RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

Ed:

I agree with you. I know guys here (and in this forum) that I consider "successful"....and it's got nothing to do with what size deer they kill. But...PUBLIC (and in these forums to a great extent)perception is (in my opinion) that the guys who are the most "successful" or "prolific" are the guys killing the big bucks. It's hard to argue against that (i.e. that this is the perception). Watch a TV show and see how many people from MD they have on there thinning their doe herds ;).

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I voted 75% cause when it comes to actually harvesting an animal, you need to be in the right spot. Now when we are talking about a successful hunter, there are too many variables to consider. I agree that there are hunters on this forum and people that you will never hear about in a million years who are at the top of their game when it comes to hunting. Like someone mentioned though, you cant kill a booner when there are only 110 inch deer running in those woods. Success is measured in ones own eyes, but if we are judging the success of others, i would say that location doesnt really need to play a part of it. The way i would judge myself as being successful is if im killing the larger caliber deer in the woods im hunting. If im out in Iowa, kansas, canada or some other area, then it better be atleast a pope and young, hopefully bigger, here in NJ, a buck in the 110 and im flying high. Its all relative. The only true way to guage who is the best is to people, throw them on all on the same parcel of land nd let them have at it. They all have access to the same stuff and same caliber deer. Not sure this will ever happen though.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I see two conversations here, strategic and tactical.

As far as the perception of being considered succussful, I personally feel that what part of the country you are in should not play a part at all, everyone has to work with what they have, and I judge a hunters skill level accordingly. Not that it really matters to me anyways, we all learned somewhere, and I try and be respectful to all,irrespectful ofskill level. But, I have alot of respect for those guys that can consistently go take decent bucks off of pressured public ground. In our community here, I think there is quite a bit of respect fot that also. In the general hunting public though, I don't think so, at least if you want to talk about all across the country.

On the tactical level of any given hunt being successful, I would only give about half of it to location. The other half is timing. You can have the perfect spot, but if you aren't there at the right time it doesn't matter. A perfect stand for the rut, or late season can be burned out early, ruining it. Location is important, but equally important is the timing and use of the locations under the proper conditions.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I really dont think location really has much to do with it.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

First, my definition of a sucessful hunter is one who can kill mature deer on a consistent basis. Mature deer in some areas does not consist of a large rack, but an older deer. I believe when you talk about public perception you are talking about those who believe sucess is about rack size, not age. Sorry if I offend anyone, but I don't consider someone a sucessful hunter if they go out and consistently shoot young deer (under 2.5 yrs old.) Experienced maybe, but not successful.

I voted 50%. I believe you have to live where there are mature deer, but you also must have some knowledge and skills to kill them. There are mature deer everywhere. I realize that some areas hold more than others, but that has been determined by the hunters and their previous harvest practices.

So, in my eyes, location is not a state but a particular peice of property........anywhere.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I'm a little confusedwith your language. By saying "successfull or prolific" It appears you arethinking ofsuccess in terms of numbers but then again you say there are those whose success has nothing to do with numbers. I think "success" is based on the personal goals of the hunter. If you are achieving your personal goals then I'd say you are successfull even though those goals may be very different from another hunter.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I think the key phrase is "perception" of success.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I agree with this, Dan.

Wis....Put two equal hunters in two different states.....and tell them to hunt for 3 seasons. At the end of the three seasons.....they get to show their mounts and tell their stories....and the public will decide who has been more "successful"...or who has been the most "prolific" hunter".

Hunter "A" has hunted Ohio. Hunter "B" has hunted Florida. Now does location have anything to do with how you think the public is going to lean?

Exactly, Critr;)

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

Ahh, I see what your saying about "location" rather than where you hang your stand, butwhere in the country (Iowa, Kansas, Ohio, etc )you hunt and what part of that plays into your success.

I would probably have changed my vote some to maybe 75%, but still wouldnt vote 100%.

RE: What percent of "success" is determined by "Location"
 

I totally aggree with your thinking.