boone and crockett / pope and young

[Guest super jumbo]

Just curious how many trophies that meet the minimums for the "books" are never entered? I think that for every animal that is entered there is an animal that is not entered that could have been. Over the years i have held or seen many animals that were not entered. I have always been curious if other people thought there were as many unentered trophies as i think there are out there.

[Apache7mm]

San Carlos definately has a lot of Tribal bull elk every year that don't get entered for sure, most of the guys/gals are unfamiliar with the scoring system or just don't know what they've got because they see so many big elk on a regular basis, its the same for Tribal coues deer as well, we encourage potential qualifiers to submit entries at the checkpoint though and beyond that its out of our control, but i'm sure its pretty much the same almost anywhere else as well, best place to find New Worlds Records are not in the mtns but in someones garage, shack, storage, or dried up on a rooftop.

 

DAN

[SunDevil]

I think here in AZ it seems people are more inclined to have their trophies entered in the AZ book rather than B&C.

[billrquimby]

"I think that for every animal that is entered there is an animal that is not entered that could have been."

 

My guess is that the number of hunters submitting their trophies to a record keeper (there are more than just the two mentioned) would be more like less than ten in 100. At least I would hope so. I've said it before, but record books and measuring tapes will be the death of hunting.

 

Bill Quimby

[.270]

i hafta agree with bill, on both opinions. i think most hunters are intersted in the score, to see how it compares to their pals animal, but i think most guys don't much care after that. i have a half dozen heads around the house that will make b&c all time, several more that will make pope and young, but i've never entered anything. i did have a lion officially scored once, filled out the paper and the whole deal and then didn't ever send it in. and i to think that scores and books, in the big picture, have a detrimental affect on hunting overall. even tho i do agree with the concept that the record book is supposed to be in recognition of the animal, but in reality, it is in recognition of the guy that shot it, or at least the guy that owns it. the sorriest liar, poacher, rat b@$tard i ever knew has his name in all kindsa record books. and every one of em is illegal in one way or another. but he's still there. and i kinda doubt that he's the only one. but there are a lotta stand up guys and average joe's with stuff in there that are completely worthy too. so where you gonna draw the line? but i do think folks put too much emphasis on books and not enough on the experience. my octegenarian ol' man can get all twitterpated over a spike anymore. ii guess t's just how ya look at it. Lark.

[Arizona Griz]

I would say it probably is about 1 out of 10 that gets measured for the books.

 

Just remember, if it wasn't for the record books with their measuring systems then hunters wouldn't get to fix a number to their animals to have them compared and related to.

[billrquimby]

I would say it probably is about 1 out of 10 that gets measured for the books.

 

Just remember, if it wasn't for the record books with their measuring systems then hunters wouldn't get to fix a number to their animals to have them compared and related to.

 

 

I doubt that we will ever be so enlightened, but we can certainly hope for that day to come. It took me a lifetime to realize that hunting should not be a competition between hunters.

 

Bill Quimby

[Arizona Griz]

I would say it probably is about 1 out of 10 that gets measured for the books.

 

Just remember, if it wasn't for the record books with their measuring systems then hunters wouldn't get to fix a number to their animals to have them compared and related to.

 

 

I doubt that we will ever be so enlightened, but we can certainly hope for that day to come. It took me a lifetime to realize that hunting should not be a competition between hunters.

 

Bill Quimby

 

I am not sure I said that right but I sure do like your answer.

 

I would like to think that the information gathered could be used for some kind of research.

[cpugsie]

Good question Dave!

I have two Pope and Young bulls that are not entered and one Boone and Crocket Coues deer not entered.

I do have one Pope and Young muley that is entered.

I love shooting big animals and pass up oppourtunities at smaller animals every year. I wait for the big ones for my own reasons.

It extends my hunt.

It seems more challenging.

I let my buddies that haven't shot a decent deer get a chance at a deer that I might have previously shot.

I only have so much room on my walls!

I'm not against putting them in the books, it's just not at the top of my list! I'll probably put some of my heads in the books when I find time.

To answere your question: I believe there are way more animals not in the book than are in the book. I think the 10 to 1 ratio previously mentioned is not too far off.

[azslim]

I agree that record books have not been beneficial to hunting in the last 20 years, changed the name of the game to size only - even with beginning hunters who should just want to learn not get to the top of the hill right out of the chute. I know I have several friends that feel like me - I would send a pic or two out to a few people of a record book animal but could care less if my name was ever put in a book. Growing up meat was the name of the game, and if the meat had a big rack on it great, but the rack was not the whole point of the hunt.