Today I learned I don't know what a 300" bull is

[Billy Goat]

If a guy knew what kind of bow he's shooting and the axle-to-axle length, you could get a SWAG on the main beams. If he's shooting full 32" arrows, add a couple inches on either side and maybe his bow is 37-38" long unless I'm mistaken. So "if" we go with that estimate, maybe that bull has 50" main beams. Also can't really get a good feel for spread, but does't look "extra" wide. Could be 375, who knows, but regardless its an awesome BOAL for vast majority of guys. For comparison only, the bull in my profile had 51, 52, and 37 inside, good mass and grossed 345. Not sure I see 30 more inches here, but it's tough to tell from the angle of this pic.

Well he shoots about 27.5-28" draw. I think that's a 34" bow.

Bull is no where near the 375" mark. However many people looking at it think it is.
Not meaning to take away from it either, just calling it what it is as I see it. I see it as more of a solid 315 bull, but it's an internet picture. Might be 290....

 

[Dos Perros]

Because your quote said a few generations.

The subsequent generations are from the same genetic pool as the earlier generations. Unless you're talking like latent genes getting turned on or off, which I suppose could be the case (but not yet demonstrated), but if they're switched on/off by nutrition, then isn't it the nutrition growing big antlers?

 

[Billy Goat]

The subsequent generations are from the same genetic pool as the earlier generations. Unless you're talking like latent genes getting turned on or off, which I suppose could be the case (but not yet demonstrated), but if they're switched on/off by nutrition, then isn't it the nutrition growing big antlers?

They can be from the sane genetic pool, but that doesn't mean all that pool carries over. After 50/50 you don't know what you have. Things might average 75/25, but that's not what you truly have.

I don't see it nearly as clearly as dominant/recessive genes, or any kind of latent genes.

Trying to word it and best I can; in the wild, for reproduction pretty much spring condition of the cow trumps everything. That is the number one thing for reproductive success (a live calf). Other factors can contribute to that, such as in the fall the most dominant male usually does the breeding. So dominant male might be the best body condition, not the biggest rack. Now, make food pretty even across the table and the dominant bull that was previously the one that could maintain the best body condition doesn't have the same advantages over the other bulls, because with good feed its easier for them all to maintain body condition, so other things start to come into play because body condition doesn't become the primary factor. What I'm saying is in the wild, the bull who spent the most effort on growing the biggest rack might not be in the best condition during breeding season, however that can change with good food resources. So then even within what was a pool of say topped out 330 bulls, when you only have the larger racked bulls breeding, you will be selecting for bigger and bigger racks. It doesn't mean that it will only be genes for 330's passed on, as things change. How else could we get bigger racks? Otherwise it would be a constant drop in size. It's like dairy cows that have been selected for more and more elk production, or selecting for higher and higher calving weight, or wean weight. To think that they can't get better, would mean that you can't ever do better than what us currently put there, we'll that's quiet opposite in livestock. Now in livestock we of course select and cull all the time, but it still happens in the wild too. Like a cow that puts too much of her energy and reserves into a larger calf might not have the energy to actually grow that calf, so it dies. Good feed helps to prevent that, allowing it to carry on.

In the end, yes nutrition grows big antlers, but it's not the only factor.

It's interesting what the Eastern herds are doing, it's generally thought that they are in better conditions than their western cousins, and they are growing well. So feed in a sense is a primary contributor over time to developing, but you can't just throw feed to an elk and expect it to suddenly grow to be a 400" bull.

Tho in the East, many of the supplement companies want hunters to think you can feed something to the deer and you will grow 200" bucks, it doesn't work like that. Over many generations it might happen, but it doesn't happen short term. Still takes selection, and that happens if we are a part of it or not.

 

[Billy Goat]

They can be from the sane genetic pool, but that doesn't mean all that pool carries over. After 50/50 you don't know what you have. Things might average 75/25, but that's not what you truly have.

I don't see it nearly as clearly as dominant/recessive genes, or any kind of latent genes.

Trying to word it and best I can; in the wild, for reproduction pretty much spring condition of the cow trumps everything. That is the number one thing for reproductive success (a live calf). Other factors can contribute to that, such as in the fall the most dominant male usually does the breeding. So dominant male might be the best body condition, not the biggest rack. Now, make food pretty even across the table and the dominant bull that was previously the one that could maintain the best body condition doesn't have the same advantages over the other bulls, because with good feed its easier for them all to maintain body condition, so other things start to come into play because body condition doesn't become the primary factor. What I'm saying is in the wild, the bull who spent the most effort on growing the biggest rack might not be in the best condition during breeding season, however that can change with good food resources. So then even within what was a pool of say topped out 330 bulls, when you only have the larger racked bulls breeding, you will be selecting for bigger and bigger racks. It doesn't mean that it will only be genes for 330's passed on, as things change. How else could we get bigger racks? Otherwise it would be a constant drop in size. It's like dairy cows that have been selected for more and more elk production, or selecting for higher and higher calving weight, or wean weight. To think that they can't get better, would mean that you can't ever do better than what us currently put there, we'll that's quiet opposite in livestock. Now in livestock we of course select and cull all the time, but it still happens in the wild too. Like a cow that puts too much of her energy and reserves into a larger calf might not have the energy to actually grow that calf, so it dies. Good feed helps to prevent that, allowing it to carry on.

In the end, yes nutrition grows big antlers, but it's not the only factor.

It's interesting what the Eastern herds are doing, it's generally thought that they are in better conditions than their western cousins, and they are growing well. So feed in a sense is a primary contributor over time to developing, but you can't just throw feed to an elk and expect it to suddenly grow to be a 400" bull.

Tho in the East, many of the supplement companies want hunters to think you can feed something to the deer and you will grow 200" bucks, it doesn't work like that. Over many generations it might happen, but it doesn't happen short term. Still takes selection, and that happens if we are a part of it or not.

I don't know how possible it would be, but I think it would be interesting down the road to do comparisons of elk in eastern herds compared to the herds they were removed from. Still might be hard to draw conclusions from, but it would be data.

 

[Lil-Rokslider]

Well he shoots about 27.5-28" draw. I think that's a 34" bow.

Bull is no where near the 375" mark. However many people looking at it think it is.
Not meaning to take away from it either, just calling it what it is as I see it. I see it as more of a solid 315 bull, but it's an internet picture. Might be 290....

I'm pretty sure he's 4'6" and that's a 48" bow

 

[Dos Perros]

@Billy Goat I think what I was trying to say was: it's the conditions on the ground that grow big antlers. Nutrition and management.

When some dude says "oh there's not big animals in there because genetics" I think they're wrong; take those animals and subject them to better nutrition and management and they'd get big. As the study shows, they were able to recover 80% of the antler size difference in just two generations in in-breeding, keeping nutrition the same across both groups.

Of course I have no data to back it up, but I bet you grab some short fatty horned elk from Diamond Creek and drop them in Unit 9 of Arizona, and they'll get big too.

 

[Travis907]

Regardless of the exact score, that’s a trophy bull anywhere. In my opinion it looks bigger than 270 for sure and definitely hits P&Y and that isn’t easy! Congrats on a fine bull to be proud of!

 

[IdahoSwede]

A good reminder to never actually measure my bulls.

 

[Colorado_native]

That is a great bull! Nice work and congrats!

 

[Michael_Wyse]

That’s a beauty! Congrats!!

 

[___DAN___]

Great story. Better than most article hunts in a magazine. I think you should compile it and send it in.

 

[Hnthrdr]

If a guy knew what kind of bow he's shooting and the axle-to-axle length, you could get a SWAG on the main beams. If he's shooting full 32" arrows, add a couple inches on either side and maybe his bow is 37-38" long unless I'm mistaken. So "if" we go with that estimate, maybe that bull has 50" main beams. Also can't really get a good feel for spread, but does't look "extra" wide. Could be 375, who knows, but regardless its an awesome BOAL for vast majority of guys. For comparison only, the bull in my profile had 51, 52, and 37 inside, good mass and grossed 345. Not sure I see 30 more inches here, but it's tough to tell from the angle of this pic.

Pictures are super deceiving! I killed a nice bull this year, biggest to date by far, I wonder what you guys think he scores?

 

[bohntr]

Measurers also have to measure and enter a certain number of entries to maintain their official status.

This is incorrect.

 

[bohntr]

Congratulations on an awesome bull!!
I agree you should get it officially measured AND enter it in the books. The OM’s don’t get paid by the club to score peoples animals and from what I understand the club doesn’t even supply the measuring tools. They pay for the stuff out of their own pocket and take time out of their day to give you an official score (whether you enter it or not). Don’t take advantage of the system. The least you can do is support the club with the $35 entry fee.

They are given basic tools (tapes, cables, slide ruler, etc.) by the organization that trains them (B&C or P&Y).

 

[payton1333]

Congrats man!

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

Pictures are super deceiving! I killed a nice bull this year, biggest to date by far, I wonder what you guys think he scores?

I don't care what he scores, he's gorgeous. I'll be super general, somewhere between 250-300.

 

[Ross]

310+ @Hnthrdr longer fronts 4ths and main beam than subject bull…great bull congrats

 

[Hnthrdr]

310+ @Hnthrdr longer fronts 4ths and main beam than subject bull…great bull congrats

Thought I had a 320ish bull, scores aside I am thrilled, the encounter, call in and sub 10 yard shot would have made me happy with a bull half the size, the fact he was a bruiser is just icing on the donut. The taxidermist(who tapes for P&Y I believe) asked if he could throw a tape on him. Grossed out at 347, pictures are deceiving, he has a 51&53 inch main beams and a 49” inside spread. OP’s bull is a dandy too! The old internet pics get me all the time. That Bull that was stolen in Billings looks like he would dwarf mine, but the guy said he is a 330 bull, just funny the difference between a picture and real life.

 

[ScottR_EHJ]

Filled my Colorado archery elk tag yesterday. It was an epic adventure, and exactly the bull I dreamed about finding in this unit. Now, inches don't matter much to me, and every bull I've killed previously has been small, but when I saw him on the ground I thought he was for sure a 300" bull. Got home and rough taped him, and he's 270". I learned today that a lot of the so called 300" bulls I've seen in my life, probably weren't. View attachment 449813View attachment 449814

Congrats on your bull, looks like a very nice bull to me!

The judging portion has happened to just about everyone. The truth of the matter is that unless you get to spend a lot of time measuring dead bulls they are REALLY tough to judge on the hoof. A lot of guys rarely get to spend time actually measuring them, they may spend time in a premier unit over judging trophy bulls, putting 350 bulls into the the 375 category because they final piece is actually getting them measured. The dudes who are good at it have usually spent a lot of time guiding and get to partner field judging with an actual tape. Dan Pickar and Stephen Rosso are prime examples of this, measured lots of bulls and in turn are good at judging them on the hoof.

The other thing that makes it tough is that most General, OTC, or easy to draw units don't have many big bulls. Which in turn makes every 6 point with any age look really big because those are the types of hunts that over a lifetime get the most attention from the masses. Get a bull killed in one of these units and it is very easy to be disappointed when you get it home and throw the tape on it.

 

[bohntr]

PM me and I can put you in touch with an official measurer near you.