Numbers. Why?

[gouch]

If most everyone is so disinterested in horns and antlers I would have expected more wild game recipes.

I don't think it is a disinterest in horns and antlers at all. A person can spend their life shooting nothing but big mature animals and never have a desire to put a tape to them. I've always found it disrespectful to the animal when I hear people refer to them by their "score" or imagined score. Or people saying to let an animal reach his "full potential" Full potential meaning his maximum score.

Although I have shot plenty of dinks over the years, I prefer a larger animal, but I have never measured any animal nor will I. I also favor the esthetics of the rack over the size. I am always looking for a "pretty rack" rather than a big rack. I can't describe what a "pretty rack" looks like, but I always know one when I see it.

 

[TOGIE]

i'd keep hunting if all the antlered hunting became illegal. i sure would keep having loads of fun too.

 

[MNElkNut]

It is but one way to measure an animal. I believe there are certainly better ways to measure a hunt. I think we all know of bucks/bulls that don't score well for one reason or another that are "big", thus the system fails them. Tine mass is completely ignored in the B&C system. As someone mentioned, displacement would be a great way to measure them. I have started giving vague answers to score; gives the person asking a perspective without putting a lot of emphasis on it.

 

[elkhuntinfool78]

Growing up I started getting into scoring animals as a better way to judge them. It was better than simply saying he was big but not really big, or he was a stud but not quite what the one I saw two years ago was. A number was a better method for me when discussing with other serious hunters I knew and even for my own journal notes it was better for me to look back in my notes and see that I saw a 300" bull in this basin two years ago rather than trying to remember how big that good bull I saw was.

I also feel that the Boone and Crockett organization is a good one and I'm glad folks enter their trophies there as it provides valuable information in terms of genetics, age class and wether those trends are on the rise or declining.

Fred King kinda changed my mind in that regard as I once thought it was just for folks to stroke their ego and no doubt still is for some but all in all I feel it's a good thing.

For me personally the size of animal taken doesn't factor in as to a hunts success. Some of my best trophies are smaller in size and some of my most successful hunts ended with tag soup.

I will also say that I have and will continue to look for mature and larger animals and I don't think that is a bad thing.

 

[pabearhunter]

Dad always taught me that you can't eat the tracks and you can't eat the antlers. But the antlers sure are nice to remember them by hanging on the wall.

 

[MarvB]

Only score I like to see is:
Marv 1 - Critter 0
In for the win!

 

[Frequently Banned Troll]

I’ve got a friend with a fat wallet for hunting - he’s done a lot of landowner tag buying in NV and been on a lot of guided hunts. He has taken a lot of very big elk. He always threw numbers out there about all the big elk and takes about how his goal was a “400” bull. He shot a buffer zone elk & when he showed it off at his house to a few of us I asked him if he’d taped the antlers. He said yeah it’s a little under 380. I cleaned the skull for him and taped it myself, it was a little under 380, 41” under to be exact. He ended up with a 400” bull though, in Nevada - it had half its rack busted off when he killed it, and he had the taxidermist do a bang up job gluing long tines back on it. But again, one of those guys who doesn’t enter anything as he had no need to stoke his ego like that.

 

[TOGIE]

But again, one of those guys who doesn’t enter anything as he had no need to stoke his ego like that.

in all seriousness, the ego stroking to me has little to do with the score being entered and everything to do with whether or not the person never shuts up about it.

without actually knowing you, you seem to let your hunting talk for itself. i like that.

 

[rogerthat]

I’ve got a friend with a fat wallet for hunting - he’s done a lot of landowner tag buying in NV and been on a lot of guided hunts. He has taken a lot of very big elk. He always threw numbers out there about all the big elk and takes about how his goal was a “400” bull. He shot a buffer zone elk & when he showed it off at his house to a few of us I asked him if he’d taped the antlers. He said yeah it’s a little under 380. I cleaned the skull for him and taped it myself, it was a little under 380, 41” under to be exact. He ended up with a 400” bull though, in Nevada - it had half its rack busted off when he killed it, and he had the taxidermist do a bang up job gluing long tines back on it. But again, one of those guys who doesn’t enter anything as he had no need to stoke his ego like that.

Wth did your buddy do to be 40” off? I only had a stiff steel tape and an extension cord to tape a bull once. Needless to say after getting done, the mass measurements really benefitted the score. I don’t think the length was terrible but if I remember I was like 20-25” high or so

 

[El Jason]

Talking about forkies and cows isn't nearly as much fun... neither is killing them.

I love shooting cows.

 

[hank4elk]

Older and regressive bucks and bulls always catch my eye.
Now I resemble that...........

 

[PoleX]

The reality of hunting is there will always be someone that will have more, bigger, or just be a better hunter than you. Just a fact, there are so many factors that go into it. I'm more interested in accomplishing the goal for the year, whatever it may be that year.

What I enjoy more than killing is hunting. If I have time, I'll always prefer to pass on a rag horn or small deer and try and find something on the upper end for the area I'm hunting. More of a mature animal thing for me than score per-say. I've never felt bad or regretted letting an animal walk, I have regretted ending a season early or taking an animal that I would have preferred had a chance to spread it genes for another year or two.

I do have a goal to get a book deer and elk (I'd be pretty excited to just find one of each). My dad had a handful of each and I just always enjoyed hearing the stories and admiring the antlers. It's really just another game within the game. I remember the first year I had a goal of a harvesting a bull or nothing (truly felt unattainable at the time). Probably still the highest level of accomplish I've felt hunting and that year was filled with memories I'll never forget. I finally caught up with one late November after many miles and many days in the field.

Lastly, I do appreciate the guys that enter stuff. It's interesting to look at entries from a historical standpoint. How have areas changed, what areas are improving and just knowing there's a chance at running into a book animal adds a level of excitement to a hunt.

 

[noharleyyet]

About 25 years ago landowners sort of adopted a similar business plan regarding deer leases. We had about 900 acres leased in Jack Co & our owner required us to attend a class that covered basic ungulate knowledge and field judging. I do not 'ragret' attending.

 

[SaskHunter]

In a world of long-arming trophies and fish-eye lenses, the gross score paints a clearer picture. With the right angle, some people can make a 150" 4x4 look like a 180".

Deductions are stupid and I don't know why we decided to take score away from typical antlers based on how symmetrical they are.

The "can't eat the horns" crew can claim to be in it for the meat only all they want but most hunters do want big antlers. Two things can be true at once, it's Okay to be in it for meat AND big antlers/horns. I don't know a single hunter who genuinely would shoot a small animal over a trophy because of meat quantity or quality. I know a couple guys who claim to not be after big animals but they're BS'ers who just suck at hunting.

 

[gouch]

I worked with a guy who shot a huge blacktail buck. He complained about how much it cost to get it into the Boone and Crocket records. Then when all was said and done and he had the trophy hanging on his wall and his name in the record books he decided he would have been just as happy with just the trophy hanging on the wall.

 

[WIbiggame]

The idea behind the B&C and P&Y scoring is actually rooted in science. The organizations wanted a standardized way to track the different states and areas these animals live.

They were looking for a way to compare say a county in CO with a county in MT in regards to which area grows the biggest antlers. And than in theory be able to try and figure out what would cause 1 area to grow better antlers compared to another. And hopefully be able to improve areas with habitat improvements, tag numbers etc.

 

[antlerradar]

I am a numbers guy. Have the numbers recorded on every big antler I have ever found. What is really cool about it is if you get a big enough data set you can start to see trends. For example in SE MT I have antlers from about 100 different big deer. Only 12 of then grew antlers that have an H1 measurement of 5 4/8 or better and 50% of then came from two relativity small places. The rest were scattered around with no other place having more then one.
In one place 50% of the bucks grew 5 inch plus browtines. A few miles away 50% of the bucks had no browtines, but in that area 7 of the 8 bucks grew G2's of better than 17 inches. A few miles away where the bucks grew big browtines, only one of the 10 bucks had a 17 inch G2 and that buck also did not have a browtine.

 

[Wildabeest]

I guess the numbers I care about are what it takes to be legal.

I guess that makes the important numbers 21 and 18.

 

[Nick87]

I am a numbers guy. Have the numbers recorded on every big antler I have ever found. What is really cool about it is if you get a big enough data set you can start to see trends. For example in SE MT I have antlers from about 100 different big deer. Only 12 of then grew antlers that have an H1 measurement of 5 4/8 or better and 50% of then came from two relativity small places. The rest were scattered around with no other place having more then one.
In one place 50% of the bucks grew 5 inch plus browtines. A few miles away 50% of the bucks had no browtines, but in that area 7 of the 8 bucks grew G2's of better than 17 inches. A few miles away where the bucks grew big browtines, only one of the 10 bucks had a 17 inch G2 and that buck also did not have a browtine.

Thats pretty cool.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I like numbers even though I am not a very good trophy hunter. I don’t care enough about numbers to hold out for animals that would score well, but I will definitely shoot the biggest one I have the opportunity to and would probably enter it in the record books if it was well beyond minimum.

Which is a little bit odd of me to say because I have killed a mule deer that would qualify for P@Y that I never had officially scored. I muffed the shot and it wasn’t a pretty recovery, so even though it worked out in the end , it’s not a kill I am particularly proud of.