Post by: Doublelunger on May 08, 2017, 09:23:13 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,141808.0.html
I didn't do a write up on the 2015 buck. He was a roller coaster ride of events that included blind ass luck, a bad shot, and a very long track/recovery. Both bucks were general season, archery, and public land. Both scored in the low to mid 160's. I doubt I'll ever top either of these two deer but I'm going to try!
Post by: jackelope on May 08, 2017, 10:14:48 AM
Post by: full choke on May 08, 2017, 10:19:13 AM
Awesome!
Post by: emac on May 08, 2017, 10:32:21 AM
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: Timberstalker on May 08, 2017, 11:49:20 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 08, 2017, 12:00:17 PM
Post by: bulldogs40 on May 08, 2017, 03:40:44 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on May 08, 2017, 03:52:01 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Rainier10 on May 08, 2017, 03:58:23 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on May 08, 2017, 03:58:38 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on May 08, 2017, 04:09:29 PM
Post by: Wolfdog2314 on May 08, 2017, 06:00:08 PM
Post by: go4steelhd on May 08, 2017, 06:25:58 PM
Post by: Doublelunger on May 08, 2017, 06:26:46 PM
Very impressive are they both washington bucks and dis you get them in tje same general area. Kinda have some of the same characteristics. But congrats on 2 bucks of a life time
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Ya both Washington bucks. And they were taken in two different areas believe it or not...I get asked that question a lot.
Post by: snake on May 08, 2017, 08:18:24 PM
Post by: bowhunterwa87 on May 08, 2017, 08:24:05 PM
Post by: Dan-o on May 08, 2017, 08:59:00 PM
p.s. Zammers!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Doublelunger on May 09, 2017, 07:59:29 AM
they sure look like they would both gross more than 160" theres a lot of bone on their heads.
I know, I've though the same thing but they were both officially scored at the Spokane bighorn show. The pictures make them look a little bigger than they are, they both actually have small compact frames. I believe that my 2013 buck grossed 162 7/8" and netted around 153...which doesn't even make Pope & Young. The 2015 buck grossed 164 1/8" and netted around 159" so he was Pope & Young. Sometimes I feel like score doesn't really reflect or portray how awesome an animal really is and I feel like both of these buck are a good example of that.
Post by: Doublelunger on May 09, 2017, 08:02:13 AM
What do you have against a nice, typical buck?
p.s. Zammers!!!!!!!!!
Haha ya I'm getting tired of shooting these freaks :chuckle:. I'm going to pass on bucks like this from here on out in hopes of getting a nice typical!
Post by: muleracks on May 09, 2017, 11:40:36 AM
I know you're just being modest. Congratulations; amazing bucks.
Post by: snake on May 09, 2017, 08:18:17 PM
I feel the same way, especially if people talk net score. In my opinion you should never deduct from an animal period.they sure look like they would both gross more than 160" theres a lot of bone on their heads.
I know, I've though the same thing but they were both officially scored at the Spokane bighorn show. The pictures make them look a little bigger than they are, they both actually have small compact frames. I believe that my 2013 buck grossed 162 7/8" and netted around 153...which doesn't even make Pope & Young. The 2015 buck grossed 164 1/8" and netted around 159" so he was Pope & Young. Sometimes I feel like score doesn't really reflect or portray how awesome an animal really is and I feel like both of these buck are a good example of that.
Post by: Watimberghost on May 09, 2017, 08:28:14 PM
Post by: greenhead_killer on May 09, 2017, 09:21:31 PM
Post by: tgomez on May 11, 2017, 02:27:10 PM
Post by: Vandal44 on May 15, 2017, 05:47:06 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on May 15, 2017, 08:59:55 AM
Beau, If you don't think you're a great hunter, you are kidding your self.Thank you very much for the compliment, however these aren't mine. I'm green with envy :)
I know you're just being modest. Congratulations; amazing bucks.
Post by: zackmioli on May 16, 2017, 10:52:25 PM