Yes, I hope the other one has relevance. This one really doesn’t, and certain has nothing to do with hunter success, especially at archery distances.
I cannot find it, so I'll withdraw that part. However, I don't want this to become just another discussion of camouflage vs. non-camouflage. This was never meant to be anti-camouflage. My observation was simply that I don't think the modern patterns they whip out every year are quantifiably better than 40-year-old patterns like ASAT or patterns that mimmick natural camouflage found in animals.
However, I disagree that the size of animal harvested has nothing to do with hunter success. Many hunters, the majority I would assume, define success in terms of animal size. That is why most hunters want that 10-point trophy buck. That is why derogatory terms like dink exist for small deer to rub our buddies noses in it. Most hunters, and fishermen for that matter, want to get "the big one". But that also speaks to the sliding scale of what we consider as "succuss" when hunting and fishing. A small buck is better than no buck, but I don't think many people would choose the small buck over a big buck if given the choice.
After all, animal size correlates with age, experience, intelligence, adaptability and the ability for an animal to survive. Hunting game don't typically make it to peak age unless they are wary and well-adapted. It is typically more difficult to kill a buck that has made it to the peak of their lifespan than younger bucks because a.) they have experience and have developed their ability to detect danger/ interact with their environment in ways that improve their safety and b.) they likely already had well-suited characteristics to have made it that long. Therefore, hunting success can be measured in part (but certainly not completely) based on the size of an animal one is able to kill.
As for the distance and use of archery equipment, the study did not distinguish between animals killed with bow or gun, and I agree these are important distinctions when discussing the topic, but I do not feel it is a safe assumption to presume the findings automatically don't apply to archery when it is very possible a large portion of the animals surveyed were killed with bow and arrow. Type of prey is another important consideration and the study only looked at ungulates. Obviously, birds or predators may have different findings.
I don't think what I'm saying is all that out there. Many individuals, some on this forum probably, have killed plenty of deer at traditional archery range in 70-year-old patterns like frogskin, or 40-year-old patterns like ASAT. I have yet to see any empirical evidence the latest Mossy Oak or Realtree, or Sitka Optifade, etc provide any advantage over older options. The question is if the brand new First Lite or Sitka or Mossy Oak isn't quantifiably more effective than existing patterns or patterns in nature why all the focus on the new pattern that will make you INVISIBLE to deer? The answer is marketing and money.
Topic: Camouflage in nature. (Read 3722 times)
