheaters Against Nets" and SCI to spell the same thing, hmmmm...??? Maybe it's just me, but, I like to hear both scores net and gross. You're right net is what goes into the "books" but, I think the animal deserves more credit than that! I'm with you other guys, "Nets are for fish!"

Elk
 
Water displacement!!!!! That would give the animal credit for what he grew. You can argue width later on.
 
>Ok?? If everyone wants to live
>in a make believe world
>then thats your choice. Its
>a black & white issue
>theres a gross a drying
>period and a net with
>all deductions. Maybe everyone hear
>can start their own organization
>for record keeping for the
>deer that are too small
>for the non typical and
>too many deductions for typical.
>you could call it C.A.N.{cheaters
>against nets} As for magazines
>it should be offical measurements
>and not a 150 buck
>being pawned off as 180
>etc. I think that falls
>under false advertisement.

How about a real world, where not everyone gives a damn about "official drying periods, net scores, and record books". I would much rather live in a world where a deer gets credit for ALL the antler it grew, instead of credit for what some "record book organization" tells me to give it credit for.

Cheaters?? So if we count all the inches, that makes up cheaters? WTF??? What kind of world fo you live in???

As for magazines, its their magazine, so how about they choose what they want in their magazine. If you dont like it, dont buy it. Obviously there a many people who dont worship the B&C standard and are happy just looking at big bucks. If you dont like it, why dont you start your own magazine. You could call it "OFFICAL SCORES ONLY" or "GROSS SCORE IS FOR CHEATERS". Im sure you would sell a lot of copies!

Seriously, I think that these record books are a large contributing part of whats wrong with hunting nowadays. People are so concerned with making "BOOK", that it matters more to them than the hunting experience itself.
 
Magic Muleys:

Its America dude. If people want to subscribe to a magazine that does thing one way - so be it. Your like the gay dude complaining that he picked up a playboy??? WTF>

You said you don't subscribe to the "offending" magazine - so let it be.
 
It is absurd to ask every deer in every magazine to be officially scored. It's time consuming enough to get your deer officially scored, plus if you shot a deer that you knew wasn't going to make the all time B&C record book why waste the time and money to have it officially scored? It's still a great buck. Just because my friend or some Joe Blow scored a deer doesn't mean it's off 10 or 20 inches. There are a lot of people out there who can score deer pretty darn well. Just Because it's not official doesn't mean it's big scored by 20 inches. Besides it's called Muley Crazy not Official Net B&C magazine.
 
String him up!!! We don't have time for this the powers that be have spoken "Nets are for fish" I say String him up!!!
 
Stirrung the fire eh...I agree that most scores ever printed in mags are a bit high and many a guy adds some inches.If a guy wants to live a life with such petty lies just to make his animal appear larger , well than thats on him. I actually like to see gross scores if they are legit , I can care less about B&C deductions. I got hammered here a while back because I said I liked the SCI because they give credit for all antler grown, not knowing they allow pen raised animals , people let me have it. All I think is an animal should be given credit for all he grows....I don't promote pen hunting but to each thier own...
 
honestly i like seeing both scores. the gros score is the only one i really care about. it gives the deer more purpose in being shot. i also though like to see the deductions. only for the purpose of ever shooting one big enough to "book" it.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-07 AT 10:59AM (MST)[p]For the record - I don't know which of the two nice sets of horns I posted above from ebay would score better net.

Anyone with any insight would be cool to know. And yes, I want to know both scores. LOL!!!

Also, if you hunt for "book" and thats your deal, go for it. Just not my thing.
 
Lol, Gross score is mainly for bucks that won't make book. But, if you don't care about net then you shouldn't care about gross either. Both are just measurements. It just sounds bigger in the gross categorie :p. I do think B&C really penalizes non-typicals wrongly for the way they deduct on the typical frame, so gross score really tells more in that respect. But if you are gonna go all "gross" then you might as well have only one category.

Another thing about gross score is that it isn't really tallied the same from one person to the next. Gross mainframe, net mainframe without cheaters, gross mainframe with cheaters, gross mainframe without cheaters, too many variations.

There definately are some faults to the b&c scoring system that penalize some truly huge bucks, but at least it's consistant and established.

You can pretty much bet if a buck will make book , or if it is even close, the net score will be given. I personally grew up with net scores, so I chuckle everytime I hear someone saying a buck was shot that scored 190 or 200+, cause It usually ends up being gross not net. -And sizewise that is usually a huge difference.

But realistically, not many of us will shoot, let alone even see muleys that make B&C, so gross score certainly has its place.
I personally am satisfied with net scores, and none of my bucks will make book. Pretty much if a gross score is given , I'll look at it and say , "nice buck" , "whatta pig", "thats huge", or "omg what a friggen monster". And that's what it's really about.

As for the antlers on ebay , I don't believe the nontypical is scorable, as it appears to have 2 main beams on one side. Gross score is still scored by B&C measuring techniques as far as I know. I'll go crawl back into the woodwork now :)
 
I only like to hear the gross score. I don't really care if something makes the book. I doubt I will ever shoot anything that does. I just like to hear how much antler the animal has, not if it has deductions. Who cares if it is perfectly symetrical.
 
A gross score gives a better idea of how big the deer actually is than the net score does. The scoring system to me (using gross scores) provides a means to compare one deer to another or to give an idea as to the actual size of a bucks antlers. In my opinion the B&C and P&Y record books have absolutely no credibility and it's all because of "net" scores. A large number of the biggest bucks ever killed don't score well, and therefore either don't make the minimum, or at least don't rank where they should. With that being the case, what good is the record book?? I say it's no good. It gives no indication in my mind of the biggest bucks ever killed.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Gross scores don't just sound bigger, they are bigger.

If all you want to do is get your name in a record book, I feel sorry for you. Hunting and killing animals shouldn't be about a reputation or fame. It should be something that bring a heightened sense of who you are as a person and what you stand for. It should fulfill a need of some sort. Whether it be an outing with the family, food on the table, an uncreased knowledge of nature or even a desire to kill that trophy you dream about. Those are all great reasons to head to the woods. But if one goes in search of a net score solely for the purpose of recording a number in a book...A great deal of the lifestyle and experience of hunting is lost. As far as everyone scoring bucks incorrectly, who cares! It's not your deer. Haven't you ever heard of a fish story. If they are happy with a 180" (165") class buck good for them.

Long live the over scored animals!

I hope we all have fun and find great success this fall.
 
Wow you guys really take gross scores seriously. When i do something i like to do it right. It is what it is. I shot a buck in 05 that I scored 159 and some change and a net of 147. I dont say it scored 160 when somebody asks. I didnt try to enter him in P&Y. Hes a 145 buck and hes mounted on my wall. Im proud as i could be of that buck.

So... if you kill a 170 typical framed buck with 15 inches of extras..... Its ok to tell everyone hes a 185?

I would say he would be a great buck

I would say he scores 150s

I think theres a big difference in 170 and 185

I just think false advertisement of lower class bucks takes away from the true monsters that deserve credit
 
So you are right, we are wrong!?!?!

If I shoot a deer that has 185 inches of bone on its head...it IS a 185 inch buck. Doesnt matter if it is 15 inches of "trash" on a 170 frame. It IS still 185 inches of bone on that buggers head. If you dont think they deserve to have every inch counted, then you are giving the respect/credit to those magnificent creatures that they deserve.

They grew every inch of that bone, they deserve to be recognized for it. I dont think they have control over how symmetrical their racks turn out.

I for one am proud of the animals I kill, no matter what they score. Heck I killed a bull on a LE Unit a few years ago that many people would have passed on. He only ended up socring in the 330-340 range. I have never had him officially scored and I never will. My trophys are measured by the hunt and the experiences I had, not by score. I feel bad for those who cant enjoy a buck without knowing what it scores or where it will end up in "the book".

TUFF

PS: Nets are for fish!! :}
 
>Wow you guys really take gross
>scores seriously. When i do
>something i like to do
>it right. It is what
>it is. I shot a
>buck in 05 that I
>scored 159 and some change
>and a net of 147.
>I dont say it scored
>160 when somebody asks. I
>didnt try to enter him
>in P&Y. Hes a 145
>buck and hes mounted on
>my wall. Im proud as
>i could be of that
>buck.
>
>So... if you kill a 170
>typical framed buck with 15
>inches of extras..... Its ok
>to tell everyone hes a
>185?
>
>I would say he would be
>a great buck
>
>I would say he scores 150s
>
>
>I think theres a big difference
>in 170 and 185
>
>I just think false advertisement of
>lower class bucks takes away
>from the true monsters that
>deserve credit


Dude, what color is the moon in your world?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-08-07 AT 08:57PM (MST)[p] Why say the deer with 185 inches( 170 plus 15 inches of trash) has only 155 inches on his head. It makes absolutely no sense to subtract from what the deer grew. I have no interest to ever enter any of my deer that will net in the P&Y book ( No B&C deer yet). I will take the 185 inch gross buck with 15 inches of trash that nets 155 any day over a clean 170 inch net buck, and I will tell people he scored 185 gross. I would likely take a 190 gross buck that has 15 inches of trash over a clean 190 net buck as well. The trash gives it character. I don't need to see my name in a book. By your way of thinking a clean 172 inch gross buck that might net 170 is a bigger and better buck than the 185 gross buck with 15 inches of trash that nets 155. To me that makes absolutley no sense.
 
Unfortunately, adding inches and sitting in the next county on the field pic., is often the case. Hey, I got a pic or two of my 320 bull, where I slide back and you would swear it was a 360, simply looks massive when sitting way back. I see the exaggerated scores all the time, especially with elk, sometimes, even hard not to laugh, but to each his own. Tuff, try not to let it get to you man, its just the unfortunate reality of our sport. at least we aren't pumping steroids to break records.................

Late,

Johnny
 
Magicmuleys, I'm with you man. I'm not quite so insistent on the net unless I'm entering a buck though. When I describe a buck it is the gross I tell them. I think part of what you're getting at is the short man's disease with people overcompensating buy adding inches. I have a buck that is 29 1/2 inches wide and scores 167 gross, 155 net. He is just that, not a 30 inch 170 class deer. It doesn't take anything away from the deer or the hunt, but reading articles in mags that overcompensate for something just makes me automatically not read the article. Unfortunately, you can't state your opinion here unless it goes with the flow. So, do what I did, and never buy a muley crazy mag again and keep being honest to yourself!
 
Look i dont care if you agree or disagree with me. I will walk my own path through life. I dont have any animals in any books just on my walls. I use scores as a way to communicate with others on how big the animal is. I think if you go through the trouble of getting a gross score you should also get a net. Only true giants are measured by their nets. I understand its easy to gang up on someone who is unknown but you guys proved how important the highest scoring animal is and are willing to only go halfway on the process to a record book animal.

o and by the way my moon is blue
 
You just said yourself you use scores to communicate how big an animal is to others. The net score does not communicate how big the animal is. If you told me that your deer scores 155 and it actually was the 185 gross buck with 15 inches of trash, your 155 net score sells the buck way short. He has 185 inches of bone on his head. That is how big he is. I can see if you do not stipulate if the gross score is non-typical ot typical that people can get confused.
 
My thoughts exactly on both of your posts Saskman. A couple of years ago my little brother killed a BIG velvet buck with his bow that I gross scored 199" and change. The buck is a 5x10 and just a neat looking with lots of character. Lots of deductions too... Personally I would have never considered even figuring out the net score because it just doesn't make any sense to do it on a buck like that in my opinion. My little brother wanted to know so I figured it out for him and if I remember right it was something like high 160's or maybe low 170's net... It doesn't even seem right to look at the buck and think 160's net let alone say it outloud! As was said before, NETS ARE FOR FISH!

It kind of reminds me of the width/spread issue. Some people only report the inside spread? No clue as to why they would care about that other than just to use as a measurment to come up with the gross score. If I shoot a 32 inch wide buck I'm dang sure not going to tell all my buddies that I shot a freaking 24 incher!

NvrEnuf
 
Here's my take. Many serious mule deer hunters don't really care about the net B&C score as has been previously mentioned. It is more about a way of communicating the class of buck being discussed. Is the buck a gross 150, 160 or 180 class animal.

An example might be in a day of scouting, 30 deer are spotted, 4 of these being bucks. One buck is a 135 class animal and the other a 160 class buck. It's just a way of evaluating the class of animal you're looking at and communicating this. I am in agreement that it makes little sense calling a gross 180 buck with trash a 150 buck after deductions.

Once it's all said and done, if an animal is worthy of the book, then I think it appropriate (under the current B&C rules) to enter the NET score if this is important to you.

But one reason so many could care less about the net score is that too many bucks are overlooked by a scoring system that penalizes true trophy class status. Mike
 
>Magic Muleys:
>
Your like the gay dude complaining that he picked up a playboy??? WTF>

Now that there is funny!!!
 
Seen quite a few bucks killed that would'nt come close to making book that absolutely dwarfed bucks that were around B&C minimum. I'm with the crowd that only cares about gross. If I or someone I knew killed a buck that was built how B&C likes 'em, only then would I want to figure net. Gross score tells the tale of what a buck TRULY is. Net score is an un-natural set of man made parameters that most TROPHY bucks cant live up to. Even most hardcore mule deer hunters will most likely never kill a deer that makes book. I would'nt get so hung up on it if i were you.
 
thebuckstopshere,

i would definitly consider scoring that non typical muley from ebay using the sci system. research thta and you should be able to make that score a do-it-your-selfer.
 
I feel officailly stupider for reading all these posts. Give me a break. If you don't like gross scores then subscribe to the
B&C and P&Y newsletter and quit looking at anything else. These magazines are in business to sell magazines. They will net "check on" people to see if the scores they enter with the pictures are correct, so get over it and don't read them. I personally think that the statements about telling people a 185 is 155" is hardly worth commenting on. It is one of the stupidest comments I have ever heard and I would guess that the guy who wrote it has never shot a buck with trash. If he did I think we ALL KNOW he would change his view.

I think we are all just going crazy waiting for the hunts to start!!!!!!!!
 
Count me in the gross camp. If, by some huge mircacle, I was choosing between two mulies with perfectly symetrical 191 4X4 frames, but one had 15 inches of trash, I'd go after the one with trash. I wouldn't give the net score of 176 and not putting my name in "the book" a second thought.

It's still baby steps for me though--I'm still trying to break 160 (gross); and I still like B&C for its promotion of fair chase.
 
Put me in the "gross" camp as well.

Question Mag, if I shoot a 34" spread buck (inside) but his mains are only 23", how should I answer when asked "how wide is he?";-)
 
Eh, put me in the "Net" camp, I love big typicals and I think that's the way they should be scored. Nontypicals , I think could be all "gross" though.

Funny thing is, "gross" score has gotten very popular, and people use it without saying the keyword "gross" before the word "score". So nobody really knows for sure what anyone's talking about when it comes to "score".
 
I heard somewhere that B&C is going to start listing the gross scores in their record books beside the net score. They will still be ranked by net score but you will at least be able to see how big the buck really is.

Saskman
 
magicmuleys-
Net scores only matter if your going book the animal.
There are thousands of great animals out there that wont make book due to the "flaws" they have set in the books for net scores.
I have a 201" (gross) muley that only nets 176" due to his flaws, but i'm surely not going to call him a "176 inch" buck, he's a solid 200"!!

So in a nut shell....net's are for fish. :)
 

Similar threads

MD4U
  • Poll
Gross or net??
Replies
62
Views
3k
wildfin
W

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

4F3637B0-9E78-4E1F-B3AD-D0BCD5734931.jpeg
1-Nevada Elk 006.jpg
Screenshot_20210820-081058_Photos.jpg
IMG_20161121_243048789.jpg
4B033E58-51D1-474C-9F58-A4A3A7679B31.jpeg
Sweet Velvet COW for Hunt4fun96
1704251219504.jpeg
IMG_3190(2) (1).jpg
8F2C0601-111C-445F-ABCC-C13EF663FE05.jpeg
74190p20190709231139hdr3 (2).jpg
16669.jpeg
IMG_2821.jpg
Back
Top Bottom