Upshot from the 3 recent polls I posted:
- 70% of folks get the majority of their satisfaction from a hunt, from the actual killing of a deer. The definition of killing a deer seemed broad, but encompassed the actual act of killing, as well as killing=success=satisfaction due to reaching the goal but the act itself wasn't the satisfying part.
- Less than 10% of people get the majority of their satisfaction from a hunt, from the climbing portion of the hunt.
- 65% of hunters have killed the majority of their deer from a tree. Interestingly, albeit a small sample size, numbers flipped in inexperienced hunters - with most new hunters killing more deer from the ground.
None of these answers are surprising. But I hoped to highlight some things that might inform the safety/risk conversation.
Based on the polls, most people get most of their hunting satisfaction from killing a deer. This might seem obvious to some people. It's not to me. I would argue that most people get most of their hunting satisfaction from being able to tell other hunters about their hunting success. But that's a different thread. Let's go with everyone telling themselves, and the poll, the truth...
If most of us get most of our satisfaction from killing a deer, it would make sense to orient ourselves towards that goal. Evidence seems to support this to a degree. We invest a lot of time, money, attention and focus on gear, strategy, tactics, land, fuel, etc. to achieve the goal. The best way to get the best results is to put our pattern recognition devices (brains) and wallets to work. But success isn't black and white. There are things you can do that have a significant impact on success (killing deer), and things you can do that have minor impacts. Based on the polls, it would seem that most hunters believe that climbing a tree is something that has a significant impact on success...
I also think it is safe to say that for almost all hunters, getting in a tree is a perceived necessary evil. The act is not something that adds significant value to 90% of people's hunts. But based on experienced hunters killing most of their deer from a tree, it does appear to be a variable that impacts success to a large degree. I would say the numbers flipping for inexperienced hunters might be a fly in the ointment there, but it's tough to say.
I can speak from personal experience. I'm 37, and have been bowhunting since 12 years old. I've killed more deer from the ground than from a tree. Being out of a deer's natural line of sight, and changing the direction of my scent dispersion, have both contributed to my success. And in some cases, the deer would have been impossible to kill without being in a tree. I can't deny that, nor do I want to. What I'd like to point out, is that I've killed more than 20 deer from the ground. And those hunts, on the whole, have been as satisfying as hunts where I climbed a tree.
And here is where the grey area comes in: I've spoken my opinion on large folks and older folks climbing trees. As a group, it doesn't make sense to me to do it. My reasoning: If I can kill 20 deer from the ground, and on the whole, those hunts are no less satisfying than getting in a tree and killing a deer, so can other people. A few of those were chance encounters, but many were stalks, ambushes, sits, etc. I saw opportunities, I developed a plan, and executed it. Let's just go with 50% of my deer killed from the ground for the next maths.
I am an equal opportunity hunter. I don't force myself up a tree. I don't even view it as first choice. I look at a property, and find the best chance of crossing paths with a deer in bow range during daylight downwind of them. I will sit in the mud, just as easily as I'll climb a tree. I don't WANT to climb a tree. I don't assume I HAVE to climb a tree. I just find killable deer. And then, with minimum force(risk/effort/time) necessary, set up to kill them. Sometimes that involves a tree climb. It's this orientation that I think might be useful for new hunters, old hunters, big hunters, to consider.
I'm relatively young, relatively thin, and relatively flexible. I'm very good at remaining calm in dynamic situations and breaking problems down into manageable chunks on the way to solving them. I have no financial limitations on gear, travel, tags. Up to this point, I've had little limitation on my ability to practice, plan, think ahead, etc. my tactics and risks. I don't have a wife or kids. I have a job that allows travel, and if I were injured, flexibility to rehab. Essentially, when it comes to tools in the toolbox for solving the problem of killing deer, and managing the risks involved, I'm well equipped. When assessing the risk of climbing a tree to kill deer, I think it is safe to say I'm in the tiny portion of hunters at lowest risk of injury/death.
I don't view this as a license to do stupid stuff in the woods. I give it a quick run through mentally every now and then, and then go hunt. But as I get older, and as I get less limber, and less thin, a wife to be, and baby number one on the way, this calculus changes. I know for a fact I could find plenty of killable deer every year without ever leaving the ground. And I know for a fact that I could get every bit as much enjoyment out of killing these deer. But right now, I still have plenty of reward to outweigh the risk of going up a tree - this is because so far, many of the places I have extreme confidence in killing deer, happen to involve climbing a tree to do so.
As I go forward, I'm not going to say ZERO tree climbing. I'm just going to orient myself towards places that I have great odds from the ground. My expectation is that over the next 10 years, I'll probably kill 60-80% of my deer from the ground. And I'll spend my effort, money, focus, time accordingly. And my expectation from age 50 on, if I still like hunting and killing deer, is that 90-100% of my deer from then on will be killed from the ground. This is my personal math. And it has nothing to do with "I can only kill deer from a tree." It's my math, with full knowledge of the risks involved, and the potential for success/satisfaction I've already learned how to achieve, without climbing a tree.
If I were to gain 50lbs in the next two years, I would climb zero trees. I'm not 50, or 60 yet, but my expectation is that I will climb zero trees to kill deer at that age. The math above swings wildly out of whack on risk/reward. Again, this isn't because some large people can't or shouldn't climb trees to kill deer. Or some older people can't or shouldn't climb trees to kill deer. It's in light of the fact that I can reliably kill deer from the ground, and get just as much enjoyment out of that process.
And you can too.
I had no illusions that I would say I think some folks shouldn't climb trees, and those groups of people would just stop. My hope is that someone at a greater risk of falls/injury/death, might read what I'm saying, and at least let it inform their decision. Gear marketing has a single goal - to convince you that you are not a good enough hunter to achieve success without that piece of gear. Forums like this one, and facebook stuff, all create significant pressure to conform to styles, tactics, equipment ownership, lingo, etc. of the niche. This isn't groundbreaking news - most people intuit this already. All of this pressure WILL cause you to alter your mental calculations on what to do when you hunt. It is hard to quantify. It's also not up to you - this is happening subconsciously.
There is very little positive reinforcement to the notion that you don't need to climb a tree to kill whitetail deer, even with a bow. The joke about buckethunter.com is only half a joke. I'm here to tell you that you can kill deer from the ground. Big ones. Small ones. Lots of ones. It can be satisfying. It can be done efficiently. It may not be the best choice for you every time. But if you think that your odds of success go down so much that it is worth taking significant risk to life/limb to hunt in a tree every time - you're not making an honest assessment of the situation.
One comment stuck out to me in the thread on Mr. Purcell's death:
It was something to the effect of "based on your logic, all fat people should stop doing things they love"
I'd like to tweak it a bit: "Based on my reasoning, all obese people (insert Old people if you like) should take make an honest quantitative assessment of why they hunt, what they want to achieve, how to achieve it, the risks involved, the opportunity costs involved, and make informed decisions. This would lead to much better outcomes for obese hunters, as a group."
It's not black and white, and it isn't right or wrong. It doesn't mean that ALL large people are ALL making bad choices ALL the time, in regards to climbing a tree to hunt. I'm confident that there is someone firmly in the obese category that is better equipped, and at less risk overall, than I am, to climb trees. It's just that more often that not, it's an incomplete, incoherent, ignorant assessment of the situation. And here in America, you've got the right to take that path. You also have the privilege of having access to information, people, knowledge, and experience that can help you make better choices. It doesn't make you less of a man or woman, to do this.
What I would hope for, is that new hunters, older hunters, bigger hunters, would all take a look at the big picture. Be pragmatic, and dispassionate about risk assessment. Think about what you stand to gain by getting in a tree. Think about the risks involved. Think about the alternative paths to success. Think about your family. Your ability to scoot around with less pain at advanced age. Maybe it doesn't stop you from climbing trees. Maybe you just practice more. Maybe you always hunt with someone. Maybe you use a less risky climbing method. Maybe you take training classes to learn proper climbing techniques and problem solving.
I'd like to apologize if I offended anyone with my rather candid approach to the topic. It comes from a good place.
Sorry for the rambling. I'm sure I'll edit and add to this, as I hammered it out precoffee. Please chime in with your thoughts.
Also, I'd like to thank @LoadedLimbs for posting the information on suspension trauma. I have a feeling I'll be completely reassessing my hunting habits and accounting for the new information.
- 70% of folks get the majority of their satisfaction from a hunt, from the actual killing of a deer. The definition of killing a deer seemed broad, but encompassed the actual act of killing, as well as killing=success=satisfaction due to reaching the goal but the act itself wasn't the satisfying part.
- Less than 10% of people get the majority of their satisfaction from a hunt, from the climbing portion of the hunt.
- 65% of hunters have killed the majority of their deer from a tree. Interestingly, albeit a small sample size, numbers flipped in inexperienced hunters - with most new hunters killing more deer from the ground.
None of these answers are surprising. But I hoped to highlight some things that might inform the safety/risk conversation.
Based on the polls, most people get most of their hunting satisfaction from killing a deer. This might seem obvious to some people. It's not to me. I would argue that most people get most of their hunting satisfaction from being able to tell other hunters about their hunting success. But that's a different thread. Let's go with everyone telling themselves, and the poll, the truth...
If most of us get most of our satisfaction from killing a deer, it would make sense to orient ourselves towards that goal. Evidence seems to support this to a degree. We invest a lot of time, money, attention and focus on gear, strategy, tactics, land, fuel, etc. to achieve the goal. The best way to get the best results is to put our pattern recognition devices (brains) and wallets to work. But success isn't black and white. There are things you can do that have a significant impact on success (killing deer), and things you can do that have minor impacts. Based on the polls, it would seem that most hunters believe that climbing a tree is something that has a significant impact on success...
I also think it is safe to say that for almost all hunters, getting in a tree is a perceived necessary evil. The act is not something that adds significant value to 90% of people's hunts. But based on experienced hunters killing most of their deer from a tree, it does appear to be a variable that impacts success to a large degree. I would say the numbers flipping for inexperienced hunters might be a fly in the ointment there, but it's tough to say.
I can speak from personal experience. I'm 37, and have been bowhunting since 12 years old. I've killed more deer from the ground than from a tree. Being out of a deer's natural line of sight, and changing the direction of my scent dispersion, have both contributed to my success. And in some cases, the deer would have been impossible to kill without being in a tree. I can't deny that, nor do I want to. What I'd like to point out, is that I've killed more than 20 deer from the ground. And those hunts, on the whole, have been as satisfying as hunts where I climbed a tree.
And here is where the grey area comes in: I've spoken my opinion on large folks and older folks climbing trees. As a group, it doesn't make sense to me to do it. My reasoning: If I can kill 20 deer from the ground, and on the whole, those hunts are no less satisfying than getting in a tree and killing a deer, so can other people. A few of those were chance encounters, but many were stalks, ambushes, sits, etc. I saw opportunities, I developed a plan, and executed it. Let's just go with 50% of my deer killed from the ground for the next maths.
I am an equal opportunity hunter. I don't force myself up a tree. I don't even view it as first choice. I look at a property, and find the best chance of crossing paths with a deer in bow range during daylight downwind of them. I will sit in the mud, just as easily as I'll climb a tree. I don't WANT to climb a tree. I don't assume I HAVE to climb a tree. I just find killable deer. And then, with minimum force(risk/effort/time) necessary, set up to kill them. Sometimes that involves a tree climb. It's this orientation that I think might be useful for new hunters, old hunters, big hunters, to consider.
I'm relatively young, relatively thin, and relatively flexible. I'm very good at remaining calm in dynamic situations and breaking problems down into manageable chunks on the way to solving them. I have no financial limitations on gear, travel, tags. Up to this point, I've had little limitation on my ability to practice, plan, think ahead, etc. my tactics and risks. I don't have a wife or kids. I have a job that allows travel, and if I were injured, flexibility to rehab. Essentially, when it comes to tools in the toolbox for solving the problem of killing deer, and managing the risks involved, I'm well equipped. When assessing the risk of climbing a tree to kill deer, I think it is safe to say I'm in the tiny portion of hunters at lowest risk of injury/death.
I don't view this as a license to do stupid stuff in the woods. I give it a quick run through mentally every now and then, and then go hunt. But as I get older, and as I get less limber, and less thin, a wife to be, and baby number one on the way, this calculus changes. I know for a fact I could find plenty of killable deer every year without ever leaving the ground. And I know for a fact that I could get every bit as much enjoyment out of killing these deer. But right now, I still have plenty of reward to outweigh the risk of going up a tree - this is because so far, many of the places I have extreme confidence in killing deer, happen to involve climbing a tree to do so.
As I go forward, I'm not going to say ZERO tree climbing. I'm just going to orient myself towards places that I have great odds from the ground. My expectation is that over the next 10 years, I'll probably kill 60-80% of my deer from the ground. And I'll spend my effort, money, focus, time accordingly. And my expectation from age 50 on, if I still like hunting and killing deer, is that 90-100% of my deer from then on will be killed from the ground. This is my personal math. And it has nothing to do with "I can only kill deer from a tree." It's my math, with full knowledge of the risks involved, and the potential for success/satisfaction I've already learned how to achieve, without climbing a tree.
If I were to gain 50lbs in the next two years, I would climb zero trees. I'm not 50, or 60 yet, but my expectation is that I will climb zero trees to kill deer at that age. The math above swings wildly out of whack on risk/reward. Again, this isn't because some large people can't or shouldn't climb trees to kill deer. Or some older people can't or shouldn't climb trees to kill deer. It's in light of the fact that I can reliably kill deer from the ground, and get just as much enjoyment out of that process.
And you can too.
I had no illusions that I would say I think some folks shouldn't climb trees, and those groups of people would just stop. My hope is that someone at a greater risk of falls/injury/death, might read what I'm saying, and at least let it inform their decision. Gear marketing has a single goal - to convince you that you are not a good enough hunter to achieve success without that piece of gear. Forums like this one, and facebook stuff, all create significant pressure to conform to styles, tactics, equipment ownership, lingo, etc. of the niche. This isn't groundbreaking news - most people intuit this already. All of this pressure WILL cause you to alter your mental calculations on what to do when you hunt. It is hard to quantify. It's also not up to you - this is happening subconsciously.
There is very little positive reinforcement to the notion that you don't need to climb a tree to kill whitetail deer, even with a bow. The joke about buckethunter.com is only half a joke. I'm here to tell you that you can kill deer from the ground. Big ones. Small ones. Lots of ones. It can be satisfying. It can be done efficiently. It may not be the best choice for you every time. But if you think that your odds of success go down so much that it is worth taking significant risk to life/limb to hunt in a tree every time - you're not making an honest assessment of the situation.
One comment stuck out to me in the thread on Mr. Purcell's death:
It was something to the effect of "based on your logic, all fat people should stop doing things they love"
I'd like to tweak it a bit: "Based on my reasoning, all obese people (insert Old people if you like) should take make an honest quantitative assessment of why they hunt, what they want to achieve, how to achieve it, the risks involved, the opportunity costs involved, and make informed decisions. This would lead to much better outcomes for obese hunters, as a group."
It's not black and white, and it isn't right or wrong. It doesn't mean that ALL large people are ALL making bad choices ALL the time, in regards to climbing a tree to hunt. I'm confident that there is someone firmly in the obese category that is better equipped, and at less risk overall, than I am, to climb trees. It's just that more often that not, it's an incomplete, incoherent, ignorant assessment of the situation. And here in America, you've got the right to take that path. You also have the privilege of having access to information, people, knowledge, and experience that can help you make better choices. It doesn't make you less of a man or woman, to do this.
What I would hope for, is that new hunters, older hunters, bigger hunters, would all take a look at the big picture. Be pragmatic, and dispassionate about risk assessment. Think about what you stand to gain by getting in a tree. Think about the risks involved. Think about the alternative paths to success. Think about your family. Your ability to scoot around with less pain at advanced age. Maybe it doesn't stop you from climbing trees. Maybe you just practice more. Maybe you always hunt with someone. Maybe you use a less risky climbing method. Maybe you take training classes to learn proper climbing techniques and problem solving.
I'd like to apologize if I offended anyone with my rather candid approach to the topic. It comes from a good place.
Sorry for the rambling. I'm sure I'll edit and add to this, as I hammered it out precoffee. Please chime in with your thoughts.
Also, I'd like to thank @LoadedLimbs for posting the information on suspension trauma. I have a feeling I'll be completely reassessing my hunting habits and accounting for the new information.
