It looks to me more like judging figure skating, than measuring the time to travel 100 m.
Why don't they just use the gross score and let hunters, and antler geeks etc. choose their favorites based on visual appeal.
Between this story and the rompola fiasco, isn't the entire notion of world records based on antler development completely flawed.
I am really liking the focus of the members here. Get a big mature buck. Antler size almost seems like a secondary consideration. I really like the slob concept.
Having arrived to deer hunting from a sport fishing background where records are based upon measured weights of specimen, (and not the proportion of head to body length for example), it seems completely strange to be first determining if one part of the animal is symmetrical enough to fall into a certain category and then proceed to reduce its score based on theoretical perfection. Perfection of course is entirely dependent on the eye of the beholder.
Just a newbies perspective. It's hard for me to understand all of the drama surrounding the king and rompola bucks, given the subjective basis of the methods of measuring net antler scores. Even experts disagree with the meadure of antler length.
[ Post made via iPhone ]
