You know, it occurs to me what a waste it is that companies have put millions of dollars into developing camo when all we really need to do is look to nature. A leopard or jaguar depends on their camouflage to survive. If they get busted, they don't eat. They can't walk down the street and buy ground beef at wal mart. Why fix what isn't broke? Of course, the answer is $$$, but if you want to be a predator dress like a predator. I've never seen a predator with fur that looks like detailed sticks, twigs, and leaves.
So buy you some leopard print hunting clothes and go get it.
Seems to me they aren't loosing any money and although I dont have any money invested in those companies I wouldn't think it would be a bad investment.
Personally I'm a Mossy Oak fan.
Quote from: GCook on February 19, 2022, 11:45:05 PM
So buy you some leopard print hunting clothes and go get it.
Seems to me they aren't loosing any money and although I dont have any money invested in those companies I wouldn't think it would be a bad investment.
Personally I'm a Mossy Oak fan.
I'm not saying they're going to lose money, they make a lot of money, which is why they can afford to spend millions in developing patterns.
I'm just saying hunters don't have to spend the big bucks on the newest camo patterns. You can make your own camo that can be just as effective... or just wear a plaid. Plaid operates on principles similar to natural camouflages in nature.
I have this picture in my neat photos stash. It may have been on here before. Find the leopard. [attachment=1]
Fred Bear said "the best camouflage is called sit down and be quiet"
Tim B
I have several different camo patterns that I like. Also, I have numerous plaid garments that seem to be effective. I like them all. However, I think the quote from Fred Bear is very solid. Actually, back in the rifle days, I killed numerous deer when not wearing any camo at all. Long story short is that you should use it if you like it or not use it if you don't like it. Why should I care what another guy uses? I sure don't let the opinions of others make up my mind, either. Regarding the money angle, the clothes producers are in business to make money - it is their job. True, many patterns seem to be designed more to appeal to people rather than to fool the eyes of game. That is where hunter knowledge and experience come into play. Try it out and find out what works best in the area to be hunted. I wish the old military WWII style that was reversible (green camo on one side and brown camo on the other) was still readily available. Still, let me paraphrase Fred Bear by saying that the best way to fool the deer is to find a good spot, put your nose in the wind, be still, and be quiet.
Yep. I was fortunate to know Mart Gibson several years and spent a few spring turkey seasons hunting his place in north Missouri. He'd normally kill a turkey the first day in his blue overalls and his red plaid jacket on.
Being still is definitely a key.
But you'll pay as much for a decent plaid shirt as a decent camo shirt.
Camo was actually developed as a military attempt to hide people and equipment being looked for by other people. Not just still people but moving through terrain so they would be harder to pick out. Even from the air. Hunters coming home just adapted it.
Now computer imaging makes all kinds of things possible.
So if the animals dont care, and I've never had a passing squirrel stop and give me a fashion tip, then it comes down to preference.
So why are the plaid preferring people so mad about camo?
Beemann, he's at the top of the tree. :-)
Remind me to never never go into leopard country...I can't find him/her...
Yeah, this isn't a post to shame people who buy Mossy Oak or Realtree, etc Camo. You should wear whatever makes you comfortable and makes you enjoy the hunt. I wear a combination of plain neutrals, plaids, and ASAT camo myself.
I guess the point I was making is that I'm surprised companies and hunters haven't made camo's inspired by leopard rosettes, tiger stripes, giraffe print etc, especially since most states have blaze orange requirements and those type of camos would fit well on hunter orange. Clearly the patterns are effective at breaking up outlines.
Well except for tiger stripe camo, that has been made....but then I'm surprised there isnt hunter orange tiger stripe, which I think would be very effective.
I wear camo because the pockets are better usually, but it's not super needed. Ever have a doe lay down 30 yards away, look away and have trouble locating her again? :)
Ever spot a bobcat sitting still? I havent...
That said, I think the texture of the fabric is probably more important than the colors. Think fleece or wool compared to shiny synthetics.
Rock on men !!
I agree with sit down and be quiet. However good Camo can do amazing things. When Predator camo first came out I was a big fan and I had some amazing experiences. I kinda got away from it because of the lack of quality garments being made in the pattern. I started using a Ghille suit as well and the amazing experiences ramped up. Wear what makes you happy, but if you think plaids and neutrals work as well as a Ghille you have not hunted much. Some camo in specific situations can get you as close to invisible as possible. I like being invisible it makes me feel like the boogy man. :biglaugh:
Yep , ghillie is a whole nother deal ! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I remember Mickey Lotz telling a story about hunting in the snow during gun season with a blaze orange coveralls on and shooting a doe at 5 yards with his stick bow. He must have read Fred Bears advise about camo.
Just about every natural camo that could be made has been. Think WWII camo and Predator camo, for example. Pretty close to leopard spots and tiger stripes. Regardless, a major reason folks buy the new materials is for their features and functionality, not their camo pattern. And, the natural colors, tans, plaids, you're talking about are also available. I don't see the problem.
Quote from: Orion on February 20, 2022, 01:25:54 PM
Just about every natural camo that could be made has been. Think WWII camo and Predator camo, for example. Pretty close to leopard spots and tiger stripes. Regardless, a major reason folks buy the new materials is for their features and functionality, not their camo pattern. And, the natural colors, tans, plaids, you're talking about are also available. I don't see the problem.
It wasn't really a problem so much as an observation I wanted to discuss.
that is a good point, I didn't think about how the WWII Frogskin looks kinda like leopard spots.
Double click on it and then you can blow it up. Tip of nose and eyes is what i caught first. [attachment=1]
I use Natur-gear brown. It disappears in the Texas brush. Also Asbell ESG pathfinder, Predator grey.
:campfire: :coffee: :archer2:
My thoughts are that the entire hunting camo 'thing' serves two purposes; (1) to make money in an industry by the manufacturers and (2) fulfill the desire of the hunter either in terms of self confidence or in lessor instances....image.
I love KOM clothing, and I love the plaids by the Asbell's. Both are quality items in their own right, but I have to disclose that each provides an image. In a recent hunt on an exclusive public land hunt I wore wool and Asbell plaids..... and a few people asked me if I was shooting a 'traditional' bow at the required orientation meeting. I'm not too embarrassed to say that I kind of like that.
As said many times in different ways on this thread, camo is largely overrated. I remember wearing 500 inches of orange in my distant past gun hunting days while sitting on the ground....and having deer come close enough to grab their legs if I had wanted to. (Glad I didn't as that technique is no longer recommended:)
I could not see the leopard untill you circled it and my wife couldn't see it till it was enlarged . I seen a wild leopard in Africa last summer amazing camo . I to like nat gear .
I hunt wearing a ghillie suit that I made myself. In my opinion, camo use in military and camo use in hunting are two totally different perspectives.
When "hunting" humans or trying to not be detected by humans during military operations, camo is an advantage, as the human animal is preprogrammed to look for a human form or outline.
Animals have an alternate view, as they are always looking for something not quite right. The best camo in hunting either makes you blend in, so you are virtually invisible, or breaks up your outline.
What many forget to "hide" is their eyes. Eyes will always give you away. I use black all around my eyes and lids, and make sure that some of the jute from my boonie cover hangs down to break up my eyes also. And yes, keeping still and silent is very important.
I use camo head to toe for Waterfowl hunting but not so much on MuleDeer, BlackBear, Elk or if I am hunting Antelope on a water hole using a popup blind I make sure I wear something dark and I shoot through the netting. The big camo company make some nice looking gear and some of the best rain gear I have ever seen in my 40 + years of hunting.
To be honest the lepord thing is a size perception issue. I never expected it to be that small.
I couldn't find the leopard either.
Good example Mr Bee.
Tim B beat me to the Fred Bear quote. I'm a ghillie guy, but acknowledge that most anything should work in the right conditions.
WWII camo works well, and is my absolute favorite. Wish you could find more stuff with the pattern.
Quote from: SlowBowKing on February 25, 2022, 09:38:12 PM
Tim B beat me to the Fred Bear quote. I'm a ghillie guy, but acknowledge that most anything should work in the right conditions.
WWII camo works well, and is my absolute favorite. Wish you could find more stuff with the pattern.
Agreed, especially with deer who aren't the most visually oriented creatures. Ducks and turkeys are a little harder.
Texture is so important, and usually so completely overlooked. Deer don't "disappear" just because their brown or grey.
[attachment=1]
That piebald doe is incredible.
:campfire: :coffee: :archer2:
Yep, wear some camo that looks like a jumbo bobcat where I hunt and you'll likely get shot.
At least a vegan will try to pull you out of the ground first if looking like organic vegies.
Small and laying in the rocks. I saw it's rump first. Yeah not surprising it's hard to find in that position.
I think it is a little stretch to think that the spots on a leopard are the ultimate camo. Just working with limitations of genetics and evolution. Plenty of examples where different types of 'camo' is used, often more effectively. Especially with changing color.
https://youtu.be/4BY0mzHj1dw
There are tons of different camo patterns in nature that are adapted to their environments, given genetic and evolutionary limits. Different snake species, horned toads, etc. Nothing wrong with choosing a pattern that may be better suited to your hunting environment. I will agree that it isn't always necessary.
Just because something has worked doesn't mean that there can't be improvements. There is a reason that not many folks carry a flint and steel to start a fire.
That is cool as heck.....
Quote from: pdk25 on March 13, 2022, 12:10:55 PM
I think it is a little stretch to think that the spots on a leopard are the ultimate camo. Just working with limitations of genetics and evolution. Plenty of examples where different types of 'camo' is used, often more effectively. Especially with changing color.
https://youtu.be/4BY0mzHj1dw
To be clear, I was not saying leopard spots are any kind of ultimate Camo. Leopards and jaguars were just the example I used. My point was more so about how much money goes into developing new camouflages, which are not really all that functionally different, mostly just to make people want the "newest" one to make $$$.
And of course it is perfectly fine to use improved technology as it progresses, but I don't think most of these new camouflages represent the kind of change you're talking about from starting a fire with steel and flint to with a lighter. That is a revolution in fire starting technology. In my experience, and through my reading I haven't seen any substantive difference in the efficacy of brand new camouflages and stuff that has been around for 30, 50, 70 years or longer. Some studies have found that Camo use makes no statistically significant difference in success rates.
Care to show any references to those studies? I would be interested in studies like that. It would seem to be very difficult to have good controlled studies for that across a wide range of conditions.
Quote from: Elsecaller on March 13, 2022, 04:04:06 PM
And of course it is perfectly fine to use improved technology as it progresses, but I don't think most of these new camouflages represent the kind of change you're talking about from starting a fire with steel and flint to with a lighter. That is a revolution in fire starting technology. In my experience, and through my reading I haven't seen any substantive difference in the efficacy of brand new camouflages and stuff that has been around for 30, 50, 70 years or longer. Some studies have found that Camo use makes no statistically significant difference in success rates.
Not to mention, that your last statement kind of argues against your leopard or plaid camo support.
Quote from: Elsecaller on February 19, 2022, 11:06:40 PM
You know, it occurs to me what a waste it is that companies have put millions of dollars into developing camo when all we really need to do is look to nature. A leopard or jaguar depends on their camouflage to survive. If they get busted, they don't eat. They can't walk down the street and buy ground beef at wal mart. Why fix what isn't broke? Of course, the answer is $$$, but if you want to be a predator dress like a predator. I've never seen a predator with fur that looks like detailed sticks, twigs, and leaves.
[/quote/]
.
Let me see if I can dig it up.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103487 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103487)
Findings: "Despite its prevalence among sampled hunters (80%), camouflage had no influence on size of killed prey."
It's a very crude measure, but its a start. Let me see if I can find the other one.
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.
A copperhead's camo looks like leaves and works really well. But I do agree with what you are saying.
Quote from: pdk25 on March 13, 2022, 10:36:53 PM
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.
In a word..."movement"......knowing when to and when not to is the best camouflage. Camouflage is to blend in , become part of. Movement separates ....divides...........exposes.
Yep, I think soft and ultra quiet material is very important for bow hunting ranges.
It can't be proven either way without studies that would almost be impossible to conduct. Do people need to dress in the latest camo to kill things? Of course not. Does it potentially help in certain situations? Most likely. Is it quantifiable? Not likely. Can I poke a ton of holes in the study that you mentioned? Absolutely. Believe what you want and use what you want, but believing that one pattern is the ideal for all hunting environments would really be somewhat silly.
A pattern that I have often thought would be good came from my cat. Her coloration is what is called tortoise shell. It is the black, grey, tan, and white coloration that is in no distinct pattern, like a cotton tail rabbit. When the cat crouches in the shrubbery, she disappears.
I have 2 dogs, one a white Akita/Shepherd, the other a black lab. When we are walking in the woods and I take my eyes off of them it is hard to see them until they move. They can completely disappear as long as they are still. I think with animals their fur absorbs the light but some hunting cloths reflect light. For human's eyes the reflection is not very obvious but to animal's eyes it is. I think wool works like other animal hair(fur) in that it absorbs the light.
How many times have you taken your eye off of a deer and not been able to find them again until they move?
Pat is on to something. I like open pattern, light browns with a bit of green thrown in for Texas. Or the Midwest for that matter.
:campfire: :coffee: :archer2: