Nontypical Bucks

[BillyGoat]

I was looking at the B&C scoresheets for muledeer and didn't notice a real difference in the scoring between typical and nontypical racks. Did I miss something? At what point is a rack considered "nontypical"?

Also, what percentage of bucks out in the field would you say actually do have nontypical racks?

 

[Dangerous Dave]

I'll have to defer to those who actually do score racks using the B&C method and know what they're doing. But I did make a couple of copies of scoresheets so I could get an idea about how they go about doing it.
It appears to me that extra (abnormal) points detract from the score of a perfectly symetrical typical. Don't ask me why, because you'd think that any extra points would be counted as extra inches added to the score.
For example, a great typical 4X5 with an inline tine off the middle of his main beam would suffer a deduction. How many inches long that inline tine was -would be a subtraction. Heck, I'd add it anyway.
I get ping-ponged back and forth about nontypicals from what my mentors and friends tell me. I haven't seen enough of them to make an educated sumation. I've been told everything from that they're a result of a specific gene, they recieve special minerals in the food they eat, they're supposed to be something of a sub-species, all the way to: all big mule deer -if given the time to grow- will produce nontypical points and racks. The last theroy sounds most logical to me.

 

[redline410]

BG,

I'm fairly certain the only difference is the addition of that handy little "line E" for a NT score instead of subtracting it. the way B&C lays it out, any mule deer with more than the G1-4 would be considered a Typical with trash unless there are enough of those little character points to meet their NT minimum.........stupid system.........

Dave

 

[schmalts]

with a nontypicle, there is still a gross and net score and deductions work the same. Usually with NT, guys are just interested in the gross score. So, if you had a browtine on only one side, it would still be a deduction unless there was a browtine on the other that matched for the net score i think is the best way to explain it. So now you know why guys usually just say the gross score on a NT

 

[nmtaxi]

On a non-typical, the only deductions are for the difference in symmetry on the TYPICAL frame. The typical frame is scored, deductions subtracted, and all non-typical points added to the final score. Non-typical points do not have to be symmetrical.

http://www.boone-crockett.org/pdf/mulentsc.pdf

 

[schmalts]

You are correct, forgot that part.
It seems strange that they would have any deductions at all for a NT, they should just rank them by total bone mass. I kind of like the Buckmasters method. I always said nontypicles should be measured on a water displacement method. You know, fill up a graduated bucket, mark the level, dip in the horns and see how much the water level rises.

 

[mtmiller]

nmtaxi nailed it, schmalts was full of sheet as usual.

BTW schmalts, you spell "NT" better than the alternative.

 

[nmtaxi]

I agree. I don't think they should have any deductions either for a NT. I also agree that the water displacement system would be the best way to meausre (I think it's called the Burkett Scoring System). In other methods, antlered game get no credit whatsoever for point mass. A thin point gets the same credit as a thick point if they are the same length.

 

[Dangerous Dave]

I knew I didn't study the fine print on the bottom of those B&C scoresheets enough. Time to dig them up again and learn something... gotta "bone up"... get it? Sorry...

 

[elkfarmer]

I have a 10 pt that has a 8"drop tine on one side and a 5" kicker on the other. He grossed like 142" and net 116". I asked the BC scorer why he couldn't score him as non-typical. He said you need at least 15" of non-typical inches in order to do a non-typical score. I still would have had some deductions but not nearly as much.