Indicate the lowest scoring deer you consider to be a Monsterbuck?

[fly]

There have been threads like this in the past, but it's interesting to me to see how the standards change over time.

[PotashRLS]

The higher the Gross Score, the bigger the Monster!!

[wtnhunt]

No right or wrong to this one, but will be interesting for sure. All relative to where you are hunting and subject totally to opinion. Guess I have to go with what I spect to call a monster out of the backyard?

For the backyard anything over 120 is a darned good deer. Would consider anything over 130 here to be a monster.

If I were hunting somewhere else that obviously would change.

[need2hunt]

Around here a 115-120 is probably a 2 year old.

Depending on the deer a 130-139 is a good deer

140-159 is a shooter and

160+ is a monster

Oh yeah and net is for fish! Lol

[Ethan Givan]

Anything over 120 is a good buck, anything over 140 is a big buck and anything that nets over 160 is a monster.

[Ravin R10 man]

for me a 160 or better

[hoosierhunter]

Mine would be anything over 170-180 inches gross. I could care less about the net.

[hoosierhunter]

this is a great post because I bet literally 9.5 out of every 10 posts that say "monster" are just nice deer imo. It's amazing how it differs from person to person.

[Crew999]

Mine would be anything over 170-180 inches gross. I could care less about the net.

Would agree 100%, 180 gross is a monster up here. Net is not even a consideration, gross reflects the size more appropriately IMO.

[clrj3514]

this is a great post because I bet literally 9.5 out of every 10 posts that say "monster" are just nice deer imo. It's amazing how it differs from person to person.

Yep! Where I live & hunt, a 130+ is a HUGE buck. You could possibly hold off on calling him a monster til 140" but I voted 130 because a deer that size here gets eyeballs bulging & people taking!

[fly]

Thanks for all the responses everyone!

Seems a lot of people here don't care much about "Net" scores.

I can see arguments for and against "net" scores. I debated on included them in the post, but decided to structure it in a way that it could be ignored and just gross scores could be looked at.

I guess for me the primary factor for determining a Monsterbuck is gross score with the net score helping me decide on borderline bucks. Of course we could always add the age and weight factors, but that creates an ugly poll. If a 5 year old 300 pound buck had only one antler that grossed 100 inches I'd consider him a Monster.

[wtnhunt]

this is a great post because I bet literally 9.5 out of every 10 posts that say "monster" are just nice deer imo. It's amazing how it differs from person to person.

Like I said before, relative to where you are located and also subject to opinion.

Suppose when you take a near 140 class typical in to the check station in a place where what is on record as the highest scoring typical for that county is only in the 150's then it is likely some people who see it are gonna think that deer is a monster, likewise you take a near 140 class deer in where the record is over 190 more people would likely think it is just a real nice deer.

[bfletch7441]

Anything over 120 will get people excited around here, but I voted 140 as a monster.

Ben

[woolybear]

Anything over 120 will get people excited around here, but I voted 140 as a monster.

Ben

That's just about how I feel here. 140 monster status.

[DropTine49]

An 8 point 18-19 inches wide with decent tine lenght around here is a great deer, and it dosen't take much more to make it a monster.

[bucknut]

170+ is reaching monster status. Anything 180+ is a monster.. 200+ well thats self-explanatory. The property i was hunting this year had a 180 class 6x6 taken off it. I definately consider that a monster buck...

[GWSmith]

What...no category for "It's big enough to ride home in the back of Eddie Salters truck"???

Williams right...theres no right or wrong on this one but if I have to put a score on it I would have to say 120+/3-4.

The last numbers being the number of people that it took to put it on top of the truck;)

[Dawg]

Anything over 120 will get people excited around here, but I voted 140 as a monster.

Ben

That's just about how I feel here. 140 monster status.

Same here. 140+ is a monster in my book.

[toddyboman]

Around here a 115-120 is probably a 2 year old.

Depending on the deer a 130-139 is a good deer

140-159 is a shooter and

160+ is a monster

Oh yeah and net is for fish! Lol

Kinda how I feel here too!

this is a great post because I bet literally 9.5 out of every 10 posts that say "monster" are just nice deer imo. It's amazing how it differs from person to person.

I agree

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

If I'm hunting South Florida, anything over 120 is a monster.

If I'm hunting South Texas, anything over 180 is a monster.

Its all relative.

[Shaun_300]

Anything over 150" is a great deer here, 160 would be a monster in my opinion.

[HUNTINGMAN]

The area I hunt anything over 120" would be a monster,there just not that many around to choose from.

[RangerClay]

Around here a 115-120 is probably a 2 year old.

Around here a 120 is 3 to 4.

Every deer I kill is a trophy.

[Mach1]

If it's a gross Booner, it's a monster IMO.

Between my brother, dad, and me, we've got 9 bucks that gross 140-160 and they're nice deer for our area. The 2 others that are gross Booners are monsters.

And I agree that nets are for fish.

[Flintlock1776]

Whatever I decide to shoot is my standard as a trophy to me