But this came up a looooooong time ago about the un branched antler rule......... tell me this wouldnt be a good argument.

Geeze it took me forever to figure out how to post a thread what yall been doing to this place

Saw one similar on a place we used to hunt the second year I was hunting. Was in an area we were not allowed to shot due to proximity to the owners house.

In my opinion it would fall under at least one un branched antler and be legal.

Third antler. It's separate from the other two. So It would qualify as "one unbranched antler", IMHO.

Had one like this on our place last year. Called GW and he had to ask Austin but as long as it's a separate base it's legal.

Legal.

does not look like a separate base to me.

It has its own base/pedicle and completely different growth center for the 3rd antler. Given that the 3rd antler is unbranched, looks good to me.

I would call it legal but flirting with trouble.

I'd go to court over one like that.....

Clearly meets the legal definition.....

I think it's absolutely legal. I also think it wasn't the intent of the "at least one unbranched antler rule", but intent doesn't necessarily matter when the law is written like this one.

Part bear claw?

ha! nice

Nav that name sounds familiar Wut up?

If you can be born with a vagina or penis and be considered neutral by today’s standards, I don’t think a defect would get you in trouble except from a butthole.

This.

Legal.

WTH you been?

X2....just hope you've been busy.....