PoisonSnake Tip of the Week (Week 2.5)

[PoisonSnake]

Well, I have had numerous e-mails regarding this 10" rule that I had mentioned in the other thread. So, here it is. When I speak of a deer's score, I talk entirely in terms of net score. Even when I look at them on the hoof, I am thinking net score. I know many of you don't. but, anymore, if I see a deer and the first score that comes to mind is 140", then I will automatically subtract 10" from it. Generally, that will put you pretty close to what that deer actually is. Rest assured, if your buddies are consistently seeing 140s and 150s running around every tree, you can feel pretty safe subtracting that 10-15" from their scores as well.

[PoisonSnake]

Oh, and before one of you lambastes this idea, it pretty much holds true for me except for the buck I shot last year. I shot him and was dang close on his net score when I texted a friend of mine. I guessed the 8 I shot this year at 130" on the hoof. I think he will net 123-124" ifn' I am correct. Good deer, not great deer by any stretch of the imagination.

[SAMCRO]

No one thinks in terms of net score. What you're doing, in essense, is subtracting 10" not because you somehow are accounting for net, but because you suck that bad at judging on the hoof.

Net scores are completely ridiculous in terms of how they relate to real hunters hunting real animals on real terrain. Horned and antlered game should be judged purely on what they grow. Nothing more, nothing less, and our current method of scoring is flawed to the point of laughability. I imagine if I introduced a method that reeked of the B&C scoring method and introduced it into the manufacturing environment in which I work, it would be pointed out quickly and fatally how inaccurate it truly is.

Displacement would be the only fairly accurate method of judging horn or antler size. The idea that an animal whose species has withstood the test of time for eons is somehow either "perfect" or "imperfect" based on the ideas of some pioneers a few dozen years ago is insulting.

[RB]

No one thinks in terms of net score. What you're doing, in essense, is subtracting 10" not because you somehow are accounting for net, but because you suck that bad at judging on the hoof.

Net scores are completely ridiculous in terms of how they relate to real hunters hunting real animals on real terrain. Horned and antlered game should be judged purely on what they grow. Nothing more, nothing less, and our current method of scoring is flawed to the point of laughability. I imagine if I introduced a method that reeked of the B&C scoring method and introduced it into the manufacturing environment in which I work, it would be pointed out quickly and fatally how inaccurate it truly is.

Displacement would be the only fairly accurate method of judging horn or antler size. The idea that an animal whose species has withstood the test of time for eons is somehow either "perfect" or "imperfect" based on the ideas of some pioneers a few dozen years ago is insulting.

How in the world do you come up with this stuff???????????????????

[SAMCRO]

I have a beautiful mind, RB.

[PoisonSnake]

No one thinks in terms of net score. What you're doing, in essense, is subtracting 10" not because you somehow are accounting for net, but because you suck that bad at judging on the hoof.

I believe this to be correct as well. During the time of the year of which I hunt, I generally have a split second to decide whether or not to shoot. So, that 10" rule saves my ass, and my ego. But, anymore, if I think 140", I will generally tell a fellow 130 just to be on the safe side.

[hunting170]

When I see a buck the first thing in my mind is "will SAMCRO be impressed". The second thing in my mind is "fork SAMCRO".

[RB]

[PoisonSnake]

The name SAMCRO is not in my vocabulary in regards to killing big bucks. Now, "hunting170" is. But, before during, and after shooting a big buck, when I always thing to myself if 170 will be impressed, the answer always comes back as a resounding NO!

[Warmouth]

Net score is the real score.

Europeans use water displacement, and that would be the absolute best for measuring sheer mass of growth.

[SAMCRO]

The very fact that anyone would even discuss the idea of whether or not their animal would "stack up" to someone else's standards is, in effect, part of the problem. Set your own goals, and either achieve or modify them. Shooting a mature buck, if that's your goal, is a worthy one. Take a mature animal, and whether or not he "nets" 120", 130", or 170" matters not, except to the weak of mind.

Hunting is only a competition between yourself and an animal. Really, it's only a competition that takes place between your own ears. In Smitty's case, that's a longer distance than most, but you get the idea.

Hunting should remain a pleasant pursuit. In my mind, video cameras and the internet itself are responsible for sucking the joy from many a hunter's heart.

[Warmouth]

Craig, have you entered any of your deer into P&Y or the MO buck book?

[SAMCRO]

No.

[PoisonSnake]

Call me one of those in the "weak of mind" category. I generally throw the weight in there to justify that it is a mature buck. That being said, unless it truly does FD 200#s, I could care a damn less. I want that son of a bitch to net P&Y plain and simple.

[SAMCRO]

Why is it that the score is important to you?