Mexico,” I replied. A discerning
look came over his face as he
studied the bull. I could tell by
his puzzled expression he ex-
pected more from a New Mex-
ico bull. His second question
chimed with a disappointed
tone in his voice, “What does
he score?”
My
inner
monologue
reeled. How dare he pass judg-
ment on that bull by asking
me that question. Did he ask
so he could prove to himself
that the bull was as “small” as
he assumed it to be? If he only
knew what mental and physi-
cal anguish I went through to
take that bull. I calmly replied,
“To be honest, I never scored
him, and I never need to. It’s
the hardest I’ve ever worked
for any animal and I’ll always
be proud of him and the ad-
venture.”
Since that hunt, I have gone
round and round with my own
realization of the concept of
“score” and what it means to
me. Now by no means, am I
anti-score but I do try very
hard to take what can be a
very complicated, multi-fac-
eted concept and look at it
from a big picture perspective.
While the process of scoring is
credible in terms of ranking,
there is definitely more to an
animal than how the inches
add up.
Today’s fast-paced so-
cial culture has, for better or
worse, spilled over into our
hunting heritage. Photos of
giant bulls and bucks can
be found all over Facebook,
Instagram, and other social
media outlets. Hunters throw
around numbers of their har-
vests to bring validity to the
animal they have taken. We as
hunters are exposed to score
and this new expectation of
what a “trophy” is at every
turn. Again, I believe there is
definitely a place and need
for scoring, but we do need to
74
WESTERN HUNTING JOURNAL
look beyond the score and not
let it define what constitutes
success; or furthermore pass
judgment on another hunter’s
success based on the score
The most widely accepted
method for scoring animals
in North America is the Boone
and Crockett method. Let’s
take a quick look back in his-
tory, long before social media
posts were updated on the In-
ternet every minute. Per the
Boone and Crockett website:
There was an obvious need
for an objective system that
could be applied by sportsmen
to their own best trophies. In
1949, Samuel B. Webb was cho-
sen to chair a special committee
to devise an equitable, objective
measurement system for the big
game of North America. The
committee worked during the
year to arrive at the system ad-
opted by the Boone and Crockett
Club in 1950.
Other than cold, hard num-
bers, the system as a whole was
originally devised on a founda-
tion of a few defining princi-
ples. The first being, outstand-
ing specimens are generally
produced from healthy herds
with good age stratification
and quality genetics. So, it was
recognized that a record class
animal generally meant the
herd was healthy and produc-
tive, which is ultimately the
goal of the fair chase sports-
men. Secondly, there was a
want and a need to recognize
truly magnificent animals.
It is important to recog-
nize that each hunter has a
different perspective on what
score means to them, and in
turn, each specific hunt has a
different expectation for what
a “trophy” is. If I am holding
a general season archery tag
in a heavily hunted area, my
expectation for what I’m look-
ing for changes dramatically.
Conversely, if I’m holding one
of the most coveted limited
entry tags in the state, my idea
of the animal I’m searching
for swings dramatically to the
other end of the spectrum. In
those two scenarios, which an-
imal should a hunter be most
proud of ? While both hunts
will be very rewarding each
with their own challenges to
overcome, anyone looking
from the outside in is often
going to recognize the higher
scoring animal as the better
trophy. Hence a more success-
ful hunt.
Growing up, my father was
a long-time taxidermist and
an official scorer for the Ore-
gon record book. I learned the
intricacies of the Boone and
Crockett system from a very
young age. Ultimately, I believe
education, or lack thereof, is
one of the most glaring issues
I have with most conversations
about what an animal may or
may not score. In fact, I find
it extremely interesting that
most people discussing score
have never pulled a tape on an
antler in their life.
The Boone and Crockett
website is a great source for
education. There, you will
find sections on field judging
animals with pie chart break-
downs that show score aspect
percentages for each species;
i.e. main beam length on a
whitetail deer makes up 30
percent of the overall score.
The website provides down-
loadable scoresheets and even
an online score calculator.
Each scoresheet has diagrams
depicting where to make each
specific measurement. Things
get slightly more complicated
when deciphering between
“gross” and “net” score. Before
getting our feathers ruffled
over the “gross” versus “net”
score topic, let’s remember a
few important points. When
we adopted this system, we
agreed to play by its rules. The
system is not “flawed,” it was
just developed a long time
ago. Another quick look back
at some history of the system
shows us the mindset and
qualities deemed desirable at
the time. Per the Boone and
Crockett website:
The scoring system depends
upon carefully taken measure-
ments of the enduring trophy
characteristics to arrive at
a numerical final score that
provides instant ranking for
all trophies of a category. By
measuring only enduring char-
acters (such as antlers, horns,
and skulls) rather than skin
length or carcass weight, the
measurements may be repeat-
ed at any later date to verify
both the measurements and the
resulting ranking in each cate-
gory. Anyone doubting the cor-
rectness of a particular trophy’s
ranking can readily prove or
disprove his own contentions by
a simple replication of the mea-
surements. The system places
heavy emphasis on symmetry,
penalizing those portions of
the measured material that are
non-symmetrical. This results
in even, well-matched trophies
scoring better and placing high-
er in the rankings than equally
developed but mismatched tro-
phies, a result that most people
readily agree with and accept.
For those antlered trophies with
unusual amounts of abnormal
antler material, non-typical
categories were developed to
give them recognition as they
would be unduly penalized in
the typical categories
As you can see, the idea of
symmetry was a quality that
was deemed very desirable at
the time the system was cre-
ated. Deductions, or inches
being subtracted from a score,
are a very difficult thing for a
hunter to watch. Maybe we
subconsciously revert back
to third grade spelling tests,
where we watched that bright
red pen deduct points from