Skre Gear article on Scoring Mule Deer

[skregear]

We just released this new article on "How to Score a Mule Deer". We wrote it with a twist, not your typical scoring article. If you have a few minutes it is worth the read. https://www.skregear.com/how-to-score-a-mule-deer/

Give us some feedback on what you think?

 

[IdahoHntr]

Nice article! Tine length usually does rule the day as far as score goes. There is however an error in the symmetry section.

"For example, if a buck has 30 inches of nontypical points on one side and 10 inches on the other side, you are going end up with 20 inches in deductions. "

Non-typical points are never deducted from a B&C score if they don't match. Only if you are trying to score the buck as a typical, and then ALL of the inches of non-typical points are deducted. Only the main frame of a buck has deductions in the non-typical B&C scoring system. A buck can be a clean 4 on one side and have 100 inches of trash on the other side with a matching 4 point main frame and he would have zero deductions.

 

[IAMike304]

I disagree completely with "needing to do away with deductions". B&C is not just a book where you look to see how high of a number you can get. Im sure there are other scoring systems that will give you the biggest number. The point is record keeping, and finding the most perfect specimens. By the logic of getting rid of deductions, the top record typicals would barely make a newspaper. Not saying its about publicity, but read between the lines.

IMO, when someone says "nets are for fish", "dont deduct anything", or "a better option would be displacement in a tub of water", that tells me that ego has taken over and they just want a bigger number to talk about.

Theres a reason the system has been around so long, with minimal changes, and is still regarded as the standard. (P&Y as well, but their system is based off B&C's, with few minor differences)

 

[idahohikker]

I disagree completely with "needing to do away with deductions". B&C is not just a book where you look to see how high of a number you can get. Im sure there are other scoring systems that will give you the biggest number. The point is record keeping, and finding the most perfect specimens. By the logic of getting rid of deductions, the top record typicals would barely make a newspaper. Not saying its about publicity, but read between the lines.

IMO, when someone says "nets are for fish", "dont deduct anything", or "a better option would be displacement in a tub of water", that tells me that ego has taken over and they just want a bigger number to talk about.

Theres a reason the system has been around so long, with minimal changes, and is still regarded as the standard. (P&Y as well, but their system is based off B&C's, with few minor differences)

The system has some serious flaws. It unreasonably undervalues mass. It is hyperobsessed with symmetry without basis in science or otherwise. The majority prefer gross scoring. Read a new threads here and it’ll be clear.

 

[lif]

I disagree completely with "needing to do away with deductions". B&C is not just a book where you look to see how high of a number you can get. Im sure there are other scoring systems that will give you the biggest number. The point is record keeping, and finding the most perfect specimens. By the logic of getting rid of deductions, the top record typicals would barely make a newspaper. Not saying its about publicity, but read between the lines.

IMO, when someone says "nets are for fish", "dont deduct anything", or "a better option would be displacement in a tub of water", that tells me that ego has taken over and they just want a bigger number to talk about.

Theres a reason the system has been around so long, with minimal changes, and is still regarded as the standard. (P&Y as well, but their system is based off B&C's, with few minor differences)

I would say quite the opposite. Deductions are mans tools to point out imperfections in an animal’s natural state. I’m not a big scoring guy in general, but if your going to score them, then give the animal credit for everything that Mother Nature gave it.

 

[bowuntr]

The system has some serious flaws. It unreasonably undervalues mass. It is hyperobsessed with symmetry without basis in science or otherwise. The majority prefer gross scoring. Read a new threads here and it’ll be clear.

Educate yourself on the history of the B&C scoring system.... it's been around for 70+ years and has a solid foundation behind it. I would argue that most prefer exaggerated gross score over official gross score.

This article should have been proof read and fact checked before being published. Ed F

 

[idahohikker]

Educate yourself on the history of the B&C scoring system.... it's been around for 70+ years and has a solid foundation behind it. I would argue that most prefer exaggerated gross score over official gross score.

This article should have been proof read and fact checked before being published. Ed F

I am familiar with the history. I know you love the score system, lots of other guys don’t. It’s all good.

 

[lif]

Educate yourself on the history of the B&C scoring system.... it's been around for 70+ years and has a solid foundation behind it. I would argue that most prefer exaggerated gross score over official gross score.

This article should have been proof read and fact checked before being published. Ed F

I’m also aware of the history. Read multiple books from B and C about B and C. The concept had a strong purpose and filled a good role in its Early years. I don’t think it is serving the same purpose anymore. I am personally not into scoring, although I know it pretty well, but I am not against Boone and Crockett either. Just doesn’t real have the same impact on most that it used to.