Unfair antler scoring system?
11-20-2008 | 10:21 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
Nets are for fishing. I think its horrible that a deer gets penalized cause he grew some additional bone that isnt symetrical. Like others have mentioned, the only way to get a true reading would be water displacement, but im not sure i see that happening anytime soon. All the guys i know all go by gross score, gives you a more accurate image of the animal, although sometimes that can be misleading too.
11-20-2008 | 11:14 AM
#22
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,420
Likes: 0
From: Where the ducks don't come no more
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: njbuck22
Nets are for fishing. I think its horrible that a deer gets penalized cause he grew some additional bone that isnt symetrical. Like others have mentioned, the only way to get a true reading would be water displacement, but im not sure i see that happening anytime soon. All the guys i know all go by gross score, gives you a more accurate image of the animal, although sometimes that can be misleading too.
Nets are for fishing. I think its horrible that a deer gets penalized cause he grew some additional bone that isnt symetrical. Like others have mentioned, the only way to get a true reading would be water displacement, but im not sure i see that happening anytime soon. All the guys i know all go by gross score, gives you a more accurate image of the animal, although sometimes that can be misleading too.
Granted the B&C system was not the first scoring system in the country.
However, B&C is concerned with the overall quality of the resource. They want to show how conservation practices, coupled with man's ability to co-exist with nature, can provide healthy specimans that grow to trophy potential.
The reason for deductions is because there is an anatomical description of what a whitetail deer should look like.... antler wise. And that is with typical antlers, that are symetrical. B&C has their own definition of it too that they use for scoring purposes.
It wasn't until later on that they added the non-typical catagory, that gave credit for abnormal points. However, there are still symmetry deductions on non-typical trophies... and that is because things are supposed to be symmetrical.
If you had one arm that was 30" long and another arm that was 20" long... or one ear that was big and one that was small.... you wouldn't be considered a typical, human being. Its not that you are somehow unequal to others.... thats what America is about... equality... but it doesn't really make you a "healthy" human from a design standpoint. You might have low BP, great choloesterol and a 30bpm resting heart rate.... but you know what I'm getting at here.
11-20-2008 | 11:27 AM
#23
Typical Buck
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: SwampCollie
You have to remember though where and why scoring came to pass.
Granted the B&C system was not the first scoring system in the country.
However, B&C is concerned with the overall quality of the resource. They want to show how conservation practices, coupled with man's ability to co-exist with nature, can provide healthy specimans that grow to trophy potential.
The reason for deductions is because there is an anatomical description of what a whitetail deer should look like.... antler wise. And that is with typical antlers, that are symetrical. B&C has their own definition of it too that they use for scoring purposes.
It wasn't until later on that they added the non-typical catagory, that gave credit for abnormal points. However, there are still symmetry deductions on non-typical trophies... and that is because things are supposed to be symmetrical.
If you had one arm that was 30" long and another arm that was 20" long... or one ear that was big and one that was small.... you wouldn't be considered a typical, human being. Its not that you are somehow unequal to others.... thats what America is about... equality... but it doesn't really make you a "healthy" human from a design standpoint. You might have low BP, great choloesterol and a 30bpm resting heart rate.... but you know what I'm getting at here.
ORIGINAL: njbuck22
Nets are for fishing. I think its horrible that a deer gets penalized cause he grew some additional bone that isnt symetrical. Like others have mentioned, the only way to get a true reading would be water displacement, but im not sure i see that happening anytime soon. All the guys i know all go by gross score, gives you a more accurate image of the animal, although sometimes that can be misleading too.
Nets are for fishing. I think its horrible that a deer gets penalized cause he grew some additional bone that isnt symetrical. Like others have mentioned, the only way to get a true reading would be water displacement, but im not sure i see that happening anytime soon. All the guys i know all go by gross score, gives you a more accurate image of the animal, although sometimes that can be misleading too.
Granted the B&C system was not the first scoring system in the country.
However, B&C is concerned with the overall quality of the resource. They want to show how conservation practices, coupled with man's ability to co-exist with nature, can provide healthy specimans that grow to trophy potential.
The reason for deductions is because there is an anatomical description of what a whitetail deer should look like.... antler wise. And that is with typical antlers, that are symetrical. B&C has their own definition of it too that they use for scoring purposes.
It wasn't until later on that they added the non-typical catagory, that gave credit for abnormal points. However, there are still symmetry deductions on non-typical trophies... and that is because things are supposed to be symmetrical.
If you had one arm that was 30" long and another arm that was 20" long... or one ear that was big and one that was small.... you wouldn't be considered a typical, human being. Its not that you are somehow unequal to others.... thats what America is about... equality... but it doesn't really make you a "healthy" human from a design standpoint. You might have low BP, great choloesterol and a 30bpm resting heart rate.... but you know what I'm getting at here.
For the typical category it makes more sense as that is what defines 'typical'.
11-20-2008 | 11:42 AM
#24
Site Buck Guru
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,922
Likes: 0
From: Racine, Wisconsin
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
To me the the biggest problem with deductions pertains to sticker points.
Example: You have a nice 5x5 that has matching 4" stickers on each of his g-2's. He is still symetrical. What do they do? Subtract 8" from the gross score when the stickers (abnormal points) were not even counted in the first place!! This makes no sense. I can see the side to side deductions for the scorable points, but to subtract something that wasn't counted in the first place just isn't right. When scoring as a typical, the stickers should be left out, not subtracted.
Example: You have a nice 5x5 that has matching 4" stickers on each of his g-2's. He is still symetrical. What do they do? Subtract 8" from the gross score when the stickers (abnormal points) were not even counted in the first place!! This makes no sense. I can see the side to side deductions for the scorable points, but to subtract something that wasn't counted in the first place just isn't right. When scoring as a typical, the stickers should be left out, not subtracted.
11-20-2008 | 11:48 AM
#25
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,368
Likes: 0
From: Mont County, Pa
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: GregH
Net score is unfair!
Net score is unfair!
11-20-2008 | 11:54 AM
#26
Typical Buck
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: GregH
To me the the biggest problem with deductions pertains to sticker points.
Example: You have a nice 5x5 that has matching 4" stickers on each of his g-2's. He is still symetrical. What do they do? Subtract 8" from the gross score when the stickers (abnormal points) were not even counted in the first place!! This makes no sense. I can see the side to side deductions for the scorable points, but to subtract something that wasn't counted in the first place just isn't right. When scoring as a typical, the stickers should be left out, not subtracted.
To me the the biggest problem with deductions pertains to sticker points.
Example: You have a nice 5x5 that has matching 4" stickers on each of his g-2's. He is still symetrical. What do they do? Subtract 8" from the gross score when the stickers (abnormal points) were not even counted in the first place!! This makes no sense. I can see the side to side deductions for the scorable points, but to subtract something that wasn't counted in the first place just isn't right. When scoring as a typical, the stickers should be left out, not subtracted.
11-20-2008 | 02:00 PM
#27
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
From: TX Panhandle
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I can see the argument of the more symmetrical deer being a better specimen, but I just don't buy it. To me that is an engineer looking at nature.
Symmetry is important in manufacturing, but since when has nature been symmetrical? I mean really, in all my wildlife classes symmetry was not a common word, diversity was. Diverse systems are the healthy ones in nature, so shouldn't we be celebrating the non-typical racks instead of the typical ones?A different line of reasoning, I know, but it is much more the way I look at nature.
Put 15 oak trees together, do they all look the same? Theforester would love it if they were,it would make yield much better for the timber company, but it really says squat about the health of the forest.
Anyways, everyone has their own opinion, it's all good. I am a gross scorekind of person though.
Symmetry is important in manufacturing, but since when has nature been symmetrical? I mean really, in all my wildlife classes symmetry was not a common word, diversity was. Diverse systems are the healthy ones in nature, so shouldn't we be celebrating the non-typical racks instead of the typical ones?A different line of reasoning, I know, but it is much more the way I look at nature.Put 15 oak trees together, do they all look the same? Theforester would love it if they were,it would make yield much better for the timber company, but it really says squat about the health of the forest.
Anyways, everyone has their own opinion, it's all good. I am a gross scorekind of person though.
11-20-2008 | 03:35 PM
#29
Thread Starter
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,161
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee WI
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: Predator19
I've always wondered why when you gross score your buck that you measure the inside spread. Its just a measurement of air really.
I've always wondered why when you gross score your buck that you measure the inside spread. Its just a measurement of air really.
11-20-2008 | 04:53 PM
#30
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 663
Likes: 0
From: East Central Ohio
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: Hoytail Hunter
Excellent observation. IS is credit for bone between the 2 main beamswhich were already acredited for. See, there are a few things wrong/unfair about the current system.
ORIGINAL: Predator19
I've always wondered why when you gross score your buck that you measure the inside spread. Its just a measurement of air really.
I've always wondered why when you gross score your buck that you measure the inside spread. Its just a measurement of air really.
http://www.buckmasters.com/bm/Resources/BuckmastersTrophyRecords/tabid/156/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/84/BTR-Philosophy.aspx