Poll - Should there be a change to Gross Scoring or Stay with Net

[WOODIE13]

Would like to see the gross and net put in together, just for comparison reasons.

My little brother's buck, 10 years old, 3rd biggest in the state that year, netted 162 and some change.

Everyone likes a nice rack or two though ?

 

[coonhunter]

Been going this long no need to change it now.

 

[dang]

Nets R fer fishin

 

[Jim Boyd]

I voted net but I am not one to suggest change for the sake of change.

I said this in another thread but will repeat: I am often stunned to see how many folks “don’t care” yet have a vigorous opinion one way or the other.

I have a general idea of what my (or your) deer may score. If I (or you) kill a good one, I am happy.

I am not, however, so hung up on 170” that I pass on 130-140” when I am in Illinois (we do not have many over 125” where I hunt in SC).

I am older and do not have an unlimited number of years left to continue my Midwest trips - which is where I am gonna get a whopper, if I am to get one.

If you want to use gross, I love it.

If you want to use net, I love that also.

Since I do hunt and try to shoot big bucks, obviously when I portray the hunt, the larger number appeals to me. I make no excuses for that.

This one would likely get clobbered on net score. Does that make it mean less to me?

No, it does not and the arrow did not know or care.

Best of luck to all!

 

[across the river]

Would like to see the gross and net put in together, just for comparison reasons.

My little brother's buck, 10 years old, 3rd biggest in the state that year, netted 162 and some change.

Everyone likes a nice rack or two though ?View attachment 1144680

They do include the gross score in both the P&Y and B&C.

 

[WOODIE13]

They do include the gross score in both the P&Y and B&C.

never saw it, guess you have to buy the book...

 

[catch22]

thanks for all the comments and votes! keep them coming!

 

[Philbow]

If you don't like net why not saw the antlers off just below the burr and weigh them. Since "inches" is just an arbitrary measurement, weight would give a much better comparison.

 

[Jim Boyd]

If you don't like net why not saw the antlers off just below the burr and weigh them. Since "inches" is just an arbitrary measurement, weight would give a much better comparison.

Haha - love to see how well this one flies.

Regardless of whether people hate measurements, love /hate net or gross - most folks are proud of their kills and will keep them intact.

Some even pay $3-400 to get them as wall mounts.

 

[killerv]

Another thread got me to thinking about the status quo thats been the standard BC/PY scoring way. Official Scores are net scores. Should there be a change to the Gross score?

Note - I know many of you dont care about the score, and horns dont eat well, and you wish it were the way it used to be when score didnt matter and you hate seek one, and you just want to fill your freezer etc ..... Please dont comment unless you have some input on the question.

I'm gonna comment anyway, I dont care about the score, and not gonna raise my kids to care about it either.

 

[Jim Boyd]

thanks for all the comments and votes! keep them coming!

Big margin for gross scores.

No surprise.

great poll!

 

[JustUs4All]

Yeah but:
If: The thought was also that larger mature males were more vital than smaller deer in maintaining and growing populations, so the scoring system was establish from a conservation standpoint, and the club has be created with a lot in terms of conservation... then why encourage and reward the taking of the prime animals in the heard?

I use the net method myself, Deer weight net of guts, hide, and bone both internal and external. I don't want a lesser deer outscoring a greater one just because it has bigger bones, internal or external.

 

[antharper]

Either is fine with me , but I picked gross just because when someone asks what a particular deer I’ve killed scores that’s what I use . And yes I do like big antlers and do care what they score .

 

[Jim Boyd]

Either is fine with me , but I picked gross just because when someone asks what a particular deer I’ve killed scores that’s what I use . And yes I do like big antlers and do care what they score .

I personally think we have mostly all cared from the get-go.

I recall with clarity my uncles (who are all long dead now) would say “you know, where I killed that big old 9 pointer” or “yep, Johnny killed that big 10 point on that creek”.

I do not recall a single statement like “you know, that stand I killed the 3 point from a few years ago”.

The deer ate the same but generally that is not how we are wired.

I wonder… if this is not universally true: size matters.

Biggest bass
Longest rattlesnake
Biggest deer
Heaviest hog
Biggest blue marlin
Tallest truck tires
Longest home run
Meanest snapper (likely alcohol fueled, full moon in May… many years ago but I have not forgotten)

The list goes on and on. Feel free to add!!!

IMHO

 

[across the river]

Yeah but:
If: The thought was also that larger mature males were more vital than smaller deer in maintaining and growing populations, so the scoring system was establish from a conservation standpoint, and the club has be created with a lot in terms of conservation... then why encourage and reward the taking of the prime animals in the heard?

I use the net method myself, Deer weight net of guts, hide, and bone both internal and external. I don't want a lesser deer outscoring a greater one just because it has bigger bones, internal or external.

At the time, there was no research or record keeping for big game animals. The purpose was to have people send in information regarding what they had harvested, and it would provide information for management purposes. If there were a ton a deer being submitted from Kansas and very few from say Nebraska, then they could deduct, at least to some degree, what areas were over harvested. You have to keep in mind this was the early 1900s. The “premium”, if you call it that, was put on record book animals because they realized it encouraged people to pass on smaller deer and does. Since over-harvest was the issue, having people pass on smaller deer in pursuit of a “trophy” limited harvest and helped reproduction. No really that different from QDMA where the goal is to shift the average age of the bucks up. You may kill one older deer, but allow many others to reach maturity as well.

 

[deers2ward]

Wanting to change the scoring system brings into light your motivation for hunting. I thought score didn't matter.....

This reminds me of young hunters who want to change the draw system out west because there are 20 years worth of people in line in front of them.

 

[stringmusic]

I like the current system because it gives a picture of what the antlers look like. If someone tells me they have a ten pointer that scored 170 net typical I have a pretty good vision of how big the rack is, if someone tells me they have a 170 gross antlers there is no way for me to get a vision of what it may look like or the actual size. If a person wants to use a gross score then nobody is stopping them and I may be wrong but I believe the gross score is what the Buck Masters use, but to change the B&C system which has been used for over a hundred years does not make any sense. It seems that the hunters who claim to not care about score are the very ones wanting to change or do away with any scoring system currently used.

How do you have a pretty good vision of a net 170 deer? You have no way of knowing how many inches of antler was taken away from that score. The deer could have had 3 total inches of deductions or 30, which makes him look very different.

To me, I’d think gross score gives me a better idea because I know about what a 130 inch, 140, 150 inch etc deer looks like.

 

[catch22]

Wanting to change the scoring system brings into light your motivation for hunting. I thought score didn't matter.....

This reminds me of young hunters who want to change the draw system out west because there are 20 years worth of people in line in front of them.

Im not sure if you are referring to me the OP or the group as a whole. I never said score doesnt matter. It does matter to me. Its far from the ONLY thing that matters, but it is one measurement that hunters use to determine a "big buck". Weight, neck size, age etc.....all of these are some of the other ways....for this poll, I was just wanting to see if hunters care more about the gross or net scores. A similar comparison would be how much did the buck weigh (dressed or not dressed).

 

[across the river]

Wanting to change the scoring system brings into light your motivation for hunting. I thought score didn't matter.....

This reminds me of young hunters who want to change the draw system out west because there are 20 years worth of people in line in front of them.

It is like wanting the AKC to change its standard for a dog because your dog doesn’t really meet the standard. Who cares. You know what a lab looks like because there is a standard. Similarly, you know what a 130, 140, or 170 looks like in your head because there is a standard scoring system. It would make zero sense to change either because they have been established for many, many, years. What would you do, go back and allow all the animals( it’s not just deer) that got netted out in now. Are you going to rerank everything now based on gross and reprint books. No. It is something to talk about on GON, but in reality the whole concept of changing it because you don’t like it is dumb.

 

[catch22]

@across the river i think calling it dumb is a bit of an over reach. If we went by your criteria when would we change anything? Times change and things evolve. Do you think the original B&C guys would be ok with shooting a deer at 500yds with an ultramag and scope that you can see the moon with? I mean for years it was just a stick and string??

Your history lesson was informative but calling something dumb because change is asked or questioned seems short sided.