how much better a hunter would you be...
03-09-2019, 05:55 AM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Germany/Calif.
Posts: 2,664
I do it bass ackwards. I spot a likely area, I walk a grid or the forest edge and spot where the Deer or whatever has been traveling to or from food and/or feeding, I give it a couple of days for my scent to disperse then sneak back in before daylight and park my arse in a likely spot.
My thought has always been they have a better nose than I do, they can hear better and often see just as well or better than I. No matter how quiet you move, all it takes is one stick cracking or spooking a noisy bird to blow your hunt. Spreading your scent all over can also be a low percentage move.
I've had some success sneaking up on game, but IMO it isn't a high percentage tactic.
Sitting quiet and nearly motionless for hours takes training. Many people just don't have the patience. I really can't remember going any three days in a row in one spot without something shootable wandering along, IMO if you park and stay still the chances of you hearing or seeing them before they see you increases.
I have some spots I hunt fairly often, I know them well and have a good idea what sort of game is around, I swear most of the game within a quarter of a mile knows I'm there. They are much more attuned to their surroundings than I am.
My thought has always been they have a better nose than I do, they can hear better and often see just as well or better than I. No matter how quiet you move, all it takes is one stick cracking or spooking a noisy bird to blow your hunt. Spreading your scent all over can also be a low percentage move.
I've had some success sneaking up on game, but IMO it isn't a high percentage tactic.
Sitting quiet and nearly motionless for hours takes training. Many people just don't have the patience. I really can't remember going any three days in a row in one spot without something shootable wandering along, IMO if you park and stay still the chances of you hearing or seeing them before they see you increases.
I have some spots I hunt fairly often, I know them well and have a good idea what sort of game is around, I swear most of the game within a quarter of a mile knows I'm there. They are much more attuned to their surroundings than I am.
03-09-2019, 08:14 AM
#13
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: texas
Posts: 1,201
use of several methods obviously boost your odds,
\
a decent climbing tree stand,(if the area and trees available permit the use of course)
gets your scent well up out of the local area ,dispersed in the breeze and provides you a great view in many areas
use your skill,experience and tools available too boost your odds,
each area will be unique, you must adapt to succeed, some areas make still hunting with a pistol a decent option, others are better hunted with a tree stand and a flat trajectory rifle
how many of your gentlemen regularly use a climbing tree stand?
\
a decent climbing tree stand,(if the area and trees available permit the use of course)
gets your scent well up out of the local area ,dispersed in the breeze and provides you a great view in many areas
use your skill,experience and tools available too boost your odds,
each area will be unique, you must adapt to succeed, some areas make still hunting with a pistol a decent option, others are better hunted with a tree stand and a flat trajectory rifle
how many of your gentlemen regularly use a climbing tree stand?
Last edited by hardcastonly; 03-09-2019 at 08:26 AM.
03-16-2019, 07:21 PM
#14
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
The premise here is a logical fallacy - if getting close to game species included mortal risk, it’s far more logical to become a better SHOOTER than to become a better hunter. A shooter killing their quarry from a secure long range position has far less mortal risk than someone attempting a foolhardy mission of getting ever so closer to the danger. While dangerous game is oft hunted from short range, how different our world would be if whitetails had fang and claw, and how different hunting might be.
So by classic measures - stalking, fieldcraft, and huntsmanship - we’d all be a lot worse HUNTERS if all of our game could “kill us back,” and much better shooters.
So by classic measures - stalking, fieldcraft, and huntsmanship - we’d all be a lot worse HUNTERS if all of our game could “kill us back,” and much better shooters.
03-17-2019, 05:10 AM
#15
Super Moderator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: texas
Posts: 1,201
I think your perhaps missing the intended point!
if you think hunting is designed as a display of your longer range rifle skills
certainly you should posses and cultivate those skills,
but you do tend too lose something the archery and handgun hunter is deeply immersed in.
skills our grand parents and fathers would generally have acquired growing up.
most hunters are far LESS OBSERVANT, than they really should be,
most hunters move too fast, and have not developed the skills or knowledge,too HUNT,
they rely on technology and the vastly increased range of a modern rifle,.
in many cases it might as well be a video game,they use technology,
as a crutch to compensate,for the lack of observational skills,
and most "HUNTERS" rely on the modern weapon's ,
most carry and rely on a rifle for big game hunts,
and its ability to strike a lethal wound at long distance,
to compensate for the INABILITY to find and get in close to the quarry.
if a hunter was forced, by his weapons inability to kill past a modest range he would be forced,
to learn the traditional skills that modern technology makes all but un-necessary,
no real need to watch the wind and your odor if you can reach the game from 400-800 plus yards
no need to learn to cover ground quietly, or hide your presents , if you can stumble around until
you spot game on a distant ridge or meadow, pull out that lazer range finder, pocket ballistic calculator ,60x spotting scope,
and 12 x-24 x scope.
sit down and let the computer do the calcs.,
impressive technology, hell yes
,impressive rifle skills, perhaps,
but not really traditional hunting
I'm not suggesting you fail to take full advantage of technology,
only that you spend a good deal of time learning the older companion skills,
and take the effort too gain a true appreciation for HUNTING,
and knowledge of the quarry.
if you think hunting is designed as a display of your longer range rifle skills
certainly you should posses and cultivate those skills,
but you do tend too lose something the archery and handgun hunter is deeply immersed in.
skills our grand parents and fathers would generally have acquired growing up.
most hunters are far LESS OBSERVANT, than they really should be,
most hunters move too fast, and have not developed the skills or knowledge,too HUNT,
they rely on technology and the vastly increased range of a modern rifle,.
in many cases it might as well be a video game,they use technology,
as a crutch to compensate,for the lack of observational skills,
and most "HUNTERS" rely on the modern weapon's ,
most carry and rely on a rifle for big game hunts,
and its ability to strike a lethal wound at long distance,
to compensate for the INABILITY to find and get in close to the quarry.
if a hunter was forced, by his weapons inability to kill past a modest range he would be forced,
to learn the traditional skills that modern technology makes all but un-necessary,
no real need to watch the wind and your odor if you can reach the game from 400-800 plus yards
no need to learn to cover ground quietly, or hide your presents , if you can stumble around until
you spot game on a distant ridge or meadow, pull out that lazer range finder, pocket ballistic calculator ,60x spotting scope,
and 12 x-24 x scope.
sit down and let the computer do the calcs.,
impressive technology, hell yes
,impressive rifle skills, perhaps,
but not really traditional hunting
I'm not suggesting you fail to take full advantage of technology,
only that you spend a good deal of time learning the older companion skills,
and take the effort too gain a true appreciation for HUNTING,
and knowledge of the quarry.
Last edited by hardcastonly; 03-17-2019 at 06:16 AM.
03-17-2019, 06:32 AM
#16
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,745
My still hunting method is a little different. If I'm in thicker cover I may only take one or two steps and stop and look all around. Every step you take opens up an new window to your surroundings. Binos are a bonus this type of cover as they let you see "through" the cover more. Moving slowly does a couple things. It helps to keep your footsteps more natural (like a feeding squirrel or deer) and you can detect movement much better. If I'm in wide open mature timber I will take maybe 5-7 steps before stopping and try to stop by a tree like Hardcast does.
I really enjoy still hunting during PA's late muzzleloader season. Especially after a fresh wet snow. Its quiet and the deer stick out like neon signs with that white background and more so if its sunny.
I really enjoy still hunting during PA's late muzzleloader season. Especially after a fresh wet snow. Its quiet and the deer stick out like neon signs with that white background and more so if its sunny.
03-17-2019, 06:35 AM
#17
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 12,745
The premise here is a logical fallacy - if getting close to game species included mortal risk, it’s far more logical to become a better SHOOTER than to become a better hunter. A shooter killing their quarry from a secure long range position has far less mortal risk than someone attempting a foolhardy mission of getting ever so closer to the danger. While dangerous game is oft hunted from short range, how different our world would be if whitetails had fang and claw, and how different hunting might be.
So by classic measures - stalking, fieldcraft, and huntsmanship - we’d all be a lot worse HUNTERS if all of our game could “kill us back,” and much better shooters.
So by classic measures - stalking, fieldcraft, and huntsmanship - we’d all be a lot worse HUNTERS if all of our game could “kill us back,” and much better shooters.
03-17-2019, 07:05 AM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
I think your perhaps missing the intended point!
if you think hunting is designed as a display of your longer range rifle skills
certainly you should posses and cultivate those skills,
but you do tend too lose something the archery and handgun hunter is deeply immersed in.
if you think hunting is designed as a display of your longer range rifle skills
certainly you should posses and cultivate those skills,
but you do tend too lose something the archery and handgun hunter is deeply immersed in.
Secondly - it seems you’re abandoning your original position about game being able to “kill you back,” and now taking an elitist position that anyone who possesses high marksmanship skills must NOT possess high fieldcraft and huntsmanship skill. Can you present a logical argument, other than an elitist assertion these two are mutually exclusive?
Rather, I have found most hunters who have the dilengence to develop long range marksmanship skills also have the diligence to develop high level skills in many things - including fieldcraft. For example, it takes dedicated practice to be able to develop trigger control and positional stability to be able to deliver a 6” group at 600yrds, INCLUDING an absolute, unwavering requirement of understanding the wind. So while a long range hunter might have to have practiced their huntsman skills to read the wind at multiple ranges to deliver a shot, a bow hunter only needs to throw a tidy of grass in the air to find the wind direction to control their scent footprint. Far greater wind reading skills required by the long range sportsman.
I hunt with handguns and archery equipment every season, even drag out a recurve for some small game stalking most seasons. It’s a very arrogant position for you, especially as a moderator, to make statements such long range shooting skills detract from short range hunting skills required for archery and handgun hunting.
03-17-2019, 07:31 AM
#19
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,693
I've always tried to sneak up on game as much as possible but not at the risk of spooking them. Deer are a fun challenge to sneak up on and turkeys are a blast. I've never felt the need yet to sneak up on a bear though. I can see how a person would practice more skills when stalking dangerous game and prefer to shoot them from longer distance. That's just plain common sense. And especially if the dangerous game knows you're there.
03-17-2019, 08:02 AM
#20
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,902
I was disappointed in the “challenge” of stalking bear. Adrenaline pulsing, sure, but not really a challenge.
In my experience, it’s more of a challenge to stalk things which have to live every hour of their lives trying to avoid being eaten than stalking things which have the ability to better defend themselves.
In my experience, it’s more of a challenge to stalk things which have to live every hour of their lives trying to avoid being eaten than stalking things which have the ability to better defend themselves.