ferg
Well-Known Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVQUSR5B ... e=youtu.be
Pretty convincing case for cams scaring off bucks - discussion?
ferg....
Pretty convincing case for cams scaring off bucks - discussion?
ferg....
-
Help Support TNDeer:
Very interesting - Bryan thoughts?
- Thread starter ferg
- Start date
Based on my localized experience, thousands of trail cam pictures and hundreds of videos over eight years in west TN, I'd say that some cameras scare some deer, some more so than others. I have taken hundreds and hundreds of videos at scrapes over the last 3-4 years. Out of all these video clips, I would say 5-10% of the deer (mainly bucks at scrapes at night) appeared to have a negative reaction (back up slowly and never reappear or bolt and run off). The majority of my videos were taken with a red-glow camera, probably the worst choice as far as camera avoidance goes. Some of the deer in my still pics have noticed the odd object on the tree, however, I do not consider the deer's piqued curiosity and dumbfounded looks in my still pics to be a negative reaction in the big scheme of things. My .02
Good time Charlie
Well-Known Member
I agree 100 percent with what knowledge I have gathered this year
Deer look for the cam that was hanging in a certain place,and the Bucks ..you might get a picture of one,but that is it.
I agree with everything this man has said,I do not think it has much to do with the flash... it is the foreign object in their world
I have moved cams and watched the deer look for the cam that was on a specific tree.
I think if you are going to use cams you have to be able to move them in a moments notice.
Deer look for the cam that was hanging in a certain place,and the Bucks ..you might get a picture of one,but that is it.
I agree with everything this man has said,I do not think it has much to do with the flash... it is the foreign object in their world
I have moved cams and watched the deer look for the cam that was on a specific tree.
I think if you are going to use cams you have to be able to move them in a moments notice.
Very interesting.
morgancountry
Well-Known Member
From that video it looks like you would definitely be better off to try and put the cameras up high
morgancountry said:
I have pics from a mature buck, that I moved the cameras around on him...I hung one 15 feet in a tree...last three pics I have of that deer are him looking straight up at it!
spoon
Well-Known Member
RUGER said:
Ditto...Had a dead camera out for 3 or 4 years now, think I'll remove it
JCDEERMAN
Well-Known Member
OR.....use a black flash camera. Problem solved 
Mike Belt
Well-Known Member
Great food for thought! I've had many bucks over the years that I never got any more pics of after the first series of shots and you could tell in the pics that they were aware of the camera. I have thousands of pics where many of the deer were on high alert checking the actual camera out. Some cameras may alert deer to their presence by lighting or sound but all cameras are obvious to deer by sight. In order to get close enough for detection and operation almost all are hung within feet of their intended "footage" and usually waist high...very obvious to deer. Higher is better even though it may be more difficult to set up the camera in doing so.
Thanks for the thread ferg. Good stuff and good discussion.
Almost every 4.5+ year old buck I've ever had pictures of he clearly sees the camera and there is never a second picture. Fortunately we still are able to harvest a few of them so I guess I'll deal with it. I have video settings on all my cameras that I'll have to try out this year. Haven't in the past simply to save on batteries.
ferg
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna switch mine to video later in the summer early fall and see - I have used video before - and have many does on camera - but none that could or at least acted like they even knew the camera was there - none up close either -
Good time Charlie
Well-Known Member
Check these two Little Bucks out...they seen the one Cam but not this one pointing in another direction.They did not even stop at the corn.....
And yes ...I know for a fact these are bucks.
And yes ...I know for a fact these are bucks.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Good subject Freg, but a question with so many complicated and conditional answers that I could write a whole book on the subject...
Camera avoidance is a serious problem for those trying to continuously monitor their local deer population over long periods of time, or for those who are trying to pattern the movement of particular bucks. And there is no real answer for the problem. Every potential "fix" also has its downsides.
I agree that video mode on trail-cameras can often see deer behavior and catch individual deer that a single picture would not have caught. However, video mode also has its downsides. Video imagery is recorded at MUCH inferior quality (image clarity/pixel count) than still images can be. Many newer trail-cams use imagers of at least 5 megapixels, while video is captured at generally far below 1 megapixel. This can make identification of individual bucks by antler configuration, especially those in the background, very difficult.
In addition, visible flash trail-cameras produce FAR more camera spook and camera avoidance due to the long-duration illumination needed at night than the burst-flash of still imagery.
Video mode also uses up battery power and memory card space much faster than still images.
Personally, I like to set my cameras on still-magery and also set to take many burst-mode pictures with each trigger. Normally I want no less than 5 burst mode images for each trigger, and sometimes I'll set my cameras for 7 or 9 burst-mode images with each trigger. This carries the picture taking 10-15 seconds after the initial trigger. And for cameras pointed at scrapes or trails, I set my cameras for very short delay times (the amount of time the camera will wait before recording the next trigger). I prefer delay times for scrape or trail set-ups of 15, 20, or 30 seconds. With a burst mode of 5-9 pictures per trigger (which can take 5-20 seconds to complete), and a delay time of 15-30 seconds before the next trigger can be recorded, I'm missing little, and I'm recording the events at very high resolution (high image quality).
I do agree with the video in the link posted that setting cameras high and pointing them down greatly reduces camera avoidance. However, this also limits the trigger area greatly. Often, a highly valuable picture occurs because a deer in the background--not moving through the area I have targeted--triggers the camera. A high, downward set-up would not have captured that picture. In addition, unless you have just a few cameras to work with, who has the time and energy to carry a ladder with them to camera set-ups?
From my experiences, the best ways to reduce camera avoidance are:
1) Use true black-flash cameras. The difference in the number of camera events over time, and the number of repeat camera triggers by the same deer, with black-flash versus visible flash cameras is night and day. This is especially true when a camera must be left (or you want to leave it) in one location for long periods of time. With visible flash cameras, my trigger event counts decline rapidly obver time if a camera is left in the same location. However, with black-flash cameras, my trigger events actually increase dramatically over time.
Now without question, as the video suggested, deer ABSOLUTELY DO see the cameras, even in daylight, and this can cause negative reactions and camera avoidance. However, I have much less problem getting the same mature bucks to come back multiple times past a black-flash camera than a visible flash camera, even when I have pictures of them staring right at the cameras during daylight. The deer notice both types of cameras, but the black-flash produce much less long-term camera avoidance.
2) Do everything possible to reduce human scent when setting up and checking trail-cameras. I believe much of camera avoidance is due to deer smelling your walking trail to and from the camera. Either place cameras near easily accessible locations (near roads), or ride right to your cameras on an ATV. Using an ATV to ride right up to the camera really seems to help in scent reduction.
3) Move cameras to new locations fairly frequently. Even with black-flash cameras, I often move them weekly or biweekly. Not only does this reduce the effects of camera avoidance, it can help you monitor new locations that may be being used by deer that were not using the previous location, hence providing opportunities to catch "new" deer.
4) Use cameras to monitor small, out-of-the way attractant food plots. Not only do bucks prefer to use smaller food plots (they are less exposed), the constant human activity near food plots usually makes deer less wary of human scent in those locations. It isn't just human scent that scares deer, it is human scent in areas that normally don't contain human scent (out of the way locations back in the woods where humans only go during hunting season) that really spooks the crap out of deer. Deer will become aclimated to human scent where it occurs regularly, like around agricultural activity.
Camera avoidance is a serious problem for those trying to continuously monitor their local deer population over long periods of time, or for those who are trying to pattern the movement of particular bucks. And there is no real answer for the problem. Every potential "fix" also has its downsides.
I agree that video mode on trail-cameras can often see deer behavior and catch individual deer that a single picture would not have caught. However, video mode also has its downsides. Video imagery is recorded at MUCH inferior quality (image clarity/pixel count) than still images can be. Many newer trail-cams use imagers of at least 5 megapixels, while video is captured at generally far below 1 megapixel. This can make identification of individual bucks by antler configuration, especially those in the background, very difficult.
In addition, visible flash trail-cameras produce FAR more camera spook and camera avoidance due to the long-duration illumination needed at night than the burst-flash of still imagery.
Video mode also uses up battery power and memory card space much faster than still images.
Personally, I like to set my cameras on still-magery and also set to take many burst-mode pictures with each trigger. Normally I want no less than 5 burst mode images for each trigger, and sometimes I'll set my cameras for 7 or 9 burst-mode images with each trigger. This carries the picture taking 10-15 seconds after the initial trigger. And for cameras pointed at scrapes or trails, I set my cameras for very short delay times (the amount of time the camera will wait before recording the next trigger). I prefer delay times for scrape or trail set-ups of 15, 20, or 30 seconds. With a burst mode of 5-9 pictures per trigger (which can take 5-20 seconds to complete), and a delay time of 15-30 seconds before the next trigger can be recorded, I'm missing little, and I'm recording the events at very high resolution (high image quality).
I do agree with the video in the link posted that setting cameras high and pointing them down greatly reduces camera avoidance. However, this also limits the trigger area greatly. Often, a highly valuable picture occurs because a deer in the background--not moving through the area I have targeted--triggers the camera. A high, downward set-up would not have captured that picture. In addition, unless you have just a few cameras to work with, who has the time and energy to carry a ladder with them to camera set-ups?
From my experiences, the best ways to reduce camera avoidance are:
1) Use true black-flash cameras. The difference in the number of camera events over time, and the number of repeat camera triggers by the same deer, with black-flash versus visible flash cameras is night and day. This is especially true when a camera must be left (or you want to leave it) in one location for long periods of time. With visible flash cameras, my trigger event counts decline rapidly obver time if a camera is left in the same location. However, with black-flash cameras, my trigger events actually increase dramatically over time.
Now without question, as the video suggested, deer ABSOLUTELY DO see the cameras, even in daylight, and this can cause negative reactions and camera avoidance. However, I have much less problem getting the same mature bucks to come back multiple times past a black-flash camera than a visible flash camera, even when I have pictures of them staring right at the cameras during daylight. The deer notice both types of cameras, but the black-flash produce much less long-term camera avoidance.
2) Do everything possible to reduce human scent when setting up and checking trail-cameras. I believe much of camera avoidance is due to deer smelling your walking trail to and from the camera. Either place cameras near easily accessible locations (near roads), or ride right to your cameras on an ATV. Using an ATV to ride right up to the camera really seems to help in scent reduction.
3) Move cameras to new locations fairly frequently. Even with black-flash cameras, I often move them weekly or biweekly. Not only does this reduce the effects of camera avoidance, it can help you monitor new locations that may be being used by deer that were not using the previous location, hence providing opportunities to catch "new" deer.
4) Use cameras to monitor small, out-of-the way attractant food plots. Not only do bucks prefer to use smaller food plots (they are less exposed), the constant human activity near food plots usually makes deer less wary of human scent in those locations. It isn't just human scent that scares deer, it is human scent in areas that normally don't contain human scent (out of the way locations back in the woods where humans only go during hunting season) that really spooks the crap out of deer. Deer will become aclimated to human scent where it occurs regularly, like around agricultural activity.
Welcome back Bryan, long time no see.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Very, very busy...
Boll Weevil
Well-Known Member
Deer can see shades of gray, right? So if a solid black camera were camo'd a bit to help match tree bark would that help with concealment any appreciable amount?
