azcouesfanatic Report post Posted November 9, 2011 In the latest issue of the Pope and Young publication one of the board members wrote an article about how gross scores do not give the animal or the hunter the credit they deserve. He was particularly referring to the scores posted in most hunting magazines at the end of an article. I am a member of the club and I am not sure I understand how you could make that assumption. I realize the club has rules that have been established for a very long time, however I feel the club is going to loose membership over time due to the fact that a large number of today's bowhunters favor the bigger number which is gross score. I personally know more than a dozen bowhunters who will never enter anything in the record book because they do not care for the net score. The club has always been a good old boy club but times are changing and the younger generation are the ones who will be carrying on the tradition. I support gross personally what do you support? Brian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scoutm Report post Posted November 9, 2011 Nets are for fisherman...at least that's what I've been told by people on this site. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
couesdiehard Report post Posted November 9, 2011 I think P & Y as well as B & C use net scores because it gives more credit to symmetrical examples of the species. Even the non-typicals are judged on net scores to give credit to the "best examples" of the species. So in their eyes its not just about the most total inches. SCI is a lot more about total inches and you can always go that route. I like both ways of looking at and honoring the animal. I like having the option of entering an animal in whichever book I think will honor that paricular animal the most. Just my 2 cents. Lee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngbuck Report post Posted November 9, 2011 The only guys who I hear use the term net score, are the guys trying to get into the books. The only time I'll use a net score is if I'm seeing where someone's buck will go in the books. I'm too concerned with getting the buck on the ground to think about getting him in the book. I don't have the figures on numbers of entries to P&Y, B&C, and SCI. It seems people are making more entries to SCI these days. The only down side to the SCI books is that they don't have separate categories for the archery guys. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted November 9, 2011 The whole scoring thing has done way more harm than good but that being said, it makes more sense to give credit for the most bone no matter which side of the head it happens to be on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azpackhorse Report post Posted November 9, 2011 I support killing the biggest buck I can and eating him, the rest is a bunch of hype Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sbhunter Report post Posted November 9, 2011 The only guys who I hear use the term net score, are the guys trying to get into the books. The only time I'll use a net score is if I'm seeing where someone's buck will go in the books. I'm too concerned with getting the buck on the ground to think about getting him in the book. I don't have the figures on numbers of entries to P&Y, B&C, and SCI. It seems people are making more entries to SCI these days. The only down side to the SCI books is that they don't have separate categories for the archery guys. SCI does have a Book Printed for just Archers! The one I have is SCI World Bowhunting Record Book Edition II. They also list "taken with bow and arrow" in the normal record books. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
youngbuck Report post Posted November 9, 2011 The only guys who I hear use the term net score, are the guys trying to get into the books. The only time I'll use a net score is if I'm seeing where someone's buck will go in the books. I'm too concerned with getting the buck on the ground to think about getting him in the book. I don't have the figures on numbers of entries to P&Y, B&C, and SCI. It seems people are making more entries to SCI these days. The only down side to the SCI books is that they don't have separate categories for the archery guys. SCI does have a Book Printed for just Archers! The one I have is SCI World Bowhunting Record Book Edition II. They also list "taken with bow and arrow" in the normal record books. I guess I learn something every day. Now I just need to work on arrowing a buck big enough to make the books. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gotcoues Report post Posted November 9, 2011 Gross score is the only thing that means anything to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted November 9, 2011 I support killing the biggest buck I can and eating him, the rest is a bunch of hype right on! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elpepe25 Report post Posted November 9, 2011 Nets are for fish, if it is truly about measuring the greatness of the animal (antler wise)...why shave off inches that the critter legitimately grew? Side note-Pope minimum scores tend to be too friendly, for years a 65" Typ coues would make it (now 70" Min. This is an immature deer. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not knocking anyone who decides to put the hammer down on such a deer. But a 260 min score for elk, really? Doesn’t sound like a very exclusive club to me. This is why the boone and crockett book is more prestigious. It feels better to enter an archery animal in a rifle book. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigorange Report post Posted November 9, 2011 Borrowed from Lark by way of Casey... "don't get hung up on scores. get hung up on hunting." Lark Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azcouesfanatic Report post Posted November 9, 2011 There have been a lot of great points made. I do think it is important to have record book clubs because they fight for hunters rights at local, state and federal levels which I think is very important. Brian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wardsoutfitters Report post Posted November 9, 2011 Gross score I vote for !!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billrquimby Report post Posted November 9, 2011 C.J. McElroy, the founder of Safari Club International and the originator of SCI's measuring systems, believed every animal should be credited for every bit of antlers/horns it grew. He also believed that a measuring system should be simple and have the ability to be used on all similar animals. His original method for the 40 deer species (except moose and caribou), had no deductions for non-symmetry, and recorded no measurement for width (he called this "air.") He also measured only the burr of antlers, and not the diameter of antlers between each tine, to award points for mass. After Mac was fired from his CEO post, the club changed its antlered game measuring method to mirror the Boone & Crockett Club's method, but without deducting for non-symmetry. The members who pushed for the change said SCI needed to "speak a common language." In Europe, the CIC measures antlered game by submerging antlers in water to measure displacement, then adds points for such things as "beauty." The Rowland Ward system based in Africa has its own unique system, as does Thompson Temple's exotic book in Texas, and a record book in Australia/New Zealand. Incidentally, not all clubs with record books are actively involved in protecting our hunting rights. Their members may be, but most of the clubs with record books do not get involved in political issues to protect hunters' rights. Only SCI proclaims that its mission is "conservation of wildlife, protection of the hunter, and education of the public." Bill Quimby Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
