There's nothing to reason it's just the score for a Non Typ...
So what did your Non Typ score 146.. 147?
There are so many deer (Whitetails) in the record books it takes up many many many pages in The Record Book when it's printed and published. It's overwhelming and must cost a lot of money in printing the big book because of all the entries. The whitetail deer makes up a lot of the whole book. The book is BIG and thick now and it gets more so every few years of printing the new updated one.
125" whitetails aren't very big actually compared to a 'bigger' whitetail. I do realize though in a lot of states it'd be hard to say the least to shoot a 125" whitetail....but.....you have to hunt where the big ones are....like elk or antelope or bears, etc.
I don't think the $35 fee for accepting and listing a animal and printing it in 'the book' is a true money maker (profit) for the club. Postage involved and man/woman hours and paperwork, etc. and Certificate issued to hunter/owner....I think it's more of a Service to bow hunters who have accomplished the minimum requirements.....and then....you have all the Listing and MOST are not even members of The Pope & Young Club! Maybe ?? membership should be a requirement for entry!
That would weed out a lot of entries and make room for more and MAYBE boost membership! Since we use their 'system' I think we all should back The Pope & Young Club and become a member and support all they do now and have done in the past for all bow hunters! You don't need a record book animal to beable to join The Pope & Young Club. We all as bow hunters reap the benefits from The P&Y Club even if your not a member. They fight for all our bow hunting rights (RIGHTS) and everything they do they do with 'class'! I'm a very proud member and I am indebted to them!
non-typical score 155?....I think that 'gap' or 30" is just fine. (125 typical to 155 non-typical) In reality the rack has to score and at least have 1" of non-typical points to qualify. The 1" used to be a higher number in order to 'make book'! (15" I think....but I may be wrong) I'm not a scorer and know little about it actually.....jmho
I assume you mean to qualify as a non-typical? That is not correct, and has not been the rule since 2006. Currently the rule requires that the animal be entered to the category for which it scores the highest over the minimum (Typ vs. NT), which equates to the fact that it must have abnormal points totalling more than half the "gap" amount for that species.
I disagree with the concept of making people join P&Y in order to enter their records program. I like that it is a record of all animals taken, not just a record of animals taken by club members. That is the exact reason I have never entered an animal into SCI. Having a record among club members, who number a very tiny percentage of all hunters, is not worth the effort or expense to me.
I think the majority would pay the fee anyways, or at the very least buy a membership. I think the record book would be much more accurate.
I am sure they need the $35 to stay afloat and don't expect to see this ever implemented, but in a perfect world I think it would be beneficial.
While I'm royaling hijacking this thread I think the eastern stateline of Ohio,down to the Ohio River,then to the MS river.Then south down the state lines of Arkansas,Louisianna to the Gulf
I think this is a terrible idea that would just upset those who are "just" on the west side of the line, or that hunt in areas of "big buck" states in the "west" that aren't really "big buck" areas. P&Y is meant to keep records of the biggest animals, not the biggest animals from different regions.
I understand the size differential between regions, and respect it. But then again, that is why most (if not every) State keeps their own records. If there needs to be a lower limit due to region, having the State's determine this on their own in their own record keeping books is the easiest and, in my opinion, best way to do this.
I'd dare say that the "border states" (TX,OK,KS,MO,IL,IN,OH) crush their eastern neighbors and the statistical difference is enough to make a concesion is all.It would increase entries also as more states would harbor trophies.
In fact,I'll argue that the difference is as great statistically between Columbian BT/MD in most of those areas.
Just food for thought.I realize that the books aren't there to cater to anyone and is probablly best to stay as close to a science base as possible.I just wanted to attempt to manifest that whether their is a genetic or habitat difference, the past statistical record could at least equally define the word "trophy" as much DNA/Geography lumping.
If the horror of it all only entails those getting raised mininums then certainly don't raise them in my hypothetical model.My model wasn't to punish anyone but to reward more of the 4 1/2 and older bucks that are getting taken in these genetically/environmentally depressed regions.
I can't say I 100% am for it but I'm conceptually interested.
I may have come accrossed to harsh. I completely agree with the idea that there are different standards of what is considered a trophy representative between the different states.
My only issue is that if you open the door for differen minimums for different regions, how do you stop there? I am sure there are great differences between states that are considered "west" states in an east/west breakdown. What happens when one of those states decides they don't have the size animals that Iowa does and they want a different minimum than the neighboring states so they get an equal number of entries in the book. Then what?
My point is that States themselves are the proper entity to determine record book size for their own state. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems most states keep their own record books already. P&Y is a trophy record keeper that differentiates between species. If you want a trophy grizzly bear or trophy ram, you don't hunt them in Florida.
If you want to differentiate subspecies of whitetails, that is a more interesting theory. But can you show that the whitetails in the "east" states are all of the same subspecies, or at a minimum that they are all a lesser subspecies than that of "west" states? Even then you open the door of "subspecies" between "west" states.
There are just far too many "doors" that could open (in my opinion) by having different standards when dealing with the same species. I think State sponsored record books can easily and properly remedy the perceived disparity between states.
I'm just saying let statistics have a say.
If huge moose are being taken in Northern BC to a statistical equivalent of AK/YK then drop the line to include BC if applicable.Gene pools don't stop at jurisdiction lines or highways for that matter.
I'm not complaining mine you,just seems that an eastern bowhunter AT LEAST should have a shot at an indigenous PY animal and the whitetail would be some kid's only chance.
I'm making no attempt to measure hunting prowess here.I just think that much can be added to the books by including harvest from a wider geography of our nation.
It use to be a minimum of 15" to score as a non typical, now it is 1". The rule of which category to list it in, only comes into play if it qualifies both ways. Then it is entered into the category it ranks highest in, where it use to be hunter's choice.
I would never agree with the east-west rule, age is still the biggest factor in growing larger racks. Nutrition and genetics get involved seriously when you look at the 150 and up crowd, but not that much when you're dealing with minimum entry scores. Quit shooting 1 1/2 year old bucks and you'll start seeing more of the 125 and up deer, ask Pennsylvania.
Nice deer you have! What did he score as a Typical??? Does the State you took this buck in have a Deer/Buck Recognition Program that lists animals in 'their book'?
Illinois has a Deer Recognition Program and "I think" it has a minimum for a archery kill! (I think 115") typical and I'm not sure about non-typical score.
Not Knocking SCI...it's just not Bow Hunting Only and NOT just North Armerican Big Game Animals. I don't gun hunt and I don't hunt outside North America.
That statement doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How can it only need 1" to be a NT, if it is not the hunter's choice and must score higher above the minimum for NT than it does for Typical in order to be classified a NT? My last sentence was even hard for me to follow! If there is currently a 30 point "gap" between the Typ and NT minimum for Whitetail, an animal must have at least half of that amount (15") of abnormal points in order to score higher above the minimum for NT than it does above the Typical minimum. The 1" to be a NT has been gone since 2006, and has no bearing at all anymore.
If P&Y narrows the gap between Typ and NT minimums, the minimum number of abnormal points that a buck would need to score would get lower as well (since it would be half of the new, smaller, gap.
I'm not sure how much hunting you have down in the Southeast but that statement doesn't have much application.
Official Measurers: Please footnote your posts so the guys know you are an Official Measurer. This should help avoid confusion! Thanks! Charlie
The threshold for entree is half the difference of the two categories.
DT101, There has been no direction from P&Y to its measurers of any such change, nor does their website indicate a change. From my conversations with P&Y, however, I do believe that the new amount may well be 12.5 as you mention, but it's my understanding that they can't even vote on the change until their spring Board meeting (not sure when that is, but it hadn't been held yet as of a week ago). Perhaps they chose to make an exception of yours, knowing that they were likely making the change soon, but I am relatively certain that it has not yet been changed (unless done so just in the last few days).
droptine101 - Was your buck a mule deer? A mule deer must have 12.5" of abnormal points (half of the difference between 170" and 145").
Jeff Pals Official Measurer Pope and Young Club
My issue is why there is a 30 inch gap for P&Y (24%) vs a 25 inch gap for B&C (14%). It is messed up and should be changed to 145 which is much more reasonable and in line with B&C.
There is no "rule book" that allows for a whitetail with 12" of abnormal points to be classified as a Non-typical in P&Y. If they allowed yours to be entered with that, they ignored their own rule.
Was hoping he’d have a crack at making Boone & Crockett too but afraid he’ll be just short. As I rarely gun hunt this one is probably my only chance for that.
BTW, if you have never had a big game animal officially scored by a certified P&Y scorer, then you have never killed a P&Y qualifier.
And why am I supposed to care that that all my 150,160,170 inch deer don’t “qualify” for a book. Oh yeah because yours do and your F 250 has a lift kit. Got it ;)
Many people like to say they have X amount of p and y animals but they don’t enter them.
If they don’t enter them they are their great animals just not p and y entries… that’s all.
Congratulations on your great deer.
Even though P&Y tailored its scoring from B&C, the Records Committee decides what our required entry scores should be, independent of the ones B&C have. The only different scoring procedures right now between the two clubs is in the pronghorn antelope……B&C can, in some cases, have 3 circumstance measurements below the prong, whereas P&Y requires two below and two above the prong. Also, B&C has three other categories that P&Y doesn’t, Pacific & Atlantic walrus, and jaguar.
To enter and animal in the P&Y Record Book, you DO NOT HAVE TO JOIN OR BE A MEMBER OF THE P&Y CLUB. But, it would be nice if you did. It’s more than just entering the animal…….you are also supporting the club which is also a big supporter of Conservation efforts and youth archery programs.
Bob Tastsides P&Y Official Measurer
For many, getting an animal into "The Book" qualifies as a sort of rite of passage. Many whitetail hunters, and most OTC elk hunters, will never have the opportunity to hunt where P&Y qualifiers are behind every tree. Ziek's idea of "regional handicapping(?)" makes some sense. Finding and killing a 125 whitetail in PA is a much greater accomplishment than shooting a 140 in KS or IA. Same goes for the mountain area in CO where I live, where I might see a 145 muley once every few years, but don't give them a second look where I hunt on the plains.
None of that matters except to those who value the status of having an animal in The Book. One of my greatest trophies is the 28" 7x5 muley I killed on a live hunt on Bowsite on Thanksgiving day after hunting him for 20 days, then belly crawling within recurve range. He is a fantastic deer and one of my greatest hunting accomplishments, but will barely make the typical minimum because of all the anomalies. Doesn't matter to me what he scores, but I've also killed my share of qualifiers.
But if P&Y wants to expand the membership and the relevance to more bowhunters, they might consider changing the criteria for listing, and have different sections in The Book, similar to what they've done with traditional listings.
When I pass away there will be a small record of my existence on earth. I believe that’s important.
This caused me to put a tape on my 11/16 buck for the first time today. Seems he passes that test, but not by much, as I measured just North of 20".
LINK - "And why am I supposed to care that that all my 150,160,170 inch deer don’t “qualify” for a book."
Obviously, you do refer to your bucks as P&Y and B&C. My point is..unless they have been officially scored by a certified measurer, you don't really know what is P&Y (or B&C) and what is not. My 2021 buck has roughly 150" of antler...but likely won't make P&Y due to deductions. I'll know for sure in about three weeks. (FYI, whether he makes it or not, I'd shoot him again.) Last year, my son shot a buck that officially grossed 176-7/8ths....but only cleared the P&Y hurdle by 3" and change. A tine that we thought was typical turned out to be non-typical...or that 176"+ buck would not have made P&Y at all.
If you want to be in a book you need to have both size and your administrative ducks in a row
if all you care about is sharing the relative size so people can envision it that’s a different deal.
I would be absolutely amazed if 5% of the animals that were big enough to go in the book actually are in there and that doesn’t change the animal or the accomplishment
Anybody can print off a sheet and measure their buck or bull and simply say "I shot a 170" mule deer". But for some reason most don't, they just go for the P&Y or B&C or Book buck line.
If you were an amateur race driver in the pits talking to the others guys you'd sound a bit silly when someone asked you how many HP you were running and you responded with " well lots, like huge HP, like Indy HP!"
Man has been in competition since the dawn of time, That's what strengthens any species. It's only in the last few decades that we're so coddled that that natural law has become moot. "Everybody gets a ribbon" has propelled us to the point where the lazy can survive. And note, I said the lazy and not the weak or disadvantaged. Caring for them separates us from the animals.
Like it or not, it was mighty hunter Zog that got his picture painted on the cave wall with a big antlered buck. And not the guy that always comes back with no meat and stories of the one that was " giant, like Zog type huge!".
Pav what does the word CLASS mean to you when it’s used as a P&Y CLASS buck? Words have meaning. They bucks I’ve killed are P&Y type(CLASS) bucks not P&Y. The point is they score well enough and if having my name in a book meant anything to me I’d enter them like you do.
Smarba I think there’s a lot of truth to what you say. When I score a deer for someone though I do it conservatively because I don’t want them taking it to a P&Y measurer and being disappointed. Most of the deer I score for myself I do pretty quick and dirty because I don’t care if he scores 161 or 163 7/8. After a few years I just remember he was around 160. So if I am asked I’ll say he grossed somewhere around 160”. I certainly don’t say he makes P&Y even though he nets 153 because nets are for fish and I’ve never been interested in reading a book of names.
Here's a real-world example. I killed my biggest mule deer buck this last Sept. I rough-scored it just so I could get a feel for size. It wasn't at official drying period, and I only made quick measurements. I came up with 169.5. When netted, it drops to 163.5. My hunting partner was curious so I told him both numbers. His response "awesome, you killed a 170 class buck!" A little deceiving. If I were to hang my 169 gross next to a 170 net, heck, it might have 10" less antler than the actual P&Y measured buck - which is a lot different! For me to tell people I killed a 170" buck is stretching it...perhaps by quite a bit.
Actually the gross scores are all I myself ask and care about, because they give me a genuine idea of the size. Net does not.
About your buck I realize “ class” is vague. The bottom line is he scores the same, or very near it, wether you measure him or Nick Much. Regardless of eithers final number he’s well above the minimum to make book if you wanted to enter him and if you don’t he’s still well above the minimum. I’m also with Zim, I have never asked a deers net score or even had the thought of ones net crossing my mind. It’s like someone wanted to make a way for small 8 points to make book so they gave extra credit for symmetry. There’s a helluva difference in a 126” symmetrical typical and a 154” non typical. I quit giving the 130” symmetrical 8s a look at 14 but a deer with 154” of bone will still elevate my heart rate. I’ve never netted a deer but I suspect I only have one that might fall below the minimum after deductions. I don’t really care though he’s a trashy 151” gross that I killed near my great granddads homestead and I’d never care if he didn’t make book. There’s a lot more to that buck than a line on a page.
...and while we're at it, why do we count the deer's spread? It's freakin' air! lol
Personally, I often find deer and elk that meet the minimum typical P&Y standards to be less than impressive. In my area a 3 yr old mulie can have 145" of antler. We also usually have a few old 3x3s, that have been passed by trophy hunters who chase scores. Often they are the most mature, largest bodied, and dominant bucks I see. Above is an example from a few years ago. He wouldn't score crap, but he was the biggest baddest buck in the neighborhood. I watched him intimidate many bigger antlered bucks that year. I tried hard to kill him, but never got the job done.
I've often thought there should be a "book" for body weight/size. That toad in your pic is a perfect example. I'd rather kill him than a P&Y minimum that weighed 70 lbs less.
I'm not a certified measurer, but like LINK, I do tape deer for friends and relatives...and like LINK, I try to be conservative with the measurements. Seen many a jaw drop when I total a net score that is way less than expected. More often than not, it is because they deducted differences (including abnormal points) from gross antler rather than from gross typical score. Happens all the time....
Also have been corrected myself by certified measurers for various reasons other than GROSS. As mentioned, my son's 2020 non-typical only made book because a tine I thought to be typical...was actually non-typical. These are the reasons I don't put much stock into anyone presuming they have a P&Y, P&Y Class, P&Y Caliber, etc....rack without having the rack officially measured first. Just too many variables that most people, including myself, are not aware exist.
This is the biggest bodied deer I've ever killed. Interestingly, he's the only velvet antlered buck I've ever killed in Oct or later. He's also the only buck I've ever killed that didn't have any testicles. I never weighed him, but based on charts that estimate weight by chest circumference, he was over 450 pounds on the hoof. For reference, I'm 6'4 and 250 lbs. He's not my best scoring buck, but he's probably the one I'm most proud of.
I equally love people saying nets are for fishing, justifying the use of gross scores only when referencing a deer because “ it’s what the animal grew”. If that were true, we wouldn’t be throwing in an air gap measurement for inflation purposes. I like hearing both gross and net for a much better visualization of what an animal was.
There are things I was confused on while taking the measurers course, I found it super informative and had never entered an animal before that point. I’ve now entered any of them of the class to make book :). One thing people fail to realize, is sometimes change in record books decades old is keeping a standard in place. I never understood why steel cables weren’t allowed for all animals instead of only some, but if you change it now then you simply won’t get identical measurements to the last 60+ years of entries.
Trevor Embry P&Y Measurer
If you want to be in a book you need to have both size and your administrative ducks in a row if all you care about is sharing the relative size so people can envision it that’s a different deal.
I would be absolutely amazed if 5% of the animals that were big enough to go in the book actually are in there and that doesn’t change the animal or the accomplishment
As far as spread credit, it also gives a mental picture if just reading a score. A 150" whitetail with a 24" spread looks quite different from a 150" whitetail with a 16" spread. And since the Book can't include a pic of every entry, it's a good piece of information. And the buck "grew that" spread also.
Saphead, symetry versus the over all mass! Look who wins in beauty contest and bodybuilding competitions. The same is true with top celebrity bodies in the world and it’s not based on mass!
It’s sort of like the golden ratio that can be seen in nature that determines phone sizes and many other things that are in the man made world because it is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
You ever are thought about why we don’t have a bunch square pictures everywhere?
I wished that this symmetry could be applied more in the nontypical category! I’m not fan of some of the ones like the big one from Tennessee.
I maybe in the minority on this just my thoughts.