Stanley wrote:Stanley wrote:Now lets say a hunter has a dynamite buck bed that produces bucks year after year (hypothetically). Is he a good hunter, poor hunter or an opportunist.Southern Man wrote:Again, opportunistic.
In both of those examples, isn't that what we as hunters look for? A tactic that consistantly works? I'm not sure anyone would purposely choose a hunting strategy that would make hunting more difficult unless the end result were greater, such as what Ed was saying.
I consider the better hunter to be the guy that can adapt to whatever property / terrain, private or public, and get the job done, maybe not every year but fairly consistantly. And not necessarily all mature bucks.
Public or private land might not be an issue either depending on the property. Not all public is highly pressured and not all private is a cake walk despite what some think. If a hunter kills on public land using the same tactics that he used on private land, that doesn't necessesarily make him a better hunter. But the guy that can be consistantly sucessful whether he's hunting in marsh/swamps, hill country, farm country, or different states even, now that guy has learned the buisness.
[glow=red]I have seen people post up that hunting like that isn't skilful. Why would they say and think that?[/glow]
I have seen it also. And not sure why. There's more than one way to skin a cat.