Doc

You seem to be very eager to start a controversy where none exists. I frankly have no clue what the heck you are talking about. Look, if your thing is putting in agriculture sized food plots, knock your socks off. I frankly don't care, but this constant sniping is getting a bit silly. Do what you want. I was simply asking a question. You seem to want to turn it into some kind of an argument. Sorry but I just don't get it. You want me to say I'm wrong and you're right about something? OK ..... you're right and I'm wrong. I hope that finally settles what ever your problem is.

One thing I've noticed is that everybody puts wind direction pretty high on their list of "important features of stand selection", and I definitely agree that a deers nose is a prime defense mechanism. However, most of us talk like there is always a nice constant wind direction, when in my experience, that almost never is the case regardless of where I go. For me, the wind shifts are particularly devastating since I hunt in hill and valley terrain. Thermals drive me nuts with wind often reversing direction right at the most critical times of the hunt. I love to mess around with milkweed seeds while on stand, and they really show you just how messed up our perception of wind direction really is. It's not unusual to watch those little seeds float in one direction and then take a 90 degree shift as soon as it get just a few yards out and then shift again, and again. It just shows how inconsistant one of our prime features of stand selection can be even when we think we have it all figured out. There's not a whole lot you can do about wind variations other than note which direction seems to be the most prevalent and then cross your fingers and hope that one of those unfortunate twists and turns doesn't happen when the deer comes along. It's the one element of stand selection that requires the biggest portion of luck.

As I clearly explained, I have no problems with food plots relative to my hunting style or philosophy. Where on earth did you get that from? My issue with the proposed arrangement, as I clearly stated was with the lack of harvest management control on property that I was expected to drop some money into. And I'm not sure what the crack about a "made up mind" was all about. Where that came from, I have no idea. I posed a question and got a wide variety of answers. The only thing I made my mind up to was that I was heading for a bad deal.

Pretty ugly video. It's a shame that some kids can act this way. I do believe it is a "mob mentality" thing. And I suspect that it probably is not the kind of thing that a majority (or even very many) of today's kids would find themselves involved in. But I do find it troubling that we have created a system where there seems to be so little that anyone can do about these things when they do occur. I see this kind of mentality as being a sign of troubled kids that will probably grow into troubled adults. These are the same kinds of kids that get their jollies by torturing pets, etc. (usually a pre-cursor to more advanced violent anti-social behavior).

No, like I said on the previous page of this thread, I re-evaluated the whole deal, and backed out of it. After thinking about the quantity of hunters that my Brother-in-law traditionally invites to hunt his property, and the brown & down deer harvesting philosophies over there, I figured I have much better places to put my money. I figure it was a bad idea that I really hadn't thought through very well. However, the resulting info that came out of this thread was really quite interesting even though there seems to be no clear cut agreement on over-sized plots.

So, what do you all think? How do you define a real "mountain man"? Do you think that any actually exist that live the life that you believe a true mountain man does? If they do exist, do you think they would put up with being followed around by a camera crew? Trying to create such a program probably amounts to the same difficulty as trying to create a program about sasquatch.....lol. I watch the show with no great expectations other than seeing how these specific people exist in a wilderness or semi-wilderness surrounding. Aside from the over-exaggerated narration, I suppose the program does that fairly well.

I guess we all have different ideas of what a mountain man should be like. usually when I hear the term, I think of those trappers who first began the western movement. But then, time marches on, and I believe that the definition of mountain men has changed for most of us to allow for those that choose to live in remote, and wild to semi-wild places. In fact, I don't believe there is even any requirement for solitary existance to qualify as a mountain man. I am thinking of some of the families that live buried in the wilds of Appalachia (sp?). Many of these people live in widely-spread out communities, and have become quite adept at mixing living off the land with a small amount of introduction of very basic technology. Some of the documentaries that depict the lives of these mountain inhabitants show a view of people who still apply self-reliance in the mountains, but not necessarily isolation and complete freedom from equipment from the outside world. The fact is that even the mountain men of pioneer days used as much of the day's technology as they could easily carry with them. So there is a different kind of mountain man that is not clad in furs and buckskin and carrying a primitive muzzle loader and living among, or fighting, indians. And I think it is the modern mountain man that they are trying to illustrate, and probably what you see is about as close as anyone can come to finding samples of people that live the modern definition of the term. I have other issues with the program (particularly the bogus narration), but I do allow some leeway as to how they define a "mountain man". I think it is a much broader term today than many of us think.

When thinking about the wind, don't forget those pesky thermals that can switch directions on you right when the sun drops over the hill. Those should also become a factor in stand placement.

Actually, the characters are believable enough, but the narration that goes along with this program is what seems to be a bit of a stretch. They do a lot of over-dramatization of things that otherwise would be pretty mundane things.

The very first thing that sends me to select a stand location, is past activity that I have witnessed over the years. For example, there are traditional bedding areas, there are rut areas that have been established for decades. There are changing food sources that I have noted over the years, that simply need to be timed, re-verified or re-discovered. In a couple of locations, I have simply discovered that deer filter through a specific piece of woods for no real apparent reason. Having hunted the same grounds for years is a heck of an advantage. Having said all that, there is still the constant re-verification process, because over the decades things change, and it is always important to keep knowledge evergreen.

So, I was watching the trapper in Alaska who was having trouble with his snowmobile. Finally it just quit 10 miles from the cabin and he decided to start walking home. I couldn't help wondering why he didn't just grab a ride with the camera-men ...... lol. I guess you have to play along with some of this stuff and try to stay in the spirit of the story-line. For some reason he didn't take his rifle with him, even though they definitely were working hard to paint a picture of constant danger from wolves and bears which kind of tells me that dangerous predators probably are not the concern that they have tried to portray. Also it's obvious that these guys all have (or had) some alternate means of income. Just looking at the facilities, tools, and equipment, and the constant ready access to gasoline, planes, chainsaws, etc. kind of is a clue. But then I suppose nobody ever said that they were always completely destitute. It would be a much better program if they took all the contrived drama out of it. There's not much doubt that before and probably long after the cameramen all go away, the lifestyle still is a pretty darn challenging one. And each of the three lifestyles have certain hardships that make it a way of life that none of us have chosen. So, I tend to cut the program some slack and treat it like a fictionalized and dramatized documentary. And perhaps the program does give a very rough glimpse into what such lifestyles could be for those of us who have ever contemplated living in that way. You just have to recognize some of the stuff as being pure dramatization and try not to be too bothered by that. It's fun to point out the mistakes and flaws in the story-line, but underneath it all, there are still some people who choose a pretty challenging way of life.

Actually, My questions about big plots were valid regardless of the discussions between my Brother-in-law and myself. And frankly I am still surprised that somebody has not boiled it all down to an actual formula that gets you roughly into the ballpark as far as plot size .... something to serve as a starting point or planning tool. Logic kind of tells me that there has to be some efficient size qualifications where if you go too far, you are simply throwing money and effort away, and if you don't go far enough you are not achieving your goals. And I would guess that deer density has to figure into it all. And I would also guess that field planting composition would give you the rest of it all. So I figured, why not ask the question and see if it has been turned into a formula or a process that somebody could explain to me.

Probably one thing that I would not recommend is that you hang your bow in the back window of your pick-up truck. On some of these 90 degree days, I wouldn't even put my bow in the trunk or back seat for any extended length of time. I can't scientifically prove it, but I really do believe that temperature extremes can't do a whole lot of good to something that is laminated and held bent under pressure.

Back in the old days, there were darn few of us, and we weren't all that successful. We were looked at by the gun-hunting community as strictly a harmless little band of odd hunters who really didn't affect anything or ever actually get anything. Then along came the compound bow, and the numbers grew in a huge way, and success rates began to sky-rocket. All of a sudden, gun-hunters are regularly seeing pictures and articles of huge bucks being taken by archers. Everyone now knows somebody or a bunch of somebodys that have taken a deer with a bow, and even some who regularly take a buck with a bow. They look on TV and it looks absolutely easy to take big bucks with a bow. Now they see bow ads that depict bows as a space-age weapon that can perform all kinds of accuracy, power and devastation. It could be that given all these out-of-scale claims and biased portrayal of bowhunting, that people are beginning to think that we no longer really need any kind of special seasons. In fact I have heard that sentiment expressed on this forum more than a few times. Also, as time has gone by, we have pushed for and received much longer seasons, and increased bag limits and the use of DMPs, and all kinds of other "goodies". These things have not gone un-noticed by the gun-hunters. Many times these additional benefits have not been matched by corresponding benefits for gun hunters. I'm sure they get the feeling that all this stuff is happening in a one-sided fashion. Guys that aren't involved with anything relating to bowhunting can easily begin to believe some of this hype, and they have no real experience to put it all back into true perspective. So, maybe they begin to think that we are getting too much of a break. Maybe they really do believe that we are cherry-picking the best of the best bucks before they get a chance at them. Maybe they see all the legislative changes as benefitting bowhunters only. Remember .... just because they may have incorrect perceptions doesn't mean that those perceptions do not color their attitudes. As our numbers grow and our equipment improves, and the manufacturer's hype continues to clog the TV airways, this feeling that we are getting unfair advantages might continue to grow along with the dislike for bowhunters. We may even begin to see some regulatory challenges that try to level the playing field in their eyes. Who knows? After all, we still are in the minority.

Last night I went over to have a chat with the Brother-in-law, and I kind of backed out of the whole deal. When I got to thinking about the whole arrangement, It started to look more and more like a bad idea. Traditionally, he has a huge gang of hunters that hunt there and most are of the "brown and down" persuasion. I know that isn't going to change. So when I got to thinking about me being the prime financial donor in the project, and not having a word to say about how the land was to be managed, I figured the best thing to do would be to quietly bow out. It probably would have been a situation that wouldn't have ended well anyway.

It all was centered around the Emil Mueller farm, but took in areas up and down both East Lake Road and West Lake Road. There were logged areas where you could see way up the hill through the woods and see all kinds of deer. There were household yards that were full of deer. There were deer standing in the roads, some of which you had to steer around because they wouldn't move. Out in one of the bigger fields, you could see the white mounds of dead snow-covered deer among the the ones that were standing there pretty much waiting to die. On the surrounding fences, you would see a few deer hanging that had tried to jump over, but lacked the strength to make it all the way over. The condition of the deer was obvious starvation. The quantity of deer that were there made it obvious that these were not resident deer. In fact on trips through the area in the summer months really didn't jump out at you as being an area that was over-populated with deer. So, I believe that these yarded deer represented deer from miles away including the resident deer. No real way of knowing though. His land and others in that area were quite heavily posted. Actually that is a common trait with most of the land in the area even today. The only visible attraction was the fact that he had the typical farm crops planted that any of the area farmers grew. But when I first saw the situation, it looked to me like the ground was completely bare. There was absolutely nothing left. It was a pretty unsettling sight that I will never forget. Unfortunately, I was not into photography back then or those pictures would have been quite spectacular. By the way, when he died years later, the entire farm was left to the state with some kind of Finger Lakes Community College connection. The land is marked and used as regular state land, but I think the buildings and grounds are now the property of the college.

Actually not necessarily all that far north. I had the misfortune of witnessing the huge yard at the south end of Honeoye lake. I'm not sure just what the draw was for a couple of years to a couple of farm fields over there, but it sure got way out of hand. It wasn't just a few deer, it was hundreds. I'm not sure just how far those critters traveled. But as soon as the weather cleared ..... poof!..... they were all gone. Of course after a couple of years of that, the whole population kind of collapsed. It wasn't a pretty sight. Well anyway, That's not a result I would expect from the creation of one small food plot .... lol. Like I said, I don't know what was so special about those few fields. Certainly, it didn't take too long before everything in those fields and surrounding browse was stripped, and even today, you can see the results. So in almost no time at all, there wasn't any attraction there at all, and yet .... there they were (some dead some barely alive). Pretty gruesome stuff! That yarding stuff is something I'll never completely understand, but then that's another topic.

No, these things are not pieces of delicate china or something. Generally speaking, you have to abuse the hell out of them to actually create damage. And I'm talking about more than just how you store them. Actually, the Matthews that I use never does get stored. It is strung all the time, at full hunting weight and simply hung on the wall and normally used at least once a week. If that is going to do any damage, then I wouldn't even want to be shooting it .... lol.

Thanks for the info. I will pass it along to my Brother-in-law as well. Maybe I can talk him into a more reasonable size plot. Interesting you should mention deer coming in from 3 miles. I don't think that's something I want to promote. My experience with the winter wanderers is that they don't pemanently relocate, and could wind up feeding a bunch of "yarding" deer that are no where around when hunting season is here. It might be that there is such a thing as being too successful ..... lol.

Not trying to speak for anyone else, but I would think that a direct private message would be in order and a suggestion that the picture might want to be taken down to avoid legal hassles. That way, instead of a guy getting all pissed off and embarrassed, he is actually kind of grateful that you are looking out for him.

That is exactly the kind of info I was looking for. I believe the DEC publishes a deer-per-square-mile figure by township. I think I have seen that in the past. From that info there should be a way of getting to an average plot size that is recommended, depending on what is planted in the plot. I'm probably making a whole lot more of this than it should be, but I do not have deep pockets, and have no spare money laying around to be wasted on developing excess acreage of plantings.

Farming has just about deserted the area. They left the deeper valleys back in the 50's. The nearest farm is almost 8 miles away, and that guy has land of his own that is not being tilled. No, we're pretty much on our own with this project. I just have to talk him down in the size of the operation. A 24 acre plot just seems way over-done for a food plot size.........At least that is my take on it. Actually, that's the info I was hoping to get from this thread. It seems to me that by now there should have been some formula developed by the QDM folks that would take the DEC estimated deer per square mile and tell you an approximate plot size that would take care of all the deer within feeding distance of your plot. I'm not talking exact numbers here, but just some sort of guideline.

Quite interesting. Should make for some great video.

I absolutely understand. I am often accused of doing "make-work" projects just to stay active. And it's true. I believe that at my age, when I cease to stay busy, I will seize up and come to a quick end. I also understand interest in farming activities. Some of my best days were spent behind the wheel of a tractor, especially as a kid. And of course having been a farm kid growing up in rural NYS, I have a natural attraction to growing things. And the appeal of food plots for me is based on a lot of that. And by the way, I have seen some of the pictures of the areas that you have created, and they absolutely add to the aesthetics of your place. It all obviously represents a heck of a lot of work and results in one beautiful place. It's very rewarding to see the difference that hard work can make. One of the reasons for the question in this thread was an offer from my Brother-in-law to put in a food plot on his land across the road. My property is almost entirely mature woods with very little acreage that is tillable and he has this huge abandoned field that is starting to go back to brush. My part in this venture would be financial since he has some of the equipment and the land. And, I know he would like to put his whole 24 acre field into a food plot. My initial reaction was that that is a huge area for a food plot, and would cost quite a bit. Great size for an farm hay-field .... lol .... but likely way more than needs to be utilized by the amount of deer in his area. So naturally, my mind turned to the subject of "how big is too big". I thought I might get some insight on here, but I'm beginning to believe that no one has developed any criteria for "right-sizing" food plots. It seems to be only that there is no limit, and bigger is better. Somehow that just doesn't seem to be logical to me, and I have kind of backed off the proposed deal. I was hoping that there might be some procedure, rule of thumb, or whatever for establishing a rough size for a food plot that served the purpose without spending cash on resources that no animal will ever use. So far no one seems to have any knowledge of that kind. Maybe nobody has done any research on that. So anyway, I am still looking for answers.

I was into Lowes today shopping for some pressure treated dimension lumber. I wanted some 8" one-by-fours. I never saw such a twisted mess of scabby, knotty, horrible, boards that really had no practical use to anybody. They were almost funny to look at. Seriously, it was amazing that they could get that many humps and twists in an 8' length without actually trying. Some of them had 3" sideways bows, if you can imagine that. And then to add insult to injury, they have the nerve to ask $3.97 apiece for that crap. I couldn't use them if they were free. There were some 10' lengths that were much better, so with enough sorting, I might be able to cut them up to get some useable 8' sections. I didn't have room in my car for 10' lumber, so tomorrow I will take the trailer. There's not a lot of lumber competition in Canandaigua since Chase Pitkin closed up.