>>409218So overall it seems like a very high work-to-[potential]-reward scenario for the amount of travel it takes. Seven hours round trip (the hike out takes about 45 minutes when you can go at a clip without concern for spooking up the woods) is a big chunk of a day trip.
Here's another area in the same WMA I'm thinking about. I imagine it would have more pressure since it's more accessible, but the southwest areas are about a mile so hopefully I could outwalk anyone else that sets up in there. I'll also be checking out another WMA that is more heavily hunted, but I can go on Fridays to either and hopefully avoid the weekend crowd. (The other one is also bow-only so many hunters will go elsewhere when modern gun season hits.)
The thing that's appealing here, aside from a less strenuous trek, is all kinds of corners and funnels and stuff to choose from. I'm not sure what the deer movement here would be like since fields and funnels and such don't mean a lot of there's nothing to give deer a reason to travel through the area.
At this point, I realize that.. being new and self-taught... I'm still pretty much fucking around out there and learning as I go. So while I hope to get a deer, I don't harbor any delusions of going to any area and having them dancing all around me. It may be a few years before I succeed... but I have gained a lot in the learning. It's a great reason to go out and get off the beaten path and explore, which is rewarding in its own right.
If nothing else this other area might be a chance to go and see a different environment and study the deer sign there.
So, thoughts on the pros and cons of the two areas? The more remote one means less hunting pressure, but perhaps deer movement is a lot less frequent. The easier-accessed area means more potential pressure, but a lot more variety in the vegetative influence on movement and a chance to see a different area. I'd appreciate any helpful insights, experiences, whatever.
