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

It seems that most of the people revered to be "successful"/"prolific" deer hunters are from big deer states (at least in these forums). How much do you attribute "location"to a hunter's success rate (or better yet....."reputation" as a prolific hunter)?

Is there a chance the most prolific whitetail deer hunter in these forums resides in Florida (or another state not known for big bucks)? I say yes.

What do you think?

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

Jeff what is the criteria for success in this poll? I consider myself a success because in 2 seasons of bowhunting I have killed 5 deer and several hogs. Does one have to kill a HUGE buck to be considered successful? Not in my eyes and not in yours either I suspect. So for me 0% is based on location. I am a successful deer hunter if I enjoy myself. The standards of others don't have a place in my woods.

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

First off,you must hunt where there is a big buck to kill a big buck.Other factors play a part also,scent control,proper use of your equipment,proper stand placement.So I voted 50%.

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

to kill a big buck its almost 100% location, so thats what I voted.

Cause to me location includes playing the wind, terrain, food sources, patterns, etc. all correctly.

The only time it doesnt matter is the chase phase of the rut, then its anybody's game....



***Edit - Iam associating success as killing a big buck, but that is not the only success a hunter can have...

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

Well.....I guess that's a good question, tx.

When you think of "prolific" or "successful" hunters of whitetail deer.....who do you think of?

Why?

What part (%-age) of Where they get to hunt do you think contributes to your (or 'public') assessment? I certainly think we have guys in here who are as knowledgeable as the guys on TV (and from what I've been seeing, lately.....MORE knowledgeable).

But.....the public (and maybe in here) perception is that the guys killing big deer are more prolific hunters.Is this incorrect?

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

Ohio....

So the man in Florida has a 50% chance of being as "successful"......or being dubbed as a "prolific" hunteras the guy in Ohio?

While I agree with you......I don't think the public perception is such.

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

Ed:

I voted as you did.....for the same reasons......but I disagree with this:

You can do all these things correctly in OHIO......and all these things correctly in FLORIDA.....and achieve two different results.

And I agree with this too, Ed.... But I think public perception is such that hunters are judged by the size of the animals they take......and, to me "location" is paramount.

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

I voted 50%. While location is BIG key, there is almost no guarantee that buck or doeyou are after will walk the exact path the day and time you are in that stand.There is also no real guarantee the wind does not change direction after you get in the stand, or if it swirls, etc. What about those blasted does that come in from the other direction you are expecting the buck to come and they bust you either by wind, movement, etc .... What about when the rut hits and the buck you are after suddenly is 400 yards away running onto another property chasing a doe, hate when that happens lol. To many other variables to make location a 100% vote for me, but its definately the biggest factor. To me its mostly location, some skill, and some luck.

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

Diesel:

Now put those same criteria in Florida and Ohio.

What percentage does "location" play if everything else is equal? It's the reason I voted the way I did.

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

Jeff - You may kill a bigger buck in different states, but I was talking about your "local" area...

To kill a big buck for your area, or any area, its all about location.

This is why I get soo stressed out sometimes when trying to pick the perfect tree!!! [8D]

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.

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

To me, location is two different things. First off, global location, like State/County. Second being the actual stand location. The State/Global location, such as the UP of Michigan, where I did all my hunting until last year, I could do EVERYTHING right, scent, stand, evern bait, and I may never see a buck the entire season. I don't mean a shooter buck, I mean an antlered deer. That's just the way it is with the deer in that area. I've hunted for 11 years in the U.P. and never seen a buck with more than 8 points. I hunted IL for the first time last year, killed an 8-point, and saw more bucks than I can count, probably more than I saw in all 11 years at home. So that is one kind of location, which plays a huge part, maybe not 100%, but for sure a large part.

The Second location, stand location is also huge to me. I'm sure plenty of people have been hunting a big deer, set-up in correctly and never got the deer, myself included. For me, I give more respect to the guy who can consistently set up on deer and kill them, regardless of area, than someone who happens to be in a great area, and kind of kills big deer just by being surrounded by them. The guy who can find a buck, pattern him, and then kill him, is the "prolific" hunter in my opinion.

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

Jeff, I think I know what you are getting at and I agree totally. Although many want to say that they measure the success of a hunter by consistently taking mature deer, or whatever, when some guy givesa talk at a seminar what is the first thing they say? How old their average deer is, or is it how many P&Y bucks they have killed? An author writing a book on how to successfully kill mature bucks wouldn't sell 10 copies if he didn't have a picture of a monster buck on the cover. Location has a lot to do with how people perceive the success of a hunter. It isn't right, but that is reality and sometimes reality stinks.

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

OK, I feel that "perception" of "success" can be HEAVILY influenced by where one hunts. Locations that allow more opportunities is going to make one look better, even though it has nothing to do with them actually being better.

I think there are 2 perceptions that will get you recognized as successful. One is obviously big bucks, the other I think is numbers. Tell most any joe-bob hunter "I shot a 150 last year" and they will be impressed. Tell some one you shot 10 in one season and it will still get you some wide eyed looks, but probably not as many. Heck, I think I am perceived as successful, but I live in an area where I can shoot lots of deer, and a place that affords mea shot a "big" one. Stick me in a part of the state where I can only get 1-2 doe tags, and the top end bucks are a little smaller, and see where that success perception goes.

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

I would also have to say yes GMMAT. If you hunt in a state that in not know for big bucks but you consistanly take big bucks, my hat would go off to you. I am not saying that it is easier to kill bigger bucks in say Iowa, IL, or WI but there certainly would be more opps. In my humble opinion.

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

Location, location, location.... ;):)

I'm very thankful thatI'm not NH-Cornfed, NY-Cornfed, SC-Cornfed, VA-Cornfed, etc, etc.... LOL! :D

I think I like it just the way it is, the only thing better would be if it was IA-Cornfed or KS-Cornfed! ;)

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

I put a 100% due to if your not at the same location when that buck or doe arrives, zilch

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

Based on the definition of prolific or successful for this poll I put 50%. The reasoning behind my decision is this, yes you have to have big deer in your area to consistently put big deer on the ground and fit the criteria for this poll. However, many successful hunters will go to where the big deer are if they are not where they live.

So, while location is very important a successful hunter will put himself in that big bucklocation if he does not live there already. You are not bound by where you live.

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

So, Bry.....

By changing locations (going where they are, so to speak).....you've upped your odds of being a "successful" or "prolific" hunter.

Makes my case.

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

Jeff, absolutely. I think I know what you are driving at with this and the bottom line is to be a big buck killer you have to have big bucks. Just like the great surfers don't come from the east coast because we don't have the waves.

They've got to be there for you to kill them.

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

This is just on bucks becuase the the statement was really broad...thought the article was interesting and had valid points to locationand how wellhunting goes.

Answering this question is difficult since so many natural and man-made factors come to bear. Still, the relationship between record book entries and river systems is plainly evident throughout the country, especially in heavily farmed states. For example, in Iowa the best deer counties are not the most heavily farmed, but tend to have a mixture of farmland and forest cover associated with river bottoms. Counties bordering the Missouri, Mississippi and Des Moines Rivers account for the majority of entries from Iowa. This pattern is evident in nearly all states, especially along the Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri River systems.

The relationship between deer densities and number of entries is also interesting. States with high deer densities and long firearms seasons with liberal bag limits produce, on balance, fewer entries. States with lower deer densities, shorter gun seasons, and more restrictive buck harvests tend to produce more entries. A good comparison is between Ohio, which averages around 10 deer per square mile, and Mississippi, which averages more than 30.

Perhaps the most interesting pattern is the impact state management practices can have on entries. In Kansas, modern rifle season takes place after the rut, while in Oklahoma it generally falls during the peak of the rut. Also, the black powder season in Kansas is in mid-September, when the trees still wear leaves and temperatures are high. In contrast, Oklahoma’s black powder season occurs in late October and early November, when temperatures are cool, bucks are starting to rut, and the leaves are falling. Since the majority of bucks killed are taken during gun seasons, timing those seasons so bucks are less vulnerable gives the animals time to mature. Similar differences are apparent between seasons and the number of big-buck entries from Iowa and Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia, and Nebraska and Kansas.

But....

Though your odds are definitely higher in certain states and counties, the maps also show that entries come, literally, from all over. They have come from 1,443 different counties, half the counties in the forty-two states that have produced entries. So no matter where you hunt, there is always a “geographical chance” of bringing home a record book buck!

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

To an experienced and competent bowhunter location is every thing,meaning at a certain level of competence the only distinction between you and I and the Hollywood hunters is where each of us hunts.
I am absolutely certain that there are many folks here that could take many(not all) of the Hollywood hunters to school.
The person who is consistently killing top end bucks on pressured/public ground is as good a hunter as there is! Take that hunter and put them in the locations that the hollywood hunters hunt and it would be like taking candy from a baby as it relates to their success.
For many folks their success is not appreciated to the degree it should be because of where they reside/hunt.

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

Sorry Jeff.. I didn't answer because the question was far to broad to cover. In hunting, and especially in bowhunting whitetail, there are far to many variables to compare between hunters.

Yes, it's VERY true that in order to kill big deer you musthunt where big deer live. And we all know that the midwest holds many big deer and great genetics. So.. a gentleman/lady who hunts this area of the country will kill bigger deer if he/she is so inclined to. But they still have to learn too.

But to say another hunter in a state with smaller deer and a much poorer deer herd could compete with a person who has hunted big mature deer ina better state is probably innaccurate. Why? Because I didn't become a big deer hunter until I learned to hunt big deer. And I only did that after several years of hunting BIG DEER. They are completely different animals. A person in Florida would probably not have that experience in them to hunt those type of deer because he doesn't hunt them. ..nearly ever.

By no means do I consider myself a great big deer hunter. But I do live in Illinois and have been fortunate to hunt many big deer. It is only my opinion that a great deer hunter needs to hunt particular deer to be great. For that, Florida would not be the place to start practicing.

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

Not that what I say will be much different than anyone else but I just talked to a friend about this. I associate "prolific hunter" with deer size, I know this is wrong but that is the first thing to pop in my head. At any rate, deer size or deer population depends on area (hunters in the area)and management of that area. After reading a well written book by Mr Higgens I decided that location is very important. Don was able to spot deer that a season or 2 before he harvested them. There is no locations that I hunt were I can have this ability. I think, if I were in an area with a very low hunting pressure and good QDM practices that I would be much better than I am. I concider Fred Bear to be a great hunter (I'm reading his field notes now) but I think he was known more for his style (traditional shooter). As far as I know he has killed a lot of game but not necessarily B&C game. Also, if I may mention, he had to pay for quite a few of his trips to hunt bear, moose, and other game. Sorry for so many words not to have said much.

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

I would say 25% tops.....

Most "prolific big buck hunters" aren't the kind of people who just decide to "go hunting today". They plot, plan and scout year around. If their hunting grounds don't have the quality ofdeer they are happy with they find new ground to hunt which does. They hunt smart, they hunt hard and they don't give up.

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

I agree withthe journeyman I believe a hunter is successful when he consistantly takes the game he his hunting by fair chase no pay hunts where the guide tells you to wait another 10 minutes and ole grandaddy will be making his rounds,although I know that is still hunting it is not the same thing for "avereage" folk.

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

If you are talking about success in terms of killing big deer. You can't kill'em if they are not there. The more of them that are in the area, the better your odds of connecting. It's really as simple as that;)

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

It depends on your definition of success. If you're saying big bucks, it's 95 percent location. If you're saying deer kills, it's probably 20 percent. Somewhere sometime ago and many years before that they put out this blurb that 10 percent of the people kill 80 percent of the deer. I believe that. There's a lot of yapping and chest thumping goes on on these boards... but for the most part there is a small group that kills their deer(usually multiples) year after year. If you take out the folks that have access to private paradises, the success really does fall. Inspite of the fact a lot of people have soulrun of private haunts, you don't repeatedly take macho bucks if they aren't there. We all know the macho deer states where 130 or 140 class deer is considered a little thing. We all know the states that have never seen a 200 inch deer or anything close to it. So who determines what success really is. I'm successful. I don't have to post a picture or tell you of my deer. My success would probably be poo poed in Kansas... but that's OK. Success is in knowing you went, you hunted and you completed your quest. It's not a competition.... it's an adventure. It's suppose to be fun.

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

Agree a 100% with that!!

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

Location is the most important thing in successful deer hunting. Because if you hunt where there are no deer, you can’t be successful. Get it. End of story.

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

I also agree with this.
HOWEVERwith that said. If you want to add "size" in the equation. You take a hunter that can consistanly take record book deer in an area that isn't known for "big" deer. Then that to me is a "successful" hunter.

I would hold a hunter from SC who consistantly kills 150'', in higher regards that I would a hunter who consistantly kills 150" deer in IA or KS. Why? Because to consistaly kill 150'' deer in SC, you have to know something that 99% of the other hunters don't.

To consistaly kill that size deer in IA or KS all you have to do is put up a tree stand.

There is a guy who lives not far from me by the name of Hugh Gaskins. Mr. Gaskins has taken a 170 5/8 typical that is 3rd in the state, a 170 5/8 non-typical, and has another one, but I can't remember what it scored......All of these deer were taken in SC, two in the same county and all (if i am not mistaken) by bow. Now, thats not only a "successful" hunter. Thats an Idol!!! ((((this is if you are talking about size))))))