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!!!