onX Maps
Pope and Young non-typical score 155?
Whitetail Deer
Contributors to this thread:
droptine101 03-Mar-10
Ben Farmer 03-Mar-10
Shug 03-Mar-10
Dave B @ Work 03-Mar-10
StickFlicker 04-Mar-10
Bou'bound 04-Mar-10
Genesis 04-Mar-10
ironhunter 04-Mar-10
Ty 04-Mar-10
HeadHunter® 04-Mar-10
bill brown 04-Mar-10
StickFlicker 04-Mar-10
Matt Palmquist 04-Mar-10
sticksender 04-Mar-10
Dave B @ Work 04-Mar-10
Genesis 04-Mar-10
Northwoods 04-Mar-10
Genesis 04-Mar-10
Northwoods 04-Mar-10
Genesis 04-Mar-10
droptine101 04-Mar-10
droptine101 04-Mar-10
droptine101 04-Mar-10
Ki-Ke 04-Mar-10
HeadHunter® 04-Mar-10
StickFlicker 04-Mar-10
droptine101 05-Mar-10
droptine101 05-Mar-10
Genesis 05-Mar-10
Charlie Rehor 05-Mar-10
Genesis 05-Mar-10
Mr Wapiti 05-Mar-10
droptine101 05-Mar-10
Ziek 05-Mar-10
StickFlicker 05-Mar-10
Jeff Pals 05-Mar-10
droptine101 05-Mar-10
StickFlicker 05-Mar-10
StickFlicker 06-Mar-10
Zim 02-Jan-22
Ollie 02-Jan-22
LINK 02-Jan-22
Dale06 02-Jan-22
LINK 02-Jan-22
pav 02-Jan-22
tobywon 02-Jan-22
Shug 02-Jan-22
LINK 02-Jan-22
Shug 02-Jan-22
Drnaln 02-Jan-22
Bou'bound 02-Jan-22
LINK 02-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 02-Jan-22
yeager 02-Jan-22
Jaquomo 02-Jan-22
BOHNTR 02-Jan-22
Jaquomo 02-Jan-22
Charlie Rehor 02-Jan-22
Zim 02-Jan-22
midwest 02-Jan-22
pav 03-Jan-22
Gunner GSP 03-Jan-22
timex 03-Jan-22
Bou'bound 03-Jan-22
Zim 04-Jan-22
Ambush 04-Jan-22
LINK 04-Jan-22
Drnaln 04-Jan-22
smarba 04-Jan-22
smarba 04-Jan-22
LINK 04-Jan-22
smarba 04-Jan-22
Zim 04-Jan-22
LINK 04-Jan-22
smarba 04-Jan-22
Drnaln 04-Jan-22
Catscratch 04-Jan-22
midwest 04-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 04-Jan-22
LINK 04-Jan-22
LINK 04-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 04-Jan-22
pav 04-Jan-22
pav 04-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 04-Jan-22
Yttails 04-Jan-22
TEmbry 05-Jan-22
Bou'bound 05-Jan-22
Bou'bound 05-Jan-22
Ambush 05-Jan-22
Grey Ghost 05-Jan-22
Ambush 05-Jan-22
Saphead 05-Jan-22
Rocky D 05-Jan-22
LINK 05-Jan-22
Rocky D 05-Jan-22
Rocky D 05-Jan-22
Saphead 06-Jan-22
From: droptine101
03-Mar-10
Why is the Pope and Young non-typical minimum 155 and not 145? I do not understand the reasoning. B&C only has a 20 inch gap.

From: Ben Farmer
03-Mar-10
25 inch gap...170-195

From: Shug
03-Mar-10
Pope and Young Non Typ WT's need to be 155

There's nothing to reason it's just the score for a Non Typ...

So what did your Non Typ score 146.. 147?

03-Mar-10
because 145 would be to easy?

03-Mar-10
On a percentage basis of score Typical to Non Typical the P&Y difference is huge next to B&C. 24% on P&Y 14% B&C I agree I think the spread is unreasonably large, but I also thing the typical Min should be higher.. Possibly 135.

From: StickFlicker
04-Mar-10
They are currently working on shrinking the gap between typical and non-typical on most of the antlered species. Be patient.

From: Bou'bound
04-Mar-10
that is great new stickf;icker. long over due change pending it sounds like

From: Genesis
04-Mar-10
Earl,I'd always thought that subdividing whitetails into Eastern/Western and use 115/135 respectively would be neat.

From: ironhunter
04-Mar-10
Where would you put the East/West dividing line?

From: Ty
04-Mar-10
What makes you think they would lower the Non-typical score and not just raise the typical score if they were woried about a gap?

04-Mar-10
my guess, and this is just my opinion, that at sometime the records minimum will raise for entry.

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

-}}}}}}}}}}}}------------------>

From: bill brown
04-Mar-10
Who cares? Isn't the quality of the hunt and the taking of an animal you are happy with more important than whether some club will put it in a list?

From: StickFlicker
04-Mar-10
"In reality the rack has to score and at least have 1" of non-typical points to qualify."

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.

04-Mar-10
I will take Marvin's statement a bit further. In my opinion I would like to see an optional recording fee to get a more accurate record book. It is amazing how often I hear people say/type that they won't enter an animal because they have to pay money.

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.

Matt

From: sticksender
04-Mar-10
I sent off the entry forms this week for my 2009 whitetail, and if I recall on the Fair Chase affidavit they were offering new memberships for 15.00.

04-Mar-10
Good 2.5 year olds make 125 around here. I would be all for a 140 min. I always thought they would raise the minimum sooner or later on typical WT, you can only make paper so thin, and a book so thick.

From: Genesis
04-Mar-10
"Where would you put the East/West dividing line? "

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

From: Northwoods
04-Mar-10
Issue: East/West dividing line.

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.

From: Genesis
04-Mar-10
Northwoods,the goal of any line would be substantiate a greater trophy disparity in that area than "normal".

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.

From: Northwoods
04-Mar-10
Genesis:

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.

From: Genesis
04-Mar-10
Northwoods,no offense taken.My point was to use statistics to help delineate a trophy."Species" is a nebulous term per our recordkeeping and presently is defined by a group living within borders of terrain/manmade features.Respectively,a call has to be made.

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.

From: droptine101
04-Mar-10

droptine101's embedded Photo
droptine101's embedded Photo
I still do not understand why they would make it a larger gap to get into the non-typical catagory then B&C. You would think that they would want to raise funds for the club by generating additional entries. I shot 158 gross and a 148 net non-typical this year and it just seemed that the way he was scored was did not make any sence at all. I think that it should be reviewed and adjusted. SCI does it much better but Pope and Young is the gold standard. It is not about the hunter that killed the animal but rather the animal's uniqueness. I am hearing more and more people moving to SCI because of this and I think Pole and Young better get a clue or they will loose membership and interrest in the club. Here is a picture of the buck I shot this fall, damn shame he did not make book. He did make my book though.

From: droptine101
04-Mar-10
Oh, I forgot to mention he broke off about 12 inches of antler.

From: droptine101
04-Mar-10
The one inch non-typical rule has been changed. To be scored non-typical the deer has to have 12 inches of non-typical points before he can be scored non-typical. At least that is what happened when my buck was scored. It is a recent rule change I was told by the guy that scored this buck.

From: Ki-Ke
04-Mar-10
"Damn shame" should not be used in a sentence describing that buck at any level. Great deer. Worrying about where he places in a book diminishes what he is. (was)?

04-Mar-10
I wish I had a dollar for every 130-135 typical frame with 10-15" or so of trash that I scored, that did not make the book in either category. Put any of them next to a 125-135 clean typical and then tell me which one you would shoot..

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.

04-Mar-10
SCI?...I'm a bow hunter and SCI don't cut the mustard for me in that respect. The Pope & Young Club is Archery only and bow hunting is all I care about. North American Big Game taken with a bow and arrow in fair chase. I don't think many people are leaving P&Y to joining SCI.....jmho

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.

From: StickFlicker
04-Mar-10
"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."

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.

From: droptine101
05-Mar-10

droptine101's embedded Photo
droptine101's embedded Photo
The buck scores 137 typical then after the non-typical score comes off it is around 124 inches. I hunted for over 30 years with a goal of shooting a P&Y deer and thought this one would make it. I am going to keep trying and with a little luck I will be able to, God willing. When that day comes the taste of victory will be even sweeter. No regrets and I would shoot another buck like the one I was lucky enough to harvest this year in a New York minute. The fun is in the pursuit! I ended up fixing the rack and this buck now resided in my man cave. I had deer cam pictures of him so I had him restored to original. I chased him for two years. Thanks for the information and comments.

From: droptine101
05-Mar-10

droptine101's embedded Photo
droptine101's embedded Photo
Final resting place.

From: Genesis
05-Mar-10
" 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."

I'm not sure how much hunting you have down in the Southeast but that statement doesn't have much application.

05-Mar-10
Stickflicker is correct in his explanation of of Typical vs. Non-typical! He is an "Official Measurer" for P&Y Club.

Official Measurers: Please footnote your posts so the guys know you are an Official Measurer. This should help avoid confusion! Thanks! Charlie

From: Genesis
05-Mar-10
As an example of what Stickflicker is saying,I had a buck that netted 182 NT this year (MD) as a NT and 157+ as a typical.It was entered in the typical class as it was 1/4" higher in that category.

The threshold for entree is half the difference of the two categories.

From: Mr Wapiti
05-Mar-10
i shot one a couple of years ago(mule deer) that has 165 inches of horn but due NOTHING matching up and 28" of nontyp horn it score 95 as a typ and 145 as a non typ. would i shoot him again? of course would i enter him in a book of course not :)

From: droptine101
05-Mar-10
Please check you updated measurement requirements for Non-typical whitetail entry. You need 12 inches of non-typical tine to qualify. This is a recent change. Too many people were moving to the non-typical catatgory so they could get the higher score if it made non-typical. You need to check this because it is a recent change. The person that scored mine is most likely one of the best P&Y scorers in the country. this buck just made it with like 12.5 inches of tine that was non-typical.

From: Ziek
05-Mar-10
I'm not necessarily advocating this, but IF you wanted to recognize regional differences in size, then drop the 'hard' minimum requirement altogether. Use a percentage of ALL bucks scored within a certain radius of the kill, within a specified time frame. Modern computer programs would make this relatively easy. This would also automatically take into consideration trends over time and make it more relevant to what is actually possible in a specific area.

From: StickFlicker
05-Mar-10
Ziek, that would be an interesting compromise.

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).

From: Jeff Pals
05-Mar-10
StickFlicker explained it well a whitetail must have 15" of abnormal points to qualify as a non-typical.

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

From: droptine101
05-Mar-10
The deer was a whitetail. To score non-typical it must have over 12" of non-typical inches. New rule that is used now and going forward. That is what I was told by the guy that measured mine. I believe him because he travels to different area's of the country to measure large deer with other P&Y scorers. Get the latest rule book from P&Y and find it there.

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.

From: StickFlicker
05-Mar-10
DT101,

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.

From: StickFlicker
06-Mar-10

From: Zim
02-Jan-22
Was excited to have a nontypical eligible for measurement in 13 more days, until I read this thread. Now my head just hurts. Lol

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.

From: Ollie
02-Jan-22
Did not realize so many people need a participation trophy to be happy.

From: LINK
02-Jan-22
Me too. I have several P&Y and a couple B&C class bucks. None of them are in anyone’s book but mine. Some of you guys definitely drive trucks lifted more than the standard 2”, I can tell. ;)

From: Dale06
02-Jan-22
Interesting discussion. When I talk to several friends about a deer that I just shot, just saw, or just missed, their first question is “what will he score?” If they’re telling me about the deer they just shot, saw, or missed, my questions would be “Tell me about the shot, where did you hit him, how far did he go after that shot, how was the blood trail?” Or “have you seen him before, where did you see him.” Different strokes, I guess.

From: LINK
02-Jan-22

From: pav
02-Jan-22
For the life of me, I don't understand why so many that "don't care" about P&Y score even open a thread with that title...let alone respond to it.

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.

From: tobywon
02-Jan-22
Was just thinking the same thing pav. Well said. Some don’t realize that maybe it’s a personal thing to some to have an animal scored just like it’s a personal thing to not have one scored. Good luck to you Zim!!

From: Shug
02-Jan-22
Lab for the “ win”

From: LINK
02-Jan-22
“ 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 ;)

From: Shug
02-Jan-22
Link it’s about taking the step… and helping the organization that’s what makes it a p and y entry… if you or anyone else doesn’t actually enter it’s a great buck but not a pope and young buck.

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.

From: Drnaln
02-Jan-22
Hypocrites...Guys love to brag about killing P&Y or B&C critters but don't enter them. An animal has to have a "Fair Chase Statement" signed by the hunter to be accepted.

From: Bou'bound
02-Jan-22
Hunter needs to sign the check too for it to be P&Y

From: LINK
02-Jan-22
Ive never used the phrase I have x number of P&Y animals. I’m pretty sure the only time I’ve stated how many I have in a given inch category is on a thread here one time that asked. I don’t have a clue what the number of potential P&Y qualifiers I have killed is. My first bow buck when I was 16 would have “qualified” had I had him measured by a P&Y representative and not a local guy with countless booners to his name. If someone is interested in what I’ve killed I dig the pile of bone out of the corner of my barn and reminisce. I enjoy knowing what deer score and I’m pretty sure going off my score guess’s on this site my measurements are adequate even if they are not official or in a book. I enjoy seeing deer reach maturity and their potential and hunting those mature bucks. I don’t understand why anyone would be upset their non typical was a few inches shy of anyone’s book but their own….. that’s all.

From: Grey Ghost
02-Jan-22
My question to the OP is, does the fact that your buck doesn't qualify for the "book" make you any less proud of him?

Matt

From: yeager
02-Jan-22
Like Jeff Pals and StickFlicker mentioned, you must have at least 15” of abnormal points to score a whitetail in the non-typical category. If it has less than 15”, it will not be allowed to be entered as a non-typical. When you double the required non-typical required inches (15 for a whitetail), you get 30”. Add 30” to the minimum typical score of 125” and you get 155” which is the minimum whitetail non-typical entry score.

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

From: Jaquomo
02-Jan-22
I'm a strong supporter of P&Y (Regular member) and enter most of my animals. Still have a few to measure when I get around to it. But IMO a "trophy" is about much more than the net score.

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.

From: BOHNTR
02-Jan-22
You realize this thread is almost 12 years old! :)

From: Jaquomo
02-Jan-22
Sure, Roy, but this topic will never go away as long as there are egos! ;-) We've all heard the stories of guys knocking off an abnormal point or two to inflate the typical score.....

02-Jan-22
I didn’t shoot my first Poper until I was 40 but have entered every one that qualifies since then.

When I pass away there will be a small record of my existence on earth. I believe that’s important.

From: Zim
02-Jan-22
"you must have at least 15” of abnormal points to score a whitetail in the non-typical category. If it has less than 15”, it will not be allowed to be entered as a non-typical."

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".

From: midwest
02-Jan-22
I think it's funny when guys say they don't care about score or making the book but know what their deer score and which book they would make. lol

From: pav
03-Jan-22
LINK - "I have several P&Y and a couple B&C class bucks."

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.

From: Gunner GSP
03-Jan-22
Pav.. everyone I know has a B&C buck. Well, until they have it scored.. Which is why they don’t have them scored..

From: timex
03-Jan-22
Interesting conversation that I can relate to. I've killed some nice bucks in my lifetime. Southern MD & va. Beyond the inside spread none of them have ever had a tape measure put to them. My trophy every season has always been a freezer full of venison. (I'm a meat hunter) that occasionally gets lucky. Friends of mine for the last 30 years spend more time in mid west states than home the month of Nov & they have some great bucks to show for their efforts. We get along fine & they know better than to ask me how many "s that buck I killed was. I live on the coast & offshore fish my son has a wall full of trophy fish citations. I have none again I'm not interested. But respect those that wish to document their accomplishments.

From: Bou'bound
03-Jan-22
Well all the above is technically accurate the generally excepted practice when people cite P&Y or B&C they are referring to size not administrative governance

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

From: Zim
04-Jan-22
I have about 8 entered, all public land, and another 4 that would make it but never bothered. I just enter my bigger ones. Got into archery for the challenge. And I hunt bigger critters for the same reason, the challenge. I enter the ones I do for reference, record keeping, and to support the P&Y org. Could care less what others think about it. Lol.

From: Ambush
04-Jan-22
I know lots of hunters that will state they have B&C bucks or saw them while hunting. When I ask how big, they usually respond with "..like, huge, like Booner easily, definitely book!!". Then I ask what do you think he scored. "Well, book" they respond with a quizzical look. For some, with mule deer, they have the 190" stuck in their brain and every big buck they see is that or over.

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!".

From: LINK
04-Jan-22
“ Obviously, you do refer to your bucks as P&Y and B&C.”

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.

From: Drnaln
04-Jan-22
Now we have P&Y type critters? Or is it P&Y CLASS? I'm confused again!

From: smarba
04-Jan-22
The term I'm going with is "P&Yish"

From: smarba
04-Jan-22
While we're on the topic, almost everyone I know talks about their GROSS score. Obviously because it's higher. So their 160ish deer really might only be a 150ish deer if it were actually scored by P&Y. And they round up too. Their 158ish deer rounds to a 160, but if actually scored by P&Y might be 148. But we don't care about score, it's all about the pursuit LOL

From: LINK
04-Jan-22
You [email protected]$$es know what I mean, lol. I have never said any of my bucks are Pope and Young only that they score well enough to be, if I chose to enter them.

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.

From: smarba
04-Jan-22
Link, I understand, and the phrase "nets are for fish" is very common. Still, while it's true, a 160 NET deer might be quite a bit bigger than a 160 GROSS deer, so when "we" throw around general gross numbers it can be misleading because even though that is the true total number of inches, we're insinuating it compares with a P&Y score when it really isn't.

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.

From: Zim
04-Jan-22
"While we're on the topic, almost everyone I know talks about their GROSS score. Obviously because it's higher. So their 160ish deer really might only be a 150ish deer if it were actually scored by P&Y. And they round up too. Their 158ish deer rounds to a 160, but if actually scored by P&Y might be 148. But we don't care about score, it's all about the pursuit LOL"

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.

From: LINK
04-Jan-22
Smarba on the other side of the coin I could have a hell of a buck the grosses 185 and nets 170 and you could have a clean 170 with 2” of deductions. Saying both deer are 170” is ridiculous. Just my thoughts. It would be cool to have a cell phone app that used lasers to scan a rack abs spot out a volume that takes into count every cubic inch. Sort of like dipping a rack in a tank of water and measuring displacement. If they grow it, it counts. Symmetry is beautiful but a deer with some trash can be as well. He grew every inch, it should count. I know that’s not they way everyone sees it though.

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.

From: smarba
04-Jan-22
Zim I agree that gross is easier to visualize, it's just that none of the P&Y entries are gross, so it's not really comparing apples to apples when we throw around numbers.

From: Drnaln
04-Jan-22
Nothing wrong with saying you killed a 160,170,180 gross or net deer or putting a score number on any other critter. It's the P&Y or B&C a lot of guys put behind that number to give themselves more credibility around their peers. They want the recognition of the premier record keeping organizations without going through the process to get the animal officially scored & entered.

From: Catscratch
04-Jan-22
Never cared how much is subtracted, just how much is there. With that said the only deer I've scored were ones that I had been asked to score, I just don't care much. If I ever shoot a really big deer I'll probably care a lot though.

From: midwest
04-Jan-22
Net score rarely tells the true size of a buck's rack unless it is very symmetrical.

...and while we're at it, why do we count the deer's spread? It's freakin' air! lol

From: Grey Ghost
04-Jan-22

Grey Ghost's embedded Photo
Grey Ghost's embedded Photo
When I describe my biggest antlered animals, I usually use terms like "heavy, tall, wide, typical, non-typical, deep forked, stickers, etc..." Then I usually include the number of points.

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.

Matt

From: LINK
04-Jan-22
I agree Midwest. I guided a whitetail hunter that passed a main frame 12 160” gross because he was only 13-14” wide. He killed a beautiful symmetrical 130” 8 that was 19” wide. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Beam length shouldn’t get the same quantity as a width. And a buck that carries his mass out to the end and gets the same amount of mass measurements regardless of points or beam length. Someone needs to invent that laser app.

From: LINK
04-Jan-22

LINK's embedded Photo
LINK's embedded Photo
Grey Ghost I was salivating for days over this muley this year but couldn’t get permission to hunt him. The crappy bino pic doesn’t do his mass justice. What’s he score? Lol

From: Grey Ghost
04-Jan-22
LINK,

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.

Matt

From: pav
04-Jan-22
Totaling GROSS score is where many "shade tree" measurers miss the target in my experience. They assume GROSS score for P&Y and/or B&C is total antler...and it is not. GROSS antler and GROSS typical score are two very different things. It's the reason you can have a nice 4X5 or 4X6 significantly miss the book...while smaller 4X4s and 5X5s meet the criteria.

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.

From: pav
04-Jan-22
I agree totally with the desire to tag the biggest, baddest buck on the block...regardless of antler score. My best buck ever was a 120ish gross 8pt from Iowa...back in 2000. That "bull with antlers", as my hunting partner called him, bottomed out a 250lb scale AFTER being field dressed. Just an incredible specimen...and had all the attitude that came with it! Yes, I enter my qualifiers in P&Y...but score seldom factors into the decision to shoot. Guess that's why the majority of my bucks don't make P&Y.

From: Grey Ghost
04-Jan-22

Grey Ghost's embedded Photo
Grey Ghost's embedded Photo
Paul,

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.

Matt

From: Yttails
04-Jan-22

From: TEmbry
05-Jan-22
I love the references to score in the same posts that say scores don’t matter and that’s why they don’t enter stuff.

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

From: Bou'bound
05-Jan-22
Well all the above is technically accurate the generally excepted practice when people cite P&Y or B&C they are referring to size not administrative governance

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

From: Bou'bound
05-Jan-22
Hunter needs to sign the check too for it to be P&Y

From: Ambush
05-Jan-22
P&Y does list gross and net now. And as Tembry says, it gives a much better picture of the animal. Pics alone can be very deceiving, some look bigger than they measure, some look smaller. Get Randy Ulmer to take your picture if you're not going to measure it :)

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.

From: Grey Ghost
05-Jan-22
For mule deer, spread has historically been more important to hunters than any other antler characteristic. A 30" spread has always been the gold standard. I've seen trophy hunters pass on beautiful tall, thick, dark antlered bucks in lieu of spindly wide bucks. I've never understood that because mass and height have always been more impressive to me.

Matt

From: Ambush
05-Jan-22
^^ ^ Agree. But, oh to see one with it all!!!

From: Saphead
05-Jan-22
It is a flawed scoring system. There should never be any deductions. Why would we deduct what the critter was? Gross is what should be recorded.

From: Rocky D
05-Jan-22
“It is a flawed scoring system. There should never be any deductions. Why would we deduct what the critter was? Gross is what should be recorded.”

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.

From: LINK
05-Jan-22
Rocky I wouldn’t put a non typical rack and a non typical rack in the same category. ;) Definitely puts a different meaning to double drops.

From: Rocky D
05-Jan-22
Link, I just the symmetry and the opposing double drops in my mind would be symmetrical.

From: Rocky D
05-Jan-22

From: Saphead
06-Jan-22
Symmetry being beautiful is an opinion, some dont hold. Obviously the founders of P&Y B&C did. I think its ridiculous. A body builder is working to a certain end. A wild animal is surviving. Doesn't realize he is not worth as much because his one side doesn't match his other. Its nuts. Gross is what he grew. Thats him. deductions are opinion based. Really bad system

  • Sitka Gear