Has Net Scoring of Whitetail Bucks Lost its Place?

Guys - here's a link to Dan Schafer's latest Blog post where he discusses the Net scoring systems used by P&Y and B&C. I think this is a great post that a lot of guys can relate to. Read up and let us know what you think.

http://www.bowhunting.com/blog/post/Has-Net-Scoring-of-Whitetail-Bucks-Lost-its-Place.aspx

 

Its all about what he gross, I want to know how much bone he has. Thats just my input.

 

Very good read,

I believe "Net" score is rather useless. How "perfect" an animals rack is means nothing to me, especially since i live in giant non-typical territory.

Perfect example is my brothers buck "Freak Daddy". It grossed 199", which would be Boone and Crocket Non-Typical, but it Nets 187", which is below the 195" Minimum. If you ask me, its still a booner

 

Im all for gross score, I don't even pay attention to net score most of the time. I would much rather have a high gross score, and a marginal net score, than have a decently close gross and net score. I like the crazy gnarly ones :D

 

Nets are for fish. Period.

I never discuss what an animal nets, and I don't want to know what your animal nets... And for those who say I'm being "dishonest" in discussing measurements, I always preface score by saying he "grosses" this or that... I know what my biggest buck both grosses and nets simply because the scorer informed me. He's darn near perfect, yet I could still care less... Just wanna know what they grow.

 

I could give a poop less what number we come up with to describe an animals antlers. No two are the same, and the whole deduction process is just gay...

 

Gross score stinks give the animal credit for ever inch he grows.

 

I think you mean NET score stinks.

 

Gross only ...everything else is a joke. Good write up too Dan, I read it this morning. I like how you used Cricks buck to demo the obvious.. 118 to 153... variance with deductions..

 

Gross only. Period!!

Great write up Dan.

 

Humans in general and Americans specifically love to categorize and "rate" things in order to gain prestige. The whole Net score, deductions, Booner, P and Y, Typical, non-typical, albino buck, state record buck, state record typical, state record muzzleloader non-typical, biggest 2.5 year old buck, biggest 5 point buck non-typical, biggest 7 point non-typical, biggest spike buck.....you get the point. That is just an extension of our love to rate and categorize our achievements in order to compare with others.

 

I agree entirely with what you said, and really I don't see anything wrong with it. Without ratings, which can also carry over into rankings, you'd have no "best" of anything.

The problem with the current scoring systems, as Dan pointed out, is that they don't give the proper credit for the amount of antlers (or horns) that the animal grew. When it comes to rating something as the biggest, it should truly be based on what is the BIGGEST, not which is the most symmetrical.

I'd like to see a scoring system that somehow calculates total displacement of a rack. I'm thinking of a tub of water that the rack is submersed in, then the displaced water or fluid is measured. This would take into account every possible measurement of that rack and truly give credit for the amount of physical bone that was grown.

Call it the JZ Scoring System.

 

And I agree with you Justin about the scoring. Let the antlers "speak", not some manmade formula like the BCS ratings.

 

Boone & Crockett now lists the gross score with the net only being counted but they stated that they wanted hunters to see the gross score so you get the total picture.
http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/huntingtactics/NAW_0907_06/index1.html

With all that being said great write up Dan and I couldnt agree more.

T

 

I hear ya JZ. You could even take it farther by accepting only entries taken by one footed archers (or those archers standing on one foot) who successfully launched arrows into a 65 mph cross wind and called the shot. That'll seperate the big boys from the little boys.

As much as I like record books, I hate them also.

Awesome read Dan!

 

Thanks JZ typo there.

 

Whenever I'm asked what the buck on my wall scores I always tell the net score as that's the score In the book. Gross or net, doesn't bother me what anyone uses.

Prior to the last couple years you could have your buck scored either way (Non Typical or Typical). I can't say for sure but a rack now needs 10 or 12 Inches of abnormal points to qualify for a NT score. Dan's buck then would've scored 135 3/8 prior to this last rule.

 

Great write up I don't remember the net score's of any of my deer

 

I couldn't agree more with Dan on this. I remember when the Zaft Buck was killed and was amazed. I remember reading later that the right antler had a common base for the G-2/G-3 and was amazed it was whittled down to 173", the deer was a monster!

http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/trophybucks/naw_aa503zaftupdate/

A deer deserves credit for everything his rack holds, taking points away only diminishes the animals greatness. Bloodcrick is a prime example as Dan stated. I remember being in a tree in Brown Co, IL when I saw the picture and thought it was a killer deer regardless of what the P&Y score pillaged from it after it was scored.

 

Or just put it on a scale and weigh it. The problem then becomes how do you separate antler/horn from skull or how far in do you immerse it? In your case, what density of water do you use and what is the standard atmospheric pressure?

When comparisons are made there has to be a standard to make that comparison from. Back when P&Y and B&C came about that common denominator was the net scoring system. It'd be hard to change to gross now for those books since the new wouldn't be on the same par as the old. You can always choose to enter them in SCI or a couple other books if you want to go with gross rather than net.