Would you like to see the minimum B&C score changed?

Why change it?

ya. thats what i say. ive heard tons of people complaining about it though

Record books should be hard to get into. It takes an incredible buck to net 190...IMO that's how it should be. It takes a real pig to get in nontypical...lowering the score just takes away the importance of a good frame. Too much focus on score...if you like it, take it!

i think it should stay right where its at. it should be a challenge to get in if it were 180 i would have 2 bucks really close[ 1 deffinate] to being book animals, but as it is i'm still have a goal to reach. if anything raise it to put it on a higher pedistal in my opinion. but i also agree that the score only means so much, a trophy = the hunt + the memories+ the size of the buck + the heck of a shot you made on him = a trophy of a lifetime!!
[ there are more additions in getting that trophy but you all know what i'm getting at]

I'm okay with where it is myself, not a big deal to me anyway.

I agree with the others. I wouldn't change a thing. A record should be an "achievement of a lifetime" and it would cheapen it if the baseline were lowered.....

...as if I have any chance anyway...LOL

alright. are your thoughts the same for the nontypical minimum score?

I don't care about record books, the desire to possess a "book" animal has turned many good men into criminals.
The problem I have with the B&C and P&Y systems is the deduction for lack of symmetry. If the animal grew it, give him credit for it. So I only pay attention to the gross score. Nets are for fish.
I guess the non-typical minimum is about right, its just sad that a lot of bruiser bucks (what Rod Eastman calls "trash factor bucks") are tweeners. Not enough trash to make non-typical but too much to make it as a typical. My biggest muley is a prime example. He has a 194+ main frame, but the forked cheaters on each side add up to 16, for a gross of 210+. Had he broken those cheaters off, he'd be close to a book typical, with them he's a long way from making B&C as a non-typical. In a lot of the areas I'm familiar with, that's how most of the bucks grow when they mature, nice main frames with a little bit of trash. They're awesome deer but they'll never make book.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b60/renegade54/IMGA0253.jpg" alt="" />
This guy is from the same area as my muley, same forked cheaters. Sorry for the photo quality, its taken from video

ricochet

Well said, and that is a AWESOME looking buck! :thumb

I agree with the minimums set AND the scoring system in place......it was designed for symetry. For non-typicals, symetry for main frame then add the abnormal points. The "add em' all up and call it a number" system is simply that....a number....something Jackie Bushman began to get a higher number, IMO.

The OFFICIAL score is the net score. I don't mind when people give both scores, as it gives folks an idea of what the antler configuration looks like.....but the real and official score is the net.

I've always thought the non-typical score was a little on the high side, but don't feel strongly about it. There are certainly a fraction of the mule deer in the books compared to whitetails. Also, I'm not a fan that a non-typical is penalized if its main frame is not symmetrical. I think that a NT score should be a gross score, where the animal gets credit for everything, and not penalized if four out of its 28 points might not match, but rewarded for the other 24 points being as freaky as possible. However, that being said, there is really no way to change the scoring system now, so I wouldn't recommend it. I simply would have done it differently in the beginning if it were me.

Typical is perfect how it is.

I hunt deer!!!!!!!!!!! not money or records keep it the same a monster buck should be a monster as well as a record buck should be a record lets keep it the same!!!!

"StickFlicker" wrote: I'm not a fan that a non-typical is penalized if its main frame is not symmetrical. I think that a NT score should be a gross score, where the animal gets credit for everything, and not penalized if four out of its 28 points might not match, but rewarded for the other 24 points being as freaky as possible. Typical is perfect how it is.

WELL SAID, i've always felt the same way TYPICAL is a perfect buck and should be scored as to which buck is the closest to being perfect- deduct the deduction, NON-TYPICAL should be gross as it is classifying bucks that are NOT TYPICAL, = score the buck with all his measurements! that to me is the meaning of non-typical!

but i do agre there is no way you can lower the score you would have to create another score system: P&Y, B&C, SCI, and a new one with this scoring meathod, there is no way to go back and re-score these all these animals so you would have to just have a new system! HASE ANY ONE EVER HEARD OF THE WATER DISPLACEMENT SYSTEM? i've not heard alot about it can anyone explane anything about it??

I wouldn't change a thing.

The only thing I'd like to see changed with typical scoring is the spread credit deductions. I really don't understand why you get docked if the main beam is shorter than spread on main beams. What does the spread have to do with length of main beams as far as symmetry is concerned?

I'm ok with the 190 B&C minimum on the typical, it takes a heck of a buck to make that, but it's still accomplished every year.
I am actually a growing fan of the SCI scoring system, it doesn't punish a buck for having "flaws". :thumb

I'd leave it. Seems like the set scores are just enough that it has to be a phenomenal buck to make the book.

Basically, they completely submerse the horns or antlers in a glass tank that has measurements on it, like a measuring cup. They measure the exact volume of water that the rack displaces when submersed. It's fairly impractical, because official measurers couldn't really travel around with such a device too easily.

it seem's like a decent idea?? maybe?? unlike any of the score systems it is just seeing how much BONE is up there. dont get me wrong the B&C /P&Y systems are THE ONLY way to score an animal. it peeves me when i read something like" NEW WORLD RECORD!!!!! [ sci]" :>/ :>/ i dont even like the sci methods and what they allow to be considerd a record book head [pen raised animals, freikin rediculous ]and nothing will ever be changed about the P&Y /B&C systems, it literally impossible, but there are pro's to the other methods.

Killerbee-
I remember a little about that water displacement scoring system. It was developed by Dr. Joe Burkett in 1978. He eventually came up with a mathematical formula to determine displacement. His system, virtually unchanged, is used to enter the "Trophy Game Records of the World" record book.
BOHNTR-
I'm sure glad you "don't mind" if we give both scores, the REAL AND OFFICIAL score isn't important to me.

If it's not important, then why comment at all on this thread? Here's your quote:

The problem I have with the B&C and P&Y systems is the deduction for lack of symmetry. If the animal grew it, give him credit for it. So I only pay attention to the gross score. Nets are for fish.

For someone who doesn't care about the record book, you sure do care how animals are measured. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

We all use the scoring system to share the relative size of our trophies, it doesn't mean the "book" is sacred to me. The B&C system is merely a common language for hunters to use.

I like the current system, it rewards symmetry and 'bone'. If you are a hunter who prefers just the gross score, there is always SCI.

PRO

ricochet:

I understand what you're saying, especially using the B&C system as a common language. Nothing wrong with that. I guess what discourages me at times is when folks use the B&C / P&Y system to describe an animal and then complain about the very system they're using.

Is it the perfect system.....maybe not.....depends on who you ask. But I understand why it was created. As an official measurer for both clubs, I simply ask hunters one question when they complain about net vs. gross. Is the reason why they're complaining because they want a higher score? If so, maybe they need to re-evaluate the reason why they hunt.

I guess what discourages me at times is when folks use the B&C / P&Y system to describe an animal and then complain about the very system they're using.

I think more specifically what Roy is trying to say, is when people completely put down these systems by saying that they are a detriment to hunting, or have no redeeming qualities, but then they site scores when they refer to different animals. Obviously without these systems and the people that do support them, there would be no "common language" for hunters to use. If you are in complete opposition to record programs, you really have no right to use the "common language" they are providing when referring to the size of animals in my opinion. I don't think Roy meant that people couldn't have an opinion as to what might make those systems better or worse, or how they wish they had been originally designed. I totally agree. I hope I didn't put words in your mouth, Roy.

Just because we refer to the scoring system to describe antler size DOES NOT mean we have to like thier standads or rules,its just a commonly understood measurement that almost every hunter understands,we can dislike the system r thier rules any time we want.

Stickflicker/BOHNTR,

Great perspective from two official measures. Thanks guys. I always like hearing your thoughts on things such as this...and two guys with "book" animals to your credit to boot.

Marvin.....you're spot on! Rest assured folks, there are a few rules and guidelines I do not agree with regarding BOTH clubs........however, I accept them for what they are.......a club that deploys a measuring system that is and has been recognized for years.

I do support the B&C / P&Y scoring system "as is" without complaints. It's been that way for years, with thousands of trophies measured in this manner. To change it for a "better" or "higher" score now would be a tragedy to all other entries accepted throughout the years, IMO.

The bottom line is this (IMO)......if folks want a rule changed because they don't think they should be "penalized" for something that will ultimately lower a final score, then one needs to ask themselves why they really hunt and what they're entering an animal for.

I have quite a few animals entered into the records programs for various states and clubs. A few of those "suffer" from some of the rules already mentioned. The last thing that enters my mind is to change a rule to benefit me or make the score higher. Quite frankly, I prefer to have it follow the same rules and guidleines as ALL other antlers measured. It's really not that big of a deal to me.......I guess it is to some so I do respect that.

Lastly, I wish everyone could attend a B&C / P&Y workshop and listen to the history of the club and how/why the system was implemented. It's very interesting and makes one understand the hows and whys of the system. MUCH too long to type though. :)

Guys, we've gotten off track (probably my fault) so I'm going to start a new thread and I hope you'll participate. I'm honestly interested in your opinions and hope the open exchange of ideas can educate us all.

lol no it was probaly my fault i shouldnt of started the thread.haha. o well

Actually guys....I believe this was a fairly good discussion that benefited me. I learned what many people feel about the system and what they have questions about. I can definately benefit from that when I instruct measuring clinics throughout the state. So in a way......THANKS! :thumb

Just remeber folks, it's sometimes difficult to express exactly what one feels or is trying to convey on a message board or e-mail.....there are no expressions or vocal tones to allow people to better understand not only what is being said.....but how it's being said.

"BOHNTR" wrote:Actually guys....I believe this was a fairly good discussion that benefited me. I learned what many people feel about the system and what they have questions about. I can definately benefit from that when I instruct measuring clinics throughout the state. So in a way......THANKS! :thumb

Just remeber folks, it's sometimes difficult to express exactly what one feels or is trying to convey on a message board or e-mail.....there are no expressions or vocal tones to allow people to better understand not only what is being said.....but how it's being said.

I hear ya!!

PRO

Well said Roy!

The one thing that I think we've been walking the line on, however, that isn't entirely true, is that the record systems are never changed and stay the same over the years. They actually are tweaked from time to time. When it is possible to make a minor change, that can either be applied retroactively to all previous entries because the data already exists on the old entry forms to do so, I have seen record books change the way a species may be measured. I have also seen some rules changed in a minor fashion and applied only going forward (#2 below). Minimums have also been changed in the past, both up and down, so I think many of the things in this thread COULD be done if enough of the voting members of an organization agreed it was a benefit.

I will give a few examples of the above.

1. At one time, I believe I recall that an antelope that was too wide was a deduction, even though spread is not counted in the score. Today, if an antelope is abnormally wide they risk being disqualified from entry, although I have no idea why since the spread isn't counted at all in the score.

2. Just a few years ago, both P&Y and B&C changed their rule on the 1st circumference measurement for antelope. The new rule requires that if the horn sheaths are secured to the cores with a Bondo type material, the first (base) measurement must be no larger than the second measurement. If it is, the second measurement will be used for both scores.

3. Not too many years ago, there was a spread penalty for deer if the spread exceeded the length of the longest main beam. Now, the rule is just that the spread cannot exceed the length of the longer beam but there is no additional penalty. It was determined that these very wide bucks were receiving both of these penalties, and were being double penalized for being exceptionally wide, and the rule was changed.

4. The whitetail minimum for P&Y used to be 120, but now it has been raised to 125 (for new entries), I assume because they were getting such a huge number of entries for that species compared to others (and still are even at the higher min). Conversely, a couple of years ago they LOWERED the minimum for desert bighorn sheep. I believe it was originally 140 (like bighorn), but was fairly recently lowered to 120 like Dall and Stone.

So, they do make changes from time to time, but not normally dramatic changes. It would be a huge undertaking to change the non-typical measurements taking out the penalty for a non-symmetrical main frame, as I suggested, but it probably could be done!

School is now closed....

Marvin