P&Y to drop let-off rule?

dgibson

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
1,671
Location
Henderson, KY
From http://www.pope-young.org : <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Changes to Records Program - % Let-off Rule

In an effort to "resolve" a very hotly debated and divisive issue, the Pope and Young Club's Board of Directors has been developing a possible compromise solution to the ongoing debate over the Club's well-known 65% let-off limit on compound bows.

A solution was finally adopted by the Board and forwarded to the Club's Regular Members and Senior Members (voting members) for a vote on a change to the Club's By-laws. That vote concluded on Friday, November 14th, and the ballots have been tallied. By a vote of 294-148, the membership passed the motion.

THE CHANGE

The proposal called for a change to the Records Program, whereby the Club would begin accepting entries harvested by compound bows that have let-off greater than 65% (provided they are legal, in the state/province where used, AND meet the Club's remaining definition of a hunting bow). Any record book entry with a compound bow exceeding 65% in let-off will be listed with an asterisk (*) in the Records and in the record books.

The proposal also called for the production of a periodic, specialty book that would contain only animals harvested with "traditional" bows (recurve bows, longbows and self bows), in addition to them being listed in the all-time record books.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Effective January 1, 2004, the Club will begin accepting entries taken with compound bows that have let-off greater than 65%.

This change is retroactive, meaning that animals harvested in the past can now be submitted for possible acceptance into the Records.

The 65% value remains an important numerical "line," as any entry taken with a compound bow having percent let-off greater than that will be listed with an asterisk. The Club's definition of let-off remains the same and is an important consideration when accurately completing the entry materials. The Club's definition matches the A.M.O. standard method of measuring let-off. It differs from the now-popular advertising definition of let-off, referred to as "effective" let-off. This is a point all bowhunters need to be aware of---when completing the "Hunt Information Form" on the Fair Chase Affidavit, you need to list the A.M.O. standard let-off for animals taken with a compound bow.

A "traditional-only" record book is intended to be published in 2007, with subsequent editions published on a six-year cycle. Those entries will remain in the all-time record books, as has always been the case. The next all-time record book (which has been, and will continue to be, published on a six-year cycle) is due out in the spring of 2005. The deadline for that book, the 6th Edition of "Bowhunting Big Game Records of North America," is 12/31/04.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wow. I'm a little surprised by the "retroactive" part...things are going to get rearranged a little, I guess. But then, I have to ask myself what the big deal really is. Wow.
confused.gif


<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 11-25-2003 11:39: Message edited by: dgibson ]</font>
 

A-con

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
2,926
Location
Fresno,Ca.
Does anyone know which (western) states require a 65% letoff ?
My bow is set at 65% but I thinking of going to 75%, depending on what states allow it.
 

Moosie

Grand poopa
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
17,668
Location
Boise, Idaho
Let off is A BULLCHIT CALL !!! Idaho says Let off is were you Anchor the Bow.. You cna have a 90% let off but tell them that you don't draw to full lenght therefore you're shooting is only @ 65%.... Dumb rule !!!
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Jan 22, 2001
Messages
4,985
Location
San Antonio, Texas, USA
I'll have to remember that next time I have P&Y animal in front of me with my bow. haha I don't think I ever have, but, you never know. Retroactive, wow.
 

dgibson

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
1,671
Location
Henderson, KY
Maybe I don't understand the concept of let-off, but was under the impression that let-off was the final draw weight after the cams or wheels rolled over versus the initial pull weight. If you do like Moosie said and stop early, aren't you supporting the full draw weight and not some percentage? In other words, either you're let off or you're not; there's no in between.
confused.gif
Those fancy new Mathews bows with "no specific draw length" don't count, of course.
wink.gif
 

Moosie

Grand poopa
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
17,668
Location
Boise, Idaho
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you do like Moosie said and stop early, aren't you supporting the full draw weight and not some percentage? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope !! read on Grasshopper...

It starts with "0" let off at "PEAK" where the Cam is at Max tension. Then it starts to "ROLL" over into the letoff. The more let off you have. If you anchor your string at just before Full draw you're not taking advantage of the full letoff. You're not holding it at "PEAK" jsut somewere not at full letoff.

The Verbage in the Regs is "Any bow with more then 65% letoff".... I've heard of people arguing that the Anchor point wasn't at full draw. Untill they change the verbage, it's a mute law in my opinion. Like most of the other laws, it's all under the Interpretation of the laws and statutes... total BULLCHIT
biggrin.gif
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
14,495
Location
Laramie, WY
My take on this issue...

I personally think a bit too much emphasis is put on making record books...nothing wrong with recognizing accomplishments and the animal, etc.

That being said, I think whats going on here is nothing more than the P&Y club folding to pressure to have trophies entered that were taken with bows above the 65% let-off rule. Theres lots of bow manufactures out there selling bows and lots of famous bowhunters endorsing these bows. Then someone goes and shoots a big critter with one of the bows and finds out that P&Y CLUB RULES, dont allow over 65% let-off. It pisses them off and so they whine and cry (apparantely enough in this case) until the rules are changed to allow them and their equipment.

Nothing is sacred anymore, its all about marketing and money, and this is just another blaring example. I think its sad that a club would sell out its core beliefs to satisfy the demands of a bunch of whiners.

The spirit of the P&Y club just went down the shitter as far as I'm concerned. The next step will be allowing crossbow and muzzleloader hunters to enter their trophies in P&Y.
 

Moosie

Grand poopa
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
17,668
Location
Boise, Idaho
I think they should lower the MIN score too while they are at it... I have several Forked horns I'd like to enter
smile.gif
smile.gif
 

Oak

Expert
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
14,576
Location
Colorado
I think it's a sad state of affairs that hunters give two shits about getting their name printed in a book. The scoring system is great for talking about animals in a language everyone understands (ie, if someone says they killed a 200 net muley, you have a better idea of how big it is than if they said they got a really nice buck). Other than that, who cares? I agree with Buzz that it just cheapens what P&Y stands for. What's the point of having standards if you're just going to lower them when enough people bitch and moan? BTW Oscar, they lowered the minimum for mule deer a few years ago. WHY?
confused.gif
So people could feel better about the animal they killed?

A good example: A buddy of mine (who's only 22 years old) killed a muley this fall that grossed 205" and netted 194 4/8". When he e-mailed me with the score yesterday, he said, "It misses the all time book by half an inch." I wrote him back and told him that they lowered the minimum a few years ago, and his buck would make it in. Here's his exact response: "Wow, the scoring sheets my dad had must have been old, they said a min. of 195. It is cool to know that I make the book, something I never thought would happen to me, but I don't know that I care to do anything about it."

That's the right attitude to have. Guys that bitch and moan that their deer doesn't make the book because of the letoff on their bow are probably the guys who also feel inferior about the size of their peepees.

Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 12-05-2003 11:55: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>
 

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
And how come Pope and Young only allows you to have archery kills. I think they should let you have rifle kills...
rolleyes.gif


The recent entries in those books hold little interest to me. I do sometimes like to look at the 30-60 year old entries, and see where the biggun's USED to come from.

But I think some states should have "Asteriks" by every entry, just because I question the "fair chase" part of some of the states. Can you enter a buck killed in Texas, that was fed a high-protein, high-horn growth food from an auto-feeder?

I would almost like to see any animal not killed on public land, be inelgible for the books. That would piss people off...
biggrin.gif
But then, you would know the animal was a "free range" animal, and likely fair-chase, fair growth....
soapbox.gif
 

A-con

New member
Joined
Dec 23, 2000
Messages
2,926
Location
Fresno,Ca.
I agree with Buzz, heck, if we all winned enough, they'd make a special record book for "Hunttalk.com" trophys.(the ninja throwing star record book)
I think Elk Gunner has a point also, about only entering "fair chase" public land animals. I wonder how many of thoses 200" deer and 400" bulls in the books used to eat their dinner out of a trough.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
14,495
Location
Laramie, WY
I talked with one of my best friends last night about this topic...

He's an official scorer for P&Y and has been since 1980. He's a very out-spoken individual anyway, but he wrote a scathing letter to the P&Y club and will be resigning (as a measurer) as of the first of the year over this thing. He also will be removing about a dozen or so of his personal entries as well.

Its sad when a club sells out to money and whiners...they lose the people who believe the most in the club and what it should/did stand for.

Nothing remains simple anymore...
 

1_pointer

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2000
Messages
18,108
Location
Indiana
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Nothing remains simple anymore... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I do!
biggrin.gif


I too think it is sad to see them selling out, but when dealing with the public at large you sometimes have to be as fickle as they are.

I really like Buzz's comment about losing the one's that truely represent the org. THat is what keeps these things going, not some Johnny-Come-Never-Again.
 

dgibson

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
1,671
Location
Henderson, KY
The P&Y rules of fair chase are pretty straight forwarard (see here), but no mention is made of feeders, food plots, crops, etc. That is an interesting question.

Regarding "public land only" animals, that's typical western "I've got a million acres of public forest in my backyard" mentality.
tongue.gif


I have to agree that lowering the standard (and making it retroactive) cheapens the success of those who stuck to the rules in the past. But it also seems to be kind of an arbitrary standard. I don't anticipate entering anything in any book anytime soo, so I guess I can't complain too much.
wink.gif
 

JoseCuervo

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
9,752
Location
South of the Border
I did not mean to imply any type of Western-arrogance. Usually when I offend someone, it is typically on purpose...
biggrin.gif


The only thing about Public Land hunting is that I think there is less manipulation of the horns, and the genetics and animals. If someone plants a food plot that was designed by the Wildlife Biologists at University of Kentucky, and they practice QDM, culling anything that does not grow more than 24" wide, castarating 40% of all male fawns, hauling mineral blocks etc to their private land, and then kills a Book animal, should they have an "asterisk"?

I think we can all agree that anything in Texas should not be entered, as it was likely not fair chase, and we can almost agree that most anything from Alaska was fair chase, if they followed the Law. So now, we just have varying degerees, for each state, in between.

If I carry protein blocks to a spot 200 yards outside of Yellowstone. Haul salt, and bring other feed, and then Arrow a big bull, you would agree not to put it in a Book. If I do the same thing in Texas, everybody would think I was a great hunter, and I could be in book for sitting in some tree house, watching the Longhorns get beat on TV, while occasionally looking over some field of Horn Growing grass.

That is why I said the entries from 30-60 years ago are interesting, when people hunted for either meat or sport, and not for Book Entries, Fame, and Endorsement deals. I know Joe Schmuck hunters who now take pictures with every commercial product in their Day Pack, and send it to the Manufatcurer, hoping to get some sort of freebie or publicity for their kill.
rolleyes.gif
 

dgibson

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
1,671
Location
Henderson, KY
On the contrary, you make a very compelling argument regarding feeders and the like. I just tend to prefer a solution that directly addresses the problem. If feeder bucks are the issue, then the rules should say "no feeder bucks" or "feeder bucks in a separate designation" or similar. Taking the broad approach by denying all private-land bucks rules out the feeder bucks, but it also rules out a lot of animals that otherwise would qualify.
smile.gif
 
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
102,502
Messages
1,652,793
Members
32,016
Latest member
bowhuntnnut
Top