ORIGINAL: DannyD

WBH,
Darn right they are. You forgot scent eliminators.
If you aren't hunting naked with your bare hands then you're cheatin
Man it's gonna be cold out there.

ORIGINAL: DannyD

WBH,
Man i hope you could tell I was kiddin.

If It's legal by all means do it if you want.
For those who think thatanything that gives an advantage to the hunter is cheating, like I said naked and bare handsis the way to go.
But don't forget your orange where required

FLdeerman said:
You said that's what"hunters" should do.If we don't hunt the way YOU tell us to we're all wrong?!??

ORIGINAL: Coolerpup
I assumed JCC was talking about an unfair advantage over "other hunters" not the deer

Which is it???????

If its over the deer......c'mon, using all of todays techniques would be called cheating by those that hunted in the 20's

To me it sounds like the ones that arent allowed to bait are just jealous for those who can and do bait. Remember using bait is no different than using scents and all that other crap that we pay way too much money for.

[blockquote]quote:

I don't find baiting any different than using scents[/blockquote]
I have read this response all too many times on numerous forums in defense of baiting. (In reality it is not a defense for baiting,only a deflection away from the original argument in an attempt todeny any criticism specifically aimed at baiting,(however that is another discussion altogether))

I decided that the subject is worthy of an honest debate so I have written my thoughts below. I am certain others will disagree and I would like to hearyour points of view on this issue.

All I askis thatmembers treatnot only the subject matter, but also other members with reasonable respect concerning eachindividual’s views.

JC

“I don't find baiting any different than using scents”

In my opinion this response shows a clear failure to understand simple biology....baiting results in positive reinforcement of a deer’s activity...every time the deer comes to the bait pile it is rewarded for its efforts by receiving an easy meal. Most importantlythe deercan remember the exact location of the bait site and comes to expect a reward (bait) every time it visits that location. This results in a distinct pattern of movement that brings the deer to an exact location on a regular basis.

The use of scents by a hunter on the other hand has very little in common with baiting. First, if a deer were to actually find a hunters "scents" in the woodsthen spends time looking for the sourceof the scent, it will find nothing, or worse, it will find a hunter or human scent(both of which will trigger a fight or flight response). This is obviously a negative outcome for the deer and results in negative reinforcement for its action. In essence the deer realizes it is spending energy for nothing, and therefore will quickly become less likely to do it again.

Even if you don't want to accept that fact in itself...there still remains a much larger point that further displays difference between scents and baiting. It has to do with location and timing. A scent only lasts a very short period of time. Most importantly, a hunter has to be at the exact location of the scent the first time it is used in order to take full advantage of its attractiveness to deer, (or at leastthe firstfew times it is used, before the concept of negativereinforcement teaches the deer that the scent is not worth following).

This means that the hunter has a very short window of time to ensure that his scent is placed in the proper location to attract exactly the kind of deer he/she wants to harvest on that particular hunt.Every time the hunter uses this strategy in the same location it will become less and less successful (unlike bait that attracts more deer the longer it is left in the woods). Not only will the hunter be leaving his own scent in the area after each hunt, but any deer that comes by the area and smells the "attractant" after the hunter has already left will realize that it is not real, further helping to negatively reinforce its effectiveness on the local deer population.

The reality of these facts means one thing....the hunter that uses scents needs to be very knowledgeable not only about the natural locations of deer...but also of the timing of the natural movements of deer in order to capitalize on the primary effectiveness of scents,(which occursduringthe first few times the scent is used).

In essence, the hunter that uses scents is hunting a deer that is in a natural pattern up until the exact moment the deer finds the hunters attractant. Unlike baiting where the deer are patterned to within a few feetofan artificial food source days or weeks ahead of time,this requires all of the same skillsthata "regular" hunter would require right up to the point that the deer finds the attractant.

These points make the comparison of using scents, to the use of bait, a long shot at best. Of course there will be some similarities, after all it is all hunting, and the goal is virtually always to harvest a deer. However the differences should be obvious enough to the educated observer to see that the comparisons are at most only minor similarities.

P.S. I am sure there will be those that ask so I will respond now. I have never used any form of scents until this year. This year I did try some estrous doe urine however it appeared that it had zero effect on my hunting. I did take a buck while I had scent out. However,I shot thebuck while it wasfeeding naturally on acorns with 3 does and a button buck upwind of my location and had given no signs of being aware of the scents. I would not consider myself a proponent of its use for anyone but the more advanced hunters that have already thoroughly learned most aspects of succesful hunting without scents.

ORIGINAL: jcchartboy

I live in a state where baiting is currently allowed. However I do notbait, nor I am currently interested in it.