Record Books?

[guesswho]

What are your thoughts on record books for scoring animals?

[hookedspur]

I want the whole story

[BOFF]

Not sure how to answer that one.

I always thought a hunter's smile in the picture, the measure of his heart, and his intent, was a great way to judge an animal.

Great to have the record of what animals may produce, just for comparison, and the places they were killed. As for the hunter's name, or mine being identified with the animal, I could care less.


God Bless,
David B.

[Hognutz]

I agree with Hookedspur. If it is a record, I want to know who did it.

[TnTurk]

I agree with Hookedspur. If it is a record, I want to know who did it.

x2

[guesswho]

I think they should omit the hunters name.  But if they did that there probably wouldn't be many critters that would get entered.   

[barry]

I think they should omit the hunters name.  But if they did that there probably wouldn't be many critters that would get entered.   

Maybe leave it up to the hunter as to whether to include his name or not.
All other info required.

[GSLAM95]

I think they should omit the hunters name.  But if they did that there probably wouldn't be many critters that would get entered.   

To each his own, there is no one forcing anyone to enter or inquire about a record or who entered it.  Good luck hunting to all who enjoy and congratulations to all who have been fortunate enough to take a superior animal that qualifies for whatever record book recording they choose to view and participate in.

[TRKYHTR]

I think it's all about the animal. Give the animal it's just due. Does that sound weird?

TRKYHTR

[turkey slayer]

I want the whole story

I agree!

[guesswho]

I think it's all about the animal. Give the animal it's just due. Does that sound weird?

TRKYHTR

Thats my thought's as well.   

[GobbleNut]

I agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed on this.  To me, it is all about the intent of the hunter.  With a close inspection of a record list, you can get a pretty good idea of whether someone is recognizing the animal they harvested, or if they are just trying to get recognition for themselves by having their names listed a bunch. 
At the same time, I am sure there are folks that have just taken a bunch of record animals that list them solely so that those animals will be recorded for posterity. 

Personally, my one listing in the record book was entirely because I thought the animal should be listed for its own sake.  If it wasn't for that, I would have never done it.

[redarrow]

I'm not much into record books for animal parts.

My thoughts too.

[VAHUNTER]

I think they should omit the hunters name.  But if they did that there probably wouldn't be many critters that would get entered.   

Maybe leave it up to the hunter as to whether to include his name or not.
All other info required.

i agree with this. around home record book quality animals are on the rise.

[handcannon]

I know when you look a state wildlife and fisheries website at the state records, it can be a good thing or a bad thing. It gives a good indication of what and where a good many record quality birds or deer have been taken. Now if your researching to do a out of state hunt, that info can be of value. If you live locally to that spot, you end up with a lot of strangers running all over you.

Giving props to a animal is what 99% of us do here by showing what we harvest. We are proud of the game we take and if it's a sho nuff biggun, I can see where getting it in the record books should happen. Now if it's some $15,000 deer that was genetically engineered on a ranch to have some nasty trash on it's head, I dont believe it should be entered. That's another subject on it's own though.