Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2014, 11:29:09 PM
Post by: bowhunterwa87 on November 16, 2014, 11:45:08 PM
Post by: RB on November 16, 2014, 11:56:30 PM
Post by: csaaphill on November 16, 2014, 11:56:59 PM
The one small one one, or eyeguard that side isn't at least an inch long so no.
Broke off tine looks as if it could of been two points at one time but not now.
so by WDFW's description is that all points or the point that is to be used to make it a 4pt 3pt 2pt whatever has to be at least an inch long.
eyeguard isnt it's only about a 1/4 inch long even counting the broke tine as one it would still only go a 3x3
3x2 to me though.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 17, 2014, 01:00:21 AM
When I hunted in New Mexico some locals told me "if you can hang a ring on it, then its a point." :o
Post by: Bango skank on November 17, 2014, 04:22:05 AM
Post by: grundy53 on November 17, 2014, 04:49:59 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 17, 2014, 05:11:56 AM
Post by: zwickeyman on November 17, 2014, 05:26:42 AM
Post by: Bango skank on November 17, 2014, 05:50:39 AM
This will be interesting. First off I disagree with the rule of the point has to be an inch to count, the buck has an eye guard and the main beam that got broke was clearly over an additional inch long at some point. The buck should be legal under the four point rule but is he ?????
You disagree with the rule that a point has to be an inch to count? It says it very clearly in the regs, even has a little picture to go with it. And "was" an inch is speculative and irrelevant. It has to be an inch.
Post by: runningboard on November 17, 2014, 06:02:48 AM
I don't see four points on either side. That eye guard looks too small to be 1.0"+that is how some people used to define a point, just like some people don't count eye guards cause that's what gramps said.
When I hunted in New Mexico some locals told me "if you can hang a ring on it, then its a point." :o
on topic, I'd say nope
Post by: Ripper on November 17, 2014, 06:31:14 AM
Post by: Band on November 17, 2014, 07:43:13 AM
Post by: h20hunter on November 17, 2014, 07:46:48 AM
On the hoof, with only optics to judge, I think you pass on that shot because I just don't see how you could know for sure.
Post by: fireweed on November 17, 2014, 07:48:34 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on November 17, 2014, 07:55:15 AM
Post by: WALLEYEGUY on November 17, 2014, 07:58:06 AM
Post by: kukusya on November 17, 2014, 08:00:08 AM
Post by: h20hunter on November 17, 2014, 08:02:31 AM
Post by: quadrafire on November 17, 2014, 08:04:11 AM
I think on the ground with tape to confirm point lenghts, yes he might be legal.I voted no, but this is a good description of my thoughts
On the hoof, with only optics to judge, I think you pass on that shot because I just don't see how you could know for sure.
Post by: wheels on November 17, 2014, 08:07:42 AM
Post by: jasnt on November 17, 2014, 08:16:32 AM
For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not. not legal.
not legal
Post by: MtnMuley on November 17, 2014, 08:19:50 AM
Post by: CJ1962 on November 17, 2014, 08:26:20 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 17, 2014, 08:29:05 AM
Post by: Curly on November 17, 2014, 08:47:40 AM
Definitely not legal in a 4 pt minimum area.:yeah:
Hard to even call that little bump an eye guard. :twocents:
Post by: Mike450r on November 17, 2014, 10:41:41 AM
Definitely three legal points on each side. It is the little nubbin of an eye guard where it turns into a maybe for me. I believe the longer than it is wide rule is for determining a branch, not a point so the broken tine is a legal point.
I have seen them measure and that eye guard is close enough to a WDFW inch that I am going with maybe legal. But looking through my scope I am not pulling the trigger and waiting for a measurement.
Post by: Rainier10 on November 17, 2014, 11:48:45 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 17, 2014, 12:08:14 PM
Post by: whackmaster on November 17, 2014, 12:15:42 PM
Post by: TopOfTheFoodChain on November 17, 2014, 12:48:54 PM
Post by: boneaddict on November 17, 2014, 01:00:14 PM
Post by: baldopepper on November 17, 2014, 01:06:11 PM
Post by: Big game archer on November 17, 2014, 02:23:22 PM
Post by: h20hunter on November 17, 2014, 02:26:35 PM
Post by: Stein on November 17, 2014, 02:33:18 PM
Post by: Curly on November 17, 2014, 02:36:11 PM
Here are some definitions from the 2014 WDFW regulation pamphlet:
Antler Point-Deer: A projection off any part of the antler measuring at least one (1) inch in length measured from the longest side. Eye guards are antler points if they are at least one inch long.
Four Point Minimum Buck: Any buck deer with at least four antler points on one antler is legal.
Post by: Curly on November 17, 2014, 02:42:10 PM
I suspect Bearpaw will come on here and say the buck is a 4-point. I suspect that the eye-guard could be 1-inch long if it is measured from the longest side (the side closest to the skull) then it could be said that if measured from where the point originates on the main beam, it may be 1-inch to the tip. If it is, it probably is just barely or exactly 1-inch.
But, with that said........no way would I shoot that buck thinking it was a legal buck. You would never know it is legal without killing it first and laying a tape on it (and even then, I suspect some creative measuring is required). :twocents:
Post by: cryder on November 17, 2014, 04:55:23 PM
Post by: blacktailer on November 17, 2014, 08:14:51 PM
Post by: bobdog86 on November 17, 2014, 08:23:30 PM
Post by: duckmen1 on November 17, 2014, 08:24:48 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on November 17, 2014, 08:38:00 PM
This will be interesting. First off I disagree with the rule of the point has to be an inch to count, the buck has an eye guard and the main beam that got broke was clearly over an additional inch long at some point. The buck should be legal under the four point rule but is he ?????I also think he is legal, that broken point will have a measurement for scoring. It looks like a 4x3 to me. I personally wouldn't shoot it, but if I had to bet on it I'm going with legal.
Post by: Seahawk12 on November 17, 2014, 08:42:09 PM
I wouldn't shoot it, because in the field, at the critical moment, I would have a doubt. That is to answer the unasked question.
Nice looking boy though.
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 17, 2014, 08:42:25 PM
Post by: splitshot on November 17, 2014, 08:53:40 PM
I don't hunt 4 pt areas, but have a b & c measurer look at it for the finale. it is legal but I would not shoot it, cuz I like money to stay in my pocket. mike w
Post by: Jamieb on November 17, 2014, 08:56:37 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on November 17, 2014, 09:38:51 PM
Huckleberry quality buck tag is any white tail buck, in a 4 point or better unit. So circumstances dictate what is legal and what is not.
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 12:14:36 PM
Post by: jackmaster on November 19, 2014, 12:16:35 PM
Post by: CoryTDF on November 19, 2014, 12:21:38 PM
For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not. not legal.
Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that????? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.
Post by: whackmaster on November 19, 2014, 12:21:59 PM
Post by: Mike450r on November 19, 2014, 12:35:23 PM
For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not. not legal.
Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that????? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.
I would have to look at the definition to be 100% but I think the "longer than it is wide" has to do with the definition of a branch, not a point. For instance in a 3 pt elk GMU the branch has to be above the ears and for the branch above the ears to be a legal branch by definition it must be longer than it is wide.
Post by: Rainier10 on November 19, 2014, 12:47:27 PM
Post by: CoryTDF on November 19, 2014, 12:49:36 PM
For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not. not legal.
Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that????? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.
I would have to look at the definition to be 100% but I think the "longer than it is wide" has to do with the definition of a branch, not a point. For instance in a 3 pt elk GMU the branch has to be above the ears and for the branch above the ears to be a legal branch by definition it must be longer than it is wide.
All I see in the regs is 1'' from it's longest side. That said from most WDFW guys I know as long as its really close they usually would let it slide unless there were other circumstances that might make them be picky. like I said I don’t think i would have shot this buck as I’m not one to gamble. Most game wardens that I have encountered are not going to hammer you on something like this unless you have given them reason to. Not to say they should let people break the clearly posted laws but there is a bit of discretion that is in the wardens hands. I would be pretty shocked if a warden was to say ticket a kid that was to have harvested this buck in a 4pt area. Anybody can look at this buck and see that it is so close that at least an attempt to be within the regulations was made. Sometimes ¼ of an inch is not worth ruining a kids day and possibly attitude about hunting. Now if it was my kid/wife/grandpa/ friend I would have strongly suggested that that person not shoot this buck. I do however believe in being accountable for your actions so if a ticket was to be issued in the eyes of the law it would be justified. Sometimes, however, the greater good can be served with just a little bit of lenancy.
Post by: Curly on November 19, 2014, 12:51:39 PM
I am dying for Dale to post what the real answer is and if it would be legal or not. Should be interesting for sure and what the justification is behind it either way.
Check out Reply #48. ;)
Post by: bearpaw on November 19, 2014, 01:06:57 PM
The eye guard was only 3/4 of an inch, the buck would not be legal in a 4 pt area under the 4 pt rules. I would never have taken a chance at shooting that buck if it would have been in a 4 pt area.
Post by: csaaphill on November 19, 2014, 02:49:19 PM
The eye guard was only 3/4 of an inch, the buck would not be legal in a 4 pt area under the 4 pt rules. I would never have taken a chance at shooting that buck if it would have been in a 4 pt area.:yeah:
knew that was the case
Post by: blacktailer on November 19, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
Post by: fishnfur on November 19, 2014, 10:22:24 PM
We have lots of opinions and it is apparent that while most agree that this is not a legal 4 point, there can be no judging it without measuring the eyeguard point. Everyone keeps talking about that phantom Fish and Game Officer out there patrolling the hunting grounds ready to write a ticket for breaking the rules, but that is a once a season event down in SW WA, and that only happens during Modern Elk. Those officers seem more intent on checking for Discover Passes on the road than going out in the field to see what is really going on. Makes you wonder what all that money you paid for when you bought your hunting license actually goes to. Certainly not improving the hunting in Western WA. I am aware that there are really no 4 point restricted areas west of the Cascades, but there are GMUs with similar type restrictions, but requiring fewer points.
I believe it is very worthwhile that people strongly consider their decisions before they dust that buck standing before them. Sadly, I believe that many hunters are not that worried about "the rules" and interpret them to whatever level their personal values suggest at that moment. I'd love to hear Bearpaws interpretation for this buck.
Just my two cents.
Post by: Bango skank on November 19, 2014, 10:25:55 PM
For the broken chunk of main beam to count as a point it would have to not only be an inch, which it probably is, but would have to be longer than it is wide, which it most definitely is not. not legal.
Are you talking about a scoreable point or a legal point? The regulations say nothing about that????? I understand this is true for a scoreable point but to me that is a legal point. I would likely pass on this buck but it looks like it is legal to me. Just barley but I think it makes it. I would need better angles and lots of time to make the decision to shoot though.
You are right, I was wrong. I guess i got my "scoreable" and "legal" definitions blended there a bit.
Post by: steeleywhopper on November 19, 2014, 10:31:48 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 20, 2014, 12:50:30 AM
So Bearpaw, is there a definitive answer for your poll? I begin to doubt that there is. Without having the deer on the ground, it is all conjecture. My take on that buck is that it was probably a 4 point with a small eyeguard that may or may not have been an inch long. The broken section of the left antler certainly looks like it was tending towards a split that likely was two separate points. Since those points are no longer there, they no longer count more that just a single point would.
We have lots of opinions and it is apparent that while most agree that this is not a legal 4 point, there can be no judging it without measuring the eyeguard point. Everyone keeps talking about that phantom Fish and Game Officer out there patrolling the hunting grounds ready to write a ticket for breaking the rules, but that is a once a season event down in SW WA, and that only happens during Modern Elk. Those officers seem more intent on checking for Discover Passes on the road than going out in the field to see what is really going on. Makes you wonder what all that money you paid for when you bought your hunting license actually goes to. Certainly not improving the hunting in Western WA. I am aware that there are really no 4 point restricted areas west of the Cascades, but there are GMUs with similar type restrictions, but requiring fewer points.
I believe it is very worthwhile that people strongly consider their decisions before they dust that buck standing before them. Sadly, I believe that many hunters are not that worried about "the rules" and interpret them to whatever level their personal values suggest at that moment. I'd love to hear Bearpaws interpretation for this buck.
Just my two cents.
The eye guard was only 3/4 of an inch, the buck would not be legal in a 4 pt area under the 4 pt rules. I would never have taken a chance at shooting that buck if it would have been in a 4 pt area.
We measured with a tape measure. It would not be legal in a 4 pt area due to the eye guard being 1/4" short. Just looking at the buck I would never advise anyone to shoot that buck in a 4 pt area, it is not worth risking a miscalculation. Because the eye guard is short it is irrelevant whether the main beam is a legal point or not. But if the eye guard was 1" long I think the buck would have been legal because the long side of the main beam extended about an inch.
Post by: Rainier10 on November 20, 2014, 08:50:32 AM
I am dying for Dale to post what the real answer is and if it would be legal or not. Should be interesting for sure and what the justification is behind it either way.
Check out Reply #48. ;)
Doh! Thanks. ;)
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 20, 2014, 09:03:43 AM
Just FYI -
Here are some definitions from the 2014 WDFW regulation pamphlet:
Antler Point-Deer: A projection off any part of the antler measuring at least one (1) inch in length measured from the longest side. Eye guards are antler points if they are at least one inch long.
Four Point Minimum Buck: Any buck deer with at least four antler points on one antler is legal.
Not sure about Washington, but in Alaska a point has to be at least 1 inch long and longer than it is wide or it's not a point. On deer, that usually isn't an issue, but with moose and caribou some times it can be.
Post by: MuleDeer on November 20, 2014, 09:29:54 AM
How is that busted main beam considered a point, that thing looks nowhere to be an inch long? I guess some guys inch is a little different than mine..The fact that the main beam is busted close to a tine is irrelevant. You measure the main beam from the pedicle, meaning that "point", the main beam, is probably in the 14"-16" range. Hard to tell from the picture, but it most definitely is a legal "point". Kinda like a trick question on how you count that as a point, but you measure a point on it's longest side. So start at the base and measure along the outside...that's the length of the main beam "point".