Score

beech18 · Feb 25, 2012

What are your thoughts on this? Seems like every year score is becoming more and more talked about in the size of animals and quality of the actual hunt? Or is it just me? Just saying in general, magazines, articels, internet, etc etc. I like to have an idea what something scores if I harvest something but take it only with a grain of salt. Naturally I want to harvest big animals just like the next person but thats just one aspect of hunting and in my opinion some people are placing too much attention on score weather it was a good or poor hunt or if the animals harvested is worthy. I know theres people out there that might say for example, I wont shoot a buck less than 180 inches or a bull less than 300 inches. And if so and so happens to shot a buck or bull that falls just short of the mark, becomes disappointed. I remember years ago in my neck of the woods, a big elk would be referred to a big 6 point instead of a 350 bull or whatever and the same theory with the other critters. Things change with time and realize this might be just a evolution of the sport, for better or worse...
Just curious what peoples view on the topic.

TOPGUN · Feb 25, 2012

I could care less what something scores and I agree with you and have said before that "The BOOK" mentality is ruining hunting as we know it!

eldorado · Feb 25, 2012

Any animal taken legally and fairly is a trophy in my book.

Eldorado

kawboy · Feb 25, 2012

I focus on the hunt, if it scores good that's just a bonus

I'll tell you who it was . . . it was that D@MN Sasquatch!

Gator · Feb 27, 2012

If it trips my trigger, I could care less what it scores.
I shoot because I like what I see not a piece of paper with numbers on it.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

tchoate3 · Feb 27, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Feb-27-12 AT 08:11AM (MST)[p] I have to admit it has been a goal of mine to harvest an animal that would make the B&C book. I live in Oregon so that is a tall order in my state. Last season I was lucky enough to draw a Rocky Mountain Bighorn tag. The unit I drew has a very good chance to produce a B&C ram. I however did not kill a B&C ram , my ram fell short of that mark by over 8 inches. I am accually more proud of the ram I killed by how I hunted it than what it scores. I did it on my own on a solo hunt, that I am very proud of, more so than if I would have hired a team of spotters to find the biggest ram in the unit and I show up and shoot it. I like record books, and if I ever harvest an animal that makes it I will have it entered. But the hunt is what really does it for me, and I will not pass on a good animal just because it won't make "The Book"

muleycrazytwo · Feb 27, 2012

Well said tchoate. Score is just one number to give a description of an animal. What the animal looks like and how it was taken is more important. I would rather hear a description like a (30" wide heavy long tined mule deer) than a 195 B&C. A 195 buck can be ugly like spindly with a bunch of extras and a small main frame. I think most hunters may talk alot about scores but very few are really hung up on score. The good thing about trophy hunting is that less deer get killed. That equals more and better opportunity for everyone.

beech18 · Feb 27, 2012

Im glad Im not the only one that feels that way. Score has its place but should not be the only focus.

mmwb · Feb 27, 2012

I have no idea of what a buck or bull would score to look at it. I did shoot a nice buck this year that someone suggested might be around 180 and was curious, so put a tape to it, but came up with several different totals and now know I have no more competence with a tape measure than just looking at them.

I've decided that I am more interested in the look of the rack than the measurements. I do like the looks of mass and trash. Shot a nice little 4x6 with character a couple of years ago. Not an old buck and he probably would've turned into something spectacular, but I've no regrets and don't think I would have had more appreciation or respect for him as a monster than as he is on the wall now. More invested in my liking the look on the wall than anyone else's opinion as to whether the buck is a good one or not.

That being said, if the measure of horn is a good goal for someone, why not. Looks work for me, inches work for others. To each their own. Just make sure that your goal is your goal and not someone else's.

beech18 · Feb 27, 2012

Thinking about it, I would say I use the easy way to classify bucks or bulls that everyone can relate too. Rack bracketing 101.
Little buck
Nice Buck
Big Buck
and finally, the Holy Sh%t buck

elkassassin · Feb 27, 2012

Score of big game deers and elks is the only thing that matters. Meat does not get a score. Only horns get a score. So only horns matter.

TOPGUN · Feb 28, 2012

"deers and elks", LOL!

carnicero · Feb 28, 2012

I think holding ones opinion of a hunt to scoring is foolish, the focus on big scores may be one factor that may be attributed to the $$$ tag grab that we see in some states, such as Utah. I think I personally rate my hunts on the opportunity to see mature animals, not necessarily giants, along with not being pressured by other hunters in the unit. That being said I do prefer that F&G officials manage units for quality and not opportunity/quantity of tags.

theox · Feb 28, 2012

how is score ruining hunting? its just a way of giving an idea of size. No one is forced to kill a buck of a certain score. kill what you want. I think score just references and gives you a certain caliber of animal to hunt. no different from saying 30 inch wide or what ever.
if you dont care about score thats fine to. some of my funnest hunts have been when i passed on alot of bucks that didnt meet my criteria and i did not fill my tag. I love big racks and i like to describe how big they are. to some people a little buck is a 20 inch 4 pt while that may be a monster to someone else. so beig able to say it scores 180 gives a better uderstanding of its true size imo. whether a 160 is a monster to some and not others is irrelevant. if someone puts to much emphasis on score and has a bad hunt because of it thats their problem!

littlebighorn · Feb 28, 2012

A year ago, I killed a caribou that would go in the top 10-20 of the record book(according to the guide's score), but it was in beautiful full velvet, so unless I stripped it, it could not be officially scored. At the time I had never had an animal entered into "the book" and it has always been a dream.
But it didn't take much thought to realize that the trophy is what it is, regardless of the score, or even if it makes the book. So I brought it home in full velvet and that is how it will stay.
I think we can all agree that sometimes "Score" can mess up a great experience. I also feel that if used correctly, it can be a good tool challenge hunters to find something a little better. I must say, though score is a much juicier topic than it used to be!

Dean Parisian · Feb 28, 2012

I told the deer processor/taxidermist that if he even thinks about putting a tape to any rack of mine it will be the last business I do with him. I'm not a score guy. Each to his own.

www.teammuleys.com