What is your definition of big woods?

[P&YBuck1]

From a deer hunting perspective what is your personal description of Big Woods?

[Singing Bridge]

Yeah baby- the big woods! I would think we will get a lot of different answers to this question, and I respect them all.

There are two criteria that have to be met for it to meet my personal definition of big woods. First, I like to see a couple of thousand acres or more of unbroken timber. Second, the deer cannot be within striking distance of any agriculture.

Regarding the minimum acreage requirement, I grew up hunting the northern Michigan areas of state and national forest that had unbroken timber this size and larger. It just wouldn't have the same feel if the acreage was smaller. Many hunters feel a few hundred acres would meet their definition of big woods... but not me.

The agriculture thing- crops impact the behavior of whitetails so strongly that if they can reach them it will impact travel and bedding by the deer. My definition of a big woods area has no influence of agriculture and the deer are eating browse, acorns and many other natural foods. I do include the regenerating browse of man-made clearcuts and select cuts as being part of a big woods area.

The next step up for me are wilderness areas- these go beyond my definition of big woods and some of my spots the next stop would be Santa and the North Pole... a different discussion.

[Southern Man]

There is a chunk of public land here that is 85,000 to 90,000 acres in size. 95% forested and about half of that 5% open ground is agriculture. I always considered that big woods. On top of that it's hill country.

It's relatively easy to find deer around the crop areas. SB, I can see where no influence of ag would be in the definition. Once you get into the wooded hills away from the ag, it's a chore to figure out. Especially for a farm country hunter.

[Dewey]

Pretty much what SB said. I consider it big woods if there is no agriculture and you have hundreds of thousands of acres of unbroken timber with no main roads or logging roads for at least 5 miles in any direction. About the only place in the midwest I have found this is the UP or far northern MN. (Ottawa National Forest or Superior National Forest) There are a few spots in northern WI that meet this criteria as well but to a lesser degree.

There is not much that compares to far NW Ontario though. I have been in areas up there on fly in fishing trips by float plane that puts any big woods in the U.S. to shame. Been in spots where the closest road was at least 100 miles away. Not too many deer up there of course.
[ Post made via iPhone ]

[Stanley]

Big woods is where you hunt and the area doesn't get smaller very fast, as you hunt the area year after year. Have you ever noticed an area of 500 acres gets smaller every year you hunt it?

[blackwolf]

Same as SB

[G3s]

To me the big woods is measure in square miles, not acres. Big is always relative to the area you are in. I say 10 square miles or more should be considered big woods.

[Bowhunting Brian]

big woods to me is large and no where near ag land.

[MattyG]

big woods to me is large and no where near ag land.

X2 and i think SB is spot on also