P&Y vs. B&Y
11-21-2007, 09:20 AM
#24
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 215
RE: P&Y vs. B&Y
ORIGINAL: buffhntr
B & C will Honor deer that are 160 They are not a B&C record book buck unless they are 170
B & C will Honor deer that are 160 They are not a B&C record book buck unless they are 170
160 is a B&C animal......170 is All time and goes in the book......but 160 is recognized as B&C.
11-21-2007, 10:44 AM
#25
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Trempealeau, WI
Posts: 1,138
RE: P&Y vs. B&Y
ORIGINAL: USAF_hunter
I'm a fan of total inches. I find it hard to deduct from a great animal, kind of disrespectful. But I can see both sides of the spectrum you have to have some kind of scale.
I'm a fan of total inches. I find it hard to deduct from a great animal, kind of disrespectful. But I can see both sides of the spectrum you have to have some kind of scale.
Thats where I don't agree with scoring either. The scoring with deductions is stupid. Total horn growth should be what the deer is. We aren't tryin to produce horses or cattle hear where they get judged on how perfect they are...........WCL
11-21-2007, 11:43 AM
#27
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Where the ducks don't come no more
Posts: 4,420
RE: P&Y vs. B&Y
So, my tape measure in hand comrades... whats the difference between the aforementioned two and BTR scoring? I think I know, but I'll bite my tounge (or should it read fold my hands) for someone who knows for sure.
11-21-2007, 01:26 PM
#28
Fork Horn
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: west central WI
Posts: 227
RE: P&Y vs. B&Y
I measured a buck yesterday that was a 6 x 5 with 2 kickers of an inch and 4 inches. Since the 6th point was all deduction and there was some uneven tine length this monster 188 gross scoring typical won't make book. It only netted about 165. What a shame.
