fairchaser":222x3olw said:
You would think that someone would ante up the funds needed for another test.
New TN World record confirmed
- Thread starter Winchester
- Start date
You would think that someone would ante up the funds needed for another test.
MickThompson
Well-Known Member
The incisors are what the folks that do "lab aging" look at. This deer had none. Tooth replacement and wear is all you can do.
What does it matter how old the deer was anyways? It was a genetic anomaly. You can't manage for world record class antlers, just nutrition and age, and admire this animal when it happens once in a million (figuratively, they are much rarer) times.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What does it matter how old the deer was anyways? It was a genetic anomaly. You can't manage for world record class antlers, just nutrition and age, and admire this animal when it happens once in a million (figuratively, they are much rarer) times.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mike Belt
Well-Known Member
I'd like to learn more about this "testing". Just what does it involve? Are they looking for something that could have only been introduced into their body through deer farming? Is it standard procedure on bucks entered into the record books? Would it be possible to surgically remove the incisors or anything that might re-direct nutrients towards antler growth?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the deer now need to be scored and verified by Boone &a Crockett before it is the official WR? That is the story the newspaper articles are telling? It has been scored and certified by the twra, but now B&C has to also score and certify themselves?
Not trying to demean anything, just seeking clarification.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not trying to demean anything, just seeking clarification.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Winchester
Well-Known Member
smalljawbasser":2mn3p9gb said:
Already done and,certified by B&C's panel of scorers at 312 3/8 and pending WR just waiting on next official entry BQT which wont take place until 2019 I think it is. Basically its now the new WR!
As for how old the deer is not making any difference, it doesnt from B&C's standpoint for scoring but it makes a lot of difference to me in knowing whether or not this deer could have grown this rack at 3.5 yrs of age, or at 4.5, when its at least considered mature! Either way its a freak of nature, just not as big a freak at 4.5 as it would have been at 3.5 imo!
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
smalljawbasser":7zlaixb2 said:
It has been scored by several official B&C scorers who also happen to work for the TWRA. Any trophy of this caliber must also be panel scored and that has yet to happen.
Winchester
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression the panel scoring had already taken place??fairchaser":3u4g000v said:
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
MickThompson":yz15h87b said:
Agree completely... this is one in a million where age doesn't mean squat. Total anomaly, and 1000x times more likely to have scored 100" less next year than an inch more next year. You just can't apply normal age/antler characteristics to a freak like this.
Buzzard Breath
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 7,074
Not yet. They only panel score at the banquets which happen every three years. The next one is in 2019.Winchester":2wz92cy4 said:
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
MickThompson
Well-Known Member
It has been scored by a panel of B&C scorers after the 60 day drying period but must still be measured again at their awards banquet to officially accept the score. I guess it's more ceremonial than anything. It will be considered the pending WR until then.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MickThompson":kcnpjsqs said:
Don't you know? "Mature" is the new thing. Years replace score, which replaced points, which replaced buck or doe when you ask someone about a deer they killed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Winchester
Well-Known Member
MickThompson":3q2h2c3r said:
Thats what I thought.
Ask that King guy about his panel score of the "thought to be" new world record typical buck a few years back....
Actually I just saw where the B&C club had issued an official statement about this deer. Check their website!!!
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
AT Hiker":46gc7k2k said:
I read it and I see nothing new. They make the point that it's not the world record which we know two other larger nontypical bucks were picked up. Also, they say it's not official until its panel scored at the banquet. But they make no issue about the fairchase aspect and that it was harvested ethically.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
AT Hiker":2xrosl3b said:
Sorry AT, I'm kind of dense when it comes to inside jokes. :bash:
the world record was not killed by a hunter in my understanding,the Tucker buck is largest killed by a hunterfairchaser":2ezvfia9 said:
I must be getting old… because I remember when the Missouri Monarch was found in the 80's just outside St. Louis and eclipsed the Hole in the Horn buck from Ohio. The Hole in horn buck Was found by train engineer in 1940s outside of Kent Ohio. I believe that book hung in a smoke filled elks lodge until Richard Idol of North American Whitetail brought it to light.
Both bucks were found beside high fences that enclosed large unhunted areas ....an Arsenal and a pipe fitters union facility.
Here is a backstory on the world record. It is interesting that the buck had a jaw injury.
http://www.missouriwhitetails.com/forum ... p?t=179499
Neat video of where found here:
https://youtu.be/61cpriJuV0k
Enjoy some stories here:
http://community.deergear.com/legends/
Get some reproductions here:
http://antlersbyklaus.com/antlers/0262- ... i-monarch/
The Tucker buck can help make Mr. Tucker make some good income if he does it right.
Both bucks were found beside high fences that enclosed large unhunted areas ....an Arsenal and a pipe fitters union facility.
Here is a backstory on the world record. It is interesting that the buck had a jaw injury.
http://www.missouriwhitetails.com/forum ... p?t=179499
Neat video of where found here:
https://youtu.be/61cpriJuV0k
Enjoy some stories here:
http://community.deergear.com/legends/
Get some reproductions here:
http://antlersbyklaus.com/antlers/0262- ... i-monarch/
The Tucker buck can help make Mr. Tucker make some good income if he does it right.
stringtalker
Well-Known Member
Here is another one killed in the same area or close
Winchester
Well-Known Member
The World record it will likely obtain is the largest NT ever killed by a hunter, the pick ups are irrelevant to this deer. The panel used at the official bqt could come up with a different score, which could cause it to fall short of the WR, but the pickups being larger will have no affect on this being or not being the largest NT ever killed by a hunter.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Winchester":34rt2kkr said:
Am in general agreement with Winchester's statement, but daily having many non-hunting (and hunting) friends/clients bring me a clipped newspaper article about this buck, it's become obvious few people really understand the difference between "large" and "higher scoring" and/or "simply bizarre".
IMO, "large" would be best measured by displacement (such as submerging the antlers in water and seeing how many ounces of water gets displaced). This is in fact how some antler records are maintained. While such a measure may be more indicative of overall size or mass, on the other hand, it gives no credit for anything unique, or bizarre.
But generally speaking, the Boone & Crocket NON-Typical scoring criteria is weighted more towards "bizarre" than "size".
By contrast, the B&C Typical scoring criteria is weighted more towards side-to-side symmetry than size, although the "typical" criteria's score is generally more indicative of size than a non-typical score.
For sure, this is a very bizarre buck with an unusually high number of "points" an inch or more in length. For that, it rightly so may become the official world record via its B&C Non-Typical score, at least in the hunter-killed portion of those records. It's really something to just make the minimum score, so by no means am I wanting anyone to think this isn't the real McCoy as a potential world record. After all, since records have been kept, no other hunter has killed a Non-Typical that would score as high as this one. :)
Just pointing out this category is not so much a record of "size", as it is more a ranking of the number of points over an inch long.
Never mind to me personally, this is a very "large" antlered buck. :) And a most unique trophy buck.
To the B&C Non-Typical category, this is a very high "score", even though many lower scoring bucks may in fact be larger antlered.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
TheLBLman":r1zo15r1 said:
LBLman, wouldn't the displacent method for measuring antlers generally favor the northern species of whitetail that carry heavier horns due to their larger bodies? I wonder if the founders of the B&C program knew about Bergman's rule and wanted the system to be more universally fair. Good points.
Winchester
Well-Known Member
TheLBLman":1kk4stmu said:
I agree 100% with the water displacement method myself and have for years, the only true way to measure nothing but total antler grown, which is how it should be imo. Penalizing racks because of not matching perfectly has never made sense to me when measuring inches of antler. This is especially hard to understand and many dont even know it happens but NT's also have deductions. Which actually comes down to nothing more than an opinion of scorer'(s) as to what should be deducted and what shouldnt on a NT. I know Wes mentioned a rack being "bizarre" but this isnt what B&C bases the score on, its supposedly total inches of antler, hence the score in inches is what is used for records, not how bizarre the rack is. That said some scorers may give more leeway to a "Bizarre" rack vs a simply BIG rack that isnt as odd as another. Like Wes said, I would personally like to see the water displacement method put to use, especially on NT racks.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Not sure the displacement method generally would "favor" the northern sub-species, but if they do in fact have more massive antlers, then they would in fact "score" higher (other factors equal).fairchaser":2kjvazew said:
Just my opinion, but I believe the original creators of the B&C scoring were much more interested in side-to-side symmetry, and their ideas of BEAUTIFUL antlers, more than the actual size of the antlers.
Think about it, most mature bucks will grow antler tines of larger diameter than younger bucks, even when those tines are of the same length. Yet when suddenly seen from a distance, it is not so much the length of the tines so much as it is their diameter (mass) that "stands out" as being BIG. The B&C scoring system (regardless of whether typical or non-typical) greatly favors tine length in coming up with higher scores; it also greatly favors simply more tines, even if those tines are very skinny and growing out of a very skinny main frame (left + right main beams).
As a fairly common field example seen in TN, we will sometimes see a young mainframe 10-pointer with tall tines (but lacking mass, often basal circumferences around 3.5") and scoring around 130 on the B&C system (as a typical). Beside him, we might see an older mainframe 8-pointer (with serious mass, often basal circumferences around 4.5" and greater), tines a little shorter, but also scoring around 130 on the B&C system. In this example, that 8-pointer will dwarf that 10-pointer in overall appearance of size, especially from a distance, when the younger 10-pointer's antlers may not even be visible to the naked eye.
To appreciate this, consider how much more there is to a 16" diameter sausage pizza compared to a 12" pepperoni pizza.
A B&C scorer might tell you (and you might agree) that the 12" pepperoni pizza is "prettier" and by a multitude of factors,
actually "scores" much higher than that ugly 16" sausage pizza. But that 16" pizza will always be noticeably larger, and displace more air (or water).
NON-Typical antler configurations often grow many "odd" and additional tines over the "typical" configurations (whereas most bucks will be mainframe 8 to 10-pointers at maturity). Since so much of the NON-Typical score comes from these extra tines running up the score, I suspect this was part of why a separate category was created, as it can be much like comparing an apple to a banana, and a lower scoring Typical can be much "larger" than a higher scoring NON-Typical. Hence, the minimum score to be listed as a NON-Typical is much higher than is for Typicals.
Again, not trying to take anything away from what may become the new world record NON-Typical, just pointing out these B&C "scores" are as much about other factors as they are about overall size, and this is even more the case with the NON-Typical category.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
In my perfect world, each buck's antlers would be scored via three methods, so each of the methods' scores would reflect what each does best.Winchester":3addilf3 said:
1. "Score" them by water displacement --- this tells us the most about overall MASS or size of those antlers.
2. "Score" them by the B&C Typical method ---- this gives us a different perspective, especially regarding symmetry.
3. "Score" them by the B&C NON-Typical method --- when this number is far above the Typical method's score, we know it is indeed "NON-Typical".
Add both a front and side view picture to these three scores, and you really have the full picture. :)
51 and the tucker look a whole lot alike . Didn't know they were killed so close together .
csi-tech
Well-Known Member
The Tucker Buck is about as close as any deer has ever come to having an afro.
Land Between the Lakes
Well-Known Member
Congratulations to the hunter!
