ORIGINAL: BigJ12
I agree with that as long as all things are equal, but thay can't be. This is why I said it depended on where in the 10,000 acres the "hunt" takes place.
I thought you said where the 10,000 acres was.........kinda like location. I misunderstood your post.........your comment makes more sense now. When I said all things being equal I meant exactly that..........equal situations in each setting and my money goes on the deer with 15.5 square miles to roam vs being locked into 0.04 square miles.
Where will you put your moneyif the deer are stuck in one corner of that10,000 acre ranch with a feeder and watering hole near by?
Well if all things were equal there would be a feeder and watering hole in one corner of the small plot as well so again my answer would not change.
Yeah, they have 10,000 acres on the ranch but now theycan only effectivelyescape in two directions. In this situation the size of the hunting area has been reduced considerably maybe even to the size of the small acre parcel, but here the deer are somewhat trapped.
I see what you are saying..........but the sheer vast area of 10,000 acres makes me think it would be awful hard to "trap" a deer. iamyourhuckleberry posted earlier that him and 5 other pro hunters couldn't kill even 1 of 6 elk in a 1,200 acre fenced area. The more area a deer has to roam the better his chances are IMO. We all hunt funnels for a reason
I know the deer in the small acre parcel will probably stay there making it easier to find them and hunt them, but they don't have to, and they can run in any direction theychoose to.
What is worse?? running for 5 miles before hitting a fence that just turns you left or right for another few miles all in thick woods??...........or running a 1/4 mile and hitting a road with nothing but houses and parking lots on the other side and no woods??