I didn't state the shrinkage thing quite the way I meant to. No, they won't shrink 10-15 inches during drying, but to go from most folks "green" score to an official entry, does loose about 10-15 inches, at least. What I meant was more shrinkage due to an inflated original score than from the actual drying. Just didn't say it the way I meant to. Between the two, they can drop alot.

I am also not a big fan of net scores either. I think being unsymmetrical is what makes deer unique, and that shouldn't be subtracted from the score. But thats just me.

Oh I see what you mean.

Yes, most people do vastly over estimate the size of their buck vs official measurements.

Many don't even measure and just like to guess the score which always seems to add about 10 inches.

I like gross score too...NETS ARE FOR FISH!

I agree on the gross score. I have a bow kill that grossed 156 but netted 142 5/8. I think its a sham that a buck gets deducted for having character. In one instance he had a 14 inch G2 on the left with a 6 inch G2 on the right. To think he would score higher by shrinking that tine to me isn't right.

GregH nailed it. I was going to post but after reading his he said what I would. You are right what does it take to be a booner. Some people have no clue. greta response gregH.

The thing about the net score is that it is just doubling the smallest measurements from both sides!

What I really hate is when you don't even add abnormal point measurements (for a typical) to the gross score then you have to deduct them as well![:@]

Why not just ignore them instead of deducting them!!?? Makes more sense to me.

I think you are confusing "gross score" with "green score". The drying period willnot shrink a rack anywhere near that much.

EDIT: sorry I was late on that one.

GregH, you don't subtractabnormal points, youjust don't get to add them. The wholeprocess is to add them, and then subtract them, thus equallingout to a zeroeffect. Yes, it is rediculous. I may have misunderstood what you were saying though.

There was an article from the head of records for P&Y saying that a 200" monster with 8 stickers that nets 170" (I am making up these #'s I don't remember exactly whatmeasurements he used)is "a lesser deer" than a perfectly symmetric 10-point that measures 176" and nets 172". There is something wrong with that IMO.

Scores are not a good gage of a deers quality. Some of my biggest deer have had small racks. Some of my smallest deer had the hightest scoreing racks.

Oh that is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. Every "big" buck is a 14 pointer.

I do like scores, I have gotten to a point where I can understand the size much better. I also only deal in gross score. Net is dumb to me. I have one that scores 133" gross, but barely nets 100" cause of a bum side and unevenness. And to really know the true size, if it was symmetrical, it would be upper 140's.

I don't score my bucks because the deer I score are far beyond a number to me!

Take the word "deer" out of this post and replace it with "Girls" and it makes more sense to me.