This is a spin off question from GYF Camp's public land thread, and I guess it's directed at the guys who have done/seen both (Troy, for example, would qualify). Do you feel the deer from the West are different from the deer in the East? Please explain the differences. Do your hunting tactics change from region to region? Obviously, "hunting the hunters" (cool concept) isn't nearly as feasible when land is vast and human population density is low. I've hunting both eastern and western Kansas (a single state, mind you) and the two places are like apples to oranges. The tactics I employ in one region of that state would not work in the other...Nebraska is very similar. Stand hunting for muleys is less productive than spot and stalk tactics, and in my experience more people tends to keep the woods stirred. Thus, my success increases. So what say you? Are the deer different? Are the woods different? Is “more” better? When you break down the "what’s", "when’s", "where’s", "why’s", and "how’s" of a region(s), wouldn't you agree, you slowly gain the knowledge for success? "Success" has a two part common denominator: 1) You have got to want it, and 2) You have to be there to earn it. "Hands on" experience is priceless... which certainly leads to better decision making down the road.
You bet there's a difference Will. For example, bear hunting and the tactics used to be successful. In north central Minnesota where I bear hunt spot and stalk Is WAY out of the question. Baiting Is about the only means to try and be successful. Other parts of the USA, that's not the case. Most times It's Ignorance on people's part thinking the whole state/country Is the same.
