ORIGINAL: _Dan
ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
ORIGINAL: _Dan
ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
The data is incomplete because hunters refuse to participate. It's skewed to areas that "participate".
It's also skewed because they use a net score.....a net score gives no true picture of how big a buck really was. A 190 class buck could net in the 160's and a 180 class in the 170's....skewed.....I'll take the 190 and keep it to myself.
At least the buck is registered in the data and goes down as is (net) keeping the gross to yourself does nothing for data recording. imo
You used the term "skewed" and imo using a net score is skewed. Maybe my view is different because I hunt an area that a bucks rack is far from perfect.....i.e. many stickers and "deductions".....to me that is taking away from a bucks true rack makeup and is giving a "skewed" score and is inaccurate.
I refuse to see the point in trying to base the score of a buck on a perfect rack......its lame and does the animal injustice.....imo.
Dan, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you and wish the deer would get credit for everything that it grows...however, like all aspects of life, rules are rules and it still offers data throughout the US as far as buck quality densities if, IF people would enter them.
Again, I totally agree with the gross score....but it is what it is.