I am not so sure that military and huntingapplications for camo differ very much as Ryan Campbell suggests. I would think that human eyesight is generally better than most game animals (maybe I am wrong). But assuming that is true, then camo that is designed to hide fromhuman eyesight will also work for hiding from game animals' eyesight.

I definitely disagree that effective hunting camo should make you look like a bush rather than break up your human shape. Igenerally agree with the linked article in the original post. Look at the tiger example...a tiger in the jungle is hiding from prey, just like bowhunters in the woods. The tiger's natural camoflage does not make him look like a bush.Instead, it serves to break up his ouline...his predator shape,with contrast and breakup.

I think hunting camo should first and foremost remove your human shape, outline, silhouette,etc. And quite frankly,military camo (like army woodlands) probably does this better than most hunting camo patterns. The new digital patterns used by the marines and army are probably even better yet.

The thing I hate most abouttoday's hunting camo is the industry itself. It has become a fashion industry, rather than afunctional tool industry.

I live inAlaska now, and while hunting caribou on open tundra (nothing to blend into) i use predator because it breaks up my outline better than realtree and mossyoak. I am obviously not a camo expert, but I definitely think that breaking uphuman shapes is more important that looking like bushes.