Should P & Y raise the min
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
Huntcell 04-Apr-18
skinner creek 04-Apr-18
Boreal 04-Apr-18
Ermine 04-Apr-18
Jaquomo 04-Apr-18
Ollie 04-Apr-18
Steve H. 04-Apr-18
Ziek 04-Apr-18
TreeWalker 04-Apr-18
LBshooter 04-Apr-18
PECO 04-Apr-18
t-roy 04-Apr-18
mountainman 04-Apr-18
JTreeman 04-Apr-18
elk yinzer 04-Apr-18
Ziek 04-Apr-18
Ermine 04-Apr-18
Glunt@work 04-Apr-18
HDE 04-Apr-18
Glunt@work 04-Apr-18
Charlie Rehor 04-Apr-18
1boonr 04-Apr-18
Griz 04-Apr-18
tobywon 04-Apr-18
IdyllwildArcher 04-Apr-18
mountainman 04-Apr-18
HDE 04-Apr-18
Elkhorn 04-Apr-18
BOX CALL 04-Apr-18
Kurt 04-Apr-18
APauls 04-Apr-18
Shawn 04-Apr-18
EmbryOklahoma 04-Apr-18
Bou'bound 04-Apr-18
StickFlicker 04-Apr-18
IdyllwildArcher 04-Apr-18
M.Pauls 04-Apr-18
Shug 04-Apr-18
Jaquomo 04-Apr-18
Bowriter 04-Apr-18
bowhuntbob 04-Apr-18
SlipShot 04-Apr-18
DL 04-Apr-18
caribou77 04-Apr-18
Missouribreaks 04-Apr-18
Pigsticker 04-Apr-18
TD 04-Apr-18
t-roy 05-Apr-18
Treeline 05-Apr-18
Franklin 05-Apr-18
IdyllwildArcher 05-Apr-18
mountainman 05-Apr-18
Ironbow 05-Apr-18
ground hunter 05-Apr-18
Bowmania 05-Apr-18
wildwilderness 06-Apr-18
Catscratch 07-Apr-18
Tonybear61 07-Apr-18
ELKMAN 07-Apr-18
BOHNTR 07-Apr-18
SBH 07-Apr-18
Bou'bound 07-Apr-18
SBH 07-Apr-18
RutnStrut 07-Apr-18
Chief 419 07-Apr-18
Glunker 07-Apr-18
Chief 419 07-Apr-18
From: Huntcell
04-Apr-18
With the talk on easy to make the book, is it time for P&Y to consider raising some of the min? I think the last time they raised a species was pronghorn antelope, from all the responses Musk Ox should be the first consideration. If nearly every Ox shot makes ‘book’ that tends to well you fill in the rest asto what that means for a book musk ox. Ori approach it from the other direction lower the minimum for a species so that everyone shot makes the minimum . Whitetail minimum at 80 . Gosh talk about a scoring organization never being relevant again. So bump up musk ox minimum a bunch, make enough to mean something. Same with those sika horns. Perhaps bear from 18 to 19, antelope a couple three... five more. And clearly Iowa whitetail 20-30 more, because I seen it on the internet “in Iowa a book buck behind every tree” This spring kicks off a tremendous tree planting campaign in Iowa. In the early history of B & C they raised the whitetail minimum numerous times until it was not so easy to make ‘book’.

Species minimums is probably near the bottom of the scoring organization agenda, adding species like bobcat, lynx, wolf, coyote or even turkey ranks higher on the discussion board. The North American 34, oh all the subs of turkey pushes to the ****** NA 39*****

Edited:javelina also known as saíno or báquiro, or collared peccary crowd organizes for inclusion!!!

04-Apr-18
I would say yes. It doesn't take much to make the P&Y book in a lot of species. There should be some challenge in it , making the book should not be quite so easy.

From: Boreal
04-Apr-18
Back in the eighties, I think, the whitetail minimum was raised from around 115 to 125. Today, fro a revenue standpoint it makes no sense to raise it.

From: Ermine
04-Apr-18
I think so. I think if they are higher it really makes it special when it happens. At this point it Seems like just about anything you kill with a bow will make Make pope and young. Boone and Crockett however you might not ever get an animal that makes it.

From: Jaquomo
04-Apr-18
It takes a hell of a whitetail to qualify in some areas of the country. Other areas, not so much. If anything they could recategorize whitetails by region (subspecies?) like they do with elk now. A 100" whitetail in CT is way more of a "trophy" than a 140 buck shot off a corn pile in KS.

I'm not sure any other species needs consideration. American elk was raised from 240 to 260 but I dont know what purpose would be served by raising it again. A 260 bull with a bow is still a respectable bull despite the fact that some states are cultivating and selling bigger bulls to those lucky enough to draw a tag now and then (or pay $$$ for a LO tag). That's a different dynamic.

From: Ollie
04-Apr-18
Depends on what the reasons are for having the records today. Raise funds for the organization? Is it to honor the hunter? Is it to list the biggest examples of a given species? For animals like whitetails that are widely distributed would it make sense to list the animals by region (southeast, Midwest, etc.) with some adjustments made in the minimum score so that you don't exclude any given region nor do you end up listing nearly everything killed. (Iowa whitetail vs Florida whitetail) Is it fair to list moose taken near the Alaska-Yukon line as Canadian moose. They have a tremendous genetic advantage to a moose in Ontario or Newfoundland. We could debate this all month and never come to a resolution!

From: Steve H.
04-Apr-18
Part of what is going on for something like muskox is since they aren't heavily hunted, anywhere you go is likely to have a strong representation of mature animals available so guys likely tend to shoot mature, better scoring animals.

From: Ziek
04-Apr-18
I don't think P&Y minimums should be based on ease of attaining. It should be based on the size of an "average/typical" animal when it reaches adulthood, not so much on maximum size possible if it lives to its peak.

If you want a higher standard it already exists with B&C.

Musk ox are 'big' because sport hunting pressure is low. Almost every Alaska moose also makes book because antler size restrictions pretty much guarantees it, except for some management hunts.

From: TreeWalker
04-Apr-18
Whitetail needs to be by zone. A mature whitetail buck in southern MO is a dink compared to a mature whitetail buck in northern MO farm country. The quality of the soil is so much better the further north you go in MO that the deer in southern MO end up relatively malnourished. Heck, for only $3 a week, you could sponsor a southern MO fawn so he, too, can grow up to be healthy. Call now and make your commitment to being part of the solution.

From: LBshooter
04-Apr-18
Guys, I'm not trying to be difficult here but isn't " making the book" a little old ? What's the point? I have never cared about putting a deer in the book, it doesn't do anything for me. Just wondering what makes you want to register every animal you shoot and what does it do for you? It seems like more of a bragging right, to be able to say I have 20 animals in the book. Does this mean your a better hunter or a hunter with better access? Just wondering what makes this such a big deal with some and not others?

From: PECO
04-Apr-18
They should raise it only for typical whitetail racks discovered in barns, sheds, attics, someones house, bars, or where ever.

From: t-roy
04-Apr-18
Just placed my order for 50 more trees for my Iowa farm..........I’ll probably be selling hunts in 3-4 years! Ground blinds only.

Javalin is spelled with an “E”. Javelins WOULD be way more challenging than crossbows ;-)

From: mountainman
04-Apr-18
"At this point it Seems like just about anything you kill with a bow will make Make pope and young"

Ummm..no. They don't.

From: JTreeman
04-Apr-18
I thought he was implying Javelina as a species should be included, not Javelins as a hunting instrument ;)

But I guess either way! LOL

—jim

From: elk yinzer
04-Apr-18
This is 2018 everyone gets a trophy!

From: Ziek
04-Apr-18
"Guys, I'm not trying to be difficult here but isn't " making the book" a little old ?" "...it doesn't do anything for me."

So let's say you're right and no one entered any animals. Would that mean that there no longer were any animals out there that qualified? Would it matter if that were true? How would you know without a verifiable standard of comparison? So much can be gleaned from the record book about habitat quality, management practices, herd dynamics and so much more. And all that information is being paid for voluntarily. The "book" is as relevant as ever. Even if you don't support the orgs with membership, it's still a good idea to support the compilation of data. We are lucky that not everyone thinks only of what it does for them.

From: Ermine
04-Apr-18
The score doesn’t matter to me and it doesn’t make the hunt a success. But it is fun to score animals and know the score just for something else to do. I’m not an amazing hunter and not a big time trophy hunter. But just about every bull elk, mule deer, antelope I have killed has made p and y easy. The only whitetail I’ve ever killed ...pope and young. I hunt public land do it yourself.

So that’s my experience. Seems like you kill a 6 point bull It makes p and y. A 4 point mule deer...I bet it makes pope and young. Not always the case obviously.

I have never arrowed an animal that was a B and C animal. Why because the minimum is so much higher and harder.

But maybe I’m off in my assement

From: Glunt@work
04-Apr-18
Here's an idea. Let's say killing a P&Y qualifying animal is too easy, instead of raising the limit for everyone, we all have the choice to limit our equipment and tactics to make killing a P&Y critter as hard as we want.

From: HDE
04-Apr-18
You raise the standards for book animals, outfitters won't get as much business...

From: Glunt@work
04-Apr-18
People hire outfitters for several reasons. One of them is that getting an opportunity at a trophy animal is hard. I think outfitters would be as busy or busier with higher minimums.

04-Apr-18
Ziek has it right. The P&Y minimums are established as mature, adult animals killed under fair chase with archery equipment. There’s nothing easy about any of the 29 species. You can have some geographic advantages and great ground to hunt but that will usually be for a limited amount of the 29 species.

If you desire a greater challenge good for you and Boone & Crockett Club entry is a big leap in minimums. That Club includes all weapons. A net booner with archery equipment is an amazing achievement for any archer.

I will always enter each and every Pope & Young animal I’m fortunate to get. The neat thing is we each get to decide if we enter our animals or not. I’m glad it’s a choice rather than mandatory:)

From: 1boonr
04-Apr-18
Why does anybody care whether they are a better hunter than someone else as it is all so subjective. A guy shoots a 130 in Georgia that is 5 years old and another guy shoots a 180 in Illinois that is 5 years old, who is the better hunter? How does having your name listed on a book with thousands of other names make you better. Outside of a few people that know you your name in that book is completely insignificant unless your in the top ten or so then your name in the book is only partially insignificant.

From: Griz
04-Apr-18
Yet you call yourself "1boonr". Kind of ironic.

From: tobywon
04-Apr-18
Jaq makes a great point....come to the northeast, hunt public ground or areas of dense wooded timber with limited agriculture and then let us know if a P&Y whitetail is easy.

04-Apr-18
1. I'll never understand the people who have to jump on all of these threads and ask why it matters to people... Why does it matter to you that it matters to others?

2. Muskox all make it because a herd is going to have mature animals in it and if you've made the effort to get to them, you're not going to single out the smallest animal in the herd. Age strata is better than average deer and elk age strata because there aren't millions of hunters gunning for the oldest males.

3. Ermine, you are a good hunter, which is why you've had the success you've had.

4. You can kill a 6x6 bull and it not make the book. I've done it. I've also killed a 4x4 mule deer that wasn't even close to making it - double crab claws don't even come close.

5. To the OP, I think they're fine right where they are based on what Zeik outlined. It's about recording adult animals taken per area. All-time B&C records are just the genetic freaks. Many animals will die of old age and never reach B&C size.

From: mountainman
04-Apr-18
I have said this before. A P&Y class animal(or any size you happen to be going for) should be a reflection of YOUR OWN goals.

I do not care if the next guys kills a larger or smaller one than mine. Nor does it make me think I am a better or lesser hunter if an animals score happens to be higher or lower than the next guys.

If anyone truly thinks that a higher score on an animal makes them better than the next man, they are likely in for an hollow existence.

I also have killed a 6x6 elk that didn't make it.

I think the minimums at just fine where they are. Enjoy the hunt, we can mold our goals, expectations and legal methods to whatever works best for us.

From: HDE
04-Apr-18
"I think outfitters would be as busy or busier with higher minimums."

Over time, they could not show hero pics of book animals, and the ones that are will be "small" ones.

From: Elkhorn
04-Apr-18
Maybe someone should start a tooth age club, trophy over 5 years old? Too bad teeth aren’t that interesting to look at and a lot of people are never happy. I personally don’t enter anything but I don’t see anything wrong with it either

From: BOX CALL
04-Apr-18
I'm just happy if my animal makes the freezer,

From: Kurt
04-Apr-18
I think I shot 5 CO 6x6 bulls that did not make P&Y and only 3 that did. They all ate very well!

From: APauls
04-Apr-18
My goals are never based on a printed book. Unless that printed book is a story about a cool hunt. That being said, I'd still prob consider myself a trophy hunter over a meat hunter. But it's personal standards. Those standards would differ if I lived in North Carolina. Thankfully, I don't ;)

From: Shawn
04-Apr-18
Funny, ask all the whitetail bow hunters in Iowa who have shot a 125" buck and folks would be surprised to hear it is not everyone, actually probably less then half. Kansas as well, ask how many in NY have shot a NY P&Y and it will be a lot less, maybe 10% and I believe less then that. I think the minimums are just fine unless they are going to make it by region and that is already done by the state org. groups. Shawn

04-Apr-18
I'm just sitting here hoping/wishing that someday P&Y will start a wild hog category. I've got some booners too, I think. Just haven't had them scored yet. :)

From: Bou'bound
04-Apr-18
I could see it being raised, but what would happen to all the animals guys were so proud of that now would fall below the minimum and would not be book animals any longer. seems unfair to have reached the pinnacle and then have someone move the pinnacle. If they grandfathered in it would be better.

Probably should look at reducing the Super 10 down a bit too. It was a nice subset of the Super 29, but why stop there. More guys would be included if it was a Spectacular Six, or a Fabulous Five, or a Great Eight, or a Terrific Three...........or even "The Gretsky" ( The Great One)

From: StickFlicker
04-Apr-18
"They should raise it only for typical whitetail racks discovered in barns, sheds, attics, someones house, bars, or where ever."

Pope and Young does not accept any of those, unless it can be shown to have been taken with a bow.

"I thought he was implying Javelina as a species should be included, not Javelins as a hunting instrument ;) But I guess either way! LOL"

Why is the thought of including Javelina in the record books humorous? They are considered a big game animal in every state in which they are hunted, and have been for at least 40 years in all of those states. This appears to be the only hunted species in North America that is a native big game animal, but is not included in the national record books. I have long felt that they should be the 30th animal included in P&Y. They are a species that is made for bowhunting, and there are lots of them taken across Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Mexico. In addition to adding the only remaining native big game animal that is not currently listed, it would be a great revenue source for the club in a time they need the funds. In Arizona it is included in the state record books, and it is measured much like lion and bear (by length and width of skull).

04-Apr-18
"A P&Y class animal(or any size you happen to be going for) should be a reflection of YOUR OWN goals."

While there's a lot of truth to that (personally, I've very happy with the does and young animals I fill my freezer with), you're still sort of imposing your opinion on other people's opinions. For instance, I like the cut offs where they are and don't want them changed. I do strive to take book-eligible animals, but I kill animals that don't if that's what I want to kill.

" This appears to be the only hunted species in North America that is a native big game animal, but is not included in the national record books."

Marvin, I'd add wolves to that list and agree with you on Javelina.

From: M.Pauls
04-Apr-18
Personally I find the minimums just fine. I like having a difference between a Pope & Young animal and a Booner. A Poper isn't a Booner. That's cool. I do however find the spread between whitetail minimums between typ and non-typ rather strange even though I don't when it comes to higher scoring whitetails with Boone & Crocket minimums. I find it way harder to kill a net non-typ 155 than a 125 net typical. I would think 135/155 or 125/140 would make more sense. Just my observation, at the end of the day it doesn't bother me

From: Shug
04-Apr-18
No

From: Jaquomo
04-Apr-18
Bou, when they raised the minimum for elk all the sub-260 bulls were removed. OTOH, when QL caribou minimum was reduced from 325 to 300, a whole bunch more bulls killed in Days of Yore suddenly became eligible, even though they may have been killed during the glory days when 300" bulls were fairly common.

So there are precedents both ways. My favorite is when a sub-P&Y mule deer crosses the road he suddenly becomes a P&Y blacktail, until he goes back to his side of the road and becomes an "inferior" mule deer again. ;-)

From: Bowriter
04-Apr-18
It is a simple question. Do you want to make it more difficult to make the book? If so, yes, raise the minimum. Or, do you want to increase the funds coming in? If so, no don't raise the minimum. Never overlook the bottom line.

From: bowhuntbob
04-Apr-18
NO!

From: SlipShot
04-Apr-18
That is a hard question. Personally I have several elk and a bear that would make PY, but chose not too enter them. I had plan on entering my bear in BC if it was large enough, but fail short by 3/8 of an inch.

From: DL
04-Apr-18
BOXCALL I like your style. I guess I’ve lived in California too long.

From: caribou77
04-Apr-18
No. Iv e lived in Iowa my entire life. Not as many "legit" 125" deer as made out. Everyone rounds up, uses gross scores. Are there More in the Midwest than other areas, yes. That's just luck in the state you live in. This be fair to everyone is b.s. Draw a line call it good. Christ it's an animal, be happy with your harvest, just like the good old days.

04-Apr-18
You can change the minimum, but the animals many on here claim to be honoring remain exactly the same. Not only are they animals that cannot understand the scoring system, but they are dead. Therefore, if you are honoring the animal, changing the minimum accomplishes nothing........does it?

From: Pigsticker
04-Apr-18
X2, Ziek has it right. The P&Y minimums are established as mature, adult animals killed under fair chase with archery equipment. There’s nothing easy about any of the 29 species. You can have some geographic advantages and great ground to hunt but that will usually be for a limited amount of the 29 species.

It is simply a way of keeping score. We attend conversations, banquets, and such. It makes for robust conversation and sets a standard. A 115 where I hunt in Georgia is better than 140 Ohio buck but I go to Ohio for the lust if more bone. The only animal I ever differed in opinion on was the line of demarcation for grizzly. Stream fed coastal British Columbia bears versus Alaskan bears that are 150 miles inland are browns. I play by the rules and never entered an animal but rules are important because it gives credibility to an issue. Frankly, I found no reason to hunt musk ox but rules and identity have increased there value to many. Who am I to question another mans quest!

From: TD
04-Apr-18
I seem to recall a person discussing a handicap system for WT by state..... he had already worked out a formula for Alabama if I remember right.....

As stated above...... you want more "challenge" and want it to really "mean" something there's already is a system with higher minimums in place. B&C accepts bow kills with open arms..... knock yourselves out..... A Booner with a bow is pretty darn impressive.

Some species, so few are taken every year to raise minimums would really reduce the numbers entered..... maybe to the point very few are entered. Bison or polar bear? I don't know.

Others are very hard to judge in the field if they make the book or not. Mountain goat comes to mind, maybe mountain lion, etc. Other species like coues maybe, there aren't a large number going to get a whole lot bigger after growing to the minimums?

I'd think they are about where they should be. There will always be areas that produce bigger animals in more numbers than others. Or situations where the area is managed for them, both public and private. There will always be animals where opportunity itself is very limited, either by game regulations or by disposable income. It is what it is. I'd say they've done a pretty good job overall of setting the standards for bowhunting.

From: t-roy
05-Apr-18
I was joking about the ”javalin” comment that huntcell originally posted. I knew what he meant. I agree that javelina should be included as a P&Y eligibile species.

From: Treeline
05-Apr-18
Have shot piles of javies when I was younger. Don’t think I even kept any skulls. Haven’t even considered shooting one in years.

I would vote to add them to the list of NA big game for P&Y.

Also, as Ike suggested, wolves should also be on the list. Particularly since they are now managed as a big game species. Historically, they were not considered a game animal. The list of bow killed wolves would be pretty short for sure! Not sure that there should even be a minimum for that species!

From: Franklin
05-Apr-18
Have you ever been on a Artic Musk Ox hunt? If you get a PY animal you deserve it.

05-Apr-18
"Also, as Ike suggested, wolves should also be on the list. Particularly since they are now managed as a big game species. Historically, they were not considered a game animal. The list of bow killed wolves would be pretty short for sure! Not sure that there should even be a minimum for that species!"

Works for me. If I'm ok with shooting fawns, I'm ok with shooting pups...

From: mountainman
05-Apr-18
"While there's a lot of truth to that (personally, I've very happy with the does and young animals I fill my freezer with), you're still sort of imposing your opinion on other people's opinions. For instance, I like the cut offs where they are and don't want them changed. I do strive to take book-eligible animals, but I kill animals that don't if that's what I want to kill."

Idy- I see what you mean. Maybe I should have worded it different. I meant if a person CHOOSES to go after a certain sized animal, that should be a personal decision/goal. Same as if a person chooses shoots a small animal. I suppose some folks may think differently then that and that's fine too.

I love the fact that we can chooses to make things more challenging by equipment choices, going after mature animals, etc. On the flip side, I am also glad we can chose to knock a small doe down if we want some really great meat.

From: Ironbow
05-Apr-18
The point was made earlier that NET scoring whitetails making it past the 125" mark are not as common as made out to be. So many people list the score of what they killed as the gross score. Some guys list everything the buck grew to inflate the score a little more.

I have scored a number of whitetails that would gross around 140 but wouldn't clear the 125" net score. Very nice bucks, but deductions would keep them out by an inch or two.

I seem to have a knack for shooting 140-150" gross scoring bucks with 13-17" of deductions. My buck last year had a base measurement of 7 5/8". Great mass. Extra points drove the score down to 125 6/8". He had one sticker that was 7/8" that didn't count, or he would have missed the magic 125" mark by 2/8"!!

My point is there are very few bowhunters that would have passed him up, even in Kansas, but he barely nets P&Y. Sometimes it is not about the final score, but the character of the animal and the head gear he has.

05-Apr-18
also its not so much how you hunt, but were you hunt

From: Bowmania
05-Apr-18
Nope! Put the limit on equipment, before they put the limit on our seasons. When archery seasons started they were 'sold' as a primitive weapon season.

By the way, I'm not saying this to be popular!!! Lol.

Bowmania

06-Apr-18
I see no need.

I would reiterate the point that many people think their buck/bull would make P&Y min but in reality they have measured wrong, or failed to take the deductions for NET score. These people usually are the ones that have never entered anything.

There are a lucky few who are great hunters, or have great property, or a lucky horseshoe in the right place who seem to always kill a P&Y.

I don't think any are "easy" and I have taken many animals that just miss the min. But are nice for the area I was hunting. I have taken only few that do meet the P&Y and I feel those were really special.

I see B&C as a high standard for anyone who wants something harder. You can also go for a top 10 or some ranking in P&Y if you want a challenge

From: Catscratch
07-Apr-18
I'm not big on record books and scores (I would care more if I ever shot a truly big deer though) so my opinion probably shouldn't be taken too seriously. I've read up on the founding fathers of P&Y a little and I get the impression they wouldn't have wanted compounds, crossbows, feeders, and the like to qualify for their record-book. I think this would tend towards categories within the records, make some separations based on weapons used and hunting styles. Realistically crossbows are gaining popularity just as fast or faster than compounds did and (since the majority of states legally define them as archery anyway) will probably be included in the book sometime. Draw some lines in the sand; give the stick shooters a category, give the machine arrow shooters a category, give the baiters a category, make a choice, and let the bickering within end.

From: Tonybear61
07-Apr-18
For those who live in a state were the Whitetail firearm season is always in the rut, very, very hard to get a decent buck on public DIY land. I have only seen maybe 6-8 of them in 40+ years of hunting various parts of the Midwest on public land, much less getting close enough with bow to take one. I know they are there as plenty 125+ get taken during firearms season. Plus neighbor routinely bear hunts but has only taken one for the books with the bow in about 30 yrs.

From: ELKMAN
07-Apr-18
IDK what the minimum is so... Maybe? LOL!

From: BOHNTR
07-Apr-18
The minimums for all species are reviewed every few years by the Records Chairman and his/her committee. A LOT of factual data, trends, and historical perspective is utilized to determine if the minimums are still appropriate. The last specie that was raised was Columbian Blacktail and Coues Whitetail a few years back. Whitetail Deer was discussed in depth, but remained.

From: SBH
07-Apr-18
I think everyone that thinks they are too easy needs to make sure and get all those "pope and young" animals officially scored. You may be surprised. In my opinion, any animal that nets pope and young is pretty dang big. Seriously, a lot of us, myself included were sitting on animals that were "pope and young" in the garage until an official scorer put a tape to them! It's a great animal that actually makes the books. Leave it be, its a good measuring stick...not for the hunter....but for the animal!! To me its not about the hunter at all.

From: Bou'bound
07-Apr-18
if It’s not about the hunter there should be a book that the animals enter themselves in. Or leave the hunters name off

From: SBH
07-Apr-18
Ya Bou- thats exactly what I'm saying, there should be a book the animals can enter themselves in. Maybe they can use an iPhone and post pics of themselves on Instagram too.

Its not a measuring stick to ME about how great of a hunter I am because I killed a certain sized animal or this or that. I see it as a measuring stick to me to let me know what the top end is and how lucky I am to have taken an animal that would be on the upper end as far as size and age go. The respect for what it takes for them to live in the environments they live in and survive to a mature enough age to reach a bigger then average sized rack, that's what I love about it. Obviously the rack is not the only thing that matters.....but there is just something about horns!! I don't know what it is, I didn't have to be taught to love them. I've loved horns since I can remember. As I've grown older and learned more, my appreciation has grown.

From: RutnStrut
07-Apr-18
It honors tha animal. It's only about the hunter if YOU make it that way.

From: Chief 419
07-Apr-18
I dont see any benefit in raising the minimum scores for P&Y entries. The P&Y Club has its challenges maintaining and growing membership as it is. IMHO, raising the minimum score for entries does nothing to retain or gain new members which I think is more important than "making book". I've met many hunters who already think P&Y is all about the score. Nothing could be further from the truth.

From: Glunker
07-Apr-18
Glad you brought up the issue. Apparently there is no reason to rise the minimum unless you want to financially hamstring the club.

From: Chief 419
07-Apr-18
Maybe the P&Y Club Isn't important to you or the future of bowhunting Glunk. I'm glad you stated your position.

  • Sitka Gear