So, a 120-130 class buck isn't a big buck?

I just got the last issue from QDM, and the editor wrote a FANTASTIC column about the rack-size craze and how it's not in line with QDM at all. It was a great column. If you don't like 120-class deer, that's your choice, but I've started to grow weary of the mindset that a 120" deer is nothing special. I'm curious how many of the guys on here who adopt that mindset have shot a deer over 120 OR who have PASSED on deer that would likely have scored 120.

I would be willing to bet the vast majority wouldn't know what to do with themselves with a 120" deer in front of them.

I don't like the idea that people are ramping up the price and pricing most of us out of the market, but that also seems likes someone got numbers wrong. There isn't that kind of money in pro hunting to pay $750,000 for extra land to help in the pursuit of a deer that may or may not still be there.

They usually rub a lot around their bedding area.

Aside from rubbing, I've killed some bucks that tended to bed in clearcuts and tall fields with very bleached out racks as well, from exposure to the sun as best as I could figure.

The way I look at it, a 120" buck in PA is an accomplishment. I have no problem shooting that in PA but in the midwest thats more like our 2.5 yr old 8 pt

So who's really to blame? The guy throwing the money or the guy "catching" it?

I would be willing to bet the vast majority wouldn't know what to do with themselves with a 120" deer in front of them.