You argument doesn't fit. He is talking about hunting tactics. You are talking about equipment. Carrying a compound isn't going to make someone find deer better than a guy carrying a spear. Simple question. Do you think that planting a food plot increases a hunters chances at attracting their target animals?
Not saying the boot fits here... But, I have come to realize in life most people only get offended by something if it has some truth to it.
His point is the skill it takes and that it makes it more challenging... how does that not fall over into the method someone uses to hunt? Compound takes less skill and is not as challenging as a long bow. Of course, why else would anyone plant a food plot? Do you think using a compound increases a hunters chance of hitting a deer? "In the mean time, I’ll stick to the challenging style of hunting on public ground *in deep woods." 100% talking about the being more or less challenging. To him that may be hunting deep woods public ground.. to another that can mean deep woods public ground with a spear and his way is easy..
Reread what you wrote. You just said that food plots make it easier. We have been talking about finding and setting up on deer, that is why I said the equipment aspect didn't fit this conversation. Although to answer your question, yes, it is considerably easier to take game with a compound bow over a traditional bow.
So hunting the deep woods is more challenging and a food plot is easier and increases your odds? Hunting with a compound does too. You can see it how you want.
Not at all... I don't take to many things serious enough to get mad / upset or offended... Even if it is true.
I see where you are coming from, absolutely. However, reading the first post of this thread he speaks of woodsmanship. Nothing of the equipment used, so that was the angle I approached this thread with. I know guys who could find deer in any habitat and others that couldn't find one tied to a tree in their back yard.
That's good, I'm sure you're in a cheery mood far more than I am then. The thing was it wasn't about me, it was a blanket statement about "plot hunters" in general. Beyond that it was the sense of bragging that his preferred method was superior to others because it was his method. Nothing wrong with either method until someone tries to suggest theirs is better and anyone who does it differently does so because they are lazy and stupid. The flip side of that argument is maybe most people do it the other way because they are simply smarter...see how that works? I can go live off the land for a year as a survivalist or I can live in a stable environment and grow my food comfortably. Where is the line between being lazy and stupid and being smart? If one is capable of doing either but chooses to do the one that is more productive then that's a case of being smart about it, not lazy and stupid. There's enough stupid and lazy to go around in the pool of hunters on either side.
I agree and understand where you are coming from but to me you cant talk about any aspect of hunting being easy or challenging without other aspects of hunting being included. To say some hunters are lazy or have no clue for doing it a different way than you do is just stupid. I live in southern Illinois where there are deer all over (I need to check the tree in my back yard) and shooting a young/dumb deer isnt all that difficult, but shooting a big/mature buck is no easy task (to me anyway) private land/hay field/food plot or not.
So then, folks hunting any crop fields must be considered "plotters", because a crop field is nothing more than a giant food plot. I'll just stick to the acorns (natural) so nobody calls me names. lol
I guess it depends on how far back in the deep dark woods it is. If you have to pack in to the field and camp out there to be able to hunt it and you're on public ground then it makes you a deer hunting god and everyone else is beneath you.
Not only does he go in early, he hunts deep in the public forests in the Orange Army state. Dude is a mans man.
Ehh?.. The original post has missed you by a country mile... The argument -if there is one- is about the method (or style, strategy, etc.) used for the hunt. The weapon used for the kill is COMPLETELY unrelated. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your opinion.. once you start saying one method is more or less challenging than anothers or that this way is lazy and that way isnt, it kinda opens the conversation up imo. If you just talk about hunting deep woods public lands and strats/skills it takes ect w/o comparing it to anything I would agree with you.
