Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cooter

Do blinds spook non-res deer?

6 posts in this topic

So lets say you have a ground blind up and a cruising buck comes through the area. We'll assume he either has never been in that area before or not very often and for sure not since you've set the blind up. Lets also say its set up reasonably well - not out in the middle of a field by itself but with some cover and even brushed in a bit. Anyone have any experience with such a situation? Granted its tough to know for sure if that buck has or has not seen the blind before. Maybe those who have set a ground blind up and either hunted it immediately or shortly after moving or setting it up. One other aspect, the blind isn't necessarily setup on a major trail - so what are the odds of calling/decoying a deer into range of a blind if they haven't seen the blind before or are unfamiliar with the area.

Guess what I'm after is if people have had luck or not calling/decoying bucks in field edge situations during the pre-rut/rut or if you're just drawing unwanted attention to the blind and ruining a setup. Thanks, later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have set up a ground blind and had deer within 20 yards on the same day. I think a buck that is cruising for does or looking for a fight will be prety accepting of a well placed and brushed in blind. Just make sure the blind is as odor free as posible and set up so the deer can't see through it. Decoys work well this time of year, a bedded doe decoy or standing one that can be seen from a trail or travel area can pull a buck in for a look. If deer are using a field and the combines have started working in the area the deer get used to seeing rapid change in the fields so the blinds on fencelines and near rock piles don't seem to spook them much even if they know the area. However in wooded areas near fields that doesn't hold true, if you put up a blind on trails leading to a field it takes a while before the deer go near it. Even bucks that are cruising seem to follow what the locals are doing and they usually seem to follow the does around a new blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not an expert and don't have a ton of field experience with this matter, but... If a buck is cruising into unfamiliar territory, I would say his guard is down already. He is more worried about finding some tail then a blind here or a clump of brush there. Now, if he catches wind of you, he'll quickly seek out anything that looks odd and if a clump of stuff on the ground looks odd, then you might be busted. Like was mentioned, try to keep it a distance away from a good trail or where deer are entering the field. I'm anxious to here others experiences in this matter. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found that on whitetails "brushing in" the blind is much more effective than just setting it up and hunting it. If you brush it in good, and make it look natural, you should have no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do it. As previously stated if it's brushed in really well and doesn't catch their eye or seem unnatural it holds potential for success. Scent elimination rules apply 2x. If the wind forecast holds throughout the weekend I also will be hunting from a blind in WI but very near a funnel between two thick bedding areas. Hunting pressure and daily recreation from the neighboring properties discourages daylight activity on my property in open areas/fields. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

any deer can be spooked by a blind but if the blind is brushed in for a decent amount of time you will be ok. If a deer comes out that is unfamiliar to the territory usually there will be other deer in the field. as we all know deer are keen on eachothers movements and if the new deer sees the other deer are safe in the field/woods so will he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Dave, if this many folks are not understanding the question, than maybe the question is unclear.  So rather then rant about it perhaps try rephrasing it.
    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
  • Our Sponsors