What's The Purpose of Scoring a Deer?

[348Winchester]

I do see it's a way to categorize them but IT IS MY OPINION that if one must score a deer then the total amount of antlers grown by the buck should be its score. I read in one of the other score threads on here people spouting a bunch of rules about what "counts" and what does not. To me it just simply does not matter.

 

[Columbia Scott]

Agreed, unless it's a potential record I personally don't care.

 

[tickweed]

I agree, if a deer grows it, give him credit. However, its nice to know where he actually stands. Although the system seems flawed, its still interesting.

 

[Relentless]

I enjoy guessing a deer's gross and net scores, then putting tape to antler and seeing how close I am.

Also, it's easy to kill deer. I like the challenge of hunting for "big" deer. The score helps me set a goal.

 

[Shed Hunter]

I agree to an extent. Just because a buck grew a big nontypical wad of crap doesnt mean it is that big. Ive seen 180" non typicals that looked like a baby next to a 150" typical. I always figured that was the reasoning behind the method anyways.

 

[tickweed]

fluid displacement would be the best way for typ or non typ

 

[catman529]

Deductions are for sissies... Nets are for fish... I am usually interested in the score of a rack, but those deductions take away inches of antler just because of symmetry...

 

[catman529]

I agree to an extent. Just because a buck grew a big nontypical wad of crap doesnt mean it is that big. Ive seen 180" non typicals that looked like a baby next to a 150" typical. I always figured that was the reasoning behind the method anyways.

yes the net score has more to do with how nice or big the rack looks, not how big it actually is. But for measuring what nature has produced (all of the antler) I like the gross score, because unless its a real symmetrical rack I don't care for the symmetry to affect the score.

Water displacement would be a cool way to score, not to replace the B&C system but to create a more accurate way of scoring just for those who are concerned with the total mass/volume of their rack and not how pretty it is.

 

[JAY B]

I enjoy scoring mine and others as well!

 

[AT Hiker]

I have always thought about weighing the antlers (with minimal skull plate) before I mount them and compare that to the "gross" score. This year I have worked on a 150 class 8 and a 130 class 8, which was 20" wide. Both deer are extremely magnificant, but if I had to choose which one to shoot in the wild I would need a few minutes to decide ( both deer were over 3.5 yr olds). With that said, score is objective but to most it is subjective. Would you rather have a 150" 10 or 8? I have worked on both and I can tell you honestly they are both great deer, with their own contributions. Same thing with a 120" 8 or 140 10+.

In my opion, we need a base line to "judge" their potential. B&C provides that and thats all it provides. Just because someone kills a 150" plus every year doesnt make them a better hunter. It just proves they have a lot of $$ or a great place to hunt. They could of course be an excellent hunter, compared to other hunters with the same oppurtunity.

 

[tickweed]

I have always thought about weighing the antlers (with minimal skull plate) before I mount them and compare that to the "gross" score. This year I have worked on a 150 class 8 and a 130 class 8, which was 20" wide. Both deer are extremely magnificant, but if I had to choose which one to shoot in the wild I would need a few minutes to decide ( both deer were over 3.5 yr olds). With that said, score is objective but to most it is subjective. Would you rather have a 150" 10 or 8? I have worked on both and I can tell you honestly they are both great deer, with their own contributions. Same thing with a 120" 8 or 140 10+.

In my opion, we need a base line to "judge" their potential. B&C provides that and thats all it provides. Just because someone kills a 150" plus every year doesnt make them a better hunter. It just proves they have a lot of $$ or a great place to hunt. They could of course be an excellent hunter, compared to other hunters with the same oppurtunity.

Or, they could just be very lucky, especially here in Tennessee.

 

[EastTNHunter]

fluid displacement would be the best way for typ or non typ

I have always thought the same. But I don't count, and I surely don't score deer.

 

[easy45]

I agree that deer.should get credit for everything they score but I truly enjoy scoring deer, I've scored all of my wife's and my deer and I'm finally getting to score some other deer now, love it

 

[Bayou Buck]

All I ever look at is the gross score. I can care less about the net.

 

[Winchester]

Gross is really all that I ever care about as well.

 

[BSK]

I "score" antlers for two reasons: 1) to produce a mental image of how large the antlers are; and 2) as a biological measure (correlation between antler growth and buck health).

I use the B&C gross scoring system, as it measures everything (with a few limited acceptions). I have no interest in "net" scores, as I don't care how symmetrical a buck's antlers are.

 

[Tracker]

OPINIONS VARY.......and everybody has one, If you dont like the scoring of an animal that has been killed and you dont see the point of scoring it.....THEN DONT SCORE IT!!!!!!!!!!! Very few people actually have a deer (or other animal) officially scored and enter it in either Pope and Young or Boone and Crockett. :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: I personaly like to measure antlers, also I like to try to figure the score by trail cam photos then see how close I am if I am fortunate enough to get the antlers in my hands.

 

[Mike Belt]

I killed an 8 pointer. What's that tell you? It could have been a very small basket racked buck with 2" tines or it could have been a 23" wide rack with 10" tines. Both are 8 pointers. Without physically seeing them the B & C scoring system gives you a visualization of what those bucks actually looked like. I like having that capability. As far as net versus gross...if he grew it then score it.

 

[morgancountry]

fluid displacement would be the best way for typ or non typ

I have always thought the same. But I don't count, and I surely don't score deer.

Yep! I agree. Measure them the same way they do golf club driver heads, water displacement. Every cubic inch accounted for. But, I still enjoy scoring them the way they do. Maybe instead of typical and non typical, have typical(so deer like the Jordan and Hanson bucks get their due) and unlimited or something like that for the trashy freak monsters.

 

[Football Hunter]

I killed an 8 pointer. What's that tell you? It could have been a very small basket racked buck with 2" tines or it could have been a 23" wide rack with 10" tines. Both are 8 pointers. Without physically seeing them the B & C scoring system gives you a visualization of what those bucks actually looked like. I like having that capability. As far as net versus gross...if he grew it then score it.

I agree to a point,a 9pt,4x5 is one thing,but I see a "9" pt,one that is really an 8 pt with a drop tine,third brow,whatever,as different.

 

[Football Hunter]

Usually,but not always,it seems that most people that say they dont care about score,are also the ones that like gross scores better.Gross scores are almost always ,if not always higher,curious.

No data here,just going off recollections.

 

[woodsman87]

I really only pay attention to gross scores. Like everybody else said, if he grew it, it should be scored. I do think I would rather kill a big typical 170" ten point net score than a 200" non-typical 29 pointer. I don't know why I am like this either.

 

[KillenTime]

Deductions are for sissies... Nets are for fish... I am usually interested in the score of a rack, but those deductions take away inches of antler just because of symmetry...

That's what I say!

 

[tickweed]

I really only pay attention to gross scores. Like everybody else said, if he grew it, it should be scored. I do think I would rather kill a big typical 170" ten point net score than a 200" non-typical 29 pointer. I don't know why I am like this either.

Maybe Im different, but I like the trashy ones with lots of mass. I like racks with character.

 

[Andy S.]

I killed an 8 pointer. What's that tell you? It could have been a very small basket racked buck with 2" tines or it could have been a 23" wide rack with 10" tines. Both are 8 pointers. Without physically seeing them the B & C scoring system gives you a visualization of what those bucks actually looked like. I like having that capability. As far as net versus gross...if he grew it then score it.

x2

 

[Andy S.]

fluid displacement would be the best way for typ or non typ

Yes indeed.

 

[BSK]

fluid displacement would be the best way for typ or non typ

Yes indeed.

But all that tells you is the volume of bone material.

 

[Deer Assassin]

just a number dont mean squat

the memory of the hunt is more important to me

 

[hunter drew]

just a number dont mean squat

the memory of the hunt is more important to me

Ditto that. Although I do alot of horn hunting in Ohio. In Tn I just shoot for age. Unless I want to kill something. And I will be happy with whatever I put my broad head or bullet in

 

[Andy S.]

But all that tells you is the volume of bone material.

Agree, but I think the total volume displaced of all bone on rack would better tell me just how impressive overall the deer is in person (like the WOW value if you will). It really irks me that a buck does not get credit for mass in his tines. For example, 12" skinny tines are impressive, 12" average diameter tines are really impressive, but 12" tines with exceptional mass is so much more impressive in my eyes, yet the B&C system does not distinguish the three, nor reward the latter. Gross score is still a good indicator of what I can expect to see when holding a rack in my hands, although sometimes the gross score and how impressed I am in person are not even close. When talking about the B&C scoring system, I always tell people "some racks look better than they score (130" 6-point), and some racks score better than they look (132" mainframe 10-point)". Basically, gross score does not always accurately represent the overall rack to me. In the end, I would prefer a buck could get full credit for all length, mass, burrs, kickers, etc, with the mass in tines being my biggest gripe, and mass along the entire length of beam my second. It seems to me that volume displaced would eliminate all of the "man-made rules" that we apply today, thus resulting in a more quantifiable and accurate representation of the rack. My .02