Jimmy S

OK, The consensus is that seeing deer never gets old. So, another question:

I would think those of us who hunt areas with smaller deer numbers would have no problem being successful if we hunted states/provinces with large deer numbers where we would see deer almost every time out.

Would the same hold true in reverse. Would a hunter who sees tons of deer every season, have a problem tagging a deer in places that only hold 1/5 as many deer. Does big deer numbers make an average hunter very good or is this not a factor?

kevin1

I think that a hunter who is used to lots of deer would have more difficulty adjusting to a smaller herd than the other way around . If you're used to few deer sightings then seeing more should increase your shot opportunities and theoretically your success ratio .

adams

My though is the same as kevin but with a bit of scouting I don't think they'd have a problem tagging an animal of the course of a season.

I love hunting Maine and New Hampshire but as you know the deer numbers aren't real high. What I think I'm missing hunting here in the North East is the chance to watch deer behavior and body launage. I mean I get to see it but on on the scale of areas with 30+deer per sq mile. I think getting to know deer body launage with a more hands on approach can do a lot to help a person to become a better hunter.

rybohunter

If you are a good hunter, you are are a good hunter. Having lots of deer around helps, but you still can't get too lazy or it will bite you. Some guys who hunt in hi density areas would still do well in low areas, other guys would be lost.

danowak

I have never hunted anyplace where I saw lots of deer every time out. But I would expect that, human nature being what it is, hunters who do see a lot of deer can afford to be more picky in what animals they shoot.

Where I hunt, we cannot shoot does and we can only shoot bucks with antlers that are more that 5 inches above the hairline. The deer herd is relatively small. If I see a deer that meets those minimal criteria, I shoot it if I can because I might not see another one for a month. We have a two deer a year limit. I have been bowhunting for five years and I have yet to limit out. If that is the definition of success, then I am not a successful hunter. But that is not my definition of success.

I don't think that my circumstances make me a better or worse archer. I don't think that seeing a lot of deer would make me a better or worse archer. No matter how many deer you see you still have to make a good shot. In order to do that, you have to practice enough to be competent with your weapon and shoot within your limitations.

But being able to make a good shot doesn't make you a successful hunter. Successful hunting in my neck of the woods depends in large part on finding whatever deer there are in your area. That means spending a lot of time in the woods and paying attention. A little luck doesn't hurt either. But the deer are somewhere, the successful hunters are the ones who find them and are competent enough to shoot them. I don't know that there is anyplace where you can just pick a tree at random, hang a stand and shoot a deer later that day. Everybody has to use some woodscraft to find the deer. Everything that everybody on this board and all the other bowhunting boards talks about: scrapes, rubs, bedding areas, trails, food sources and all the rest of it.

That said, human nature being what it is, I would guess that hunters who have smaller deer herds to find would have to be better at the woodscraft part of it to be successful. The idea being that the harder you have to work at something, the better you get at it. I am not nearly as good at it as I want to be, but I continue to try to improve. In the end, everybody has to come to their own definition of success. For me, success is relative to the place where I am and to my skill level. I have had a successful season if I can harvest one deer because that means that I have conquered my circumstances. If I lived in a place that was crawling with deer, I might consider that result a failure. Five years from now, I might consider that a failure where I hunt now.

Sorry for the essay, but the question made me think. Always a dangerous thing.

skeeter 7MM

Jimmy no doubt about it, I agree in some case but also not everyone hunts for "deer" but rather "specific deer". In this case more isn't always better. A hunter must contend with more eyes/ears/noses and more patterns or routes. Even with the amount of scouting their are variables this hunter can not begin to control b/c of the sheer number of deer and trails that encompasses the area.

I think a lot depends on the individual, like I said in your other post it is all what you make it. No doubt being I hunt in a province that is blessed with exceptional deer hunting opportunities I am much more selective than others may be but as mentioned above when hunting a specific deer it certainly isn't a cake walk either. I have hunted areas where it was low and high population, always got my deer so a lot of the basics remain just the underlying goals may change with what each hunter must face in their particular area.

Flairball

Regardless of the deer densities you still need to be where the deer are. The deer only use about 10% of the wood, and choose those areas for specific reasons. Sure, in areas with a lot of deer you will find more deer in marginal areas, but the bulk of them will be in their prefered areas. Same holds true to areas with less deer. Anyway, I'm sure we all know people who do well in the areas with low deer numbers, as well as know people who couldn't find a deer in a petting zoo. I'm also pretty sure, if we thought about it, we'd figure out pretty easily why these people either connect or don't.

Kathwacckkk

I think there is a diffrence between being a hunter and a shooter here.

People who live in a place with a sparse herd probably have to track, use topo maps, scout, etc... harder then I do sitting in my stand waiting for 20 deer to show up. Therefore, these people might be better "hunters" (to seek out and find). However, having 20-30 deer within 30 yards of your position and trying to make a move to get a shot without being detected "shooter", takes a great amount of skill, practice and patience. If I get within 60 yards of a deer, I will kill it. But can I find it when there is only 2 in the next 10 square miles? I will probably travel the country trying to answer that question, if my wife will let me.

cardeer

Yes ,he would have to adapted. When I moved around the country I had to change some hunting methods. Example Hunting in Pa is SOOOO different then Way South Texas.

jepcho

I would say that he you are a good hunter you would be able to adapt to having less deer. In someways it can help. You can see a lot of deer and learn what they "do" and then put this knowledge towards killing a deer in a place where there are less deer.