Ani-Logics Outdoors

Let me start this blog with the disclaimer that I am by no means an official scorer, nor do I promote any scoring system over another.  I just happen to talk about the Boone and Crockett system more than any other, because they have the longest history of scoring antlers.  They also happen to be the most contentious in my eyes.  If you are not familiar with the Boone and Crockett scoring system, click here for an overview from the guys at shootingtime.com.  There are two types of scores: gross and net.  Gross score accounts for all the “abnormal growth,” while net score is the score remaining after the abnormal points and side-by-side differences are deducted.

I would argue that the majority of hunters measure a rack and tell their hunting buddies what they consider the gross score.  A common saying of those that do not use the net score is “Nets are for fishing.”  The reason for the debate stems from the fact that the Boone and Crockett club has two different categories for eligibility into their record books: typical and non-typical.  For the non-typical category the abnormal points are added to the score, while abnormal points are deducted from the typical category.  Personally, I have dealt with harvesting a trophy that had a high gross score, and a not-so impressive net score.

I shot this buck back in 2010 and while he looks rather typical in this pic, he actually has 14 inches of abnormal growth mostly around his brow tines. I harvested him with a bow, and had him measured by an official at the WI Deer and Turkey Expo in Madison. Gross score was 166” with 14” of deductions measured as a typical. The net typical score was 149 inches after deducting side to side differences and abnormal growth. If they had measured him as a non-typical, he would have scored 180” gross. Which score do you think I told all my friends?!?

The Boone and Crocket club was founded by conservationists that used antler score as a way to reward sportsman for their habitat stewardship.  If you harvest a Boone and Crockett white-tail, you must be doing something right in terms of habitat, age structure and sustainable harvest objectives.  The biggest flaw with any scoring system is that they have to categorize things and with only two categories, (typical and non-typical), bucks like mine don’t see as much respect.

Look below at the King buck for instance.

This buck has a world class frame and should be recognized as such. The Boone and Crockett club said it had several abnormal points so instead of being a world record net typical, it was knocked down to earthly status. Even with the deductions of abnormal points, it still scores 180” net typical. If it were scored non-typical, it would still qualify for the all-time record books, but nowhere near the top.

Those that argue the King buck should be a world record should look at the buck above killed by Brian Damery in 1993. It grosses 231” but because of deductions from abnormal points and side to side differences, it “only” nets around 200 inches. I wonder if a third hybrid category is needed to allow these judgment bucks to get the credit they deserve.

The point I’m trying to get across is that scoring systems cannot be perfect, and you shouldn’t rely so much on the final net score to judge the quality of your trophy. Humans are inherently judgmental so any human based scoring system will have bias, no matter how many rules are written in a book about it. If you really want to measure bone volume, a water displacement system should work in theory, but no one could standardize the scoring tank well enough to go that route. I think we should start giving awards for most tooth wear or have records for number of hours recorded in a tree stand. Maybe we should put together a system where you get trophies for the amount of land acreage conserved for wildlife.