Gross or net??

Which do you prefer, Net or Gross score?

  • Total voters
    88
MD4U

MD4U

Member
Messages
44
My 2023 buck grossed 226 5/8 "official" and netted 13 2/8" less. Who goes by gross and who goes by net? My opinion, even before getting this deer is nets are for fishing. Score was B/C too. I know there are a few more scoring systems as well. Just wanting opinions on gross, net, B/C, pope and young, sci etc. Not going in the book, 230" net is book for non typical anyways. Had scored just so I'd know.

Screenshot_20231108_203659_Photos.jpg


20231111_112322.jpg


20231111_112405.jpg


20231110_213150.jpg


20231111_112509.jpg


20231111_112505.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you want a higher score go with SCI, it's all about feeling good. and if you want to shoot a zoo animal in a round pen that's great too.

If you want the real score net is what matters , not your feelings or ego. that's a beautiful buck and 226 5/8 is a great score, he made the awards and almost made all time you have to be happy with that.

We can talk about how the B&C system came to be and why, or you can read about it. it's a story with a happy ending . B&C has the highest standards and the strictest policies, and when you meet the minimum it means something. congratulations.
 
The difference between us is I’m completely okay with someone wanting to enter their animal in the book, or not. It’s their decision and what I think is irrelevant. The sooner you learn the same the better!

Just don’t claim ego and then start talking about a record book score. That’s stupid.
 
Togwotee said:
If you want a higher score go with SCI, it's all about feeling good. and if you want to shoot a zoo animal in a round pen that's great too.

If you want the real score net is what matters , not your feelings or ego. that's a beautiful buck and 226 5/8 is a great score, he made the awards and almost made all time you have to be happy with that.

We can talk about how the B&C system came to be and why, or you can read about it. it's a story with a happy ending . B&C has the highest standards and the strictest policies, and when you meet the minimum it means something. congratulations.
Click to expand...
I agree with your approach to the two scoring organizations Tog. I have my own scoring system.

I follow the theory and the rules of harvest of B&C but like muley_73 commented. I want to recognize the total inches of antler, so I want to know and honor the animal for its total antler grow. BUT I love aesthetics and natural symmetry. I understands B&C decision to choose natural symmetry as its top scoring priority. HOWEVER, I prefer to credit total total inches. The bottomline, in my scoring is to honor both equally. Recognizing the ranking of one set of antlers against another is probably impossible under my system, but because is only my system and no one else’s, that’s not a problem for me.
 
Last edited:
elkassassin said:
Hey Gan?

He Lose A Few Inches Since January?

Dang Nice Buck!
Click to expand...
Yes, the score when I got him was buddies scoring him in my shop, pretty sure I said, "unofficial" but I'd have to go back and look. I took him to an oficial B/C scorer because I wanted to know.
 
MD4U said:
Yes, the score when I got him was buddies scoring him in my shop, pretty sure I said, "unofficial" but I'd have to go back and look. I took him to an oficial B/C scorer because I wanted to know.
Click to expand...
Heck ya, nothing wrong with knowing.
 
Togwotee said:
If you want a higher score go with SCI, it's all about feeling good. and if you want to shoot a zoo animal in a round pen that's great too.

If you want the real score net is what matters , not your feelings or ego. that's a beautiful buck and 226 5/8 is a great score, he made the awards and almost made all time you have to be happy with that.

We can talk about how the B&C system came to be and why, or you can read about it. it's a story with a happy ending . B&C has the highest standards and the strictest policies, and when you meet the minimum it means something. congratulations.
Click to expand...
Honestly, nothing to do with ego here. Ive always just said what a deer grossed. Until I got this one. 226 5/8 or 213 3/8 is a big damm deer. Net or gross. Im more curious to what everyone considers score on here. The B/C scorers that scored him couldn't give 2 shits about gross, net was only thing they considered, I get it, but I cant help but think, if the deer grew it, score it. Hanging around the scorers really did open me up to that way of thinking and the standards that B/C holds to. It was interesting and eye opening.
 
Vanilla said:
The difference between us is I’m completely okay with someone wanting to enter their animal in the book, or not. It’s their decision and what I think is irrelevant. The sooner you learn the same the better!

Just don’t claim ego and then start talking about a record book score. That’s stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm not the book nazi, I never said anyone has to enter anything. I said if you make it into B&C that means something because it's the highest measure of North American game.

I have several entries but the one that I treasure most has nothing to do with ego. it's about gratitude to past hunters and my pride in carrying on their work. I took a bison that made B&C, one of the first species the Boone and Crockett club as well as most Americans assumed would be long extinct. to me that's the ultimate representation of hunting today. fair chase hunting public land on a draw tag for a species that should not exist. testament to the efforts of my heroes , TR , George Bird Grinnell, Aldo Leupold and so many others still today put into preservation. recording the very best specimens for a historical record may not be as important today as it was a century ago, but I think it's pretty fantastic we still can.
 
Togwotee said:
I'm not the book nazi, I never said anyone has to enter anything. I said if you make it into B&C that means something because it's the highest measure of North American game.

I have several entries but the one that I treasure most has nothing to do with ego. it's about gratitude to past hunters and my pride in carrying on their work. I took a bison that made B&C, one of the first species the Boone and Crockett club as well as most Americans assumed would be long extinct. to me that's the ultimate representation of hunting today. fair chase hunting public land on a draw tag for a species that should not exist. testament to the efforts of my heroes , TR , George Bird Grinnell, Aldo Leupold and so many others still today put into preservation. recording the very best specimens for a historical record may not be as important today as it was a century ago, but I think it's pretty fantastic we still can.
Click to expand...
I've often wondered why B&C takes entries for bison from a ranch just south of Gillette, Wy?
 
The record book is really about science and data collected about animals over a long period of time. Whether you like B and C or Pope and young everyone uses their scoring system. If you didn’t have Net you wouldn’t have a Typical Category. Net is for paper though, I believe most everyone boosts Gross Score. When someone asks you how wide that Buck is do you tell them the truth that it’s only 25” between the main beams or do you tell them it’s 34” from cheater to cheater. It would be easier to go back to the 30” Buck!
 
Let's be honest...it's ALL about ego.

Whether you're the guy saying "I got my buck!" "Not big, but you can't eat the antlers..." Or the guy entering a world record. It's ALL about ego to some degree.

I feel like it's the guys with the biggest ego that can't admit they have an ego...
 
MD4U said:
My 2023 buck grossed 226 5/8 "official" and netted 13 2/8" less. Who goes by gross and who goes by net? My opinion, even before getting this deer is nets are for fishing. Score was B/C too. I know there are a few more scoring systems as well. Just wanting opinions on gross, net, B/C, pope and young, sci etc. Not going in the book, 230" net is book for non typical anyways. Had scored just so I'd know.

View attachment 137619

View attachment 137620

View attachment 137621

View attachment 137622

View attachment 137623

View attachment 137624
Click to expand...
Amazing buck! Congrats!

Bucks like that the score doesn't matter much. There are bucks that will score better that I'd run past to shoot your buck.
 
I've never understood why you would have a net score on a nontypical. Just never made sense.

This buck is a prime example, just because he didn't really grow a g4 on one side he is docked a ton of inches. But your already adding in a ton of extra stuff.

That, and the spread of inside the main beams? If width is a desirable characteristic then why limit it to some arbitrary point in the antlers? Just never made sense. I still follow the rules while measuring, but those just never made sense to me.

But at this point it's to late to change it, so it is what it is.
 
I sure like the way those horns look almost like an elk the way the points are with the point in between the front and back forks..
Very nice buck congrats
 
JakeH said:
I've never understood why you would have a net score on a nontypical. Just never made sense.

This buck is a prime example, just because he didn't really grow a g4 on one side he is docked a ton of inches. But your already adding in a ton of extra stuff.

That, and the spread of inside the main beams? If width is a desirable characteristic then why limit it to some arbitrary point in the antlers? Just never made sense. I still follow the rules while measuring, but those just never made sense to me.

But at this point it's to late to change it, so it is what it is.
Click to expand...
I not a historical expert on B&C but I always understood the B&C founders believed the symmetry and balance of the two sides was important, at least it was to them, so they created a system to force balance the two sides by deducting the difference in inches, from one side to the other. I guess it makes since if your coming at it from aesthetic point of view.

Just another opinion, I actually don’t know why they did it that way.
 
I've seen folks put a 2x4 between antlers to keep them spread out during the drying process! :ROFLMAO:

Score the animal, or don't. Use net or gross. I don't really care what anyone does. Do what makes you happy. It's hunting, it's supposed to be fun.

If you ever see me talk about a score, it will be gross. Nets are for fish and record books are lame. But if they make you happy, by all means, enter your name in there! I'm sure that's not about ego if you talk to some on this thread...

But for some reason not entering your own name in a book is about ego? Make it make sense folks. Make it make sense!
 
2lumpy said:
I not a historical expert on B&C but I always understood the B&C founders believed the symmetry and balance of the two sides was important, at least it was to them, so they created a system to force balance the two sides by deducting the difference in inches, from one side to the other. I guess it makes since if your coming at it from aesthetic point of view.

Just another opinion, I actually don’t know why they did it that way.
Click to expand...
All that makes sense for the typical category. But for a non typical that you are adding up every little inch, why would the difference in frame matter at all?

I've seen all the stuff about simetry and what not, and debated the purists on this matter several times. I just don't agree with it and it really makes no sense to me.

But like I said it's not like you can go changing things now, as one of the top dogs for Pope and Young told me, if you don't like it start your own system. But that's really not very feasible at this time since they kinda have the market locked up. It is what it is at this point. The best we have to go off of at this point, and to me a good way to standardize how big a buck is, is with the gross score. So that is what I will reference but I also alway say it is a gross score.
 
Vanilla said:
I've seen folks put a 2x4 between antlers to keep them spread out during the drying process! :ROFLMAO:

Score the animal, or don't. Use net or gross. I don't really care what anyone does. Do what makes you happy. It's hunting, it's supposed to be fun.

If you ever see me talk about a score, it will be gross. Nets are for fish and record books are lame. But if they make you happy, by all means, enter your name in there! I'm sure that's not about ego if you talk to some on this thread...

But for some reason not entering your own name in a book is about ego? Make it make sense folks. Make it make sense!
Click to expand...
Get ya, coming or going, pretty crafty operation Vanilla. 😉
 
Last edited:
JakeH said:
All that makes sense for the typical category. But for a non typical that you are adding up every little inch, why would the difference in frame matter at all?

I've seen all the stuff about simetry and what not, and debated the purists on this matter several times. I just don't agree with it and it really makes no sense to me.

But like I said it's not like you can go changing things now, as one of the top dogs for Pope and Young told me, if you don't like it start your own system. But that's really not very feasible at this time since they kinda have the market locked up. It is what it is at this point. The best we have to go off of at this point, and to me a good way to standardize how big a buck is, is with the gross score. So that is what I will reference but I also alway say it is a gross score.
Click to expand...
I’m a sucker for trying to figure out way things are the way they are, so I’ve been known to beat dead horses, for my own curiosity.

So…….. let’s speculate a little. The guys the started B&C, more or less, believed symmetry was high on their list of desirable characteristics. Possible as equally desirable as total inches. So that was their first scoring format. Then when it came to scoring the nontypical, they counted all the inches but then………… wanted to see what it would score if they removed the non typical inches, so they could compare the main four point frame, of a nontypical (without its extra inches) to a typical.

There has to be a reason they did what they did. but it would take more research to know why.
 
Last edited:
Actually the system wasn't set up for hunters at all. the goal was to have a comprehensive record of these animals so today we could look at the data and see what an extinct bison, elk , pronghorn or whatever was like and what the species standard was. they also took the best examples and put them at the museum for future generations.

From what I could find on the Durham Ranch the bulls there are not eligible for B&C. all they mention is Safari Club. that happens a lot , people hear " record book " and they think B&C when it's really SCI . but it's apples and Tuesday.
 
I always state a Gross Score. I used to think that a NET score seemed scientific in some way, like gathering data on symmetry within species. But, when you think about that notion for even a moment, you realize that on many species, if you wanted a measurement of symmetry, you should also be measuring distances between points, like some kind of spacing measurement. Since the NET score misses the mark with what its supposed to be documenting (symmetry), I don't think there is any reason to use it when describing an animal.

Dipping antlers into water and measuring the displacement would be the best way to determine just how big antlers are, IMO.
 
Just RAZZIN Ya!

It's Still A Dang Nice Buck!

MD4U said:
Yes, the score when I got him was buddies scoring him in my shop, pretty sure I said, "unofficial" but I'd have to go back and look. I took him to an oficial B/C scorer because I wanted to know.
Click to expand...
 
Whatever you think about score, gross or net or record books period. I think the B & C club deserves a hell of a lot of credit for some things.

FAIR CHASE, as defined by the Boone and Crockett Club, is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals.
 
III. Use of electronic communication devices (2-way radios, cell phones, etc.) to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities (including smart scopes), drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls, or the use of any technology that delivers real-time location data (including photos) to target or guide a hunter to any species or animal in a manner that elicits an immediate (real-time) response by the hunter.

Technological advancement in hunting equipment is a natural progression of our desire to be successful and effective in harvesting game. Some technologies take unfair advantage of an animal no matter how they are used. For others, it depends on the manner in which the hunter uses the technology.

  • The Club believes that having another person on the other end of a two-way radio or cell phone to help locate or guide a hunter to game is not Fair Chase
 
Togwotee said:
From what I could find on the Durham Ranch the bulls there are not eligible for B&C. all they mention is Safari Club. that happens a lot , people hear " record book " and they think B&C when it's really SCI . but it's apples and Tuesday.
Click to expand...
Well they were in B&C books for a long time, So I guess I didn't hear "record book" and make a mistake with SCI. Apparently someone finally called them out on putting high fence bison in their records. It kind of makes me question how they operate. This page shows at least three from Gillette, Wy where the Durham ranch is.
429101299_1625028341651313_3483987901089990565_n.jpg
 
As nets are for fish, gross is for ego (or alternatively, for fish guts). In reality, neither of the words "net" nor "gross" appear on a Boone & Crockett score form. Just a "final score".

BooneMuley.jpg
 
Betterluckythangood said:
III. Use of electronic communication devices (2-way radios, cell phones, etc.) to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities (including smart scopes), drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls, or the use of any technology that delivers real-time location data (including photos) to target or guide a hunter to any species or animal in a manner that elicits an immediate (real-time) response by the hunter.

Technological advancement in hunting equipment is a natural progression of our desire to be successful and effective in harvesting game. Some technologies take unfair advantage of an animal no matter how they are used. For others, it depends on the manner in which the hunter uses the technology.

  • The Club believes that having another person on the other end of a two-way radio or cell phone to help locate or guide a hunter to game is not Fair Chase
Click to expand...
This probably disqualifies most every good buck taken on the Wasatch front extended and Henry’s archery hunt the last five years. Just sayin
 
JakeH said:
All that makes sense for the typical category. But for a non typical that you are adding up every little inch, why would the difference in frame matter at all?

I've seen all the stuff about simetry and what not, and debated the purists on this matter several times. I just don't agree with it and it really makes no sense to me.

But like I said it's not like you can go changing things now, as one of the top dogs for Pope and Young told me, if you don't like it start your own system. But that's really not very feasible at this time since they kinda have the market locked up. It is what it is at this point. The best we have to go off of at this point, and to me a good way to standardize how big a buck is, is with the gross score. So that is what I will reference but I also alway say it is a gross score.
Click to expand...
That's why they have sci. It focuses more on total inches.
 
Whatever Happened To Guys That Were Trying To Get That Other Scoring System Going Where They Dunk The Antlers In Water & Measure By Volume Of Antler?

Yes Niller!

It Was Brought Up!

You Don't Have To Believe It Though!
 
Betterluckythangood said:
III. Use of electronic communication devices (2-way radios, cell phones, etc.) to guide hunters to game, artificial lighting, electronic light intensifying devices (night vision optics), sights with built-in electronic range-finding capabilities (including smart scopes), drones/unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), thermal imaging equipment, electronic game calls, or the use of any technology that delivers real-time location data (including photos) to target or guide a hunter to any species or animal in a manner that elicits an immediate (real-time) response by the hunter.

Technological advancement in hunting equipment is a natural progression of our desire to be successful and effective in harvesting game. Some technologies take unfair advantage of an animal no matter how they are used. For others, it depends on the manner in which the hunter uses the technology.

  • The Club believes that having another person on the other end of a two-way radio or cell phone to help locate or guide a hunter to game is not Fair Chase
Click to expand...
I guess you don't play golf:D. Just messing with ya. But I would have to guess not everyone follows these rules.
 
Fair chase can be defined differently than what B&C describes. Example...illegal to shoot a deer from a vehicle in most states, thus disqualified from BC fair chase. But it's perfectly fine from a high rack in Mexico? Another thing...aren't any inside spread credits, just measuring air? I'll still take a net score, gross is for fish guts.
 
I’d go with gross for non-typical bucks. Count every bit of antler on freaky bucks. If we’re talking typical bucks, symmetry is cool so I go with net score.
 
buckspotter7 said:
I’d go with gross for non-typical bucks. Count every bit of antler on freaky bucks. If we’re talking typical bucks, symmetry is cool so I go with net score.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.
A few years ago I killed a Muley that gross scored 218 non typical. However, his net non typical score is only 205. I know how the B&C scoring system works but It’s hard for me to wrap my head around that.
Why officially score a buck as a 205 when he really scores 218?
 
Last edited:
buckhorn said:
I agree with you.
A few years ago I killed a Muley that gross scored 218 non typical. However, his net non typical score is only 205. I know how the B&C scoring system works but It’s hard for me to wrap my head around that.
Why officially enter a buck as a 205 when he really scores 218?
Click to expand...
Makes about as much sense as a typical with no extras that grossed 205 but nets 195.
 
JakeH said:
Makes about as much sense as a typical with no extras that grossed 205 but nets 195.
Click to expand...
Yep that’s a shame that those additional 10 inches don’t get recognized. But still a 195 net is a very impressive Typical. Especially with good mass!
 
I always just use gross because I only use score to quantify size when describing an animal. If I had the desire to participate in official records, I would care about net score a lot more because that is the rules of the game and the widely accepted standard of measuring for the record books. -SS
 
jm77 said:
Well they were in B&C books for a long time, So I guess I didn't hear "record book" and make a mistake with SCI. Apparently someone finally called them out on putting high fence bison in their records. It kind of makes me question how they operate. This page shows at least three from Gillette, Wy where the Durham ranch is.View attachment 137724
Click to expand...
 
I don't know when or where they were taken or under what circumstances.

What I do know is there are 13 herds the B&C qualifies for entry. the only herd in WY is adjacent to Yellowstone Park in Teton county.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

FB1A0610-B2F0-4BFA-82EE-3DABC7347F5F.jpeg
99 buck.jpg
What does this one score?
Screenshot_20230117_155646_Instagram.jpg
Another Pic of the 2008 Buck
IMG_7742 copy copy.jpg
Screenshot_20230117_155742_Instagram.jpg
image3.JPG
0217221300a.jpg
6x7.jpg
Screenshot_20160813-212712_1471175610376.png
IMG_0177.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom