Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Discuss deer hunting tactics, Deer behavior. Post your Hunting Stories, Pictures, and Questions/Answers.
  • Advertisement

HB Store


User avatar
stash59
Moderator
Posts: 10077
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:22 am
Location: S Central Wi.
Status: Offline

Re: Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Unread postby stash59 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:35 am

Lu Rome wrote:I think that's not what the record books are about. They were never meant to be a registry of phallic lengths. While they may be used for that, separating public and private would just amplify the issue. It's basically saying that "I did this on public land, so I'm a better hunter than you rich private land owner". That's a harsh representation of your words I know, but that's the gist and a narrative around many public land hunting circles. We don't need more division among hunters.

Let the record books be what they are, a registry of overall herd health, and quit worrying about them so much.


Originally the B&C records were to help keep track of a species overall health in a given area. If "book" animals were being killed every so often. The health of the species could be considered good in that area.

Too often the hunter killing a "book" animal is admired and thought of as an extraordinary hunter. But if you read the stories behind the majority of "book" animals taken. For most it was dumb luck or choosing a good guide.

Another thing is. Is a 3.5 year old buck with a 180" rack. Harder to kill than his 5.5 year old cousin with a 145" rack.

Like others have mentioned. Too many divisions in hunting already. Most serious hard core public land "book" buck killers would never give out where they killed their animals. Heck most don't already!!!


Happiness is a large gutpile!!!!!!!
User avatar
Boogieman1
500 Club
Posts: 6589
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 11:18 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Unread postby Boogieman1 » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:55 am

DaveT1963 wrote:
Boogieman1 wrote:
Hawthorne wrote:I just bought the Michigan big game records book recently. I thought it was pretty cool looking thru it and saw a couple beast members names in it. I think it would be pretty cool if someone did one for public land. It would take along time to pile data imo. They did one for traditional bows only. It’s called Compton. Named after the famous bowhunter will compton

Believe Compton's is more of just a documentation of animals killed with traditional equipment out of fear years later that some may claim the weapon as not effective. The records would provide decades of proof that it is a very effective weapon. Has nothing to do with any kind of scoring atleast this is my understanding.

I wouldn't mind a public hunting record book much the same. One that has nothing to do with score but just keeps track of public deer killed by state and county.

Personally feel p&y book is a joke and nothing more than a money grab to charge folks to put there name in a book that is outdated the day it's printed. I mean just look at the minimums, while it may be a very nice buck. Are we really calling a 120" buck Record Book material.


120" whitetail in some regions is a stud and probably a mature animal. Perception is reality; for those wearing the glasses. In other words our reality is framed by what we see but it may not be truth.

I understand what your saying and a 120" buck is a heck of a buck in a lot of places. But record book worthy? How many guys u know have 50 plus entries in fishing record books? It's just my opinion but I feel record books should be special and mean something if u ever get one in your lifetime. Guarantee u if p&y didn't charge a hunter to enter the qualifications would be a lot more strict. Same with the lighted nocks, realized they were losing entry money so decided to go ahead and let them enter. Again these are just my opinions but I think record books are reserved for a once in a lifetime of hard hunting type bucks. If the area translates to a 120" buck I'm fine with it. But look at Iowa and other states. Heck even hidey holes in other states u are pretty much guaranteed to meet book minimums in some areas the majority of 2.5s meet the qualifications. When I think records I think something truly special not average
Life is hard; It’s even harder if you are stupid.
-John Wayne-
User avatar
backstraps
Moderator
Posts: 10109
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:44 pm
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline

Re: Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Unread postby backstraps » Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:58 am

DaveT1963 wrote:The record books are for people: animals don't get caught up in such trivial matters.



:lol: :lol: :lol: Never heard it put that way! I like it :clap:
User avatar
cspot
500 Club
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:13 pm
Location: Western PA
Status: Offline

Re: Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Unread postby cspot » Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:31 am

No. Don't see the need. I see private land that gets more pressure than public. How would pressure in PA, MI, WI, etc compare to public land in Iowa or Kansas?

It may be neat to see, but I don't see the need to have divisions.
User avatar
Ishi Spirit
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:32 pm
Status: Offline

Re: Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Unread postby Ishi Spirit » Wed Jul 31, 2019 10:50 am

Plain and simple No!
Everyone must pick his own poison. If anyone kills a buck on public be proud of what you did.
The Spirit Lives On
Brian1986
Posts: 311
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 3:12 am
Location: Ohio
Status: Offline

Re: Should Record Books be Divided into Public Land & Private Land Divisions?

Unread postby Brian1986 » Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:44 pm

I could care less about records myself nor hunter notoriety. But for a new kid trying to learn where does he get his information? Point being the Hunting Beast is a great resource. But how many people know about it? The youtube page has 18k subscribers. How many people dont have access to private land, yet tactics spoken about in mainstream hunting are almost exclusively private land based? And my point about Myles Keller was in the 80s because guys weren't "growing" deer, instead a hunter who consistently got it done on a large buck stood out. Rack size seemed directly related to age class and skill level then. I'm not knocking private land hunters nor was i making it a statement about one side being better than another. For a private land owner I can see benefit from watching the Drury's manage their properties. But Im not sure the public land only guy gets much from it. Maybe a book division doesn't achieve the goal? I'd selfishly like there to be far less hunters, less competition on public land. But I know with less hunters there's less of us to have our voices heard to keep hunting alive. The THP guys have spoken about how there's a yearly trend of hunter numbers decreasing. Is it because of access? Is it because of lack of education? Is it because kids would rather play Fortnite? Is it because new hunters expect an experience like on television and become discouraged and disinterested? Just trying to think outside the box.


  • Advertisement

Return to “Deer Hunting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests