I got a question about record bucks in general. How many of these are 100% pure luck by the hunter just being there at the right time? How many are shot by a hunter that has done his homework and is hunting a particular record deer? I' m not talking about the ones on the lower end of the book but the ones that would score over 190, the BIG BOYS.

Not starting an argument but just curious.

Well that should end that! I am tired of all the carbon express adds saying the new world record! Anyway I don' t understand why he still wouldn' t want the buck listed....seems strange to have a record book animal that nice & not submit it - even with the deductions.

oh wel wnough said, this should be the end of the story as far as the Zaft buck is concerned.

then what the heck is the point of even shooting one Bowace! you are always gonna have those that need, and those that just dont care just to see their name in a book forwhatever reason!!!.

Not to mention how in sam heck would someone on a typical bush hunt up here get a game warden into the area where you have just killed a " recordbook" animal. For some it just wouldnt work, not to mention put stress on those whose needs should be focused else where.

He wouldn' t want the buck listed if he feels like he got shafted by the organization.I personally wouldn' t give them the right to list the deer in their book if I had been treated that way.


This is a prime example of what makes the Buckmaster scoring far superior.IMO

I don' t think the organization is much better but the scoring system is far superior.

It is amazing that because the score has been changed,it automatically makes him quilty of something.

Now come on,how many of you out there would claim a deer that you shot a day or 2 earlier if you new it was your deer.I certainly would and I think 99.% of you would to.Heck I searched for 2 days for my daughters buck and it would have been on the wall if we had of found it.And if it was big enough to make the book.I would have had it scored by Buckmasters. With her name beside it.

We DON' T know if he killed the deer and there is NO WAY to prove otherwise.I would think if he hadn' t killed the deer that the rightfull shooter would be raising 9 kinds of heck.Is there someone making this claim?

I really think it is rediculous for someone to sit back and read a few articles and condem someone they don' t know.

GIVE IT A REST[&o]

natty bump said it for me nub i hope so i have heard quite abit about that buck