Very interesting story. I can see the g3 going either way. It does seem that Jack Reneau has a desire to not allow the deer to be judged by anyone else. He may have been paid off or maybe he is just an ass.
Politics even in our deer hunting world
- Thread starter Snake
- Start date
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
I suspect both.
Personally I don't care about net score. If the deer grew it, it ought to be tallied imo. Fantastic buck & Reneau needs to be taken out behind the wood shed.
Exactly. Politics like this is why Mitch Rampola stopped interning his kills several years before he killed the unofficial world record in 1998.
An additional "what-if" to consider is that Rampola's signed agreement not to enter the buck supposedly expires in the event Hansen's buck is beaten officially with a new world record.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
From what I understand, Rompola was threatened with prison (for things unrelated to hunting, and for which he may or may not have been guilty) if he had his best buck officially scored. Too many "officials" were already heavily invested in the Milo Hansen buck, that had then just recently been declared the "official" world record.
When I first saw the pics of Rompola's buck, I immediately noted how much more overall impressive it was than the Milo Hansen buck (which actually had relatively little mass). Rompola killed a fully mature buck with a massive, huge rack, the measurements for which surpassed the then current world record. By contrast, the Hansen buck just scored high, mainly due to lots of matching long tines.
That is nonsense comparing this situation to Rompola. Rompola buck may very well be a legit world record, but He and He alone made the decision to never have it scored. Therefore we will never know, thanks to Him alone.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
As an aside, Hansen was more or less just "lucky" to kill a young buck with extraordinary antler genetics.
Rompola was an incredibly accomplished, incredibly skilled mature buck hunter, with a wall full of mature bucks having high B&C scores. When he killed his highest scoring one in 1998, the "powers that be" made sure it didn't get officially scored. There also seemed to be a bit of jealousy and disdain for Rompola, as he was this rather poor country boy who had evolved into a master buck hunter.
As to Rompola's highest scoring buck (that didn't get officially scored), that buck was thought to have been 7 1/2 years old. Hansen's was thought to have been 3 1/2.
Rompola was an incredibly accomplished, incredibly skilled mature buck hunter, with a wall full of mature bucks having high B&C scores. When he killed his highest scoring one in 1998, the "powers that be" made sure it didn't get officially scored. There also seemed to be a bit of jealousy and disdain for Rompola, as he was this rather poor country boy who had evolved into a master buck hunter.
As to Rompola's highest scoring buck (that didn't get officially scored), that buck was thought to have been 7 1/2 years old. Hansen's was thought to have been 3 1/2.
Rompola settled a potential lawsuit, giving in consideration that he not be sued, his agreement to never score the buck. The speculation about his buck was causing the current world record holder to lose sponsorship money, so he threatened to sue, in or order force Rompola to crap or get off the pot. Rompola could have had the buck scored, which would have instantly snuffed out any threat of lawsuit. Or he could have fought it out in court. Instead he obligated himself to never have it scored. Prison was never on the table. He was not charged with a crime.
Dennis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2019
- Messages
- 821
Exactly. And Rompola was talking his buck up big time prior to that, obviously wanting to use it for some lucrative sponsorships. So then he's told to put up or shut up and he shuts up. What conclusion does a thinking person draw from that? Would it influence the thinking person's conclusion if Rompola already had a criminal history of fraud?
Exactly .
Hanson was just lucky because others were hunting it as well . It was killed on a deer drive as I remember. He shot at it running and actually hit the buck in one antler as well.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
As to everything about Mitch Rompola, and the highest scoring buck he killed,
"opinions" vary, and vary greatly.
Unless proven otherwise, I have no reason not to believe Richard Smith's opinion.
Here it is:
www.outdoorlife.com
"opinions" vary, and vary greatly.
Unless proven otherwise, I have no reason not to believe Richard Smith's opinion.
Here it is:
Mitch Rompola Buck: The True Backstory on Why the Deer Was Never Entered as a World Record
The Mitch Rompola buck is one of the most controversial whitetails of all time. Here's why it was never entered in the record books.
www.outdoorlife.com
I killed a 10 point and had it scored. Wasn't happy with the scorer. It grossed 171.5 but he scored it as a 9 point with an abnormal point that was 10" long. After that deduction along with asymmetrical deductions it went in the books at like 153". I never saw the deer as a 9 point nor did anyone else. I agree there should have been a panel of scorers score the deer in the OP
Personally I don't like the B&C or P&Y scoring system . I like the BTR I think is what it's called . The system that scores actual bone and don't enter in the spread as it's only air. I've seen some really nice racks with not so good of a score due to a tight rack which IMO shouldn't even count .
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Opinions vary, but I have no issue with spread being counted, as all other things being equal, a wider rack is more impressive than a narrow rack. Besides, relatively little of the total score comes from the spread. I'd even like to see the outside, instead of the inside, spread counted in the score.
The B&C/P&Y scoring systems certainly aren't perfect, and if they were re-tooled from the get-go, probably should find a way to give more credit for mass than tine length. "Mass" (circumferences or diameters of the beams and tines) is really what stands out as "big" vs not so big.
Too much of the total score simply comes from tine lengths (and the number of tines), my opinion.
The B&C/P&Y scoring systems certainly aren't perfect, and if they were re-tooled from the get-go, probably should find a way to give more credit for mass than tine length. "Mass" (circumferences or diameters of the beams and tines) is really what stands out as "big" vs not so big.
Too much of the total score simply comes from tine lengths (and the number of tines), my opinion.
