Doc

I now have one of these units, but have some questions. With the upcoming bow season, I see the early opener as maybe needing some help to keep my sanity while on stand. Besides the trickle of sweat running down my back, I wouldn't be surprised if I might have a generous supply of mosquitos swarming around my head. So here are some important questions that may determine if I really go out or not: 1. Do they work? 2. Is there any detectible scent emanated by these things that could reach out and tip off approaching deer? 3. What kind of radius do they provide protection? 4. Are they affected by light wind?

Some pretty good questions being asked here.

The initial intention of the thread was not to discuss who breaks the law and why, but just simply what are your own personal views on the practice of baiting. We know that there are all kinds of poachers who break all kinds of laws. But I was just wondering how you all would feel if it were suddenly legalized. Would you have a problem doing it or would you view hunting successes using baiting any differently than without? .....and why.

I'm kind of wondering if heat will be a problem with the upcoming bow season October 1st. And the bugs this year......crazy! I just love the thought of trying to hold my sight-pin still with the sweat trickling down my back and a few mosquitos whining in my ears and slamming into my eyes.....lol.

Amazingly enough Texans have no particular problem with that. In fact many of them will tell you there is no real alternative to baiting. As far as the nocturnal switch, I have seen plenty of baited situations where huge mature deer are lured out to bait in full daylight with no problem at all. And a lot of these operations involve pretty exotic permanent box-blinds that obviously are used over and over. No patterning going on there.

Perhaps they should have gotten better sharpshooters. Here in Irondequoit they had very good luck but found the process too expensive to maintain. Which had nothing really to do with the effectiveness of baiting.

Would I bait if it were legal? ..... No. Not because I don't like venison, but I have a personal philosophy of hunting that I hunt the animals as I find them and do not try to condition them to make my hunting easier. That is not some lofty ideal, it is just as I said .... a personal philosophy. For me, deer are not Ivan Pavlov's dogs and I have a certain level of respect for them that makes me want to hunt them like truly wild animals. So that attitude allows for those that may have other personal notions on what hunting is for them and it needn't be the same as mine. So far, so good. But baiting is not something that is done in a vacuum. There are impacts to others. For example, I have heard of situations in other states where the practice is legal, where hunters feel forced to put out bait simply as a way of pulling deer back on their property that have been lured off by neighbors bait stations. It sounds like it can create "bait wars" where each neighbor is competing to buy the best bait available to draw deer off a neighbor's property. That's not so good. I don't like the idea of pitting one neighbor against the other, and I don't think those kinds of competitive situations really belong in the world of hunting. And then there is the thought that hunters are beginning to get the notion that hunting is all about going to the nearest outdoor store and spending enough money to guarantee a harvest. It's kind of like consigning your hunting prowess to some chemist in some lab developing the best attractant for you. Again, it goes against my own personal concept of hunting. I'm not a big fan of "buying" success based on the abilities of some manufacturer. But I am realistic to know that I am probably a minority with that notion.

Is baiting effective? ..... No doubt at all in my mind. That is why some municipalities start right off with "bait and shoot" programs that are effective for as long as the program lasts. There is no patterning of the marksmen, and no more devious defense maneuvers by the deer than any other farm animal that becomes dependent on preferred foods sources. I also have read magazine articles that described how the deer not only came to timed mechanical feeders on a predictable basis, but also became trained to respond to the sound of the feeders going off. So not only was the hunter able to pin-point to the yard exactly where the deer would be, but he even knew when they would be there. I'm sure there is probably some level of skill in doing baiting successfully, but I have absolutely no doubt that it is very effectively when done by someone who knows what they're doing.

Ok, the Dirt Bag thread pussy-footed all the way around the subject. Let's have at it. Let's see if we can keep this as cordial and civilized as possible, but what are all the different views on the propriety of baiting as a hunting tactic. I suppose CWD has to be talked about, but I am really more interested in how you all think that baiting fits in with your idea of hunting. Yes we did all this a year or two ago, I think, but we have gobs of new members now and maybe even some of the long-time members have had a change of heart in their views. So what do you think. Is baiting for deer something you would like to get involved with (if it was legalized)?

That sounds like a much better way of handling multi-trunked tree platforms. Like I said I have picked up a lot of respect for the power of wind and the fatigue factor of repetitive back and forth action on nails and such. If you watch one of these multi-trunked trees in a wind you will note that they don't all move in unison. The reason that I am aware of that is because there was a time when one corner of my platform let loose because of sheared nails. I was just fortunate that the other attachments kept the platform in place enough so I could get the hell out of that stand safely.

Well, I might suggest that you take a bit of your own advice and do a little research rather than just mindlessly committing to this concept purely because it has the word "study" attached to it. It has even been made quite easy for you had you bothered to read the thread. adkbuck (reply number 6 of this thread) supplied counter studies that refute a lot of the emotion spewed by the lead bullet banners. Noted in that article are more of the studies that don't seem to be agreeing with the anti lead bullet proponents at all. And in fact he also supplied some data on copper toxicity for anyone who thinks that the lead alternatives are a safe materials. Also, had you bothered to read it, reply # 12 of this thread also noted a 2008 study conducted by the CDC (how's that for credentials) that pretty much destroys the idea that people who eat game taken with lead bullets are doomed to have higher levels of lead in their bodies because of it. You see it's nice to cherry pick the studies that you want to campaign for, but as I said before you can pretty much go out there and find counter-studies in your little "study war" that will prove just about anything you want to prove. And by golly you will also find plenty of people who will pick up the banner of any cause simply because it has a study attached to it and run mindlessly with it.

And it's even more of a shame that those that worship at the altar of research, simply and mindlessly accept all studies without expending the mentality to apply logic and some good old healthy skepticism. There's been an awful lot of societal mis-steps because of studies that the public has simply accepted as the word of God. Anybody with an agenda can publish a study that may very well not be worth the paper it's written on, and policy can change because no one wants to or can run counter-studies to unmask the agenda. But I will say it. Just because we can't disprove it doesn't mean that we have to have the knee-jerk reaction to accept it and modify our lives because of it simply in the name of a study. It is getting to be a situation where anyone who can garner the most studies in favor of their position can dictate public policy. No one ever admits that there are political motivations that color some of these studies. No one is willing to admit that researchers are fallible and in some cases simply incompetent. If it is called a study, it is gospel. Well sorry, if there is a possibility that there could be political motivations, and the so-called facts spewed are kind of contrary to good old horse-sense and logic, I for one will not just blindly pick up their flag and start marching with it. That's not a response of convenience, that's simply an individual's responsibility to view input with a critical eye instead of throwing on the blinders and saying, "My gosh they did a study, it must be true". But when one "study" conflicts with another "study" what happens to this cult mentality? Well that happens often enough to cause some to look beyond the simple fact that it is "a study". And by the way, do not confuse a "study" with science. Some times it has more to do with salesmanship that any kind of science.

If the land is predominantly planted with pines, there will be nothing for grays, but red squirrels have plenty to eat since they are primarily conifer feeders and dwellers.

Always someone trying to work around something. I would guess that if there is something that the deer really are attracted to in a big way, it won't be too secret for very long. I think the ground will be very well torn up in the area where it is used. It may not be as visible as a pile of apples or corn, but it will not be something that any hunter (or warden) passing by will not notice. It's like salt on a rotten stump. You may not see the salt, but the typical damage done to the stump will be the tell-tale evidence. And then there is the packaging. The stuff has to come in a bag or something. That kind of evidence randomly found is usually sufficient to start an investigation. Often the best evidence is the poacher's own mouth. Most of these guys like to talk about how they are screwing with the law. Also, wardens who have suspicions are generally trained in interrogation techniques that trip these guys up with their own words and attempts at being clever.

One thing I learned about building a stand in a three-trunked tree is about the power of the wind, and the way it constantly works those trunks together and apart over the course of a year. That constant working of those trunks stressing every connecting nail has the capability to snap nails simply through fatigue. It became an annual project of adding new nails to bring back support lost to snapped nails. The only thing that I ever had hold up indefinitely was pressure treated 2 x 8s fastened to the trunks by 5/8" heavily galvanized lag screws. Once that basic frame is attached, you can add on whatever makes you comfortable and feel pretty secure that you have a good foundation for the stand.

I think we would all be shocked at the amount of various poisons and other health-harmful things that we ingest everyday. And yet the species continues, often without any indicators that we have taken in something unhealthy. Look, I don't want to see anyone chewing on a piece of lead, or sucking on a bar of lead, or gnawing on some lead based paint laden windowsill. But I do not run my life on unproven assumptions. Yes lead in significant quantities can create problems. The question is whether or not bullet residue in a carcass constitutes "significant quantities" or anything even close to significant. Like I say there are centuries of lead bullet usage (and by the way, high velocity cartridges are not a recent invention), and I have never heard of a lead-poisoning epidemic among hunters. And of course the other question is whether or not any substitute for lead doesn't have equally or even more toxic problems. Jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire seldom works out in a satisfactory way. The crusade for a lead-free bullet seems to be kind of a weak presentation based on a whole lot "could be's" and "perhaps" and "might be's" and "possible's". None of it rises to the level of "Hey we gotta get rid of this stuff or we're all in trouble".

I guess that's why all of our forefathers who had no choice but to use lead for all those centuries were a bunch of drooling idiots who could barely string words together to form a simple sentence. Thank God the wizards of research are here to save us all.

I've got an old Mossberg bolt action 12 ga. for small game. Also a .22 bolt action marlin of unknown age (it was a hand-me-down from my dad way back when I was about 12 years old (who knows how long he had that, but it is getting some real age on it). I also have a .22 hornet. In a month, I will be using my 1999 Mathews MQ-32 and my 1970s autumn orange XX-75 aluminum arrows (I get my money's worth out of my purchases .... lol). When gun deer season begins, out will come the deadly .270 American Ruger bolt action. That has become the meat gathering gun.....Awesome gun. When the regular deer gun season finishes, out will come my Remington .223 for a bit of coyote and fox calling.

I love that term, "good science". Who among us is capable of making that determination. It would take a reproduction of all the hours of research not to mention the financial resources that were required to initially come up with research data and conclusions in order to make an accurate determination as to whether all the good principles of statistics and research and logic was used. Now try doing that for the thousands of new studies we are bombarded with each year. Here is the real question that should be asked. How far are you willing to modify your life simply because somebody told you they have conducted a study and determined that some part of your daily actions need to be changed. Yes, sometimes it makes some sense to try to put the odds in your favor by accepting a preponderance of evidence or something that has a kernel of logic associated with the conclusions. Some of these studies have watch-dog organizations to keep researchers on the straight and narrow but usually that is not the case. Most of the time we simply get used to accepting everything that comes our way dressed up in good credentials and assumed good intentions. And it really is not all that rare when subsequent studies come along and come up with completely contradictory results indicating that the first researchers as high though of as they are, simply didn't come out as infallible as they claim to be.. Good science??? I don't know about that, but I do know that at some point, we should try to determine how much we are willing to get steam-rollered under the guise of studies and research.

I went down to swap cards in the camera that I have down there and found out that there is no way of simply turning the camera because of all the goldenrod. And there are no other trees in the area that would have a clear look at the anthill. I turned out that I had 862 pictures on that cam. There was a multiflora rose branch that apparently was waving in the breeze and setting off the camera like crazy. But anyway, there were all kinds of critters wandering around there. Rabbits, squirrels, crows, foxes, deer, and even my unicorn showed up: The only ones that were moving toward the anthill was a family of coons. They're still my prime suspect. Damn, isn't that unicorn one goofy looking deer?

No peaches (not even any blossoms). Very few and very scraggly, small, mis-shapened, apples that are completely useless (much fewer blossoms than last year). very small pear numbers compared to any year previous. No wild apples. No berries. No black walnuts. No butternuts. Quite a few hickory nuts. Not sure about acorns yet. I have seen a few around. Pretty much just a plain ol' crap year for fruit and some vegetables. Of course I do live in a very steep valley that is known for late frosts. There must have been some stealth late frost that I was not aware of (I was watching for it this year).

Well, here's the problem. I have spent considerable time and money developing loads that I now know will perform and group well. I also have a large inventory of these same components waiting to be loaded up. I really don't want to change all of that based on some rare theoretical damage that lead bullets may be causing among a few eagles. I do get a bit tired with knee-jerk reactions every time someone suspects that something might be happening somewhere to some unknown quantity of some isolated species for no truly understood cause. I want to see far more proof that the materials really are a problem before I start reacting.

I do have a camera about 15 yards away, but it is pointed toward a deer trail in a different direction. It might catch the critters on their way over to the anthill. I know there is a family of raccoons that are very active in the area. Perhaps I will have to turn the camera so that it watches the anthill directly, but I have been trying to get a read on when this certain deer trail is being used. The anthill has been visited a few times over the past couple weeks, so the culprit may be making this a regular stop. It wouldn't hurt to turn that camera and check it out. Might be interesting.

You do realize that whole books have been written on the subject and they still don't provide any guaranteed methods. This is a pretty wide-ranging question you've asked here. I can make a few suggestions: First, find an area that has a visibly high concentration of deer. Second, learn their patterns of movement. Third, put yourself at an intercept point. Piece of cake right? Each one of those are an entire book by themselves.

I have heard that the trees that turn color early are generally indicating some form of stress. Too wet, too dry, disease or bug infestations, and other forms of distress in the tree or bush, is what I have been told results in early color changes.