|
Unfair antler scoring system?
A fork can score around 50". A small6 might make 80" but probably has 3 times as much actual bone on his head. By a similar ratio, a 150" buck probably has 3 times as much bone on his head yet does not have 3 times the score as the 80". I think a fair way to score would be by total weight though it'd be really hard to try to accomplish that.
Just a thought but you see how it's unfair? |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
Huh?
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
Net score is unfair!
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I see nothing un far with a net measurement system. Easy to fake weight. you can look at a pic of a 150 and tell he ant 200. I doubt any one ca say that rack weighs 4 pounds not 6
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
You know that the quotation mark stands for inches right? So the scoring system is perfectly fair, a buck that has three times more bone on its head will have three times the score. If the fork horn in your example scored a 50" it would mean it has 50 inches of antler, if the 6 point in your example scored an 80" it means he has 30 inches more antler then the fork horn. Were you under the impression that the quotation mark stood for pounds (as in body weight)? If not I guess i really don't understand your complaint...elaborate please.
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: Schultzy Huh? A 50" rack does not physically weigh half as much as a 100" yet it scores half as much. There isa good 3 timesmore bone material on the 100 but it doesn't score 3 times as much as a 50. That's all I'm saying. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
Think of it like this... A spike gets credit for 4 H measurements when it really should only get 1. I think Hoytail is correct on his thought process... those smaller bucks get alot more credit than what they are worth...
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
i do agree, because of the spread measurements it does seem like its unfair bow a small fork can go 50" and a 100" buck only goes 100" im not sure how to explain it, but i think i know what your saying when you say that its unfair. and the four circumfrence scores even if just a spike that only IMO should get one
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I don't score. I just weigh the deer for the area I'm hunting. As far as the headgear, I think deductions for extra or short or anything is stupid. If it's there, it should count if that's your thing. I just don't measure and never have.
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: Hoytail Hunter ORIGINAL: Schultzy Huh? A 50" rack does not physically weigh half as much as a 100" yet it scores half as much. There isa good 3 timesmore bone material on the 100 but it doesn't score 3 times as much as a 50. That's all I'm saying. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I understand the OP's point completely. I've always thought it would be cool to have a secondary scoring system based on cc's of bone mass period. A water displacement measurment would show exactly how much bone mass each deer produced. It would give complete credit for the thickness and mass of each and every tine. While it wouldn't factor in symetry, I could give a rat's patooty about net score. The P&Y method would still satisfy that crowd.It would definately be aninteresting and revealing system.
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: gmil6184 You know that the quotation mark stands for inches right? So the scoring system is perfectly fair, a buck that has three times more bone on its head will have three times the score. If the fork horn in your example scored a 50" it would mean it has 50 inches of antler, if the 6 point in your example scored an 80" it means he has 30 inches more antler then the fork horn. Were you under the impression that the quotation mark stood for pounds (as in body weight)? If not I guess i really don't understand your complaint...elaborate please. I don't think you are visualizing what I'm saying. Let me give you a different example. A 12oz soda can measures about 8" around and is about 5 inches tall. If you increased the size of that can proportionately to make it a 24oz can, it certainly would not be 16" around and 10" tall because something like that would probably hold half a gallon which is 64oz. Here's another: a guy who is 6ft tallwith aslim build probably weighs 160lbs. Another guy who is 6' tall and is 4 feet wide probably weighs 500lbs. If you are measuring in mere inches the skinny dude has a fighting chance. If you are measuring in pounds, he gets squashed. Pertinent to antler scoring, I think that there's a whole lot of bone material underneath those inches of a 200" rack that outweighsa 100" by 3 fold yet does not have 3 fold the score. Anyone follow or am I totally off in my thinking? |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
Why not get 4 measurements for the spike, thats its main beam right,
so the 10 points shouldn't get 5 measurements then right!!!! can't please everyone all the time?????????????????? |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
It just isnt fair we all dont live and hunt in IL!
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I DO NOT have problems with deductions whatsoever. There are several aspects that go into calculating a bucks score mass/spread/tine and beam length......and SYMMETRY. It's not as if gross is completely ignored,the sysptem serves to reward the bucks that are symmetrical, just like it rewards those with tons of mass, length, ect.
As far as an alternative scoring system weight could never be an option because of the variety of sizes of the attached skull cap. However, a water-displacement system would be able to measure the exact amount of bone an animal had on its head. I believe, being as humans are an intelligent race, it would only take us a limited time til we were able to say "that bucks 18mm (the amount of water displaced)" the same way we have evolved to be able to look at a picture and instantly reply 130". However, this will never happen just a way to reward the deer for everything he grew. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I think that this might be an issue if we routinely had spike and fork horn bucks qualifiying for P&Y or in my case B&C. In the case of B&C (for which I am a measurer), it takes one TERRIBLE 8 point whitetail to even qualify for awards.... and a truely world class 8 point to make all time. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure if more than a dozen have ever been entered. That picture of that huge Iowa 8pt that went around here a week or so ago.... that one will probably clear 170 net, if I recall his symettry correctly.
As to volumetric measurements, I think in my lifetime (granted I'm pretty young at almost 26) we will see the use of laser and computer technology to calculate total volume. I think that if I shot a 170" deer and you told me you were going to take the finished mount and lower the top half into water I'd likely grit my teeth and roll up my sleeves to bet you that you didn't have a hair to do it with.... The only way you could do that is to have the horns separate from the skull.... and guess what.... soon as that horn is free from the skull plate or that skull plate splits..... can't score it. Personally, I'll take the current in place system anyday of the week until the laser systems shows up and replaces me and my masons slide and steel cable. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: fingerz42 Think of it like this... A spike gets credit for 4 H measurements when it really should only get 1. I think Hoytail is correct on his thought process... those smaller bucks get alot more credit than what they are worth... |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
If they grow it score it. Thats all i have to say. I believe in gross scoring.
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
The only thing I hate is deductions. If you want to show or reward symmetry, have that as a separate number. 150" with a symmetry rating. (1 being 0 deductions & the farther away from one, the more asymmetrical)
|
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: rybohunter The only thing I hate is deductions. If you want to show or reward symmetry, have that as a separate number. 150" with a symmetry rating. (1 being 0 deductions & the farther away from one, the more asymmetrical) I like deer with deductions |
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.
|
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. 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. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: SwampCollie 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. 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'. |
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. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: GregH Net score is unfair! |
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. |
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.:D 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.;) |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I've always wondered why when you gross score your buck that you measure the inside spread. Its just a measurement of air really.
|
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. |
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: Hoytail Hunter 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. http://www.buckmasters.com/bm/Resources/BuckmastersTrophyRecords/tabid/156/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/84/BTR-Philosophy.aspx |
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. Next time I get a chance to ask one of the higher ups... I will. I'm curious myself. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:40 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.