What do you think it scores.

[96trigger]

I kind of find it funny that someone with the screen name nonteepical doesn't care about gross score.

[nonteepical]

i like nontypical deer. (i like all deer thats why i measure) if the deer qualifies as a nontypical, the points get added into the mainframe typical score, so gross has nothing to do with n.t points.

i've found people cut down the scoreing system but they don't understand alot of it. people say they don't care about record books, but they will say they shot a gross booner and want the noteriety.

In minnesota it's hard to get people to enter anything in a book, as far as b&c, it's probably the only one you will get, and your $40 entry fee goes to a non profit that puts the money back into hunting,conservation and youth involvement activities, i'm sure most have spent $40 that hunting season that was wasted, if anyone here is part of a nonprofit, you understand how money is spent it's the same for any record book organization there all nonprofits. If you have one that qualifies enter it, it costs nothing to have it measured only to enter it.

[slimngrizzly]

I used to be an official measurer. I scored at several local events and then I scored at the Deer Classic. At local events people came in with these big pigs that ended up netting shy of what they hoped and it really bumbed them out. You try to tell them that there deer was still really big, but I could tell they came in excited and left with their tail between their legs. At the classic I was surprized how a young buck that netted real well was held high on the pedestal while one big heavy brute after another was just passed on through and set aside because they were big 5x4's or something... no one seemed to care. The whole experience turned me off to scoring.

I like to know how to score. I like to use scores for reference as to how big a deers antlers are. I just dont care personally about all the entering in books and so on. There are SO MANY GIANT bucks out there that dont net as good typicals and dont have the trash to be a good non-typical. And for people who dont understand, 99% of the time its a big let-down and takes away from what should be an incredible and positive experience and in all cases it belittles a truly exceptional animal.

[Bear55]

Good post slim, can't argue with any of that.

[96trigger]

Quote:

I like to know how to score. I like to use scores for reference as to how big a deers antlers are. I just dont care personally about all the entering in books and so on. There are SO MANY GIANT bucks out there that dont net as good typicals and dont have the trash to be a good non-typical. And for people who dont understand, 99% of the time its a big let-down and takes away from what should be an incredible and positive experience and in all cases it belittles a truly exceptional animal.

I agree 100%. I like to use scoring as a reference to others to let them know how big a buck was or is. There really isn't a better way to do it. I like the scoring system. I understand the symmetry of it. They could get rid of spread if they wanted to, that would be fine by me, but they would have to lower the standards or it would be really tough to get a buck in the books. If we didn't take spread into consideration, the buck that started this thread would have a much better chance of making it into the books as spread is about the only thing its lacking.

Didn't want to ruffle your tail feathers nonteep.

Hey, where is the score on this thing anyway. Its been a week, I think a green score at the very least should be put up by now. I don't want to come off sounding rude, but its about time you post it.

[Outdoor Authority]

Ok I was going to wait to gethome and rescore the buck to make sure that the first time I did it correctly the first time. Now I know this may be wrong and change my score when I come home. Just a litte disclaimer in case I messed up or my math is wrong. However I measure it at 164 gross.

[96trigger]

Thanks, If you scored it yourself, you probably scored it 5-10 inches high. But, maybe you were right on, either way, it should stay above 150. One heck of a buck, congrats again.

You can tell by some of our estimates that some of us will not be surprised by that score. It might be a little high, but it still gives us an idea.

P.S. Might be a little low too

[Outdoor Authority]

The guesses are what is making me think that I did something wrong but I will be getting a tape measure out once I get back.

[96trigger]

You didn't do too bad, It could very well reach the 160's. I thought the 150's was being conservative. I didn't know if it would get in the 160's, but I was pretty sure it was going to have a score way better than 135. There was just so much mass there.

[Bear55]

Congrats OA that is a heck of a buck! I think it's safe to say that the buck incredible mass carried the score a lot higher than most of us would have guessed, even if you are off a little.

[certified jumbo]

Dandy of a buck OA. Congrats. I think most felt it was in that 150+ range.

As for nonteepical's comments......i must say i'm a little confused.....you write 138", who cares about gross thats not a score. maybe you were trolling, maybe you are really passionate. but regardless, the comment was a little out of place considering everyone was giving a gross score?? it seems you were looking for a reaction.

also, under the archery forum "buck pics on trial cam yet".......you post on a 13 pointer on a person who asked the score. you reply "low 130's, if he survives a couple more years he'll be nice"......really, who writes that???

maybe like i said you are really passionate. which is fine. but i have a difficult time understanding the intentions of your posts??

[hockeybc69]

Wow.... eating crow here. LOL.

I was off by 20+ inches. Time to hang up my deer scoring hat.

But I will stand by one thing.... god that is a great buck.

[96trigger]

I thought it was a tough buck to get a good score on by looking at the pics, I don't think the pics showed the true size of the rack. Best pics to get a judge of the antlers was the one where it was attached to the deer, and then the side profile where you could see just how massive it was. Just doing the quick math in my head and estimating I was getting well into the 140's gross being very conservative.

OA, it would be awesome if you could post your measurements when you get back. Not to criticize them, but just to give some of the people an idea of how it came up to 164. Definitely not doubting your score. Even if you are off by a little, still one heck of an impressive buck. I'm not sure where some got off saying 125-130, I would love to see what they think is a boone and crocket buck.

Hockeybc, do you like it. Pan fried, or in marinade?

[hockeybc69]

Slow smoked 96T.....

[matchset]

OA! I will measure it for you!

[InTheNorthwoods]

The guesses are what is making me think that I did something wrong but I will be getting a tape measure out once I get back.

If you think you did something wrong, you could post a copy of the score sheet. We'd at least be able to see if it was filled out correctly. It really isn't that difficult to score a deer once you understand how/where you are supposed to measure from (i.e. measuring tines from the base of the tine at the top of the main beam - not from the bottom of the main beam; measuring circumfrance at the smallest point; etc) and then knowing what measurements go into the final score because a number of measurements are simply reference measurements (i.e. greatest outside spread, tip to tip spread, etc. are not included in the score; only 4 mass measurements per side, and ALL DEER get 4 mass meaurements, even spikes). If a person understands these things, I'd guess you're within a few inches.

As to your score, pictures can be completely deceiving, and your deer is exactly the type that lends itself to being deceptively big (or small) in pictures. Great deer, don't let the score issue bother you.

[Muskie456]

146